| Home | Community | Message Board |
|
You are not signed in. Sign In New Account | Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery » |
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
NextShop:  Bulk Cannabis Seeds  Bulk Substrate  Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order  Spores for European Microscopy |
| |||||||
 onlynow transformativein     Registered: 02/06/07 Posts: 1,480 Last seen: 18 years, 10 months |
| ||||||
|
you should look into taoist sexual kung-fu and the taoist dark room retreat.
-------------------- 
Strive to be more than a codified manifestation of a generalized technological consciousness
| |||||||
|
onlynow transformativein Registered: 02/06/07 Posts: 1,480 Last seen: 18 years, 10 months |
| ||||||
i never knew they believed in these things. i thought they were all about experience?
| |||||||
|
shakercee Atheistic Mystic  Registered: 04/08/07 Posts: 606 Loc: Here and there Last seen: 13 years, 5 months |
| ||||||
|
My point was one can have mystical experience, regardless of whether one believes or experiences paranormal phenomenon.
Enlightenment is not a paranormal phenomenon. It is our true nature. Only our ego shrouds it. Thanks for above links. Really excited, will look into it 
-------------------- Pray, v.: To ask that the laws of the universe be annulled in behalf of a single petitioner confessedly unworthy - Ambrose Bierce Medical science has confirmed what the male world has known intuitively for millenia: that scratching your ass is a great aid to complex thinking. Its God's responsibility to forgive the terrorist organizations such as Jaish, Lashkar etc. Its our responsibility to arrange the meeting between them and god." - Indian Armed Forces "Hey Monkey!! Get Funky" - Tarzan and Jane
| |||||||
|
onlynow transformativein Registered: 02/06/07 Posts: 1,480 Last seen: 18 years, 10 months |
| ||||||
|
point taken, big misunderstanding on my part..
| |||||||
|
StreetFreak smellin' like a  Registered: 02/10/07 Posts: 946 Loc: locked in a plac Last seen: 16 years, 8 months |
| ||||||
|
"And I am not frightened of dying, any time will do, I
don't mind. Why should I be frightened of dying? There's no reason for it, you've gotta go sometime." "I never said I was frightened of dying."  Also I remember reading a post from someone on here (might have been chinacat) that they have actually experienced both physical and psychedelic death, and that they were very much the same. I tried to search for it but couldn't find it.
| |||||||
|
Grok Has Been a Bad Boy  Registered: 12/03/03 Posts: 1,262 Loc: Greener Pastures 
Last seen: 11 years, 11 months |
| ||||||
|
Man, this is an old thread! Who is responsible for drudging this up!?
I'm not sure what all I wrote last fall, haven't bothered to read through it all. It may or may not reflect on my current attitude. What I know is that I had some extremely powerful and significant experiences, and I wasn't the only one. Several friends and net acquaintances independently went through roughly the same ordeal. Not only that but I find direct parallels to what other people report in "real" NDEs and what is reported in xtalLSD-thumbprint lore and a variety of other sources. I was not the same person after my first 'death' experience. It completely shifted both the way I think and my priorities in life as soon as I 'came down'...which I never fully did. A lot of people claim to have similar experiences but I just can't imagine that if you truley had you could simply disregard it. I see it as akin to having one's leg blown off and then denying it ever happened. Ego death one thing - a sort of precursor - this was way beyond that. I can't even imagine what it's like and neither can any of you. I do not know what happens beyond death, but I do know that it is INTENSE, beautiful, infinite, familiar, and something I really look forward to. I saw more than enough to get the point, and could care less about the fine details. I would not feel as though I were being true to myself to just write this off. I believe my experience had a significance greater than of my own person (perhaps that is my fallacy), and that is why I came across so adamantly. That may ruffle some feathers here but whatever. I have little doubt that if everybody experienced what I did, there would be no more wars, no fear of death, nobody afraid to stand up for their ideals and live them out, total self-empowerment, etc. I could love someone even as they 'killed' me. It would change a lot of things. Personally those are things I would like to see. Sharing/facilitating the direct experience isn't feasible, and that is why I have written. Like I also said, if I remember correctly, is that you don't need to take my own word for this. I have no interest in lying or pulling a bunch of glop out of my ass and presenting it as truth. Check it out yourself before you tell me what it was or wasn't. -------------------- Entropy is increasing. To send me a PM, go to my journal Edited by Grok (08/05/07 09:24 AM)
| |||||||
|
MyInnerChild EveryMum   Registered: 11/11/06 Posts: 1,099 Loc: North-East Last seen: 12 years, 8 months |
| ||||||
|
K...just seemed to me when a person, any peson, not just you...expresses not being afraid of (anything)....it would include ANYTHING....death is an anything. Sorry if I took it too far....
This post can be ended if you prefer but I for one have found a whole lot of interesting ideas/thoughts here. Your post..your choice. MIC -------------------- 
My inner child runs with scissors but plays nicely with others! Sometimes the light's all shine'in on me, Other times I can barely see. Lately it occurs to me, What a looong strange trip it's been! ~ Truck'in Edited by MyInnerChild (08/05/07 11:56 AM)
| |||||||
|
onlynow transformativein Registered: 02/06/07 Posts: 1,480 Last seen: 18 years, 10 months |
| ||||||
i too experienced something far beyond ego death, entering the realms of micro/macrocosmic conscious awareness, my body becoming aware of itself and expanding far out into the universe
| |||||||
|
TwiztidShroom Supreme HighComm  Registered: 06/28/07 Posts: 76 Last seen: 19 years, 16 days |
| ||||||
Bacteria prove nothing, they are a single celled organism, and other than that there has never been an interspecies evolution witnessed. I don't need to cover my ears, I hear you loud and clear, you must be one of those people who believe everything on the web is true. FACT:Complex evolution has never been witnessed in a lab! It takes too long, there is no fast evolution, remeber natural selection, that is basically how much of the resistant superbugs, in combination with a tollerance that grows like that of a drug addict, that doesn't prove evolution. Actually the only real proof we have is that all witnessed mutations of complex life only are made weaker and not stronger. All I can say is research and don't believe a forum as fact! -------------------- I don't get it, the things I don't want to do, I do. The things I do want to do, I don't do. So if I do the things I don't want to do, then it isn't I that does them, but the sin living in me. ~Corinthians
| |||||||
|
TwiztidShroom Supreme HighComm Registered: 06/28/07 Posts: 76 Last seen: 19 years, 16 days |
| ||||||
|
The pigmys are a good example of de-evolution. DNA breaks down in most cases, not gets stronger.
-------------------- I don't get it, the things I don't want to do, I do. The things I do want to do, I don't do. So if I do the things I don't want to do, then it isn't I that does them, but the sin living in me. ~Corinthians
| |||||||
 Diploid Cuban   Registered: 01/09/03 Posts: 19,274 Loc: Rabbit Hole |
| ||||||
|
Bacteria prove nothing, they are a single celled organism
Ah, so evolving bacteria do not prove that things evolve. Thanks for clearing that up.  FACT:Complex evolution has never been witnessed in a lab! FACT: you are posting so much ignorance and misinformation that after this, I won't be replying again. Example one: Two strains of Drosophila paulistorum developed hybrid sterility of male offspring between 1958 and 1963. Artificial selection induced strong intra-strain mating preferences. (Test for speciation: sterile offspring and lack of interbreeding affinity.) Dobzhansky, Th., and O. Pavlovsky, 1971. "An experimentally created incipient species of Drosophila", Nature 23:289-292. Example two: Evidence that a species of fireweed formed by doubling of the chromosome count, from the original stock. (Note that polyploids are generally considered to be a separate "race" of the same species as the original stock, but they do meet the criteria which you suggested.) (Test for speciation: cannot produce offspring with the original stock.) Mosquin, T., 1967. "Evidence for autopolyploidy in Epilobium angustifolium (Onaagraceae)", Evolution 21:713-719 Example three: Rapid speciation of the Faeroe Island house mouse, which occurred in less than 250 years after man brought the creature to the island. (Test for speciation in this case is based on morphology. It is unlikely that forced breeding experiments have been performed with the parent stock.) Stanley, S., 1979. Macroevolution: Pattern and Process, San Francisco, W.H. Freeman and Company. p. 41 Example four: Formation of five new species of cichlid fishes which formed since they were isolated less than 4000 years ago from the parent stock, Lake Nagubago. (Test for speciation in this case is by morphology and lack of natural interbreeding. These fish have complex mating rituals and different coloration. While it might be possible that different species are inter-fertile, they cannot be convinced to mate.) Mayr, E., 1970. Populations, Species, and Evolution, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press. p. 348 Creationists who don't even know what the definition of a species is but who somehow feel qualified to spout garbage as if they know what they're talking about crack me up. in combination with a tollerance More deep ignorance. Evolution of antibiotic resistance is a systemic genetic adaptation. It has nothing whatever to do with drug tolerance. Where did get all this misinformation? Sunday school? Actually the only real proof we have is that all witnessed mutations of complex life only are made weaker and not stronger. Snakes have vestigial leg bones INSIDE their body that a morphological study reveals are the same as a lizard's leg bones.  Yes, those are lizard leg bones inside a snake. Are you covering your eyes and ears again? An open mind accepts gladly any evidence that contradicts them because that means something new has been learned and progress has been made. All I can say is research and don't believe a forum as fact! You're hilarious telling ME to do some research. Lots more here, but you'll have to drop the dogma and accept the evidence, whatever it may be to make use of it. -------------------- Republican Values: 1) You can't get married to your spouse who is the same sex as you. 2) You can't have an abortion no matter how much you don't want a child. 3) You can't have a certain plant in your possession or you'll get locked up with a rapist and a murderer. 4) We need a smaller, less-intrusive government.
