| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"stone" |
| Date: |
06 Dec 2004 04:55:08 PM |
| Object: |
Trying To Prove Genesis Ages True |
If you have read Genesis, then you know that people before the flood are
reported to have lived a very long time. People with scientific backgrounds
might consider Genesis to be not true because they can't believe that people
could live that long. [Examples:
Methuselah was supposed to have lived
969 years. Noah was 500 years old before he started building the ark, and
Adam lived over 900 years. See Genesis chapter 5.]
The secret to this long life I believe is caused by higher nutrition.
The scriptural basis for believing this can be found in these verses:
Genesis 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of
us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take
also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
Genesis 3:23 Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of
Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.
Apparently if a man could get the kind of nutrition that was in the fruit of
the tree of life in the garden of eden, then he would live forever, and this
implies that he would not get old and aging would be stopped.
In 1973, I read an article that it was discovered that vitamins slow down
aging. I was in College at the time and working on a degree in physics. I
started taking large doses of vitamins at that time to slow down my aging.
By the time I was 40, I looked like I was about 26, and it was working so
well I increased the doses to see if I could make my age go backwards. The
following are the results of my experimentation with fighting aging. Some of
this I read in scientific articles and some of it I found out for myself. I
believe that if the right nutritional supplements were found, to duplicate
the nutrition in the fruit of the tree of life, then a person could take
this and live forever without aging.
[Note: Dying is not really a requirement for New Testament Christians,
according to scripture:
1 Corinthians 15:51 Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep,
but we shall all be changed,
John 11:26 And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die.
Believest thou this?
John 21:22 Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what
[is that] to thee? follow thou me.
John 21:23 Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that
disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but,
If I will that he tarry till I come, what [is that] to thee?
They had that saying because the apostles realized that it is now possible
for a Christian to live without dying.]
Vitamins A and D are toxic at high levels. You can take megadoses of C and
E. Too much C just causes diarhea as your system flushes out the excess. You
could use this as a natural laxative to keep the colon clean. Large doses of
C have very good health effects: stronger heart, slowing down aging, more
collagin for firmer skin, less colesterol build up on veins, higher immune
system to fight disease, natural antihistimine to prevent running nose,
megadosing on C is a strong viruscide to kill viruses. I don't know if very
large doses of E are toxic, however I do know that large doses can be taken
regularly and it only helps you. However, it does increase the male sex
drive subsantially, it is the virility vitamin. I don't know if there is a
limit on taking E. I have been taking 3200 iu of E per day for years and it
didn't hurt me. I use it to slow down aging which it does very well. C is
water soluble, E is soluble in oil; putting antiaging vitamins in the watery
and oil parts of my body. I am 52 years old
and I have a body like a man in his early 20s. I look about 17 on my
driver's license photo. Never had crows feet wrinkles around the eyes. I
started megadosing on vitamins to fight aging in 1973. I could be the best
in the world at fighting aging at this time. It looked like I was actually
getting younger over an eight year period, but I take huge doses of vitamins
and
calcium to accomplish this. [A, C, E, calcium, stresstabs containing the B
complex vitamins and a high protein diet to slow down aging.] Also some
selenium, bioflavinoids, magnesium, zinc, generally anything that boosts the
immune system will fight aging. I believe the immune system can be boosted
so high that it will actually heal aging and cause a person to slowly and
gradually get younger. I have seen sagging around the chin and under the
eyes go away and my nose seemed to turn up more; my hair is slowly growing
back and it got two shades darker. Young people move fast and think fast. I
practice fast moving
exercise and this has increased my speed of thinking, moving and
flexibility. Exercise will
help boost the immune system, especially in males.
Herbs
Main immune boosting herb is echinacea. Gotu Kola causes more blood to flow
to the brain and has been proven to increase the Intelligence Quoteint IQ of
test subjects. Eyebrite causes more blood flow to the eyes and regulates
fluid pressure in the eyes preventing age related eye problems; it makes you
see more clearly too. You should also try to get about 8 hours sleep per
day, because human growth harmone needed for cell division is mostly
produced when you sleep. Immune system is highest during sleep. Lots of
water should be drunk before bed. Caffeine helps to clean the products of
cell funcion out of the blood faster by increasing kidney funcion. [The
vitamins clean the cells faster and the caffeine cleans the cell wastes out
of the blood faster. Clean cells do not slow down the rate of the cell
divisions, so you don't get old.] [Aging is caused by background radiation
acting on oxidation products in the cells and changing them to free
radicals. Free radical damage causes cell divisions to slow down; this
causes aging. Antioxidant vitamins, megadoses, can clean the oxidation
products out of the cell so fast that the cell divisions don't slow down,
and hence, no aging.] Do you understand what I am trying to say?
[Side effects of taking all of this are easily controlled. If you get
diarhea or if your sinuses
become too stopped up, then stop taking the vitamin C for a couple of days.
If you get a headache,
then don’t take any vitamin A, that day. Use a half cup of milk with baking
soda in it to
nutralize stomach acid if your stomach gets too acid from the caffeine and
the vitamin C.]
These are results of over 31 years of my personal research, my own body
being the object for testing on.
_______________________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>
.
|
|
| User: "Melchizedek" |
|
| Title: Re: Trying To Prove Genesis Ages True |
06 Dec 2004 06:49:30 PM |
|
|
"stone" <antiaging@ineedhits-mail.com> wrote in message news:41b4e34c_3@news1.uncensored-news.com...
If you have read Genesis, then you know that people before the flood are
reported to have lived a very long time. People with scientific backgrounds
might consider Genesis to be not true because they can't believe that people
could live that long. [Examples:
Methuselah was supposed to have lived
969 years. Noah was 500 years old before he started building the ark, and
Adam lived over 900 years. See Genesis chapter 5.]
The secret to this long life I believe is caused by higher nutrition.
The scriptural basis for believing this can be found in these verses:
Genesis 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of
us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take
also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
Genesis 3:23 Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of
Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.
Apparently if a man could get the kind of nutrition that was in the fruit of
the tree of life in the garden of eden, then he would live forever, and this
implies that he would not get old and aging would be stopped.
In 1973, I read an article that it was discovered that vitamins slow down
aging. I was in College at the time and working on a degree in physics. I
started taking large doses of vitamins at that time to slow down my aging.
By the time I was 40, I looked like I was about 26, and it was working so
well I increased the doses to see if I could make my age go backwards. The
following are the results of my experimentation with fighting aging. Some of
this I read in scientific articles and some of it I found out for myself. I
believe that if the right nutritional supplements were found, to duplicate
the nutrition in the fruit of the tree of life, then a person could take
this and live forever without aging.
[Note: Dying is not really a requirement for New Testament Christians,
according to scripture:
1 Corinthians 15:51 Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep,
but we shall all be changed,
John 11:26 And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die.
Believest thou this?
John 21:22 Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what
[is that] to thee? follow thou me.
John 21:23 Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that
disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but,
If I will that he tarry till I come, what [is that] to thee?
They had that saying because the apostles realized that it is now possible
for a Christian to live without dying.]
