Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back a page or two to re-sync the thread and this will then show latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)
Comments
-
... my questions are very clear ... and your answers are fudged/ambiguous.Okay, since you are basically repeating your question I will more or less repeat my answer. I dn't think the Nuremberg Code applies here since said foetuses are already dead. As far as I can tell the Nuremberge Code only applies to living people. Corpses do not apply as something which is dead cannot give consent. For the record, I do not consider said corpses to be human beings as I believe you stop being human when you die so to speak.
I know you said, "Experimentation may also involve living embryos", but I am fairly certain that is aside from the point considering we are talking about terminated embryos. Or have I missed something (point it out if I have)?
You describe aborted foetuses as 'corpses' ... without really addressing why they are 'corpses'.
In the vast majority of cases, the reason is that, they have been deliberately killed in situations that weren't in extremis (i.e. life or death situations).
I agree with you that corpses are not Human Beings, because they are dead and their defining Humanity (their eternal soul) has already departed to be with it's Creator.
My questions remain unanwered, however, in relation to experimentation on living embryos (and by moral extension to experimenting on the body parts of deliberately killed foetal Human Beings) ... do Evolutionists ... simply deny that a Human Being is/was involved?
... or do they think that the Nuremberg Code has now outlived its usefulness (in regard to, at least, certain categories of Human Being)?
Here is an interesting story from the life of Matt Kennon:-
... and never under-estimate the importance of every decision that each of us makes - we are all made in the Image and Likeness of God - and we therefore have the power to make an eternal difference in the lives of other people:-
0 -
My questions remain unanwered, however, in relation to experimentation on living embryos (and by moral extension to experimenting on the body parts of deliberately killed foetal Human Beings) ... do Evolutionists ... simply deny that a Human Being is/was involved?
What experimenting is that?0 -
Just Google 'embryo experimentation' ... and you will find the answer to your question.Originally Posted by J C
My questions remain unanwered, however, in relation to experimentation on living embryos (and by moral extension to experimenting on the body parts of deliberately killed foetal Human Beings) ... do Evolutionists ... simply deny that a Human Being is/was involved?
Genghiz Cohen
What experimenting is that?0 -
... my questions are very clear ... and your answers are fudged/ambiguous.
You describe aborted foetuses as 'corpses' ... without really addressing why they are 'corpses'.
In the vast majority of cases, the reason is that, they have been deliberately killed in situations that weren't in extremis (i.e. life or death situations).
I am not being ambiguous. You never asked me for my opinion on abortion. If you wanted to know that you should have just asked. It amy surprise you that I am very much opposed to the use of abortion as a means of contraception. I do however support it in some specific circumstances, in extremis (i.e. life or death situations), as you put it.J C wrote:I agree with you that corpses are not Human Beings,
Okay, that we agree on. To that extent I do not think dead aborted foetuses apply in relation to the Nuremberg Code.J C wrote:My questions remain unanwered, however, in relation to experimentation on living embryos (and by moral extension to experimenting on the body parts of deliberately killed foetal Human Beings) ... do Evolutionists ... simply deny that a Human Being is/was involved?
In relation to living embryos, yes a human being is certainly involved, from a biological standpoint anyway.
However, I cannot agree with this: "and by moral extension to experimenting on the body parts of deliberately killed foetal Human Beings" as they are two different things. As I have stated, the Nuremberg Code does not appear to address dead things. Where said dead things come from is a matter unrelated to the Nuremberg Code. That is more a matter to do with the ethics of abortion in general, something which I commented on earlier in my post.J C wrote:... or do they think that the Nuremberg Code has now outlived its usefulness (in regard to, at least, certain categories of Human Being)?
It's not particularly useful in relation to dead things. However I would not say it has "outlived it's usefulness" as it does not appear to have been useful in that respect ever. It does, however, serve a useful function as a guideline in the experimentation on living people.
I hope those answers are clear enough for you. And please in future refrain from calling my answers 'fudged' or 'ambiguous' because I did not answer a question you did not ask.0 -
... I find myself in agreement with everything you say.I am not being ambiguous. You never asked me for my opinion on abortion. If you wanted to know that you should have just asked. It amy surprise you that I am very much opposed to the use of abortion as a means of contraception. I do however support it in some specific circumstances, in extremis (i.e. life or death situations), as you put it.
Okay, that we agree on. To that extent I do not think dead aborted foetuses apply in relation to the Nuremberg Code.
In relation to living embryos, yes a human being is certainly involved, from a biological standpoint anyway.