| |||||||
|
MushmanTheManic Stranger  Registered: 04/21/05 Posts: 4,587 |
| ||||||
Why does it need to be witnessed? Darwinian evolution has mathematics, geology, archaeology, biology (biology wouldn't make any sense without it), chemistry, and physics on it's side. You'd think that'd be enough 'proof.'
| |||||||
|
TwiztidShroom Supreme HighComm Registered: 06/28/07 Posts: 76 Last seen: 19 years, 16 days |
| ||||||
Your comparison af bacterial evolution is exactly what I said it was, de-evolution and it was sterile so natural selection would kill it off...no point made, Not to mention lifeforms like us have 300,000+ chemical reactions going on constantly, for the process of trial and error to be effective in such a complex organism the probability it could happen is slim to none, every failure would start back at point zero so their could be no progression, but you know it all... Speciation I said was real, and that is all you did examples of. Interspecies evolution doesn't happen. Just because we can force mutations with snake venom etc doesn't prove anything. The failure rate in a lab and all the controls needed for success are quite high and it is improbable that it ever happened naturally. Ya know what gets me, you science guys claim fact over faith but not one of you has read all the lab reports, neither have I. You get your information from websites, essentially you have faith and trust in what people tell you. I highly doubt most of you have the science education to interpret what you would be reading even if you did have the white paper studies...which you don't (a few don't count, I am talking all of them. The theory of evolution in its entirety. You know why I am certain you haven't seen it? It doesn't exist. Until there is a start to finish explaination it cannot even be evaluated as fact. You walk in faith that science is real because you have read books and heard scientists talk about it...well here are100+ Scientist, most of which aren't christian saying evolution is a joke and these men are all far more educated then most of us. They test first hand, you rely on what people say, you rely on faith in science...science is your god and that is ok...but science is as much of an unknown as God is. We know some but on the grand spectrum of things we don't know shit scientifically. Here are some excerpts from a book written for those whose faith is in the word of others without actually investigating themselves(people without doctorates who believe in science) A mutation is damage to a single DNA unit (a gene). If it occurs in a somatic (body) gene, it only injures the individual; but if to a gametic (reproductive) gene, it will be passed on to his descendants. Mutations rank equally with fossils and natural selection as the three most important aspects of life evolution. Fossil evidence in the sedimentary rock strata is supposed to provide evidence that species evolution has occurred in the past, and natural selection and mutations are the only means (mechanisms) by which it could occur. In the chapter on Fossils and Strata, we will learn that there is simply no evidence that evolution of life forms has ever occurred in the past. In the chapter on Natural Selection, we learned that the accidental gene reshuffling (which evolutionists call "natural selection") can indeed produce changes within species—but are totally incapable of producing different species. So that brings us to mutations. The study of mutations is crucial! It is all that the evolutionists have left! If mutations cannot produce evolution, then nothing can. In this chapter you will learn that, far from being beneficial, mutations constitute something terrible that ruin and destroy organisms, either in the first generation or soon thereafter. Not only is it impossible for mutations to cause the evolutionary process,—they weaken or terminate the life process! The reason we all fear radiation is because they are a powerful means of producing mutations that irreparably damage our bodies. THE LAST HOPE—It is well-known among many knowledgeable scientists that if evolution could possibly occur, mutations would have to accomplish it. There simply is no other mechanism that can make changes within the DNA. Natural selection has consistently failed, so mutations are the last hope of a majority of the evolutionists today. "It must not be forgotten that mutation is the ultimate source of all genetic variation found in natural populations and the only new material available for natural selection to work upon."—*E. Mayr, Populations, Species and Evolution (1970), p. 103. "The process of mutation is the only known source of the new materials of genetic variability, and hence of evolution."—*T. Dobzansky in American Scientist, 45 (1957), p. 385. Yet they have not been able to provide proof that mutations actually produce evolution. "The complete proof of the utilization of mutations in evolution under natural conditions has not yet been given."—*Julian Huxley, Evolution, the Modern Synthesis, pp. 183 and 205. OVERVIEW OF THE SITUATION—Mutations generally produce one of three types of changes within genes or chromosomes: (1) an alteration of DNA letter sequence in the genes, (2) gross changes in chromosomes (inversion, translocation), or (3) a change in the number of chromosomes (polyploidy, haploidy). But whatever the cause, the result is a change in genetic information. Here are some basic hurdles that scientists must overcome in order to make mutations a success story for evolution: (1) Mutations must occur quite frequently. (2) Mutations must be beneficial—at least sometimes. (3) They must effect a dramatic enough change (involving, actually, millions of specific, purposive changes) so that one species will be transformed into another. Small changes will only damage or destroy the organism. NEO-DARWINISM—(*#1/25 What the Public Is Not Told*) When *Charles Darwin wrote Origin of the Species, he based evolutionary transitions on natural selection. In his book, he gave many examples of this, but all his examples were merely changes within the species. Since then, scientists have diligently searched for examples—past or present—of natural selection changes beyond that of basic plant and animal types, but without success. For example, they cite several different horses—from miniatures to large workhorses to zebras,—but all are still horses. Finding that so-called "natural selection" accomplished no evolutionary changes, modern evolutionists moved away from Darwinism into neo-Darwinism. This is the revised teaching that it is mutations plus natural selection (not natural selection alone) which have produced all life forms on Planet Earth. "Evolution is, to put it simply, the result of natural selection working on random mutations."—*M. Ruse, Philosophy of Biology (1973), p. 96. Neo-Darwinists speculate that mutations accomplished all cross-species changes, and then natural selection afterward refined them. This, of course, assumes that mutations and natural selection are positive and purposive. 1 - FOUR SPECIAL PROBLEMS In reality, mutations have four special qualities that are ruinous to the hopes of evolutionists: (1) RARE EFFECTS—Mutations are very rare. This point is not a guess but a scientific fact, observed by experts in the field. Their very rarity dooms the possibility of mutational evolution to oblivion. "It is probably fair to estimate the frequency of a majority of mutations in higher organisms between one in ten thousand and one in a million per gene per generation."—*F.J. Ayala, "Teleological Explanations in Evolutionary Biology," in Philosophy of Science, March 1970, p. 3. Mutations are simply too rare to have produced all the necessary traits of even one life form, much less all the creatures that swarm on the earth. Evolution requires millions upon millions of direct, solid changes, yet mutations occur only with great rarity. "Although mutation is the ultimate source of all genetic variation, it is a relatively rare event."—*F.J. Ayala, "Mechanism of Evolution," Scientific American, September 1978, p. 63. (2) RANDOM EFFECTS—Mutations are always random, and never purposive or directed. This has repeatedly been observed in actual experimentation with mutations. "It remains true to say that we know of no way other than random mutation by which new hereditary variation comes into being, nor any process other than natural selection by which the hereditary constitution of a population changes from one generation to the next."—*C.H. Waddington, The Nature of Life (1962), p. 98. *Eden declares that the factor of randomness in mutations ruins their usefulness as a means of evolution. "It is our contention that if ‘random’ is given a serious and crucial interpretation from a probabilistic point of view, the randomness postulate is highly implausible and that an adequate scientific theory of evolution must await the discovery and elucidation of new natural laws."—*Murray Eden, "Inadequacies of Neo-Darwinian Evolution as Scientific Theory," in Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Theory of Evolution (1967), p. 109. Mutations are random, wild events that are totally uncontrollable. When a mutation occurs, it is a chance occurrence; totally unexpected and haphazard. The only thing we can predict is that it will not go outside the species and produce a new type of organism. This we can know as a result of lengthy experiments that have involved literally hundreds of thousands of mutations on fruit flies and other small creatures. Evolution requires purposive changes. Mutations are only chance occurrences and cannot accomplish what is needed for organic evolution. (3) NOT HELPFUL—Evolution requires improvement. Mutations do not help or improve; they only weaken and injure. "But mutations are found to be of a random nature, so far as their utility is concerned. Accordingly, the great majority of mutations, certainly well over 99%, are harmful in some way, as is to be expected of the effects of accidental occurrences."—*H.J. Muller, "Radiation Damage to the Genetic Material," in American Scientist, January 1950, p. 35. (4) HARMFUL EFFECTS—(*#2/21 Mutations are Always Harmful*) Nearly all mutations are harmful. In most instances, mutations weaken or damage the organism in some way so that it (or its offspring if it is able to have any) will not long survive. As mentioned earlier, scientists turned to neo-Darwinism in the hope that it could do that which Darwinism could not do. The man more responsible than any other for getting scientists on the neo-Darwinian bandwagon was *Julian Huxley. But in his writings, even he knew he was on thin ice: "A proportion of favorable mutations of one in a thousand does not sound much, but is probably generous, since so many mutations are lethal, preventing the organism from living at all, and the great majority of the rest throw the machinery slightly out of gear."—*Julian Huxley, Evolution in Action, p. 41. Elsewhere in the same book, he admitted this: "One would expect that any interference with such a complicated piece of chemical machinery as the genetic constitution would result in damage. And, intact, this is so: the great majority of mutant genes are harmful in their effects on the organism."