Vitamins A and D are toxic at high levels. You can take megadoses of C and
E. Too much C just causes diarhea as your system flushes out the excess. You
could use this as a natural laxative to keep the colon clean. Large doses of
C have very good health effects: stronger heart, slowing down aging, more
collagin for firmer skin, less colesterol build up on veins, higher immune
system to fight disease, natural antihistimine to prevent running nose,
megadosing on C is a strong viruscide to kill viruses. I don't know if very
large doses of E are toxic, however I do know that large doses can be taken
regularly and it only helps you. However, it does increase the male sex
drive subsantially, it is the virility vitamin. I don't know if there is a
limit on taking E. I have been taking 3200 iu of E per day for years and it
didn't hurt me. I use it to slow down aging which it does very well. C is
water soluble, E is soluble in oil; putting antiaging vitamins in the watery
and oil parts of my body. I am 52 years old
and I have a body like a man in his early 20s. I look about 17 on my
driver's license photo. Never had crows feet wrinkles around the eyes. I
started megadosing on vitamins to fight aging in 1973. I could be the best
in the world at fighting aging at this time. It looked like I was actually
getting younger over an eight year period, but I take huge doses of vitamins
and
calcium to accomplish this. [A, C, E, calcium, stresstabs containing the B
complex vitamins and a high protein diet to slow down aging.] Also some
selenium, bioflavinoids, magnesium, zinc, generally anything that boosts the
immune system will fight aging. I believe the immune system can be boosted
so high that it will actually heal aging and cause a person to slowly and
gradually get younger. I have seen sagging around the chin and under the
eyes go away and my nose seemed to turn up more; my hair is slowly growing
back and it got two shades darker. Young people move fast and think fast. I
practice fast moving
exercise and this has increased my speed of thinking, moving and
flexibility. Exercise will
help boost the immune system, especially in males.
Herbs
Main immune boosting herb is echinacea. Gotu Kola causes more blood to flow
to the brain and has been proven to increase the Intelligence Quoteint IQ of
test subjects. Eyebrite causes more blood flow to the eyes and regulates
fluid pressure in the eyes preventing age related eye problems; it makes you
see more clearly too. You should also try to get about 8 hours sleep per
day, because human growth harmone needed for cell division is mostly
produced when you sleep. Immune system is highest during sleep. Lots of
water should be drunk before bed. Caffeine helps to clean the products of
cell funcion out of the blood faster by increasing kidney funcion. [The
vitamins clean the cells faster and the caffeine cleans the cell wastes out
of the blood faster. Clean cells do not slow down the rate of the cell
divisions, so you don't get old.] [Aging is caused by background radiation
acting on oxidation products in the cells and changing them to free
radicals. Free radical damage causes cell divisions to slow down; this
causes aging. Antioxidant vitamins, megadoses, can clean the oxidation
products out of the cell so fast that the cell divisions don't slow down,
and hence, no aging.] Do you understand what I am trying to say?
[Side effects of taking all of this are easily controlled. If you get
diarhea or if your sinuses
become too stopped up, then stop taking the vitamin C for a couple of days.
If you get a headache,
then don't take any vitamin A, that day. Use a half cup of milk with baking
soda in it to
nutralize stomach acid if your stomach gets too acid from the caffeine and
the vitamin C.]
These are results of over 31 years of my personal research, my own body
being the object for testing on.
Design From a Benevolent Creator
(5+Mb PDF file)
ftp://ccbible:fall2004@65.127.169.45/csi-100/public-design-from-a-benevolent-creator-1st-printing-11-28-04.pdf
CSI-100 Creation Studies Study Guide
(6+Mb PDF file)
ftp://ccbible:fall2004@65.127.169.45/csi-100/public-csi-100-study-guides-1-10.pdf
http://bibleweb.info/
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "chris" |
|
| Title: Re: Trying To Prove Genesis Ages True |
06 Dec 2004 05:33:04 PM |
|
|
"stone" <antiaging@ineedhits-mail.com> wrote:
If you have read Genesis, then you know that people before the flood are
reported to have lived a very long time. People ... might consider Genesis
to be not true because they can't believe that people could live that long.
People might consider Genesis to be not true because it is fiction.
There was no Flood. Many civilizations (most notably Egyptian and
Chinese) left uninterrupted records for a thousand years before and
after the time of the supposed Flood with no sign of being washed
away. These records also show that people lived lives of a normal
length throughout this time.
Nice thinking, though, to try to sell your vitamins to the most
gullible people on Earth, Christians.
Chris
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Trying To Prove Genesis Ages True |
07 Dec 2004 12:08:38 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 23:33:04 GMT, while scaling the Mt.
Everest, chris <www211@infionline.net> pontificated:
"stone" <antiaging@ineedhits-mail.com> wrote:
If you have read Genesis, then you know that people before the flood are
reported to have lived a very long time. People ... might consider Genesis
to be not true because they can't believe that people could live that long.
People might consider Genesis to be not true because it is fiction.
There was no Flood. Many civilizations (most notably Egyptian and
Chinese) left uninterrupted records for a thousand years before and
after the time of the supposed Flood with no sign of being washed
away. These records also show that people lived lives of a normal
length throughout this time.
That isn't true. The oldest records are supposed to be
at most 10,000 years old and that is calculated by a
questionable dating of a king. The reality is, no
record that has a proven dating is older than about
5,000 years.
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
"I have more understanding than all my teachers:
for thy testimonies are my meditation." - Psalm 119:99
/
o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\
"And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of
the Spirit, which is the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Trying To Prove Genesis Ages True |
06 Dec 2004 06:54:10 PM |
|
|
chris wrote in message <8tq9r05tutcdve5kc3gef6v9h65tgdc2jm@4ax.com>...
"stone" <antiaging@ineedhits-mail.com> wrote:
If you have read Genesis, then you know that people before the flood are
reported to have lived a very long time. People ... might consider Genesis
to be not true because they can't believe that people could live that
long.
People might consider Genesis to be not true because it is fiction.
There was no Flood. Many civilizations (most notably Egyptian and
Chinese) left uninterrupted records for a thousand years before and
after the time of the supposed Flood with no sign of being washed
away. These records also show that people lived lives of a normal
length throughout this time.
There is a worldwide sedimentary layer indicating a world wide flood. There
are polystrate fossils, such as trees embedded in coal, which are single
fossils embedded in layers that are supposed to be much older or younger
than what is predicted. This is also evidence of a global catastrophe that
mixed up the layers. A flood would have mixed up the layers.
Those records you are referring to come from after the flood. What seems to
be left from before the flood are giant stone buildings which our technology
cannot build today, using stones weighing as much as 400 tons. The great
pyramid is an example of this, so are stone structures in Peru built on top
of a plateau with the quarry at ground level, etc...
The records of how these were built, are not found. History was interupted,
and we don't have the technology today to build such stone structures with
stones as heavy as a locomotive, set to within a very small fraction of an
inch. Engineers would tell you that they could not build that today.
Nice thinking, though, to try to sell your vitamins to the most
gullible people on Earth, Christians.
Chris
I am a Christian, who is afraid to lie, because liars go to hell, according
to the Bible.
Christians are not gullible. They seek out the truth and find it. Atheists
are gullible. Atheists tend to be deceived by Satan and his devils easily
and care not for the truth.
Psalms 14:1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are
corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
_______________________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>
.
|
|
|
| User: "chris" |
|
| Title: Re: Trying To Prove Genesis Ages True |
06 Dec 2004 08:33:54 PM |
|
|
"stone" <antiaging@ineedhits-mail.com> wrote:
chris wrote in message <8tq9r05tutcdve5kc3gef6v9h65tgdc2jm@4ax.com>...
"stone" <antiaging@ineedhits-mail.com> wrote:
If you have read Genesis, then you know that people before the flood are
reported to have lived a very long time. People ... might consider Genesis
to be not true because they can't believe that people could live that
long.
People might consider Genesis to be not true because it is fiction.
There was no Flood. Many civilizations (most notably Egyptian and
Chinese) left uninterrupted records for a thousand years before and
after the time of the supposed Flood with no sign of being washed
away. These records also show that people lived lives of a normal
length throughout this time.
There is a worldwide sedimentary layer indicating a world wide flood.
Where?
There are polystrate fossils, such as trees embedded in coal, which are single
fossils embedded in layers that are supposed to be much older or younger
than what is predicted. This is also evidence of a global catastrophe that
mixed up the layers. A flood would have mixed up the layers.