However, I cannot agree with this: "and by moral extension to experimenting on the body parts of deliberately killed foetal Human Beings" as they are two different things. As I have stated, the Nuremberg Code does not appear to address dead things. Where said dead things come from is a matter unrelated to the Nuremberg Code. That is more a matter to do with the ethics of abortion in general, something which I commented on earlier in my post.
It's not particularly useful in relation to dead things. However I would not say it has "outlived it's usefulness" as it does not appear to have been useful in that respect ever. It does, however, serve a useful function as a guideline in the experimentation on living people.
I hope those answers are clear enough for you. And please in future refrain from calling my answers 'fudged' or 'ambiguous' because I did not answer a question you did not ask.
... but I have this feeling that its not going to last!!!!:)0 -
Advertisement
-
... now that we have established some common ground on the ethics of foetal research between Evolutionists and Creation Science perhaps we might make similar progress in agreeing about the evidence for The (Young) Age of the Earth
Creation Science has a large body of evidence for a Young Earth:-
http://www.earthage.org/youngearthev/evidence_for_a_young_earth.htm
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c012.html
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/fast.htm
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4005.asp
Equally, isn't it amazing that Recorded History begins only about 6,000 years ago (just around the time of Noah's Flood) ... and the oldest living trees (with continuous annual rings), the Bristlecone Pine are about the same age.
Isn't it also amazing that the most accurate Calendar devised in the Ancient World (the Mayan Long Count Calendar) starts about 5,000 years ago (a few hundred years after Noah's Flood).
Equally, we are living in the Jewish New Year of 5,770 which again approximates to the date of Noah's Flood.
... there is a kind of a pattern emerging here ... don't you think?
Against this, the Evolutionist postulates 'deep time' of billions of years. All their 'Clocks' are based on circular arguments and unproven and unprovable assumptions such as the amount of 'daughter' radioactive material present originally, the physical addition or deletion of 'parent' material and the rate of decay remaining constant throughout.
Equally, the latest 'inflation' Theory as well as a number of other critical anomalies in the standard Big Bang Theory, cast considerable doubt on the measurement of time by the supposed size of the Universe.
http://www.jstor.org/pss/193028
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00rgg31
If the Universe did, in fact, 'inflate' instantly to infinity (as some proponents of 'inflation' theory now claim) then the supposed size of the Universe isn't a measure of the time since its Creation, nor did the light from stars that are millions of light years distant take millions of years to get here ... it was simply 'stretched' during the initial 'inflation' phase of the Creation.
In this regard, could I remind you that a Light Year is a measure of distance, and not time, if the Universe was 'Inflated' (Created) instantly!!!:):D
Jesus LOVES you all !!!!:)0 -
If the Universe did, in fact, 'inflate' instantly to infinity (as some proponents of 'inflation' theory now claim) then the supposed size of the Universe isn't a measure of the time since its Creation, nor did the light from stars that are millions of light years distant take millions of years to get here ... it was simply 'stretched' during the initial 'inflation' phase of the Creation.
Red Shift.0 -
... I find myself in agreement with everything you say.
... but I have this feeling that its not going to last!!!!:)
I'll enjoy this moment. (while it lasts)... now that we have established some common ground on the ethics of foetal research between Evolutionists and Creation Science
Let's not get carried away. I do not represent the opinions of all evolutionists on the matter. Those can be very varied.0 -
These are the various reasons why it is thought that red-shift occurs (courtesy of AIG) :-Genghiz Cohen wrote: »Red Shift.
The red-shift of starlight is a decrease in the energy of the light. This energy decrease results in a lengthening of the wavelength of the light, measured with an instrument called a spectrometer. Red is the rainbow color with the longest wavelength, hence the name "red-shift." Stars do not actually become red in appearance since the wavelength change is usually slight. Almost every star and galaxy is found to be red-shifted. The following list summarizes some of the alternative explanations for the origin of this stellar red-shift.
1. Stellar Motion. If a star moves outward from the earth, its light energy will be reduced and its wavelength stretched or red-shifted. Stars and entire galaxies show varying amounts of red-shift, therefore implying a variety of speeds for these objects. Police actually use this same effect with radar to measure the speed of cars. Stellar motion is often taken as evidence in support of the Big Bang theory. Stars are assumed to be speeding outward as a result of the explosion. This is not the only explanation of red-shift, however.
2. Gravitation. As light leaves a star, the star's gravity may slightly lengthen the wavelength of the light. A gravitational red-shift could also result from starlight passing near a massive object in space, such as a galaxy. As the light escapes from a strong gravity field, it loses energy, similar to what happens to a person struggling up a hill.