—*Julian Huxley, op. cit., p. 137. So there you have it: four special facts about mutations that demolish any possibility that they could mutate even one species into another, much less produce all the species in the world. Mutations are rare, random, almost never an improvement, always weakening or harmful, and often fatal to the organism or its offspring. MILLIONS OF MUTATIONAL EXPERIMENTS—At this point, you might ask, "How can we be certain of such facts about mutations if they are so rare?" That is a good question. The answer is this: Although mutations only occur with extreme infrequence in nature, in the laboratory researchers have learned how to produce mutations at will. The usual method is radiation, but certain chemicals can accomplish it also. A sufficient amount of X-rays applied to the genes of the germ cells of an organism will produce mutations in its offspring. As a result, research geneticists have had the opportunity to study the effects of hundreds of thousands of mutations, on millions of generations of certain creatures. More on this later in this chapter. BASIS OF EVOLUTION—Modern evolutionary theory, from the mid-twentieth century onward, is based on the idea that mutations plus natural selection, plus time can produce most wonderful changes in all living creatures. And this has been responsible for all the astounding faculties and complicated organs that we see in plants and animals. Since DNA in the cell is the blueprint of the form that life will take, it does at first seem reasonable to assume that if the blueprint could be changed, the life form might greatly improve. Capitalizing on the theme, evolutionists explain in their textbooks that it is mutations that have provided us with the millions of beneficial features in every species in the world. All that is needed is time and lots of random, mutational changes in the DNA code, and soon myriads of outstanding life forms will emerge. Evolutionists also tell us that mutations will wonderfully adapt us to our environmental needs. *Carl Sagan, a leading scientist and science fiction writer, says that we have no creatures that move about on wheels on Planet Earth only because it is too bumpy! "We can very well imagine another planet with enormous long stretches of smooth lava fields in which wheeled organisms are abundant."—*Carl Sagan, The Cosmic Connection, p. 42. Sagan’s idea of people sprouting wheels instead of legs because they live on flat ground is about as humorous as lava fields that are generally smooth and level. We have already mentioned four facts about mutations: (1) They are extremely rare. (2) They are only random in what they do. (3) They are never really beneficial. (4) They are harmful or lethal. But now the situation gets worse. 2 - TWENTY-EIGHT REASONS Here are 28 reasons why it is not possible for mutations to produce species evolution: 1 - NOT ONCE—Hundreds of thousands of mutation experiments have been done, in a determined effort to prove the possibility of evolution by mutation. And this is what they learned: NOT ONCE has there ever been a recorded instance of a truly beneficial mutation (one which is a known mutation, and not merely a reshuffling of latent characteristics in the genes), nor such a mutation that was permanent, passing on from one generation to another! Read the above paragraph over a couple times. If, after millions of fruit-fly mutation experiments, scientists have never found one helpful and non-weakening mutation that had permanent effects in offspring—then how could mutations result in worthwhile evolution? "Mutations are more than just sudden changes in heredity; they also affect viability [ability to keep living], and, to the best of our knowledge invariably affect it adversely [they tend to result in harm or death]. Does not this fact show that mutations are really assaults on the organism’s central being, its basic capacity to be a living thing?"—*C.P. Martin, "A Non-Geneticist Looks at Evolution," in American Scientist, p. 102. 2 - ONLY HARM—The problem here is that those organisms which mutations do not kill outright are generally so weakened that they or their offspring tend to die out. Mutations, then, work the opposite of evolution. Given enough mutations, life on earth would not be strengthened and helped; it would be extinguished. This gradual buildup of harmful mutations in the genes is called genetic load. "The large majority of mutations, however, are harmful or even lethal to the individual in whom they are expressed. Such mutations can be regarded as introducing a ‘load,’ or genetic burden, into the [DNA] pool. The term ‘genetic load’ was first used by the late H.J. Muller, who recognized that the rate of mutations is increased by numerous agents man has introduced into his environment, notably ionizing radiation and mutagenic chemicals."—*Christopher Wills, "Genetic Load," in Scientific American, March 1970, p. 98. 3 - USUALLY ELIMINATE—Because of their intrinsic nature, mutations greatly weaken the organism; so much so that if that organism survives, its descendants will tend to die out. The result is a weeding-out process. Contrary to the hopes of the neo-Darwinians, natural selection does not enhance the effects of the mutation. Natural selection eliminates mutations by killing off the organism bearing them! "After a greater or lesser number of generations the mutants are eliminated."—*G. Ledyard Stebbins, Processes of Organic Evolution (1971), pp. 24-25. "If one allows the unquestionably largest experimenter to speak,—namely nature, one gets a clear and incontrovertible answer to the question about the significance of mutations for the formation of species and evolution. They disappear under the competitive conditions of natural selection, as soap bubbles burst in a breeze."—*Herbert Nilsson, Synthetische Artbildung, p. 174. 4 - MUTAGENS—It is a well-known fact that scientists have for decades been urging the removal of radiation hazards and mutagenic chemicals (scientists call them mutagens) because of the increasing damage mutations are doing to people, animals, and plants. It is time that the evolutionists, who praise the value of mutations, admit very real facts. How can such terrible curses, which is what mutations are, improve and beautify the race—and produce by random action all the complex structures and actions of life? If scientists really believed in mutations as the great improvers of the race, they would ask that more, not less, mutagenic radiations might be given to plant and animal life! But they well-know that mutations are extremely dangerous. Who is that confirmed neo-Darwinist who is willing to let his own body be irradiated with X-rays for minutes at a time, so that his offspring might wonderfully improve? "The most important actions that need to be taken, however, are in the area of minimizing the addition of new mutagens to those already present in the environment. Any increase in the mutational load is harmful, if not immediately, then certainly to future generations."—*Christopher Wills, "Genetic Load," in Scientific American, March 1970, p. 107. 5 - DANGEROUS ACCIDENTS—How often do accidents help you? What is the likelihood that the next car accident you have will make you feel better than you did before? Because of their random nature and negative effects, mutations would destroy all life on earth, were it not for the fact that in nature they rarely occur. "An accident, a random change, in any delicate mechanism can hardly be expected to improve it. Poking a stick into the machinery of one’s watch or one’s radio set will seldom make it work better."—*Theodosius Dobzhansky, Heredity and the Nature of Man (1964), p. 126. [Dobzhansky is a geneticist.] Actually, a significant part of the grave danger in mutations is their very randomness! A mutation is a chance accident to the genes or chromosomes. "We could still be sure on theoretical grounds that mutants would usually be detrimental. For a mutation is a random change of a highly organized, reasonably smooth-functioning human body. A random change in the highly integrated system of chemical processes which constitute life is certain to impair—just as a random interchange of connections [wires] in a television set is not likely to improve the picture."—*J.F. Crow, "Genetic Effects of Radiation," in Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 14 (1958), pp. 19-20. Referring to the harmful effects of mutations, *Bullock concludes: "Such results are to be expected of accidental changes occurring in any complicated organization."—*Helen Bullock, "Crusade to Unravel Life’s Mystery," The Toronto Star, December 19, 1981, p. A13. 6 - INTERTWINED CATASTROPHE—A new reason why mutations are so insidious has only recently been discovered. Geneticists discovered the answer in the genes. Instead of a certain characteristic being controlled by a certain gene, it is now known that each gene affects many characteristics, and each characteristic is affected by many genes! We have here a complicated interweaving of genetic-characteristic relationships never before imagined possible! Touch such a delicate system with mutations and you produce interlocking havoc. 7 - ONLY RANDOM EFFECTS—So far in this chapter, we have tended to ignore the factor of random results. What if mutations were plentiful and always with positive results, but still random as they now are? They would still be useless. Even assuming mutations could produce those complex structures called feathers, birds would have wings on their stomachs, where they could not use them, or the wings would be upside down, without lightweight feathers, and under- or oversized. Most animals would have no eyes, some would have one, and those that had any eyes would have them under their armpits or on the soles of their feet. The random effects of mutations would annihilate any value they might otherwise provide. 8 - ALL AFFECTED—Mutations tend to have a widespread effect on the genes. "Moreover, despite the fact that a mutation is a discrete, discontinuous effect of the cellular, chromosome or gene level, its effects are modified by interactions in the whole genetic system of an individual . . Every character of an organism is affected by all genes, and every gene affects all other characters. It is this interaction that accounts for the closely knit functional integration of the genotype as a whole."—*Ernst Mayr, Populations, Species, and Evolution, p. 164 [emphasis his]. Each mutation takes its toll on large numbers—even all the genes, directly or indirectly; and since 99 percent of the mutations are harmful and appear in totally random areas, they could not possibly bring about the incredible life forms we find all about us. Since each altered characteristic requires the combined effort of many genes, it is obvious that many genes would have to be mutated in a GOOD way to accomplish anything worthwhile. But almost no mutations are ever helpful. More generations of fruit flies have been experimented on for mutational effects than mankind could have lived for millions of years! This is due to the fact that a fruit fly produces "a new generation" in a few short hours; whereas a human generation requires 18-40 years, and researchers in many locations have been breeding fruit flies for over 90 years. Thousands and thousands of generations of fruit flies have been irradiated in the hope of producing worthwhile mutations. But only damage and death has resulted. "Most mutants which arise in any organism are more or less disadvantageous to their possessors. The classical mutants obtained in Drosophila [fruit fly] show deterioration, breakdown, and disappearance of some organs."—*Dobzhansky, Evolution, Genetics and Man (1955), p. 105. 9 - LIKE THROWING ROCKS—Trying to accomplish evolution with random, accidental, harmful mutations is like trying to improve a television set by throwing rocks at it (although I will admit that may be one of the best ways to improve the benefit you receive from your television set). *H.J. Muller won a Nobel prize for his work in genetics and mutations. In his time, he was considered a world leader in genetics research. Here is how he describes the problem: "It is entirely in line with the accidental nature of mutations that extensive tests have agreed in showing the vast majority of them detrimental to the organism in its job of surviving and reproducing, just as changes accidentally introduced into any artificial mechanism are predominantly harmful to its useful operation . . Good ones are so rare that we can consider them all bad."