Not quite. The layers are not mixed up.
Many layers are visible at any given time in various places (such as
river or glacier valleys, tectonic fault lines, meteor craters...).
Anytime a new deposit builds on top of one of these visible older
layers, a polystrate is formed. If your Flood theory were true, the
'new' layer would be the same age around the world. This is not what
we see, however. There are instances of polystrates throughout the
sedimentary timeline. They did not happen all at once and they are
not all mixed up.
Those records you are referring to come from after the flood.
Genesis, if it is to be believed, dates the Flood to about 4300 years
ago. Egyptian records date back to over 5000 years ago. They even
match up in several places with the bible, unless you're also claiming
that biblical dates are in error.
What seems to
be left from before the flood are giant stone buildings which our technology
cannot build today, using stones weighing as much as 400 tons. The great
pyramid is an example of this, so are stone structures in Peru built on top
of a plateau with the quarry at ground level, etc...
The records of how these were built, are not found.
Who do you think built them? Vitamin-packin' aliens? Perhaps the
giants whom the Flood was supposed to kill?
Some of these records do, in fact, exist. Many years of scientific
research are beginning to unearth the secrets of the Egyptians.
Archaeologists have found the quarries the stones were cut from,
descriptions of how to cut, shape, and lay them out, and even
paintings of workers dragging them into place. You should read some
current research in the field; I think you'd be fascinated.
I am a Christian, who is afraid to lie, because liars go to hell, according
to the Bible.
Really, which verse says that?
I'm sorry you live in fear of your god. I have a lot of fun with
mine.
Christians are not gullible.
My apologies. Gullibility knows no loyalties.
Atheists tend to be deceived by Satan and his devils easily
and care not for the truth.
Um, no. Christians tend to be deceived by Satan. Atheists don't
believe in Satan.
Psalms 14:1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are
corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
Psalms 137:9 Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little
ones against the stones.
Chris
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Trying To Prove Genesis Ages True |
07 Dec 2004 01:20:03 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 07 Dec 2004 02:33:54 GMT, while scaling the Mt.
Everest, chris <www211@infionline.net> pontificated:
Those records you are referring to come from after the flood.
Genesis, if it is to be believed, dates the Flood to about 4300 years
ago. Egyptian records date back to over 5000 years ago. They even
match up in several places with the bible, unless you're also claiming
that biblical dates are in error.
Records have survived. That does not negate the Flood.
What seems to
be left from before the flood are giant stone buildings which our
technology cannot build today, using stones weighing as much as 400
tons. The great pyramid is an example of this, so are stone structures
in Peru built on top of a plateau with the quarry at ground level,
etc... The records of how these were built, are not found.
Who do you think built them? Vitamin-packin' aliens? Perhaps the
giants whom the Flood was supposed to kill?
Men were much smarter back then especially compared to me.
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
"I have more understanding than all my teachers:
for thy testimonies are my meditation." - Psalm 119:99
/
o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\
"And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of
the Spirit, which is the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Trying To Prove Genesis Ages True |
07 Dec 2004 12:12:21 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 07 Dec 2004 02:33:54 GMT, while scaling the Mt.
Everest, chris <www211@infionline.net> pontificated:
Those records you are referring to come from after the flood.
Genesis, if it is to be believed, dates the Flood to about 4300 years
ago. Egyptian records date back to over 5000 years ago. They even
match up in several places with the bible, unless you're also claiming
that biblical dates are in error.
Records have survived. That does not negate the Flood.
What seems to
be left from before the flood are giant stone buildings which our technology
cannot build today, using stones weighing as much as 400 tons. The great
pyramid is an example of this, so are stone structures in Peru built on top
of a plateau with the quarry at ground level, etc...
The records of how these were built, are not found.
Who do you think built them? Vitamin-packin' aliens? Perhaps the
giants whom the Flood was supposed to kill?
Men were much smarter back then. We cannot do what
they did. While you evolutionists try to paint them as
dumb, the fact is that the Egyptians had batteries,
ingenious methods of lighting , a working knowledge of
trigonometry, calculus and even our modern instruments
cannot make a stone building so accurately fit
together. They also has a complex language, which took
many scientists years to decipher and the fact is, the
farther back we go, the more complex language gets.
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
"I have more understanding than all my teachers:
for thy testimonies are my meditation." - Psalm 119:99
/
o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\
"And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of
the Spirit, which is the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Trying To Prove Genesis Ages True |
06 Dec 2004 09:29:51 PM |
|
|
chris wrote in message ...
"stone" <antiaging@ineedhits-mail.com> wrote:
chris wrote in message <8tq9r05tutcdve5kc3gef6v9h65tgdc2jm@4ax.com>...
"stone" <antiaging@ineedhits-mail.com> wrote:
If you have read Genesis, then you know that people before the flood are
reported to have lived a very long time. People ... might consider
Genesis
to be not true because they can't believe that people could live that
long.
People might consider Genesis to be not true because it is fiction.
There was no Flood. Many civilizations (most notably Egyptian and
Chinese) left uninterrupted records for a thousand years before and
after the time of the supposed Flood with no sign of being washed
away. These records also show that people lived lives of a normal
length throughout this time.
There is a worldwide sedimentary layer indicating a world wide flood.
Where?
There are polystrate fossils, such as trees embedded in coal, which are
single
fossils embedded in layers that are supposed to be much older or younger
than what is predicted. This is also evidence of a global catastrophe that
mixed up the layers. A flood would have mixed up the layers.
Not quite. The layers are not mixed up.
Many layers are visible at any given time in various places (such as
river or glacier valleys, tectonic fault lines, meteor craters...).
Anytime a new deposit builds on top of one of these visible older
layers, a polystrate is formed. If your Flood theory were true, the
'new' layer would be the same age around the world. This is not what
we see, however. There are instances of polystrates throughout the
sedimentary timeline. They did not happen all at once and they are
not all mixed up.
Those records you are referring to come from after the flood.
Genesis, if it is to be believed, dates the Flood to about 4300 years
ago. Egyptian records date back to over 5000 years ago. They even
match up in several places with the bible, unless you're also claiming
that biblical dates are in error.
There is no biblical dating for the flood. There is Jewish geneologies of
males going back to Adam, however, this could be a partial geneology.
Because in the Jewish usage of language in the Old Testament, son of can
also mean grandson of, or great great great grandson of; like Jesus is
called a son of David even though He is generations removed from David. The
same usage is for the word father, which could mean grandfather or great
great grandfather going back several generations. Because of this sort of
usage of family names by the Jews, it is not possible to tell if the
geneologies are partial or total, so it is not possible to know the date of
the flood.
I would guess the date to be somewhere around 15000 years. Not from the
Bible but from the ages of the great stone structures that have been found
around the world which it cannot be explained as to how they were built. The
really ancient structures left by unknown civilizations and the story or
legend of Atlantis. But that is just a guess.
Also basing this on age of the sphinx which is in debate. Suspect the legend
of Atlantis may be a race record passed down by the descendants of Noah,
about life before the flood. Atlantis people were supposed to have distilled
the essence of fruits, and lived long, in the legend, and this sounds to me
alot like processing vitamins from foods. Destruction of Atlantis might be
the old advanced civilization perishing in the flood. The Atlantis legend
having been changed by being retold hundreds of times, but still a core of
truth there. But this is just speculation on my part.
What seems to
be left from before the flood are giant stone buildings which our
technology
cannot build today, using stones weighing as much as 400 tons. The great
pyramid is an example of this, so are stone structures in Peru built on
top
of a plateau with the quarry at ground level, etc...
The records of how these were built, are not found.