3. Second-Order Doppler Effect. A light source moving at right angles (tangentially) to an observer will always be red-shifted. This can be observed in the laboratory by using a high-speed turntable. A detector is placed in the center and a gamma radiation source is placed on the outside edge. The gamma energy is seen to decrease, or "red-shift," as the turntable speed increases. This is an intriguing explanation for stellar red-shift. When applied to stars, it implies that the universe may be in circular motion instead of radial expansion.
4. Photon Interaction. It is possible that light waves exchange energy during their movement across space and lose some energy in the process. A loss of light energy is equivalent to a "reddening" of its light. A a full understanding of this proposed "tired light" process has not yet been fully developed.
Any of these four explanations, alone or in combination, may be responsible for red-shift. We simply don't know enough about space to be certain of the source of stellar red-shift.0 -
These are the various reasons why it is thought that red-shift occurs (courtesy of AIG) :-
The red-shift of starlight is a decrease in the energy of the light. This energy decrease results in a lengthening of the wavelength of the light, measured with an instrument called a spectrometer. Red is the rainbow color with the longest wavelength, hence the name "red-shift." Stars do not actually become red in appearance since the wavelength change is usually slight. Almost every star and galaxy is found to be red-shifted. The following list summarizes some of the alternative explanations for the origin of this stellar red-shift.
1. Stellar Motion. If a star moves outward from the earth, its light energy will be reduced and its wavelength stretched or red-shifted. Stars and entire galaxies show varying amounts of red-shift, therefore implying a variety of speeds for these objects. Police actually use this same effect with radar to measure the speed of cars. Stellar motion is often taken as evidence in support of the Big Bang theory. Stars are assumed to be speeding outward as a result of the explosion. This is not the only explanation of red-shift, however.
2. Gravitation. As light leaves a star, the star's gravity may slightly lengthen the wavelength of the light. A gravitational red-shift could also result from starlight passing near a massive object in space, such as a galaxy. As the light escapes from a strong gravity field, it loses energy, similar to what happens to a person struggling up a hill.
3. Second-Order Doppler Effect. A light source moving at right angles (tangentially) to an observer will always be red-shifted. This can be observed in the laboratory by using a high-speed turntable. A detector is placed in the center and a gamma radiation source is placed on the outside edge. The gamma energy is seen to decrease, or "red-shift," as the turntable speed increases. This is an intriguing explanation for stellar red-shift. When applied to stars, it implies that the universe may be in circular motion instead of radial expansion.
4. Photon Interaction. It is possible that light waves exchange energy during their movement across space and lose some energy in the process. A loss of light energy is equivalent to a "reddening" of its light. A a full understanding of this proposed "tired light" process has not yet been fully developed.
Any of these four explanations, alone or in combination, may be responsible for red-shift. We simply don't know enough about space to be certain of the source of stellar red-shift.
On that note check this out:
The Big Bang Never Happened Part 1
More here0 -
Advertisement
-
Soul Winner wrote: »
It goes without saying at this stage, of course, that this is all nonsense.
Soulwinner I expected you to know better. Going to AIG et al for a lesson on astrophysics is like going to Dawkins for a lesson on the significance of the crucifixion.0 -
Would that it were true for Dawkins. He seems quite ready to give us his opinions on the significance of the crucifixion. Oh well!
(Sorry! Unnecessary tangent.)0 -
It goes without saying at this stage, of course, that this is all nonsense.
Soulwinner I expected you to know better. Going to AIG et al for a lesson on astrophysics is like going to Dawkins for a lesson on the significance of the crucifixion.
I'm not too enamored by AIG in fairness, I came upon that purely by accident some weeks ago on YouTube, but be that as it may, what about the implications of what they have found? If the red shift spectra differs considerably from what are two obviously connected galaxies like this, then surely that brings into the question what the whole big bang theory rests on? That the galaxies which are further away from us are moving faster than the ones which are closer, giving the impression of expansion from a single point if time where rewound. I thought that that's what science was all about. Finding evidence that either supports or brings down currently held scientific ideas and moving on from there. Just follow the evidence where it leads and letting the chips fall where they may. Debunking other peoples research simply because their conclusions differ with established scientific paradigms does not make their research invalid and their findings false no matter what. Science is science no? If what they are saying is wrong then show us how please.0 -
I had a quick Google and saw a new scientiest article saying it had been discredited but you had to be a subscriber to see the full article. But anyway, say the theory of the big bang does turn out to be wrong. So what? Do you think people are going to say "this particular scientific theory was wrong therefore a bronze Israelite rose from the dead"? If the theory of the big bang turns out to be wrong then the origin of the universe goes back into the "unkown" category, which is a hell of a lot bigger than the "known" one. Science thankfully doesn't have an "I don't know so it must be god" category.