—*H.J. Muller, "How Radiation Changes the Genetic Constitution," in Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, 11(1955), p. 331. 10 - MATHEMATICALLY IMPOSSIBLE—(*#3/9 Math on Mutations*) Fortunately mutations are rare. They normally occur on an average of perhaps once in every ten million duplications of a DNA molecule. Even assuming that all mutations were beneficial—in order for evolution to begin to occur in even a small way, it would be necessary to have, not just one, but a SERIES of closely related and interlocking mutations—all occurring at the same time in the same organism! The odds of getting two mutations that are in some slight manner related to one another is the product of two separate mutations: ten million times ten million, or a hundred trillion. That is a 1 followed by 14 zeros (in scientific notation written as 1 x 1014). What can two mutations accomplish? Perhaps a honeybee with a wavy edge on a bent wing. But he is still a honeybee; he has not changed from one species to another. More related mutations would be needed. Three mutations in a sequence would be a billion trillion (1 with 21 zeros). But that would not begin to do what would be needed. Four mutations, that were simultaneous or sequentially related, would be 1 with 28 zeros after it (1 x 1028). But all the earth could not hold enough organisms to make that possibility come true. And four mutations together does not even begin to produce real evolution. Millions upon millions of harmonious, beneficial characteristics would be needed to transform one species into another. But ALL those simultaneous mutations would have to be beneficial; whereas, in real life, mutations very rarely occur and they are almost always harmful. (By the way, you would need to produce all those multi-mutations in a mated pair, so they could properly produce young. Otherwise it would be like mating a donkey and a horse—and getting a sterile offspring.) "The mass of evidence shows that all, or almost all, known mutations are unmistakably pathological and the few remaining ones are highly suspect . . All mutations seem to be of the nature of injuries that, to some extent, impair the fertility and viability of the affected organism."—*C.P. Martin, "A Non-Geneticist Looks at Evolution," in American Scientist, 41 (1953), p. 103. Evolution cannot succeed without mutations, and evolution cannot succeed with them. Evolution is an impossibility, and that’s it. 11 - TIME IS NO SOLUTION—But someone will say, "Well, it can be done—if given enough time." Evolutionists offer us 5 billion years for mutations to do the job of producing all the wonders of nature that you see about you. But 5 billion years is, in seconds, only 1 with 17 zeros (1 X 1017) after it. And the whole universe only contains 1 X 1080 atomic particles. So there is no possible way that all the universe and all time past could produce such odds as would be needed for the task! *Julian Huxley, the leading evolutionist spokesman of the mid-twentieth century, said it would take 103000 changes to produce just one horse by evolution. That is 1 with 3000 zeros after it! (*Julian Huxley, Evolution in Action, p. 46). Evolution requires millions of beneficial mutations all working closely together to produce delicate living systems full of fine-tuned structures, organs, hormones, and all the rest. And all those mutations would have to be non-random and intelligently planned! In no other way could they accomplish the needed task. But, leaving the fairyland of evolutionary theory, to the real world, which only has rare, random, and harmful mutations, we must admit that mutations simply cannot do the job. And there is no other way that life forms could invent and reinvent themselves by means of that mythical process called "evolution." "A majority of mutations, both those arising in laboratories and those stored in natural populations produce deteriorations of the viability, hereditary disease and monstrosities. Such changes it would seem, can hardly serve as evolutionary building blocks."—*T. Dobzhansky, Genetics and the Origin of Species (1955), p. 73. 12 - GENE STABILITY—It is the very rarity of mutations that guarantees the stability of the genes. Because of that, the fossils of ancient plants and animals are able to look like those living today. "Mutations rarely occur. Most genes mutate only once in 100,000 generations or more." "Researchers estimate that a human gene may remain stable for 2,500,000 years."—*World Book Encyclopedia, 1966 Edition. "Living things are enormously diverse in form, but form is remarkably constant within any given line of descent: pigs remain pigs and oak trees remain oak trees generation after generation."—*Edouard Kellenberger, "The Genetic Control of the Shape of a Virus," in Scientific American, December 1966, p. 32. 13 - AGAINST ALL LAW—After spending years studying mutations, *Michael Denton, an Australian research geneticist, finalized on the matter this way: "If complex computer programs cannot be changed by random mechanisms, then surely the same must apply to the genetic programs of living organisms. "The fact that systems [such as advanced computers], in every way analogous to living organisms, cannot undergo evolution by pure trial and error [by mutation and natural selection] and that their functional distribution invariably conforms to an improbable discontinuum comes, in my opinion, very close to a formal disproof of the whole Darwinian paradigm of nature. By what strange capacity do living organisms defy the laws of chance which are apparently obeyed by all analogous complex systems?"—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 342. 14 - SYNTROPY—This principle was mentioned in the chapter on Natural Selection; it belongs here also. *Albert Szent-Gyorgyi is a brilliant Hungarian scientist who has won two Nobel Prizes (1937 and 1955) for his research. In 1977, he developed a theory which he called syntropy. *Szent-Gyorgyi points out that it would be impossible for any organism to survive even for a moment, unless it was already complete with all of its functions and they were all working perfectly or nearly so. This principle rules out the possibility of evolution arising by the accidental effects of natural selection or the chance results of mutations. It is an important point. "In postulating his theory of syntropy, Szent-Gyorgyi, perhaps unintentionally, brings forth one of the strongest arguments for creationism—the fact that a body organ is useless until it is completely perfected. The hypothesized law of ‘survival of the fittest’ would generally select against any mutations until a large number of mutations have already occurred to produce a complete and functional structure; after which natural selection would then theoretically select for the organism with the completed organ."—Jerry Bergman, "Albert Szent-Gyorgyi’s Theory of Syntropy," in Up with Creation (1978), p. 337. 15 - MINOR CHANGES DAMAGE OFFSPRING THE MOST—With painstaking care, geneticists have studied mutations for decades. An interesting feature of these accidents in the genes, called mutations, deals a stunning blow to the hopes of neo-Darwinists. Here, in brief, is the problem: (1) Most mutations have very small effects; some have larger ones. (2) Small mutations cannot accomplish the needed task, for they cannot produce evolutionary changes. Only major mutational changes, with wide-ranging effects in an organism, can possibly hope to effect the needed changes from one species to another. And now for the new discovery: (3) It is only the minor mutational changes which harm one’s descendants. The major ones kill the organism outright or rather quickly annihilate its offspring! "One might think that mutants that cause only a minor impairment are unimportant, but this is not true for the following reason: A mutant that is very harmful usually causes early death or senility. Thus the mutant gene is quickly eliminated from the population . . Since minor mutations can thus cause as much harm in the long run as a major ones, and occur much more frequently, it follows that most of the mutational damage in a population is due to the accumulation of minor changes."—*J.F. Crow, "Genetic Effects of Radiation," in Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, January 1958, p. 20. "The probabilities that a mutation will survive or eventually spread in the course of evolution tend to vary inversely with the extent of its somatic effects. Most mutations with large effects are lethal at an early stage for the individual in which they occur and hence have zero probability of spreading. Mutations with small effects do have some probability of spreading and as a rule the chances are better the smaller the effect."—*George Gaylord Simpson, "Uniformitarianism: An Inquiry into Principle Theory and Method in Geohistory and Biohistory," chapter 2; in *Max Hecht and *William C. Steeres, ed., Essays in Evolution and Genetics (1970), p. 80. 16 - WOULD HAVE TO DO IT IN ONE GENERATION—Not even one major mutation, affecting a large number of organic factors, could accomplish the task of taking an organism across the species barrier. Hundreds of mutations—all positive ones,—and all working together would be needed to produce a new species. The reason: The formation of even one new species would have to be done all at once—in a single generation! "Since Lamarck’s theory [acquired characteristics] has been proved false, it is only of historical interest. Darwin’s theory [natural selection] does not satisfactorily explain the origin and inheritance of variations . . deVries’ theory [large mutations, or hopeful monsters"] has been shown to be weak because no single mutation or set of mutations has ever been so large that it has been known to start a new species in one generation of offspring."—*Mark A. Hall and *Milton S. Lesser, Review Text in Biology, (1966), p. 363. 17 - INCONSEQUENTIAL ACCOMPLISHMENTS—A major problem here is that, on one hand, mutations are damaging and deadly; but on the other,—aside from the damage—they only directly change small features. "Is it really certain, then, as the neo-Darwinists maintain, that the problem of evolution is a settled matter? I, personally, do not think so, and, along with a good many others, I must insist on raising some banal objections to the doctrine of neo-Darwinism . . "The mutations which we know and which are considered responsible for the creation of the living world are, in general, either organic deprivations, deficiencies (loss of pigment, loss of an appendage), or the doubling of the pre-existing organs. In any case, they never produce anything really new or original in the organic scheme, nothing which one might consider the basis for a new organ or the priming for a new function."—*Jean Rostand, The Orion Book of Evolution (1961), p. 79. *Richard Goldschmidt was the geneticist who first proposed miraculous multimillion, beneficial mutations as the only possible cause of species crossover. (More on this later.) This is what he wrote about the inconsequential nature of individual mutations: "Such an assumption [that little mutations here and there can gradually, over several generations, produce a new species] is violently opposed by the majority of geneticists, who claim that the facts found on the subspecific level must apply also to the higher categories. Incessant repetition of this unproved claim, glossing lightly over the difficulties, and the assumption of an arrogant attitude toward those who are not so easily swayed by fashions in science, are considered to afford scientific proof of the doctrine. It is true that nobody thus far has produced a new species or genus, etc., by macromutation. It is equally true that nobody has produced even a species by the selection of micromutations."