Who do you think built them? Vitamin-packin' aliens? Perhaps the
giants whom the Flood was supposed to kill?
Evil generation before the flood, scientifically advanced, but evil, so God
destroyed them except for Noah and his family. [Human race legend memory of
this civilization, I suspect is the legend of Atlantis.] The cave men and
primitive men came after the flood. That was civilization trying to get up
after the flood. Since the layers under the flood are all mixed up you can't
accurately date anything below the layer. Biology's ideas about dates are
all messed up. [Cat and human foot prints found in same rock as dinosaur
foot prints, at Piloxi river. Dinosaurs existed at same time as that man,
and dinosaurs perished in the flood, except for aquatic dinosaurs like the
lock ness monser, and champ, etc.]
Some of these records do, in fact, exist. Many years of scientific
research are beginning to unearth the secrets of the Egyptians.
Archaeologists have found the quarries the stones were cut from,
descriptions of how to cut, shape, and lay them out, and even
paintings of workers dragging them into place. You should read some
current research in the field; I think you'd be fascinated.
Go to coralcastle.com. One man in 20th century said he knew how it was done.
He took the secret with him to the grave. Ed Leedskalnin, builder of Coral
Castle. He was observed by sworn witnesses to make coral stones weighing
tons to float in the air. Suspect he used electricity to change them into
South magnetic monopoles and the Earth's magnetic field pushed up on them.
Ceramic jar electric batteries, many of them, found near the pyramids.
I am a Christian, who is afraid to lie, because liars go to hell,
according
to the Bible.
Really, which verse says that?
I'm sorry you live in fear of your god. I have a lot of fun with
mine.
Christians are not gullible.
My apologies. Gullibility knows no loyalties.
Atheists tend to be deceived by Satan and his devils easily
and care not for the truth.
Um, no. Christians tend to be deceived by Satan. Atheists don't
believe in Satan.
Psalms 14:1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are
corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
Psalms 137:9 Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little
ones against the stones.
Chris
_______________________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Ings" |
|
| Title: Re: Trying To Prove Genesis Ages True |
07 Dec 2004 06:19:00 AM |
|
|
On 7 Dec 2004 03:29:51 GMT, "stone" <antiaging@ineedhits-mail.com>
wrote:
Biology's ideas about dates are
all messed up. [Cat and human foot prints found in same rock as dinosaur
foot prints, at Piloxi river.
No there weren't stone. Why is it hat you keep posting that claim,
along with that pathetic mispelling of Paluxy. Is it that you're just
too lazy to look up the truth? Here's the truth:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC101.html
but perhaps you will stand on the ground of "honest difference of
scientific opinion" about the issue.
You can't do that with respect to the 2nd law of thermodynamics though
stone. Twice now you've posted the same bogus claim about it in
exactly the same format, and twice I've shown clearly where you are
dead wrong.
Now what's with you? Are you unrepentant liar or just to lazy to
think? Are you so busy fantasizing about advanced ancient
civilizations that you've no time for honest scholarship?
## Is your conclusion just the point where you got tired thinking?
.
|
|
|
| User: "stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Trying To Prove Genesis Ages True |
08 Dec 2004 12:16:56 AM |
|
|
John Ings wrote in message <5c7br051qj7kt1sohobob97a5fmck3vno8@4ax.com>...
On 7 Dec 2004 03:29:51 GMT, "stone" <antiaging@ineedhits-mail.com>
wrote:
Biology's ideas about dates are
all messed up. [Cat and human foot prints found in same rock as dinosaur
foot prints, at Piloxi river.
No there weren't stone. Why is it hat you keep posting that claim,
along with that pathetic mispelling of Paluxy. Is it that you're just
too lazy to look up the truth? Here's the truth:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC101.html
but perhaps you will stand on the ground of "honest difference of
scientific opinion" about the issue.
You can't do that with respect to the 2nd law of thermodynamics though
stone. Twice now you've posted the same bogus claim about it in
exactly the same format, and twice I've shown clearly where you are
dead wrong.
I have a degree in physics, dude.
Heat is disordered energy. Disorder is observed to increase in all
scientific processes. That is referring to the overall disorder. In special
cases, like the function of a refrigerator, for example, it gets colder in
certain parts of it, so order increases there, but the overall disorder of
the whole system really increases, because heat is generated by its
function. Now think about this. The refrigerator is a designed system. An
intelligence designed it to work like that. Without design, you are not
going to get any complex development of order. That must be designed
deliberately to happen. Chance won't make ordered complexity to happen. The
ammount of ordered complexity in a single living cell is so extremely large
that the probability that that could happen by chance is so small as to
consider it practically impossible. Only deliberate design causes that king
of complexity.
_______________________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Ings" |
|
| Title: Re: Trying To Prove Genesis Ages True |
08 Dec 2004 06:55:31 AM |
|
|
On 8 Dec 2004 06:16:56 GMT, "stone" <antiaging@ineedhits-mail.com>
wrote:
You can't do that with respect to the 2nd law of thermodynamics though
stone. Twice now you've posted the same bogus claim about it in
exactly the same format, and twice I've shown clearly where you are
dead wrong.
I have a degree in physics, dude.
That would make you either a very poor student at an institution that
has low standards, or you're a bald-faced liar.
Heat is disordered energy. Disorder is observed to increase in all
scientific processes.
Where stone? Where does entropy increase? What are the first four
words of the 2nd law?
That is referring to the overall disorder.
Of HEAT! Not the disorder of everything. Just heat. Thermal disorder.
And where stone? Where? C'mon say it! Say the four words that shoot
your whole argument down!
In special
cases, like the function of a refrigerator, for example, it gets colder in
certain parts of it, so order increases there, but the overall disorder of
the whole system really increases, because heat is generated by its
function.
Now, what kind of system is that stone! C'mon cough up those four
words that just stick in the Creationist's throat! Say it!
Now think about this. The refrigerator is a designed system.
But lots of non-designed systems where the same thing can happen exist
stone, and you know it! Places where entropy can locally decrease.
C'mon! Confess! Show the folks which shell you've been hiding the pea
under!
An
intelligence designed it to work like that. Without design, you are not
going to get any complex development of order. That must be designed
deliberately to happen. Chance won't make ordered complexity to happen.
I just gave you multiple examples of ordered complexity happening.
One was that of the completely disordered molecules of water vapor
spontaneously forming into the intricate order of frost on a
windowpane. Which designing intelligence is involved there stone?
Jack Frost?
The
ammount of ordered complexity in a single living cell is so extremely large
that the probability that that could happen by chance is so small as to
consider it practically impossible.
But as has been pointed out repeatedly, it doesn't happen by chance
anymore than those frost patterns do. And it isn't thermal complexity,
which is what the 2nd law is about.
Now be honest and cough up those four distasteful words caught waaay
back in your throat!
The 2nd law of thermodynamics.
"__ _ ______ ______ entropy always increases"
Fill in the blanks stone... c'mon now Mr Degree in Physics!
## Are you a man or a mouse? Squeak up!
.
|
|
|
| User: "stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Trying To Prove Genesis Ages True |
08 Dec 2004 05:00:54 PM |
|
|
John Ings wrote in message <68tdr0hhl7odcjln2r4n7nu044iv98hppd@4ax.com>...
On 8 Dec 2004 06:16:56 GMT, "stone" <antiaging@ineedhits-mail.com>
wrote:
You can't do that with respect to the 2nd law of thermodynamics though
stone. Twice now you've posted the same bogus claim about it in
exactly the same format, and twice I've shown clearly where you are
dead wrong.
I have a degree in physics, dude.
That would make you either a very poor student at an institution that
has low standards, or you're a bald-faced liar.