And isn't the big bang regularly used by theists to argue for a god anyway? Or at least the the straw man version of it mentioned in that video, the spontaenous creation of everything from nothing?0 -
I had a quick Google and saw a new scientiest article saying it had been discredited but you had to be a subscriber to see the full article.
That's convenient. :rolleyes:But anyway, say the theory of the big bang does turn out to be wrong. So what?
I don't care to be honest, it won't affect my faith either way but it is amusing to see how much protection is afforded to established paradigms in the scientific arena when somebody attempts to bring them into question.Do you think people are going to say "this particular scientific theory was wrong therefore a bronze Israelite rose from the dead"?
Hell no, where on earth did you get that from?If the theory of the big bang turns out to be wrong then the origin of the universe goes back into the "unkown" category, which is a hell of a lot bigger than the "known" one.
What should happen is this. Science should go back to the drawing board and start again. That's what it is supposed to do when faced with such evidence. So if the evidence is wrong then we want to know and move on with the previous un-falsified theory.
Can somebody who has a subscription to New Scientist log in and get the refutation to this evidence please?Science thankfully doesn't have an "I don't know so it must be god" category.
You're strawmanning again Sam. Nobody is claiming that just because the big bang didn't happen therfore God did it. In fact don't you know what this evidence would do to the many Christian appologists who point to the fact the the universe had a begining to support the Biblical claim that in the begining God created it all. If the evidence points back to a steady state model surely you of all people would welcome it with open arms?And isn't the big bang regularly used by theists to argue for a god anyway? Or at least the the straw man version of it mentioned in that video, the spontaenous creation of everything from nothing?
Yes that is exactly my point. I'm showing you that I am not afraid of whatever evidence happens to present itself. The big bang theory fits in very nicely with my Biblical belief, so if evidence where to come along which refutes that then you can't say that my openness to it was found wanting. I want to know the actual facts no matter what. I don't know how it all fits together but I'm not going to shut my eyes to current scientific findings just because it goes against my own beliefs. I just find it strange that the scientific establishment employs just such a head in the stand position when anyone dares to challenge their closely protected paradigms. Those paradigms should be put out there to be shot down, if their really true then they will stand up to any scrutiny, and if they're not then who wants to hold onto them anyway?0 -
NoooOOOoooOoOoo my college no longer subscribes to nature!!!
Anyway, yeah the idea that the quasars discredit an expanding universe isn't supported. Here's the blurb anyway.NewScientist wrote:Recent suggestions that the red shifts of quasars cannot be explained entirely by the expansion of the Universe have been cast into doubt.
Arnon Dar of the Israeli Space Research Institute in Haifa has studied gravitationally lensed systems, where two or more images of the same quasar are formed because matter in an intervening galaxy splits the light. He says the angular separations of these quasar images and the time delays between changes in one image and equivalent changes in a second image show that the quasars lie at the distances indicated by the standard interpretation of their red shifts.0 -
... have you looked at the videos ... they are not AIG personnel ... and most of the scientists are not Creation Scientists ... they are mostly 'steady state' Astronomers, yet this didn't prevent them being rejected by the 'scientific establishment'!!!It goes without saying at this stage, of course, that this is all nonsense.
... academic freedom is being suppressed all over the place ... and one of the few disciplines which still recognises and supports academic freedom and debate is Creation Science.
We welcome all new evidence and we believe that new ideas and the discovery of new evidence are not reasons to sack somebody ... new ideas may be a reason for robust scientific challenge and debate ... or they may be a reason to review the current paradigm!!!!
... but either way, scientists who have alternative ideas should be welcomed within the scientific community ... and not ostracised.
Some Evolutionists are behaving like deluded Medieval Popes ... and not the 'open minded' paragons of scientific virtue, that they often claim to be!!!
For example, I may disagree with some of the conclusions of Prof 'Chip' Arp, but I recognise him as a scientific genius and I would certainly defend his academic freedom to pursue alternative explantions for the Universe than the current invalid 'Big Bang' paradigm!!!
... but Soul Winner didn't go to AIG for a lesson on astrophysics ... he linked to a video from some of the best Evolutionist astronomers and astrophysicists in the World!!!Soulwinner I expected you to know better. Going to AIG et al for a lesson on astrophysics is like going to Dawkins for a lesson on the significance of the crucifixion.