—*Richard Goldschmidt, in American Scientist (1952), p. 94. Later in this chapter, we will briefly discuss *Goldschmidt’s "hopeful monster" theory, since it is based on mutational changes. 18 - TRAITS ARE TOTALLY INTERCONNECTED—Experienced geneticists are well-aware of the fact that the traits contained within the genes are closely interlocked with one another. That which affects one trait will affect many others. They work together. Because of this, all the traits, in changed form, would have to all be there together—instantly,—in order for a new species to form! Here is how two scientists describe the problem: "Each mutation occurring alone would be wiped out before it could be combined with the others. They are all interdependent. The doctrine that their coming together was due to a series of blind coincidences is an affront not only to common sense but to the basic principles of scientific explanation."—*A. Koestler, The Ghost in the Machine (1975), p. 129. "Most biological reactions are chain reactions. To interact in a chain, these precisely built molecules must fit together most precisely, as the cogwheels of a Swiss watch do. But if this is so, then how can such a system develop at all? For if any one of the specific cogwheels in these chains is changed, then the whole system must simply become inoperative. Saying it can be improved by random mutation of one link . . [is] like saying you could improve a Swiss watch by dropping it and thus bending one of its wheels or axles. To get a better watch all the wheels must be changed simultaneously to make a good fit again."—*Albert Szent-Gyorgyi, "Drive in Living Matter to Perfect Itself," Synthesis I, Vol. 1, No. 1, p. 18 (1977), [winner of two Nobel Prizes for scientific research and Director of Research at the Institute for Muscle Research in Massachusetts]. 19 - TOO MANY RELATED FACTORS—There are far too many factors associated with each trait for a single mutation—or even several to accomplish the needed task. Mathematical probabilities render mutational species changes impossible of attainment. "Based on probability factors . . any viable DNA strand having over 84 nucleotides cannot be the result of haphazard mutations. At that stage, the probabilities are 1 in 480 x 1050. Such a number, if written out, would read 480,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, "Mathematicians agree that any requisite number beyond 1050 has, statistically, a zero probability of occurrence . . Any species known to us, including the smallest single-cell bacteria, have enormously larger numbers of nucleotides than 100 or 1000. In fact, single cell bacteria display about 3,000,000 nucleotides, aligned in a very specific sequence. This means, that there is no mathematical probability whatever for any known species to have been the product of a random occurrence; ‘random mutations,’ to use the evolutionist’s favorite expression."—*L.L. Cohen, Darwin was Wrong (1984), p. 205. 20 - REPRODUCTIVE CHANGES LOW—Here is an extremely IMPORTANT point: Mutational changes in the reproductive cells occur far more infrequently than in the cells throughout the rest of the body. Only mutational changes within the male or female reproductive cells could affect oncoming generations. "The mutation rates for somatic cells are very much higher than the rates for gametic cells."—*"Biological Mechanisms Underlying the Aging Process," in Science, August 23, 1963, p. 694. 21 - EVOLUTION REQUIRES INCREASING COMPLEXITY—The theorists have decreed that evolution, by its very nature, must move upward into ever-increasing complexity, better structural organization, and completeness. Indeed, this is a cardinal dictum of evolutionists. Evolutionists maintain that evolution can only move upward toward more involved life forms,—and that it can never move backward into previously evolved life forms. But, in reality, mutations, by their very nature, tear down, disorganize, crumble, confuse, and destroy. Here is how one scientist explains the problem: "One should remember that an increase in complexity is what evolution is all about. It is not conceived as causing a change which continues to maintain the same level of complexity, nor does it mean a change which might bring about a decrease in complexity. Only an increase in complexity qualifies. "Radiations from natural sources enter the body in a hit-or-miss fashion. That is, they are completely random in the dispersed fashion with which they strike. Chemical mutagens also behave in an indiscriminate manner in causing chemical change. It is hard to see how either can cause improvements. With either radiations or mutagens, it would be something like taking a rifle and shooting haphazardly into an automobile and expecting thereby to create a better performing vehicle, and one that shows an advance in the state-of-the-art for cars. "The question is, then, can random sources of energy as represented by radiations or mutagenic chemicals, upon reacting with the genes, cause body changes which would result in a new species?"—Lester McCann, Blowing the Whistle on Darwinism (1986), p. 51. 22 - EVOLUTION REQUIRES NEW INFORMATION—In order for a new organism to be formed by evolutionary change, new information banks must be emplaced. It is something like using a more advanced computer program; a "card" of more complicated procedural instructions must be put into the central processing unit of that computer. But the haphazard, random results of mutations could never provide this new, structured information. "If evolution is to occur . . living things must be capable of acquiring new information, or alteration of their stored information."—*George Gaylord Simpson, "The Non-prevalence of Humanoids," in Science, 143, (1964), p. 772. 23 - EVOLUTION REQUIRES NEW ORGANS—It is not enough for mutations to produce changes;—they must produce new organs! Billions of mutational factors would be required for the invention of one new organ of a new species, and this mutations cannot do. "A fact that has been obvious for many years is that Mendelian mutations deal only with changes in existing characters . . No experiment has produced progeny that show entirely new functioning organs. And yet it is the appearance of new characters in organisms which mark the boundaries of the major steps in the evolutionary scale."—*H.G. Cannon, The Evolution of Living Things (1958), p. 87. 24 - EVOLUTION REQUIRES COMPLICATED NETWORKING—A relatively new field of scientific study is called "linkage," "linkage interconnections," or "networking." This is an attempt to analyze the network of interrelated factors in the body. I say, "an attempt," for there are millions of such linkages. Each structure or organ is related to another—and also to thousands of others. (A detailed study of this type of research will be found in Creation Research Society Quarterly, for March 1984, pp. 199-211. Ten diagrams and seven charts are included.) Our concern here is that each mutation would damage a multi-link network. This is one of the reasons why mutations are always injurious to an organism. The kidneys interconnect with the circulatory system, for they purify the blood. They also interconnect with the nervous system, the endocrine system, the digestive system, etc. But such are merely major systems. Far more is included. We are simply too fearfully and wonderfully made for random mutations to accomplish any good thing within our bodies. 25 - VISIBLE AND INVISIBLE MUTATIONS—"Visible mutations" are those genetic changes that are easily detectable, such as albinism, dwarfism, and hemophilia. *Winchester explains: (1) For every visible mutation, there are 20 lethal ones which are invisible! (2) Even more frequent than the lethal mutations would be the ones that damage but do not kill. "Lethal mutations outnumber visibles by about 20 to 1. Mutations that have small harmful effects, the detrimental mutations, are even more frequent than the lethal ones."—*A.M. Winchester, Genetics, 5th Edition (1977), p. 356. 26 - NEVER HIGHER VITALITY THAN PARENT—Geneticists, who have spent a lifetime studying mutations, tell us that each mutation only weakens the organism. Never does the mutated offspring have more strength than the unmutated (or less mutated) parent. "There is no single instance where it can be maintained that any of the mutants studied has a higher vitality than the mother species . . It is, therefore, absolutely impossible to build a current evolution on mutations or on recombinations."—*N. Herbert Nilsson, Synthetische Artbildung (Synthetic Speciation) (1953), p. 1157 [italics his]. 27 - MUTATIONS ARE NOT PRODUCING SPECIES CHANGE—Theory, theory, lots of theory, but it just isn’t happening! "No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution."—*Pierre Paul Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 88. "It is true that nobody thus far has produced a new species or genus, etc., by macromutation [a combination of many mutations]; it is equally true that nobody has produced even a species by the selection of micromutation [one or only a few mutations]."—*Richard B. Goldschmdt, "Evolution, As Viewed by One Geneticist," American Scientist, January 1952, p. 94. A "nascent organ" is one that is just coming into existence. None have ever been observed. "Do we, therefore, ever see mutations going about the business of producing new structures for selection to work on? No nascent organ has ever been observed emerging, though their origin in pre-functional form is basic to evolutionary theory. Some should be visible today, occurring in organisms at various stages up to integration of a functional new system, but we don’t see them. There is no sign at all of this kind of radical novelty. Neither observation nor controlled experiment has shown natural selection manipulating mutations so as to produce a new gene, hormone, enzyme, system, or organ."—*Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution (1984), pp. 67-68. 28 - GENE UNIQUENESS FORBIDS SPECIES CHANGE—The very fact that each species is so different from the others—forbids the possibility that random mutations could change them into new species. There are million of factors which make each species different from all the others. The DNA code barrier that would have to be crossed is simply too immense. "If life really depends on each gene being as unique as it appears to be, then it is too unique to come into being by chance mutations."—*Frank B. Salisbury, "Natural Selection and the Complexity of the Gene," Nature, October 25, 1969, p. 342. I will post the hundreds of quotes of men whos field is science and have a far greater education than someone who hangs out on this board...but since you know everything I figured I would give you a couple things to think about first. -------------------- I don't get it, the things I don't want to do, I do. The things I do want to do, I don't do. So if I do the things I don't want to do, then it isn't I that does them, but the sin living in me. ~Corinthians Edited by TwiztidShroom (08/07/07 05:48 AM)
| |||||||
|
TwiztidShroom Supreme HighComm Registered: 06/28/07 Posts: 76 Last seen: 19 years, 16 days |
| ||||||
|
You've got 28 big discrepencies in your belief system...guess your god isn't as true as you thought either...but you do have a shitload of faith in it...