Heat is disordered energy. Disorder is observed to increase in all
scientific processes.
Where stone? Where does entropy increase? What are the first four
words of the 2nd law?
That is referring to the overall disorder.
Of HEAT! Not the disorder of everything. Just heat. Thermal disorder.
And where stone? Where? C'mon say it! Say the four words that shoot
your whole argument down!
In special
cases, like the function of a refrigerator, for example, it gets colder in
certain parts of it, so order increases there, but the overall disorder of
the whole system really increases, because heat is generated by its
function.
Now, what kind of system is that stone! C'mon cough up those four
words that just stick in the Creationist's throat! Say it!
Now think about this. The refrigerator is a designed system.
But lots of non-designed systems where the same thing can happen exist
stone, and you know it! Places where entropy can locally decrease.
C'mon! Confess! Show the folks which shell you've been hiding the pea
under!
An
intelligence designed it to work like that. Without design, you are not
going to get any complex development of order. That must be designed
deliberately to happen. Chance won't make ordered complexity to happen.
I just gave you multiple examples of ordered complexity happening.
One was that of the completely disordered molecules of water vapor
spontaneously forming into the intricate order of frost on a
windowpane. Which designing intelligence is involved there stone?
Jack Frost?
God, the creator of water and frost.
The
ammount of ordered complexity in a single living cell is so extremely
large
that the probability that that could happen by chance is so small as to
consider it practically impossible.
But as has been pointed out repeatedly, it doesn't happen by chance
anymore than those frost patterns do.
The frost patterns don't happen by chance. They happen according to
scientific law that was designed into natural occurances by God.
And it isn't thermal complexity,
which is what the 2nd law is about.
Now be honest and cough up those four distasteful words caught waaay
back in your throat!
The 2nd law of thermodynamics.
"__ _ ______ ______ entropy always increases"
Fill in the blanks stone... c'mon now Mr Degree in Physics!
## Are you a man or a mouse? Squeak up!
You don't get it do you? If it isn't by chance than it must be designed.
Those are the only two possibilities. And if it is designed, there must be
an intelligent designer. God deliberately created it to be designed like
that.
"Biochemical systems are exceedingly complex, so much so that the chance
of their being formed through random shufflings of simple organic
molecules is exceedingly minute, to a point indeed where it is
insensibly different from zero"
- Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, p.3
"No matter how large the environment one considers, lfe cannot have had
a random beginning. Troops of monkeys thundering away at random on
typewriters could not produce the works of Shakespeare, for the
practical reason that the whole observable universe is not large enough
to contain the necessary monkey hordes, the necessary typewriters, and
certainly the waste paper baskets required for the deposition of wrong
attempts. The same is true for living material"
Ibid., p.148
"The trouble is that there are about two thousand enzymes, and the
chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is one one part in
(10^20)^2000 = 10^40000, an outrageously small probability that could
not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup. If
one is not prejudiced either by social beliefs or by a scientific
training into the conviction that life originated on the Earth [by
chance or natural processes], this simple calculation wipes the idea
entirely out of court"
Ibid., p.24
Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world
are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his
eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
On the judgement day you will stand there and give account of yourself,
without excuse. You either got saved or didn't.
This website describes it fairly well; allow the page to load.
http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0001/0001_01.asp
When you meet Jesus Christ on the judgement day, He will be sitting on a
white throne; you will be judged according to the words of the New
Testament. Eternal happiness in heaven, will be your reward; or eternal
suffering in hell, and the lake of fire, will be your punishment. Choose
where you will spend eternity, in one place or the other.
You can listen to the New Testament being read by someone else, for free
online at this website:
http://www.audio-bible.com/bible/bible.html Start with Matthew and go
all the way through to Revelation.
_______________________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Ings" |
|
| Title: Re: Trying To Prove Genesis Ages True |
08 Dec 2004 06:37:43 PM |
|
|
On 8 Dec 2004 23:00:54 GMT, "stone" <antiaging@ineedhits-mail.com>
wrote:
But as has been pointed out repeatedly, it doesn't happen by chance
anymore than those frost patterns do.
The frost patterns don't happen by chance.
That's what I said.
They happen according to scientific law
As do all those other chemical reactions you were trying to tell us
were chance.
that was designed into natural occurances by God.
Then evolution is God's tool.
And it isn't thermal complexity, which is what the 2nd law is about.
Now be honest and cough up those four distasteful words caught waaay
back in your throat!
The 2nd law of thermodynamics.
"__ _ ______ ______ entropy always increases"
Fill in the blanks stone... c'mon now Mr Degree in Physics!
Well?
You don't get it do you?
Oh I get it all right! You're ducking the issue!
If it isn't by chance than it must be designed.
Non sequitur.
Those are the only two possibilities.
No they're not. Now the subject is the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
Quit ducking and dodging.
"Biochemical systems are exceedingly complex, so much so that the chance
of their being formed through random shufflings of simple organic
molecules is exceedingly minute, to a point indeed where it is
insensibly different from zero"
- Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, p.3
Neither party being a microbiologist or knowing anything about the
subject.
"No matter how large the environment one considers, lfe cannot have had
a random beginning.
Enzymes aren't random.
This website describes it fairly well; allow the page to load.
http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0001/0001_01.asp
Chick! You're touting me on Chick!!!!
When you meet Jesus Christ on the judgement day, He will be sitting on a
white throne; you will be judged according to the words of the New
Testament.
If so, then you too. So how will you explain your lying evasions in
this thead to him? Presumably he'll know about them.
Now answer the question stone. Show everybody how disingenous you have
been! Isn't confession good for the soul?
The 2nd law of thermodynamics.
"__ _ ______ ______ entropy always increases"
Fill in the blanks stone... c'mon now Mr Degree in Physics!
## Perhaps we should call him Moses,
## because every time he opens his mouth the bull rushes...
.
|
|
|
| User: "stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Trying To Prove Genesis Ages True |
08 Dec 2004 07:29:35 PM |
|
|
John Ings wrote in message ...
On 8 Dec 2004 23:00:54 GMT, "stone" <antiaging@ineedhits-mail.com>
wrote:
But as has been pointed out repeatedly, it doesn't happen by chance
anymore than those frost patterns do.
The frost patterns don't happen by chance.
That's what I said.
They happen according to scientific law
As do all those other chemical reactions you were trying to tell us
were chance.
God created the laws. Also, no scientific laws observed can lead to the kind
of ordered complexity of a living cell just by the chance interplay of those
laws. Even the chemical reactions, would just be random shufflings if not
directed by a designer.
that was designed into natural occurances by God.
Then evolution is God's tool.
Evolution is God's tool to develope only what is observed in nature. What is
observed in nature is natural selection that only leads to varieties of the
same species, breeds, or subspecies. Example: Horses and dogs can develope
into different breeds by natural selection and evolution, but they remain
horses and dogs. They never turn into a totally new species. The idea of
trying to use this evolutionary process to explain the origin of the
different species, is false. In the fossils as they are found, you don't
find the intermediate stages where a fish was to turn into an amphibian, or
and amphibian was to turn into a reptile, or a reptile was to turn into a
mammal. If that really did happen because of evolution then there would be a
very large number of intermediate stage fossils between these changes. These
intermediate stages are not found in the fossils. The evidence suggested by
the fossils as they are found is that the different species are not
connected. That means that evolution cannot account for the original origin
of the species. The evidence seems to show the species are just there as if
created by a creator.
Darwin sees a moth change into a subspecies of a different color, by SLIGHT
differences in genes, and this new color is more hidden from birds. So this
new color moth becomes the dominant moth of this type. So he says natural
selection. Correct. But it is only natural selection leading to a different
breed of moth. In no way will that ever lead to a totally new species. And
to try to use that process to explain the original origin of the species is
complete nonsense.