Equally, I wonder would Prof Dawkins make a better attempt at explaining the significance of the Crucifixion (which he doesn't believe in) than this explanation of Materialistic Evolution (which he does believe in):):D:-
... are you suggesting that Jesus Christ used 'fake tan'???!!!:eek:Originally Posted by Sam Vimes
Do you think people are going to say "this particular scientific theory was wrong therefore a bronze Israelite rose from the dead"?0 -
... you're basically thinking like a Creation Scientist ... but some Evolutionists are so fearful that their 'faith position' is 'a load of old cobblers' (with apologies to all cobblers) that they are prepared to advocate all kinds of suppression and discrimination to try and maintain their unfounded and irrational belief that 'Pondkind morphed into Mankind' ... with nothing added but time!!!:eek::pac::):DSoul Winner wrote: »I don't care to be honest, it won't affect my faith either way but it is amusing to see how much protection is afforded to established paradigms in the scientific arena when somebody attempts to bring them into question.
What should happen is this. Science should go back to the drawing board and start again. That's what it is supposed to do when faced with such evidence. So if the evidence is wrong then we want to know and move on with the previous un-falsified theory.
Nobody is claiming that just because the big bang didn't happen therfore God did it. In fact don't you know what this evidence would do to the many Christian appologists who point to the fact the the universe had a begining to support the Biblical claim that in the begining God created it all. If the evidence points back to a steady state model surely you of all people would welcome it with open arms?
Yes that is exactly my point. I'm showing you that I am not afraid of whatever evidence happens to present itself. The big bang theory fits in very nicely with my Biblical belief, so if evidence where to come along which refutes that then you can't say that my openness to it was found wanting. I want to know the actual facts no matter what. I don't know how it all fits together but I'm not going to shut my eyes to current scientific findings just because it goes against my own beliefs. I just find it strange that the scientific establishment employs just such a head in the sand position when anyone dares to challenge their closely protected paradigms. Those paradigms should be put out there to be shot down, if their really true then they will stand up to any scrutiny, and if they're not then who wants to hold onto them anyway?
Surely you should know by now (having seen the advocacy of crass discrimination against Creation Scientists by some Evolutionists on this thread) that none of your idealistic notions about the objectivity of scientific research (when it comes to the 'origins issue') are shared shared by practically anybody on this thread, except myself and yourself (and possibly a few others) !!!!
... and this is a suggestion (from two former Evolutionists) about how a Creation Scientist should talk to an Evolutionist about Creation (without offending the Evolutionist ... including Theistic Evolutionists) :eek::pac::):D:-
.... Enjoy :eek::pac::):D!!!!
The pips are squeaking ... and the Evolutionist Paradigm is DEAD !!!:D
It's all over (except for a small amount of squeaking) for Materialistic Evolution :eek::D !!!!!!!
Jesus loves you ... and I would urge you to be Saved while you can!!!!0 -
Where did you get the idea that "the scientific establishment employs just such a head in the sand position when anyone dares to challenge their closely protected paradigms"? Science is built on challenging closely protected paradigms! I just told you that it wouldn't matter to me in the slightest if the big bang theory turned out to be wrong and it would not have any religious significance for me whatsoever. I have no reason to oppose any real evidence against the big bang and nor does "the scientific establishment". If the big bang theory is wrong then "the scientific establishment" wants to know about it.Soul Winner wrote: »That's convenient. :rolleyes:
I don't care to be honest, it won't affect my faith either way but it is amusing to see how much protection is afforded to established paradigms in the scientific arena when somebody attempts to bring them into question.
Hell no, where on earth did you get that from?
What should happen is this. Science should go back to the drawing board and start again. That's what it is supposed to do when faced with such evidence. So if the evidence is wrong then we want to know and move on with the previous un-falsified theory.
Can somebody who has a subscription to New Scientist log in and get the refutation to this evidence please?
You're strawmanning again Sam. Nobody is claiming that just because the big bang didn't happen therfore God did it. In fact don't you know what this evidence would do to the many Christian appologists who point to the fact the the universe had a begining to support the Biblical claim that in the begining God created it all. If the evidence points back to a steady state model surely you of all people would welcome it with open arms?
Yes that is exactly my point. I'm showing you that I am not afraid of whatever evidence happens to present itself. The big bang theory fits in very nicely with my Biblical belief, so if evidence where to come along which refutes that then you can't say that my openness to it was found wanting. I want to know the actual facts no matter what. I don't know how it all fits together but I'm not going to shut my eyes to current scientific findings just because it goes against my own beliefs. I just find it strange that the scientific establishment employs just such a head in the stand position when anyone dares to challenge their closely protected paradigms. Those paradigms should be put out there to be shot down, if their really true then they will stand up to any scrutiny, and if they're not then who wants to hold onto them anyway?