-------------------- I don't get it, the things I don't want to do, I do. The things I do want to do, I don't do. So if I do the things I don't want to do, then it isn't I that does them, but the sin living in me. ~Corinthians
| |||||||
|
Merkin neep.  Registered: 07/04/03 Posts: 27,537 Loc: Ass Flavoured Pi |
| ||||||
|
No.
-------------------- Wheels of cheese wheeels of cheeeeese!!!
| |||||||
|
TwiztidShroom Supreme HighComm Registered: 06/28/07 Posts: 76 Last seen: 19 years, 16 days |
| ||||||
|
Ok, well I would say these are less than 28 cuz they repeat themselves...but there are hundreds of other issues as well. My point was you are not a scientist, nor have you actually mapped out evolution scientifically and niether has any other human, ever. There is much speculation but my overall point is you believ by faith in what you are told since you personally have no first hand knowledge of the matter unless it is your field and then whatever field you have can only explain a small portion...so you believe in science the same way I believe in God, by faith, without proof. Cept I could argue I see God at work in my life daily and since He answers my prayers often, not always....imaginary or not I like Him cuz He provides for me! I don't want you to think I am against science because I am not. When(if) the THEORY of evolution is ever actually proven complete then I will reconsider but if you think it has even remotely been proven other than small aspects that lead to speculation...you are misinformed. No self respecting scientist will call evolution a fact...it would end their career. If so ask for the complete proof, but since it doesn't exist you wont find it. People like you who create websites that look nice doesn't make the OPPINIONS expressed facts. They will say that they have proven certain aspects of evolution but as a whole it is just a THEORY. There is room for evolutionism and creationism to exist together with intelligent design. The Bible is clear that God isn't against science. When God told Adam to take captive the earth, the greek actually means also to explore and figure out how things work...(science). It is Evolutionists that refuse to believe that something so complex could happen by design. Wipe windows off your pc and see if it does anything when you turn it on....we can build organisms too...but they have no genetic programming when done the way we supposedly formed in the probiotic soup...certain traits and chromosomes need eachother to survive. The chances of 2 mutations at once are almost impossible...so the organism would die quickly and the failure would repeat indefinitly with nothing alive to evolve....
-------------------- I don't get it, the things I don't want to do, I do. The things I do want to do, I don't do. So if I do the things I don't want to do, then it isn't I that does them, but the sin living in me. ~Corinthians
| |||||||
|
TwiztidShroom Supreme HighComm Registered: 06/28/07 Posts: 76 Last seen: 19 years, 16 days |
| ||||||
|
The following quotes are from your beloved scientists as they give their oppinions of evolution! Not what you would expect from a Theory you say is a fact that is still called a theory because it is just that!
Included below are a number of admissions by leading evolutionists of earlier decades, such as *Charles Darwin, *Austin Clark, or *Fred Hoyle. The truth is that evolutionists cannot make scientific facts fit the theory. An asterisk ( * ) by a name indicates that person is not known to be a creationist. Of over 4,000 quotations in the set of books this Encyclopedia is based on , only 164 statements are by creationists. "The Darwinian theory of descent has not a single fact to confirm it in the realm of nature. It is not the result of scientific research, but purely the product of imagination."—*Dr. Fleischman [Erlangen zoologist]. "It is almost invariably assumed that animals with bodies composed of a single cell represent the primitive animals from which all others derived. They are commonly supposed to have preceded all other animal types in their appearance. There is not the slightest basis for this assumption."—*Austin Clark, The New Evolution (1930), pp. 235-236. "The hypothesis that life has developed from inorganic matter is, at present, still an article of faith."—*J.W.N. Sullivan, The Limitations of Science (1933), p. 95. "Where are we when presented with the mystery of life? We find ourselves facing a granite wall which we have not even chipped . . We know virtually nothing of growth, nothing of life."—*W. Kaempffert, "The Greatest Mystery of All: The Secret of Life," New York Times. " `The theory of evolution is totally inadequate to explain the origin and manifestation of the inorganic world.' "—Sir John Ambrose Fleming, F.R.S., quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation (1966), p. 91 [discoverer of the thermionic valve]. "I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it."—*H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin, 31 (1980), p. 138. "I am not satisfied that Darwin proved his point or that his influence in scientific and public thinking has been beneficial . . the success of Darwinism was accomplished by a decline in scientific integrity."—*W.R. Thompson, Introduction to *Charles Darwin's, Origin of the Species [Canadian scientist]. "One of the determining forces of scientism was a fantastic accidental imagination which could explain every irregularity in the solar system without explanation, leap the gaps in the atomic series without evidence [a gap required by the Big Bang theory], postulate the discovery of fossils which have never been discovered, and prophesy the success of breeding experiments which have never succeeded. Of this kind of science it might truly be said that it was `knowledge falsely so called.' "—*David C.C. Watson, The Great Brain Robbery (1976). "The hold of the evolutionary paradigm [theoretical system] is so powerful that an idea which is more like a principle of medieval astrology than a serious twentieth century scientific theory has become a reality for evolutionary biologists."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 306 [Australian molecular biologist]. "The particular truth is simply that we have no reliable evidence as to the evolutionary sequence . . One can find qualified professional arguments for any group being the descendant of almost any other."—J. Bonner, "Book Review," American Scientist, 49:1961, p. 240. "It was because Darwinian theory broke man's link with God and set him adrift in a cosmos without purpose or end that its impact was so fundamental. No other intellectual revolution in modern times . . so profoundly affected the way men viewed themselves and their place in the universe."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 67 [Australian molecular biologist]. "I had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning, consequently assumed it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption . . The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics; he is also concerned to prove there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do . . For myself, as no doubt for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom."—*Aldous Huxley, "Confessions of a Professed Atheist," Report: Perspective on the News, Vol. 3, June 1966, p. 19 [grandson of evolutionist Thomas Huxley, Darwin's closest friend and promoter, and brother of evolutionist Julian Huxley. Aldous Huxley was one of the most influential liberal writers of the 20th century]. "Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless."—*Bounoure, Le Monde Et La Vie (October 1963) [Director of Research at the National center of Scientific Research in France]. "As by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed. Why do we not find them embedded in the crust of the earth? Why is not all nature in confusion [of halfway species] instead of being, as we see them, well-defined species?"—*Charles Darwin, quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation (1966), p. 139. " `Creation,' in the ordinary sense of the word, is perfectly conceivable. I find no difficulty in conceiving that, at some former period, this universe was not in existence; and that it made its appearance in six days . . in consequence of the volition of some pre-existing Being."—*Thomas Huxley, quoted in *Leonard Huxley, Life and Letters of Thomas Henry Huxley, Vol. II (1903), p. 429. "The theory of evolution suffers from grave defects, which are more and more apparent as time advances. It can no longer square with practical scientific knowledge."—*Albert Fleishmann, Zoologist. "I argue that the `theory of evolution' does not take predictions, so far as ecology is concerned, but is instead a logical formula which can be used only to classify empiricisms [theories] and to show the relationships which such a classification implies . . these theories are actually tautologies and, as such, cannot make empirically testable predictions. They are not scientific theories at all."—*R.H. Peters, "Tautology in Evolution and Ecology," American Naturalist (1976), Vol. 110, No. 1, p. 1 [emphasis his]. "Scientists have no proof that life was not the result of an act of creation."—*Robert Jastrow, The Enchanted Loom: Mind in the Universe (1981), p. 19. "In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to `bend' their observations to fit in with it."—*H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin, 31 (1980), p. 138. "When Darwin presented a paper [with Alfred Wallace] to the Linnean Society in 1858, a Professor Haugton of Dublin remarked, `All that was new was false, and what was true was old.' This, we think, will be the final verdict on the matter, the epitaph on Darwinism."—*Fred Hoyle and N. Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space (1981), p. 159. "Creation and evolution, between them, exhaust the possible explanations for the origin of living things. Organisms either appeared on the earth fully developed or they did not. If they did not, they must have developed from pre-existing species by some process of modification. If they did appear in a fully developed state, they must have been created by some omnipotent intelligence."—*D.J. Futuyma, Science on Trial (1983), p. 197. "With the failure of these many efforts, science was left in the somewhat embarrassing position of having to postulate theories of living origins which it could not demonstrate. After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort, could not be proved to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past."—*Loren Eisley, The Immense Journey, (1957), p. 199. "The over-riding supremacy of the myth has created a widespread illusion that the theory of evolution was all but proved one hundred years ago and that all subsequent biological research—paleontological, zoological, and in the newer branches of genetics and molecular biology—has provided ever-increasing evidence for Darwinian ideas."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 327. "The irony is devastating. The main purpose of Darwinism was to drive every last trace of an incredible God from biology. But the theory replaces God with an even more incredible deity—omnipotent chance."