"All point mutations that have been studied on the molecular level turn
out to reduce the genetic information and not to increase it."
- Lee Spetner, "Not by Chance"(Brooklyn, New York: The Judaica
Press,Inc.) p.138
"It appears that the neo-darwinism hypothesis is insufficient to explain
some of the observations that were not available at the time the
paradigm took shape. ...One might ask why the neo-darwinian paradigm
does not weaken or disappear if it is at odds with critical factual
information. The reasons are not necessarily scientific ones but rather
may be rooted in human nature"
- Christian Schwabe "On the Validity of Molecular Evolution", Trends
in
Biochemical Sciences, July 1986, p.282
"The really significant finding that comes to light from comparing the
proteins' amino acid sequences is that it is impossible to arrange them
in any sort of evolutionary series" - Ibid. p.289
"Thousands of different sequences, protein, and nucleic acid, have now
been compared in hundreds of different species but never has any
sequnces been found to be in any sense the lineal descendant or ancestor
of any other sequence." - Ibid. pp. 289-290
"Each class at a molecular level is unique, isolated and unlinked by
intermediates. Thus molecules, like fossils, have failed to provide the
elusive intermediates so long sought by evolutionary biology." - Ibid
p.290
"There is little doubt that if this molecular evidence had been
available one century ago it would have been seized upon with
devastating effect by the opponents of evolution theory like Agassiz and
Owen, and the idea of organic evolution might never have been
accepted." - Ibid pp.290-291
"In terms of their biochemistry, none of the species deemed
'intermediate', 'ancestral' or 'primitive' by generations of
evolutionary biologists, and alluded to as evidence of sequence in
nature, show any sign of their supposed intermediate status" - Ibid
p.293
Duane T. Gish, The Origin of Mammals : If this view of evolution is true,
the fossil record should produce an enormous number of transitional forms.
Natural history museums should be overflowing with undoubted intermediate
forms. About 250,000 fossil species have been collected and
classified?Applying evolution theory and the laws of probability, most of
these 250,000 species should represent transitional forms.
Dr. Walt Brown, In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the
Flood, page 10: Fossil links are missing between numerous plants, between
single-celled forms of life and invertebrates, between invertebrates and
vertebrates, between fish and amphibians, between amphibians and reptiles,
between reptiles and mammals, between reptiles and birds, between primates
and other mammals, and between apes and other primates. The fossil record
has been studied so thoroughly that it is safe to conclude that these gaps
are real; they will never be filled. ---
Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species: ?
the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed [must]
truly be enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every
stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal
any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most
obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory [of
evolution].
W. I. Bird, The Origin of Species Revisited, 1954, p. 48.: The reason for
abrupt appearances and gaps can no longer be attributed to the imperfection
of the fossil record as it was by Darwin when paleontology was a young
science.
Dr. Niles Eldredge, paleontologist at the American Museum of Natural
History, "Missing, Believed Nonexistent", Manchester Guardian, 26 November
1978:?
"The search for 'missing links' between various living creatures, like
humans and apes, is probably fruitless?because they probably never existed
as distinct transitional types...But no one has yet found any evidence of
such transitional creatures?If it is not the fossil record which is
incomplete then it must be the theory."
Lyall Watson, "The Water People", Science Digest, May 1982:
"Modern apes, for instance, seem to have sprung out of nowhere. They have no
yesterday, no fossil record. And the true origin of modern humans?of
upright, naked, toolmaking, big-brained beings?is, if we are to be honest
with ourselves, an equally mysterious matter."
Dr. Collin Patterson, a paleontologist at the Natural History Museum in
Britain, when asked why he hadn't included any illustrations of transitional
forms in his book, Evolution, he replied in a letter: "I fully agree with
your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions
in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have
included them?I will lay it on the line?there is not one such fossil for
which one could make a watertight argument."
"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major
transitions in the organic design, indeed our inability, even in our
imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a
persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution."
S.J.Gould. "Evolution Now: A Century After Darwin", 1982, p. 140
Prigogine, a Nobel Prize winning thermodynamicist:
"The probability that at ordinary temperatures a macroscopic number of
molecules is assembled to rise to the highly ordered structures and to the
coordinated functions characterizing living organisms is vanishingly small.
The idea of spontaneous genesis of life in its present form is therefore
highly improbable even on the scale of the billions of years during which
prebiotic evolution is speculated to have occured."
Ilya Prigogine, et al, Nov 1972, Physics Today p. 23-31
And it isn't thermal complexity, which is what the 2nd law is about.
Now be honest and cough up those four distasteful words caught waaay
back in your throat!
The 2nd law of thermodynamics.
"__ _ ______ ______ entropy always increases"
Fill in the blanks stone... c'mon now Mr Degree in Physics!
Well?
You don't get it do you?
Oh I get it all right! You're ducking the issue!
If it isn't by chance than it must be designed.
Non sequitur.
Those are the only two possibilities.
No they're not. Now the subject is the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
Quit ducking and dodging.
The subject is not the second law of thermal dynamics. The subject is using
nutrition to slow down aging. It is you who have gone on to a different
subject with your first post about thermodynamics. I saw a woman on TV that
did the same thing I am doing with vitamins, however her age was only about
20 years younger than it was supposed to be. Nutritionists do what I am
doing to fight aging and there are many books about it. I simply may have
gone further than them by taking larger doses.
"Biochemical systems are exceedingly complex, so much so that the chance
of their being formed through random shufflings of simple organic
molecules is exceedingly minute, to a point indeed where it is
insensibly different from zero"
- Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, p.3
Neither party being a microbiologist or knowing anything about the
subject.
"No matter how large the environment one considers, lfe cannot have had
a random beginning.
Enzymes aren't random.
This website describes it fairly well; allow the page to load.
http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0001/0001_01.asp
Chick! You're touting me on Chick!!!!
When you meet Jesus Christ on the judgement day, He will be sitting on a
white throne; you will be judged according to the words of the New
Testament.
If so, then you too. So how will you explain your lying evasions in
this thead to him? Presumably he'll know about them.
Now answer the question stone. Show everybody how disingenous you have
been! Isn't confession good for the soul?
The 2nd law of thermodynamics.
"__ _ ______ ______ entropy always increases"
Fill in the blanks stone... c'mon now Mr Degree in Physics!
The 2nd law of thermodynamics has very little to do with fighting aging. Get
back to my original post if you have objections.
Go to metacrawler search engine, and enter noah's flood evidence. Click on
the first link or any other suitable link. See why scientists think the
flood really happened.
## Perhaps we should call him Moses,
## because every time he opens his mouth the bull rushes...
_______________________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Ings" |
|
| Title: Re: Trying To Prove Genesis Ages True |
09 Dec 2004 05:43:06 AM |
|
|
On 9 Dec 2004 01:29:35 GMT, "stone" <antiaging@ineedhits-mail.com>
wrote:
But as has been pointed out repeatedly, it doesn't happen by chance
anymore than those frost patterns do.
The frost patterns don't happen by chance.
That's what I said.
They happen according to scientific law
As do all those other chemical reactions you were trying to tell us
were chance.
God created the laws.
Then God created evolution.
Also, no scientific laws observed can lead to the kind
of ordered complexity of a living cell just by the chance interplay of those
laws.
On the contrary, they quite reasonably can.
Even the chemical reactions, would just be random shufflings if not
directed by a designer.
We observe differently. And what's your expertise on the subject?
that was designed into natural occurances by God.
Then evolution is God's tool.
Evolution is God's tool to develope only what is observed in nature.
That's first true statement you've made in a long time.
What is observed in nature is natural selection
Mutation and natural selection.
that only leads to varieties of the same species, breeds, or subspecies.