The only opposition you see in this area is against religious fundamentalists who spend their time corrupting and abusing science to further their agenda and the only people with their heads in the sand are said religious fundamentalists. I know it's helpful for you to think of "big science" with an atheist agenda conspiring against your religion but honestly Soul Winner, that's not what's happening. If New Scientist says the idea has been debunked that's because someone has presented evidence to debunk it. This debunking may turn out to be flawed in the end but no one concocted evidence to "protect their closely protected paradigms".
edit: you say that the big bang fits with your beliefs but it doesn't fit with those of young earth creationists does it?
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v3/n1/big-bang-gods-chosen-methodThere simply isn’t any good reason to believe in the big bang. It is not compatible with the Bible, and it’s not good science.
Here's an alternative theory of what's happening here: Some evidence came out that pulsars don't show time dilation. Some young earth creationists who have a vested interest in proving the big bang never happened jumped on this and claimed, as they had already been claiming before this evidence came out, that the big bang never happened. But, as with every other creationist "theory" to date, their nonsense was very easily debunked. And then, when any competent and honest scientist would have dropped the idea, the creationists instead shouted conspiracy as they do every time their nonsense is debunked. Sound reasonable to you?0 -
... have you looked at the videos ... they are not AIG personnel ... and most of the scientists are not Creation Scientists ... they are mostly 'steady state' Astronomers, yet this didn't prevent them being rejected by the 'scientific establishment'!!!
Here is the opening line of the message Soulwinner quoted:These are the various reasons why it is thought that red-shift occurs (courtesy of AIG) :-
Whether or not the videos are from AIG is neither here nor there.... academic freedom is being suppressed all over the place ... and one of the few disciplines which still recognises and supports academic freedom and debate is Creation Science.
We welcome all new evidence and we believe that new ideas and the discovery of new evidence are not reasons to sack somebody ... new ideas may be a reason for robust scientific challenge and debate ... or they may be a reason to review the current paradigm!!!!
... but either way, scientists who have alternative ideas should be welcomed within the scientific community ... and not ostracised.
Some Evolutionists are behaving like deluded Medieval Popes ... and not the 'open minded' paragons of scientific virtue, that they often claim to be!!!
For example, I may disagree with some of the conclusions of Prof 'Chip' Arp, but I recognise him as a scientific genius and I would certainly defend his academic freedom to pursue alternative explantions for the Universe than the current invalid 'Big Bang' paradigm!!!
None of this is actually true. The history of science has shown that paradigm shifts, even if they have a rocky start, are gradually adopted by the scientific community if evidence is shown to support them. In this case, a paradigm shift away from the big bang is not supported by evidence.Equally, I wonder would Prof Dawkins make a better attempt at explaining the significance of the Crucifixion (which he doesn't believe in) than this 'explanation' of Materialistic Evolution (which he does believe in):):D:-
You have been corrected on this before.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
Where did you get the idea that "the scientific establishment employs just such a head in the sand position when anyone dares to challenge their closely protected paradigms"?
When people like Halton Arp are given restricted telescope time because they are pursuing lines of investigation which go against established theories. Its OK to use the telescope so long as your research doesn't contradict or threaten to rock the boat of the ideas which currently hold sway in that scientific arena. In other words you are not allowed to find anything that contradicts what has up to now been shown to be true by the evidence. Now it might be the case that his ides can be easily refuted now with modern instrumentation but that's irrelevant to the point that he was ostracized for taken this line of research at a time when refutation of his findings was not so easy. I just don't think that true scientific endeavor is embraced properly in the halls of scientific academia. That the free flow of ideas is stiffled by the influence of people in positions of power who hold to a certain of view of the world that are not scientific.Science is built on challenging closely protected paradigms! I just told you that it wouldn't matter to me in the slightest if the big bang theory turned out to be wrong and it would not have any religious significance for me whatsoever. I have no reason to oppose any real evidence against the big bang and nor does "the scientific establishment". If the big bang theory is wrong then "the scientific establishment" wants to know about it.
But the problem is that people are not even allowed to pursue a line of investigation that will prove it wrong. Their tenure and positions are under threat if they even try, that's the point.The only opposition you see in this area is against religious fundamentalists who spend their time corrupting and abusing science to further their agenda and the only people with their heads in the sand are said religious fundamentalists.