—*T. Rosazak, Unfinished Animal (1975), pp. 101-102. "Today our duty is to destroy the myth of evolution, considered as a simple, understood and explained phenomenon which keeps rapidly unfolding before us. Biologists must be encouraged to think about the weaknesses and extrapolations that the theoreticians put forward or lay down as established truths. The deceit is sometimes unconscious, but not always, since some people, owing to their sectarianism, purposely overlook reality and refuse to acknowledge the inadequacies and falsity of their beliefs."—*Pierre-Paul de Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 8. "The evolution theory can by no means be regarded as an innocuous natural philosophy, but that it is a serious obstruction to biological research. It obstructs—as has been repeatedly shown—the attainment of consistent results, even from uniform experimental material. For everything must ultimately be forced to fit this theory. An exact biology cannot, therefore, be built up."—*H. Neilsson, Synthetische Artbuilding, 1954, p. 11. "It is therefore of immediate concern to both biologists and layman that Darwinism is under attack. The theory of life that undermined nineteenth-century religion has virtually become a religion itself and, in its turn, is being threatened by fresh ideas. The attacks are certainly not limited to those of the creationists and religious fundamentalists who deny Darwinism for political and moral reason. The main thrust of the criticism comes from within science itself. The doubts about Darwinism represent a political revolt from within rather than a siege from without."—*B. Leith, The Descent of Darwin: A Handbook of Doubts about Darwinism (1982), p. 11. "My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed. At least I should hardly be accused of having started from any preconceived anti-evolutionary standpoint."—*H. Nilsson, Synthetic Speciation (1953), p. 31. "Just as pre-Darwinian biology was carried out by people whose faith was in the Creator and His plan, post-Darwinian biology is being carried out by people whose faith is in, almost, the deity of Darwin. They've seen their task as to elaborate his theory and to fill the gaps in it, to fill the trunk and twigs of the tree. But it seems to me that the theoretical framework has very little impact on the actual progress of the work in biological research. In a way some aspects of Darwinism and of neo-Darwinism seem to me to have held back the progress of science."—Colin Patterson, The Listener [senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, London]. "Throughout the past century there has always existed a significant minority of first-rate biologists who have never been able to bring themselves to accept the validity of Darwinian claims. In fact, the number of biologists who have expressed some degree of disillusionment is practically endless."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1986), p. 327. "I personally hold the evolutionary position, but yet lament the fact that the majority of our Ph.D. graduates are frightfully ignorant of many of the serious problems of the evolution theory. These problems will not be solved unless we bring them to the attention of students. Most students assume evolution is proved, the missing link is found, and all we have left is a few rough edges to smooth out. Actually, quite the contrary is true; and many recent discoveries . . have forced us to re-evaluate our basic assumptions."—*Director of a large graduate program in biology, quoted in Creation: The Cutting Edge (1982), p. 26. "The creation account in Genesis and the theory of evolution could not be reconciled. One must be right and the other wrong. The story of the fossils agreed with the account of Genesis. In the oldest rocks we did not find a series of fossils covering the gradual changes from the most primitive creatures to developed forms, but rather in the oldest rocks developed species suddenly appeared. Between every species there was a complete absence of intermediate fossils."—*D.B. Gower, "Scientist Rejects Evolution," Kentish Times, England, December 11, 1975, p. 4 [biochemist]. "From the almost total absence of fossil evidence relative to the origin of the phyla, it follows that any explanation of the mechanism in the creative evolution of the fundamental structural plans is heavily burdened with hypothesis. This should appear as an epigraph to every book on evolution. The lack of direct evidence leads to the formulation of pure conjecture as to the genesis of the phyla; we do not even have a basis to determine the extent to which these opinions are correct."—*Pierre-Paul de Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 31. "We still do not know the mechanics of evolution in spite of the over-confident claims in some quarters, nor are we likely to make further progress in this by the classical methods of paleontology or biology; and we shall certainly not advance matters by jumping up and down shrilling, `Darwin is god and I, So-and-so, am his prophet.' "—*Errol White, Proceedings of the Linnean Society, London, 177:8 (1966). "I feel that the effect of hypotheses of common ancestry in systematics has not been merely boring, not just a lack of knowledge; I think it has been positively anti-knowledge . . Well, what about evolution? It certainly has the function of knowledge, but does it convey any? Well, we are back to the question I have been putting to people, `Is there one thing you can tell me about?' The absence of answers seems to suggest that it is true, evolution does not convey any knowledge."—*Colin Patterson, Director AMNH, Address at the American Museum of Natural History (November 5, 1981). "What is it [evolution] based upon? Upon nothing whatever but faith, upon belief in the reality of the unseen—belief in the fossils that cannot be produced, belief in the embryological experiments that refuse to come off. It is faith unjustified by works."—*Arthur N. Field. "Paleontologists [fossil experts] have paid an exorbitant price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we almost never see the very process we profess to study."—*Steven Jay Gould, The Panda's Thumb (1982), pp. 181-182 [Harvard professor and the leading evolutionary spokesman of the latter half of the twentieth century]. "The problem of the origin of species has not advanced in the last 150 years. One hundred and fifty years have already passed during which it has been said that the evolution of the species is a fact but, without giving real proofs of it and without even a principle of explaining it. During the last one hundred and fifty years of research that has been carried out along this line [in order to prove the theory], there has been no discovery of anything. It is simply a repetition in different ways of what Darwin said in 1859. This lack of results is unforgivable in a day when molecular biology has really opened the veil covering the mystery of reproduction and heredity . . "Finally, there is only one attitude which is possible as I have just shown: It consists in affirming that intelligence comes before life. Many people will say this is not science, it is philosophy. The only thing I am interested in is fact, and this conclusion comes out of an analysis and observation of the facts."—*G. Salet, Hasard et Certitude: Le Transformisme devant la Biologie Actuelle (1973), p. 331. "The theories of evolution, with which our studious youth have been deceived, constitute actually a dogma that all the world continues to teach; but each, in his specialty, the zoologist or the botanist, ascertains that none of the explanations furnished is adequate . . It results from this summary, that the theory of evolution is impossible."—*P. Lemoine, "Introduction: De L' Evolution?" Encyclopedie Francaise, Vol. 5 (1937), p. 6. "Darwinism is a creed not only with scientists committed to document the all-purpose role of natural selection. It is a creed with masses of people who have at best a vague notion of the mechanism of evolution as proposed by Darwin, let alone as further complicated by his successors. Clearly, the appeal cannot be that of a scientific truth but of a philosophical belief which is not difficult to identify. Darwinism is a belief in the meaninglessness of existence."—*R. Kirk, "The Rediscovery of Creation," in National Review, (May 27, 1983), p. 641. "I have always been slightly suspicious of the theory of evolution because of its ability to account for any property of living beings (the long neck of the giraffe, for example). I have therefore tried to see whether biological discoveries over the last thirty years or so fit in with Darwin's theory. I do not think that they do. To my mind, the theory does not stand up at all."—*H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physic Bulletin, 31 (1980), p. 138. "Evolution is baseless and quite incredible."—*John Ambrose Fleming, President, British Association for Advancement of Science, in The Unleashing of Evolutionary Thought. "Unfortunately, in the field of evolution most explanations are not good. As a matter of fact, they hardly qualify as explanations at all; they are suggestions, hunches, pipe dreams, hardly worthy of being called hypotheses."—*Norman Macbeth, Darwin Retried (1971), p. 147. "It is not the duty of science to defend the theory of evolution, and stick by it to the bitter end—no matter which illogical and unsupported conclusions it offers. On the contrary, it is expected that scientists recognize the patently obvious impossibility of Darwin's pronouncements and predictions . . Let's cut the umbilical cord that tied us down to Darwin for such a long time. It is choking us and holding us back."—I.L. Cohen, Darwin Was Wrong: A Study in Probabilities (1985). "This general tendency to eliminate, by means of unverifiable speculations, the limits of the categories Nature presents to us, is the inheritance of biology from The Origin of Species. To establish the continuity required by theory, historical arguments are invoked, even though historical evidence is lacking. Thus are engendered those fragile towers of hypothesis based on hypothesis, where fact and fiction intermingle in an inextricable confusion."—*W.R. Thompson, "Introduction," to Everyman's Library issue of *Charles Darwin's, Origin of Species (1956 edition). " `Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution we do not have one iota of fact.' A tangled mishmash of guessing games and figure juggling [Tahmisian called it]."—*The Fresno Bee, August 20, 1959, p. 1-B [quoting T.N. Tahmisian, physiologist for the Atomic Energy Commission]. " `The theory [of evolution] is a scientific mistake.' "—*Louis Agassiz, quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation, (1966), p. 139. [Agassiz was a Harvard University professor and the pioneer in glaciation.] "[In Darwin's writings] possibilities were assumed to add up to probability, and probabilities then were promoted to certitudes."