And new species. There is no demonstrated limit to the process.
Example: Horses and dogs can develope
into different breeds by natural selection and evolution, but they remain
horses and dogs.
Except when they're wolves, coyotes, zebras and donkeys.
They never turn into a totally new species.
But they do! The evidence of their having done so fills whole
libraries.
The idea of
trying to use this evolutionary process to explain the origin of the
different species, is false.
Only in the pious mind of the Creationist.
In the fossils as they are found, you don't
find the intermediate stages
On the contrary, they are found, documented, filed and cataloged.
You don't lie about this subject the same way you have lied about the
2nd law of thermodynamics stone, unless you claim a degree in
paleontology. But you are repeating someone elses lie. Give it up!
Further Creationist smokescreen deleted. Back to the issue of your
lie...
And it isn't thermal complexity, which is what the 2nd law is about.
Now be honest and cough up those four distasteful words caught waaay
back in your throat!
The 2nd law of thermodynamics.
"__ _ ______ ______ entropy always increases"
Fill in the blanks stone... c'mon now Mr Degree in Physics!
Well?
Well?
Now the subject is the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
Quit ducking and dodging.
The subject is not the second law of thermal dynamics.
Yes it is.
The subject is using nutrition to slow down aging.
No, you lost your chance to dodge in that direction several posts
back. When I charged you with repeatedly posting a lie about the
second law, you tried to stand your ground and blustered:
"I have a degree in physics, dude."
Well that makes you a knowing liar, if your degree is genuine. You
don't know enough about fossils to tell me lies about those, you're
just parroting a propagandist's falsehood. But even a BSc in physics
is enough to make you a conscious liar about the 2nd law.
When you meet Jesus Christ on the judgement day, He will be sitting on a
white throne; you will be judged according to the words of the New
Testament.
If so, then you too. So how will you explain your lying evasions in
this thead to him? Presumably he'll know about them.
Now answer the question stone. Show everybody how disingenous you have
been! Isn't confession good for the soul?
The 2nd law of thermodynamics.
"__ _ ______ ______ entropy always increases"
Fill in the blanks stone... c'mon now Mr Degree in Physics!
The 2nd law of thermodynamics has very little to do with fighting aging.
Then why did you include lies about it in your posts? Not in this
thread? That's a dodge! Twice at least in other threads!
Get back to my original post if you have objections.
I object to pious dupes posting propagandist's lies, but I object to
people claiming a degree in an appropriate discipline posting lies
even more! It's not often I catch a Creationist who MUST know he's
lying. I'm not about to let go stone! Now confess your duplicity!
Go to metacrawler search engine, and enter noah's flood evidence. Click on
the first link or any other suitable link. See why scientists think the
flood really happened.
No scientists think so. Just Creationist fools.
## Pia mendacia fraude
.
|
|
|
| User: "stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Trying To Prove Genesis Ages True |
09 Dec 2004 08:54:52 PM |
|
|
John Ings wrote in message <93dgr0tgg7j4ggl450aqucsd4cjgfo6eb3@4ax.com>...
On 9 Dec 2004 01:29:35 GMT, "stone" <antiaging@ineedhits-mail.com>
wrote:
But as has been pointed out repeatedly, it doesn't happen by chance
anymore than those frost patterns do.
The frost patterns don't happen by chance.
That's what I said.
They happen according to scientific law
As do all those other chemical reactions you were trying to tell us
were chance.
God created the laws.
Then God created evolution.
Also, no scientific laws observed can lead to the kind
of ordered complexity of a living cell just by the chance interplay of
those
laws.
On the contrary, they quite reasonably can.
Even the chemical reactions, would just be random shufflings if not
directed by a designer.
We observe differently. And what's your expertise on the subject?
that was designed into natural occurances by God.
Then evolution is God's tool.
Evolution is God's tool to develope only what is observed in nature.
That's first true statement you've made in a long time.
What is observed in nature is natural selection
Mutation and natural selection.
that only leads to varieties of the same species, breeds, or subspecies.
And new species. There is no demonstrated limit to the process.
Example: Horses and dogs can develope
into different breeds by natural selection and evolution, but they remain
horses and dogs.
Except when they're wolves, coyotes, zebras and donkeys.
They never turn into a totally new species.
But they do! The evidence of their having done so fills whole
libraries.
The idea of
trying to use this evolutionary process to explain the origin of the
different species, is false.
Only in the pious mind of the Creationist.
In the fossils as they are found, you don't
find the intermediate stages
On the contrary, they are found, documented, filed and cataloged.
You don't lie about this subject the same way you have lied about the
2nd law of thermodynamics stone, unless you claim a degree in
paleontology. But you are repeating someone elses lie. Give it up!
On the contrary, they are not found, and even pro evolutionists are still
looking for them.
Dr. Walt Brown, In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the
Flood, page 10: Fossil links are missing between numerous plants, between
single-celled forms of life and invertebrates, between invertebrates and
vertebrates, between fish and amphibians, between amphibians and reptiles,
between reptiles and mammals, between reptiles and birds, between primates
and other mammals, and between apes and other primates. The fossil record
has been studied so thoroughly that it is safe to conclude that these gaps
are real; they will never be filled. ---
[Note: Does a zebra, look like a horse, or an alligator? Does a coyote, and
wolf look like a dog or do they look like a turtle? Fish are not connected
to amphibians, and reptiles are not connected to mammals, by any
intermediate stages. They are just there in the fossils with no connecting
links.]
Further Creationist smokescreen deleted. Back to the issue of your
lie...
And it isn't thermal complexity, which is what the 2nd law is about.
Now be honest and cough up those four distasteful words caught waaay
back in your throat!
The 2nd law of thermodynamics.
"__ _ ______ ______ entropy always increases"
Fill in the blanks stone... c'mon now Mr Degree in Physics!
Well?
Well?
Now the subject is the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
Quit ducking and dodging.
The subject is not the second law of thermal dynamics.
Yes it is.
The subject is using nutrition to slow down aging.
No, you lost your chance to dodge in that direction several posts
back. When I charged you with repeatedly posting a lie about the
second law, you tried to stand your ground and blustered:
"I have a degree in physics, dude."
Well that makes you a knowing liar, if your degree is genuine. You
don't know enough about fossils to tell me lies about those, you're
just parroting a propagandist's falsehood. But even a BSc in physics
is enough to make you a conscious liar about the 2nd law.
When you meet Jesus Christ on the judgement day, He will be sitting on a
white throne; you will be judged according to the words of the New
Testament.
If so, then you too. So how will you explain your lying evasions in
this thead to him? Presumably he'll know about them.
Now answer the question stone. Show everybody how disingenous you have
been! Isn't confession good for the soul?
The 2nd law of thermodynamics.
"__ _ ______ ______ entropy always increases"
Fill in the blanks stone... c'mon now Mr Degree in Physics!
The 2nd law of thermodynamics has very little to do with fighting aging.
Then why did you include lies about it in your posts? Not in this
thread? That's a dodge! Twice at least in other threads!
Get back to my original post if you have objections.
I object to pious dupes posting propagandist's lies, but I object to
people claiming a degree in an appropriate discipline posting lies
even more! It's not often I catch a Creationist who MUST know he's
lying. I'm not about to let go stone! Now confess your duplicity!
Go to metacrawler search engine, and enter noah's flood evidence. Click on
the first link or any other suitable link. See why scientists think the
flood really happened.
No scientists think so. Just Creationist fools.
When Judgement day comes, you will surely see who are the fools.