Like who? Who are the religious fundamentalists who are corrupting and abusing science? All I see are scientists calling other scientists 'creationists' because they simply don't agree that the available evidences supports the accepted models. How does that help? Just because they might be wrong about this is not a reason castigate them. What we need is an independent body to intervene and settle the issues but the problem with that is there is no such body. All we have are scientists in disagreement with other scientists. One side of the fence says that they don't subscribe to the existing paradigm and the other side calls them pseudo scientists for taken this stand. As a layperson that's all I see going on.I know it's helpful for you to think of "big science" with an atheist agenda conspiring against your religion but honestly Soul Winner, that's not what's happening.
I don't believe that is what's happening at all. I don't think the scientific community is against religion per se but what they are really scared of is anyone pointing to evidence which happens to support a particular religion, usually the Judeo-Christian religions. Like the evidence around the globe which supports the Biblical flood story. Anyone using up resources trying to prove that in the field would be booted out on their arse. And yet there is evidence of a global flood all the world and stories of a global flood are recorded in practically every culture in the world not just the Judeo-Christian story. Water erosion on the Sphinx in Egypt for instance. When did that happen? Cities found underneath various oceans, what happened to them? And so forth.If New Scientist says the idea has been debunked that's because someone has presented evidence to debunk it. This debunking may turn out to be flawed in the end but no one concocted evidence to "protect their closely protected paradigms".
So who debunked it and how? Do you just take New Scientists word for it without even studying the research? If this so called debunking turns out to be wrong then that means the new evidence has passed its first test and deserves further investigation. Does it get this? No. Why? Because nobody is allowed to pursue this line of research. Why? Because if it throws a major spanner in the works, and then the text books will have to be re-written. Can you see the bureaucrats who are the real people with the power allowing that to happen? Not until the so called mavericks of the scientific community (the real heroes IMO) off their own bat produce enough evidence that will dislodge the current paradigm from its perch. Its sad that that is the way it goes. Then once that happens the mavericks will be brought back into the fold and the scientific method will take all the credit for the progress science has made. Its nauseating but true.edit: you say that the big bang fits with your beliefs but it doesn't fit with those of young earth creationists does it?
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v3/n1/big-bang-gods-chosen-method
I'm not a YEC though. I don't believe the earth is 6000 years old, nor do I believe that the Bible says it is either. All I know is that the Bible says: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." Everything that happens after this verse is part of a re-creation process because in verse two it says "And that the earth became a waste and a desolation." Nobody knows how much time lapsed between the original creation and when the earth became a waste and a desolation. God told Adam and Eve to re-plenish the earth suggesting that it had been plenished at some stage before. Plus Jeremiah says that he saw the earth during this time when there was cities but that there was no man. And the prophet Isaiah says that God did not create the earth to be a waste but to be inhabited. So nobody can tell from the Bible how old the earth is. It might be only 6000 years old but the Bible certainly does not suggest that it is and the geological evidence certainly doesn't suggest it either.Here's an alternative theory of what's happening here: Some evidence came out that pulsars don't show time dilation. Some young earth creationists who have a vested interest in proving the big bang never happened jumped on this and claimed, as they had already been claiming before this evidence came out, that the big bang never happened. But, as with every other creationist "theory" to date, their nonsense was very easily debunked. And then, when any competent and honest scientist would have dropped the idea, the creationists instead shouted conspiracy as they do every time their nonsense is debunked. Sound reasonable to you?
I'm sure you're right but even with that being the case it still does not automatically give the modus operandi of the scientific community a clean bill of health.0 -
Soul Winner wrote: »But the problem is that people are not even allowed to pursue a line of investigation that will prove it wrong. Their tenure and positions are under threat if they even try, that's the point.
No its not. That is a plain simple old lie.
Proving an accepted theory wrong is what gets you a nobel prize.Like who? Who are the religious fundamentalists who are corrupting and abusing science? All I see are scientists calling other scientists 'creationists' because they simply don't agree that the available evidences supports the accepted models.
They don't agree that the available evidence supports the accepted theories because of their religion. Not because of anything scientific.How does that help? Just because they might be wrong about this is not a reason castigate them.
No, the reason to do so is because they are trying to push religion into science.I don't believe that is what's happening at all. I don't think the scientific community is against religion per se but what they are really scared of is anyone pointing to evidence which happens to support a particular religion, usually the Judeo-Christian religions.
There isn't a shred of such evidence. There's nothing, zero, nadda, null.Like the evidence around the globe which supports the Biblical flood story.