—*Agassiz, op. cit., p. 335. "The origin of all diversity among living beings remains a mystery as totally unexplained as if the book of Mr. Darwin had never been written, for no theory unsupported by fact, however plausible it may appear, can be admitted in science."—L. Agassiz on the Origin of Species, American Journal of Science, 30 (1860), p. 154. [Darwin's book was published in 1859.] "[Darwin could] summon up enough general, vague and conjectural reasons to account for this fact, and if these were not taken seriously, he could come up with a different, but equally general, vague and conjectural set of reasons."—*Gertrude Himmelfarb, Darwin and Darwinian Revolution (1968), p. 319. "Ultimately the Darwinian theory of evolution is no more nor less than the great cosmogenic myth of the twentieth century . . the origin of life and of new beings on earth is still largely as enigmatic as when Darwin set sail on the [ship] Beagle."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1986), p. 358. "It has been estimated that no fewer than 800 phrases in the subjunctive mood (such as `Let us assume,' or `We may well suppose,' etc.) are to be found between the covers of Darwin's Origin of Species alone."—L. Merson Davies [British scientist], Modern Science (1953), p. 7. "I can envision observations and experiments that would disprove any evolutionary theory I know."—*Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory," Discover 2(5):34-37 (1981). "Unfortunately for Darwin's future reputation, his life was spent on the problem of evolution which is deductive by nature . . It is absurd to expect that many facts will not always be irreconcilable with any theory of evolution and, today, every one of his theories is contradicted by facts."—*P.T. Mora, The Dogma of Evolution, p. 194. "Darwinism is a creed not only with scientists committed to document the all-purpose role of natural selection. It is a creed with masses of people who have, at best, a vague notion of the mechanism of evolution as proposed by Darwin, let alone as further complicated by his successors."—*S. Jaki, Cosmos and Creator (1982). "In essence, we contend that neo-Darwinism is a theory of differential survival and not one of origin . . "We are certainly not arguing here that differential survival of whole organisms does not occur. This must inevitably happen [i.e. some species become extinct]. The question that we must ask is, does this represent the controlling dynamic of organic evolution? Cannot a similar argument be equally well-constructed to `explain' any frequency distribution? For example, consider rocks which vary in hardness and also persist through time. Clearly the harder rocks are better `adapted' to survive harsh climatic conditions. As Lewontin points out, a similar story can be told about political parties, rumors, jokes, stars, and discarded soft drink containers."—*A.J. Hughes and *D. Lambert, "Functionalism, Structuralism, `Ways of Seeing,' " Journal of Theoretical Biology, 787 (1984), pp. 796-797. "Biologists have indeed built their advances in evolutionary theory on the Darwinian foundation, not realizing that the foundation is about to topple because of Darwin's three mistakes. "George Bernard Shaw wisecracked once that Darwin had the luck to please everybody who had an axe to grind. Well, I also have an axe to grind, but I am not pleased. We have suffered through two world wars and are threatened by an Armageddon. We have had enough of the Darwinian fallacy."—*Kenneth Hsu, "Reply," Geology, 15 (1987), p. 177. "Therefore, a grotesque account of a period some thousands of years ago is taken seriously though it be built by piling special assumptions on special assumptions, ad hoc hypothesis [invented for a purpose] on ad hoc hypothesis, and tearing apart the fabric of science whenever it appears convenient. The result is a fantasia which is neither history nor science."—*James Conant [chemist and former president, Harvard University], quoted in Origins Research, Vol. 5, No. 2, 1982, p. 2. "It is inherent in any definition of science that statements that cannot be checked by observation are not really saying anything—or at least they are not science."—*George G. Simpson, "The Nonprevalence of Humanoids," in Science, 143 (1964) p. 770. "In accepting evolution as fact, how many biologists pause to reflect that science is built upon theories that have been proved by experiment to be correct or remember that the theory of animal evolution has never been thus approved."—*L.H. Matthews, "Introduction," Origin of Species, Charles Darwin (1971 edition). "Present-day ultra-Darwinism, which is so sure of itself, impresses incompletely informed biologists, misleads them, and inspires fallacious interpretations . . "Through use and abuse of hidden postulates, of bold, often ill-founded extrapolations, a pseudoscience has been created. It is taking root in the very heart of biology and is leading astray many biochemists and biologists, who sincerely believe that the accuracy of fundamental concepts has been demonstrated, which is not the case."—*Pierre P. de Grasse, The Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 202. "The over-riding supremacy of the myth [of evolution] has created a widespread illusion that the theory of evolution was all but proved one hundred years ago and that all subsequent biological research—paleontological, zoological and in the newer branches of genetics and molecular biology—has provided ever-increasing evidence for Darwinian ideas. Nothing could be further from the truth. [In a letter to Asa Gray, a Harvard professor of biology, Darwin wrote:] "I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science."—*Charles Darwin, quoted in *N.C. Gillespie, Charles Darwin and the Problem of Creation (1979), p. 2 [University of Chicago book]. "The fact is that the evidence was so patchy one hundred years ago that even Darwin himself had increasing doubts as to the validity of his views, and the only aspect of his theory which has received any support over the past century is where it applies to micro-evolutionary phenomena. His general theory, that all life on earth had originated and evolved by a gradual successive accumulation of fortuitous mutations, is still, as it was in Darwin's time, a highly speculative hypothesis entirely without direct factual support and very far from that self-evident axiom some of its more aggressive advocates would have us believe."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1986), p. 77. -------------------- I don't get it, the things I don't want to do, I do. The things I do want to do, I don't do. So if I do the things I don't want to do, then it isn't I that does them, but the sin living in me. ~Corinthians
| |||||||
|
MushmanTheManic Stranger Registered: 04/21/05 Posts: 4,587 |
| ||||||
Really? I have read a number of studies. Have you read any?
How do you know this? Websites? Some critic of Darwinism told you so? I can assure you it does exist and I have seen it with my own two eyes.
I can look around my house and find a plethora of items that exist solely because of scientists (-maybe even my house itself!) I cannot find anything in my home that was created by a faith based organization. I doubt my faith in science is anything like your faith in God. I put faith in science for a purely functional reason - it works. There really doesn't need to be a conflict between science and religion, but people like to make one. (Sorry for regressing to my childhood years, but religion started it!) Does science pose any real threat to the core of most religions? Not really. What it does pose a threat to are some silly 'religious facts', like the age of the Earth, but I don't see why that is so important. You can even interpret evolution in a supernatural sense if you want to.
It will never be 'proven complete.' (Whatever that means.) Neither will the Theory of Gravity, Germ theory, the Atomic theory, or any other scientific theory. If you don't know this already, a theory is the highest truth in science. A "theory" in the scientific sense and the common meaning of the word "theory" are not the same. In fact, they are radically different. If something is a scientific theory, it must explain a number of different phenomenon, make accurate predictions, and resist falsification. A theory is never proven because it is always open to modification and falsification - but that doesn't mean it isn't the best information we currently have available.
Do I really need to point out the logical fallacies in this?
| |||||||
|
TwiztidShroom Supreme HighComm Registered: 06/28/07 Posts: 76 Last seen: 19 years, 16 days |
| ||||||
|
What, that they are old quotes? I would say unless you can find reports stating that each of the issues made have since been proven otherwise, don't assume they have....the publication isn't that old. Some of the other arguments I think are dumb but there are enough good points, truths to excuse them.
-------------------- I don't get it, the things I don't want to do, I do. The things I do want to do, I don't do. So if I do the things I don't want to do, then it isn't I that does them, but the sin living in me. ~Corinthians
| |||||||
|
TwiztidShroom Supreme HighComm Registered: 06/28/07 Posts: 76 Last seen: 19 years, 16 days |
| ||||||
|
says it all-
"Therefore, a grotesque account of a period some thousands of years ago is taken seriously though it be built by piling special assumptions on special assumptions, ad hoc hypothesis [invented for a purpose] on ad hoc hypothesis, and tearing apart the fabric of science whenever it appears convenient. The result is a fantasia which is neither history nor science."—*James Conant [chemist and former president, Harvard University], quoted in Origins Research, Vol. 5, No. 2, 1982, p. 2. -------------------- I don't get it, the things I don't want to do, I do. The things I do want to do, I don't do. So if I do the things I don't want to do, then it isn't I that does them, but the sin living in me. ~Corinthians
| |||||||
| |||||||
[Re: 
Edit 
Reply 
| Shop: Bulk Cannabis Seeds Bulk Substrate Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order Spores for European Microscopy |
|
| Similar Threads | Poster | Views | Replies | Last post | ||
 |
 |
Death / Rebirth / DMT / Light Isolation etc... |  justthiz |
4,765 | 10 | 11/10/10 09:45 PM by BlueSonicRibbon |
|
|
Why Hallucinogens? |  ionic |
1,502 | 16 | 04/01/02 02:05 PM by TheLord |
|
 |
Physical Death | Nathaniel |
1,450 | 6 | 10/15/01 08:58 AM by CACA |
|
|
Birth and the psychedelic experience | Xlea321 |
1,221 | 4 | 02/16/02 04:32 AM by Asante |
|
 |
Near-death experiences (  1 2 3 all ) |
 shroom_muncher |
5,599 | 43 | 02/09/04 04:37 AM by SkorpivoMusterion |
|
|
Life after physical death | Tonearm |
1,328 | 14 | 12/27/03 12:39 AM by Revelation |
|
 |
Mystical Experience? ( 1 2 all ) |
 Swami |
3,457 | 25 | 07/15/03 05:25 PM by Grav |
|
 |
Ram Dass --death and dying |  Hermes_br |
1,622 | 2 | 11/23/02 05:52 AM by Hermes_br |
| Extra information | ||
| You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum 12,808 topic views. 1 members, 168 guests and 36 web crawlers are browsing this forum. [ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ] | ||