Psalms 14:1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are
corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
## Pia mendacia fraude
_______________________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Ings" |
|
| Title: Re: Trying To Prove Genesis Ages True |
10 Dec 2004 08:24:10 AM |
|
|
On 10 Dec 2004 02:54:52 GMT, "stone" <antiaging@ineedhits-mail.com>
wrote:
In the fossils as they are found, you don't
find the intermediate stages
On the contrary, they are found, documented, filed and cataloged.
You don't lie about this subject the same way you have lied about the
2nd law of thermodynamics stone, unless you claim a degree in
paleontology. But you are repeating someone elses lie. Give it up!
On the contrary, they are not found, and even pro evolutionists are still
looking for them.
Creationist shibboleth. Not true, no matter how often repeated.
Dr. Walt Brown,
A mechanical engineer with no qualifications in geology or
paleontology. Typical ignorant Creationist author.
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the
Flood,
Compelling to a layman, laughable to a geologist.
page 10: Fossil links are missing between numerous plants, between
single-celled forms of life and invertebrates, between invertebrates and
vertebrates, between fish and amphibians, between amphibians and reptiles,
between reptiles and mammals, between reptiles and birds, between primates
and other mammals, and between apes and other primates. The fossil record
has been studied so thoroughly that it is safe to conclude that these gaps
are real;
Sure. Now notice how he slid the pea out from under the shell?
Yes there are fossil links missing in all those categories, lots of
them. But he's hoping that you won't notice his quite true statement
is a half-truth! There are links missing AND links found! Not all
missing links are found, not even the majority, but enough are found
to shoot down the contention that none have been found.
they will never be filled. ---
Some probably never will, but more do keep turning up.
[Note: Does a zebra, look like a horse, or an alligator?
It's remote ancestor was about the size of a dog, had four toes,
and didn't look like a horse at all.
Does a coyote, and
wolf look like a dog or do they look like a turtle?
Does either look like a St Bernard? Or a Toy Poodle?
Fish are not connected to amphibians,
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC212.html
and reptiles are not connected to mammals, by any
intermediate stages.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC215.html
They are just there in the fossils with no connecting
links.]
You wish! Unfortunately we found the connecting links.
Your unqualified author is right about missing links, but not quite
right enough! And it's obvious why he wrote that paragraph the way he
did. Typical disingenous Creationist propaganda!
## Seek not the truth from behind falsehoods.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Trying To Prove Genesis Ages True |
09 Dec 2004 12:09:45 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 09 Dec 2004 03:43:06 -0800, while scaling the
Mt. Everest, John Ings <nodamned@spam.org>
pontificated:
What is observed in nature is natural selection
Mutation and natural selection.
These mutations are destructive.
that only leads to varieties of the same species, breeds, or
subspecies.
And new species. There is no demonstrated limit to the process.
What is not demonstrated, is that a dog came from
anything but a canidae.
In the fossils as they are found, you don't
find the intermediate stages
On the contrary, they are found, documented, filed and cataloged.
"The historical nature of macroevolutionary study involves inference from
fossils and DNA rather than direct observation. Yet in the historical
sciences (which include astronomy, geology and archaeology, as well as
evolutionary biology), hypotheses can still be tested by checking whether
they accord with physical evidence and whether they lead to verifiable
predictions about future discoveries. For instance, evolution implies
that between the earliest-known ancestors of humans (roughly five million
years old) and the appearance of anatomically modern humans (about
100,000 years ago), one should find a succession of hominid creatures
with features progressively less apelike and more modern, which is indeed
what the fossil record shows. But one should not -- and does not -- find
modern human fossils embedded in strata from the Jurassic period (144
million years ago). Evolutionary biology routinely makes predictions far
more refined and precise than this, and researchers test them
constantly."
Scientific American
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
"I have more understanding than all my teachers:
for thy testimonies are my meditation." - Psalm 119:99
/
o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\
"And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of
the Spirit, which is the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Trying To Prove Genesis Ages True |
09 Dec 2004 10:34:24 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 09 Dec 2004 03:43:06 -0800, while scaling the
Mt. Everest, John Ings <nodamned@spam.org>
pontificated:
What is observed in nature is natural selection
Mutation and natural selection.
These mutations are destructive.
that only leads to varieties of the same species, breeds, or subspecies.
And new species. There is no demonstrated limit to the process.
What is not demonstrated, is that a dog came from
anything but a canidae.
In the fossils as they are found, you don't
find the intermediate stages
On the contrary, they are found, documented, filed and cataloged.
That is a claim. The reality is, there is not one
single clear and gradual progression of fossils, from
one kind to another.
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
"I have more understanding than all my teachers:
for thy testimonies are my meditation." - Psalm 119:99
/
o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\
"And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of
the Spirit, which is the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Ings" |
|
| Title: Re: Trying To Prove Genesis Ages True |
09 Dec 2004 11:25:07 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 09 Dec 2004 16:34:24 GMT, Pastor Dave
<newsgroupmail@nospam-tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
What is observed in nature is natural selection
Mutation and natural selection.
These mutations are destructive.
Except for the ones that aren't.
that only leads to varieties of the same species, breeds, or subspecies.
And new species. There is no demonstrated limit to the process.
What is not demonstrated, is that a dog came from
anything but a canidae.
See any university library for more evidence than you could read in a
year.
In the fossils as they are found, you don't
find the intermediate stages
On the contrary, they are found, documented, filed and cataloged.
That is a claim.
Again, see any university library.
The reality is, there is not one
single clear and gradual progression of fossils, from
one kind to another.
But gradual progression was only Darwin's first theory.
The progression is in fact not gradual.
"Today, nearly all biologists acknowledge that evolution is a fact.
The term THEORY is no longer appropriate except when referring to the
various models that attempt to explain HOW life evolves... it is
important to understand that the current questions about how life
evolves in no way implies any disagreement over the fact of
evolution."
- Neil A. Campbell, Biology 2nd ed., 1990, Benjamin/Cummings, p.434
## ICR- Imbeciles for Creation Rhetoric
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Trying To Prove Genesis Ages True |
09 Dec 2004 12:00:23 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 09 Dec 2004 09:25:07 -0800, while scaling the
Mt. Everest, John Ings <nodamned@spam.org>
pontificated:
On Thu, 09 Dec 2004 16:34:24 GMT, Pastor Dave
<newsgroupmail@nospam-tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
What is observed in nature is natural selection
Mutation and natural selection.
These mutations are destructive.
Except for the ones that aren't.
Right. I'm sure you can provide a vast history of said
mutations that are documented as being observed?
that only leads to varieties of the same species, breeds, or
subspecies.
And new species. There is no demonstrated limit to the process.
What is not demonstrated, is that a dog came from
anything but a canidae.
See any university library for more evidence than you could read in a
year.
The typical creationists dodge.
In the fossils as they are found, you don't
find the intermediate stages
On the contrary, they are found, documented, filed and cataloged.
That is a claim.
Again, see any university library.
See above.
The reality is, there is not one
single clear and gradual progression of fossils, from
one kind to another.
But gradual progression was only Darwin's first theory.
The progression is in fact not gradual.
"Today, nearly all biologists acknowledge that evolution is a fact.
The term THEORY is no longer appropriate except when referring to the
various models that attempt to explain HOW life evolves... it is
important to understand that the current questions about how life
evolves in no way implies any disagreement over the fact of
evolution."
- Neil A. Campbell, Biology 2nd ed., 1990, Benjamin/Cummings, p.434
Macroevolution is a fact. What I believe is a fairy
tale.
## ICR- Imbeciles for Creation Rhetoric
And this is where the creationist launches personal
attacks and thinks the insults mean that claiming it is
a scientific fact and providing zero evidence proves
it.
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
"I have more understanding than all my teachers:
for thy testimonies are my meditation." - Psalm 119:99
/
o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\
"And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of
the Spirit, which is the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17
.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