There is no evidence which supports the biblical flood story. There is evidence of localised flooding in certain regions over a huge amount of time. There is no evidence to support a worldwide flood occurring in the last 10,000 years.And yet there is evidence of a global flood all the world and stories of a global flood are recorded in practically every culture in the world not just the Judeo-Christian story.
There is no evidence for a global flood.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_geology#Scientific_evidence_against_a_global_flood
Modern geology, and its sub-disciplines of earth science, geochemistry, geophysics, glaciology, paleoclimatology, paleontology and other scientific disciplines utilize the scientific method to analyze the geology of the earth. The key tenets of flood geology are refuted by scientific analysis and do not have any standing in the scientific community. Modern geology relies on a number of established principles, one of the most important of which is Charles Lyell's principle of uniformitarianism. In relation to geological forces it states that the shaping of the Earth has occurred by means of mostly slow-acting forces that can be seen in operation today. By applying this principle, geologists have determined that the Earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old. They study the lithosphere of the Earth to gain information on the history of the planet. Geologists divide Earth's history into eons, eras, periods, epochs, and faunal stages characterized by well-defined breaks in the fossil record (see Geologic time scale).[62][63] In general, there is a lack of any evidence for any of the above effects proposed by flood geologists and their claims of fossil layering are not taken seriously by scientists.
And this is exactly why creationism and its cousins are not science.
These people are starting with the answer, global flood, and trying to fit the evidence around it. That is not science, it is nonsense.0 -
Modern geology relies on a number of established principles, one of the most important of which is Charles Lyell's principle of uniformitarianism. In relation to geological forces it states that the shaping of the Earth has occurred by means of mostly slow-acting forces that can be seen in operation today.
If this is true then please tell us what happened to the mammoths that were found with undigested tropical vegetation still in the their stomachs in Siberia? And how some of the mammoths were frozen so rapidly that then when they were unearthed wolves and dogs were still able to eat their flesh? How could they have been so well preserved if slow uniformitarianism is true? That no cataclysmic events have struck the earth in millions of years and yet this happened to the mammoths only 10,000 years ago? So come on, what happened to these mammoths? How could they have undigested tropical (i.e. from warm tropical regions) vegetation still in their stomachs and be frozen so quickly? Could something have hit the earth that possible tilted the axis of the earth in such as way that it caused a polar shift? Slow uniformitarianism ? Please!!!0 -
Soul Winner wrote: »If this is true then please tell us what happened to the mammoths that were found with undigested tropical vegetation still in the their stomachs in Siberia?
1. There is no evidence of mammoths having undigested tropical vegetation in their stomachs.*
2.* The vast majority of preserved mammoths' internal organs were rotted and decayed. Its a myth that mammoths were 'frozen alive' or anywhere close to it.
The best preserved mammoth was an infant, its small size allowing for faster freezing and even it had decayed.
Before you start making claims you might want to check reliable sources, not nonsense mongers like AIG.And how some of the mammoths were frozen so rapidly that then when they were unearthed wolves and dogs were still able to eat their flesh?
1. See above. 'Flash frozen mammoths' don't exist.
2. Animals can eat rotten flesh.How could they have been so well preserved if slow uniformitarianism is true?
1. They weren't 'that' well preserved.
2. absolutely nothing about these remains contradict uniformitarianism.That no cataclysmic events have struck the earth in millions of years and yet this happened to the mammoths only 10,000 years ago?
Frozen mammoths are not common. As of 1961, only thirty-nine have been found with some flesh preserved, and only four of those were more or less intact (Farrand 1961).
The vast majority of mammoth remains are very over 10,000 years old, the majority been in the 20,000 - 50,000 range.
What happened to them ? By them I assume you mean the mammoth remains found;
Sinking in muddy silt (Guthrie 1990, 7-24).
Drowning/burial in flash floods carrying a heavy load of silt.
Predation, followed by winter freezing, followed by burial in silt carried by snowmelt (Guthrie 1990, 81-113).
Fall in a landslide, as a thawed riverbank gives way under the animal's weight. The landslide and subsequent soil creep can bury and preserve the animal (Kurtén 1986, chap. 9).So come on, what happened to these mammoths? How could they have undigested tropical (i.e. from warm tropical regions) vegetation still in their stomachs and be frozen so quickly?
They didn't have tropical vegetation in their stomachs. Thats a lie.0 -
Soul Winner wrote: »If this is true then please tell us what happened to the mammoths that were found with undigested tropical vegetation still in the their stomachs in Siberia?
How about you start by telling us which Mammoth find you are talking about. I can see this claim repeated across Creationist websites but not a single one reference the actual Mammoth find.
I of course wouldn't dare suggest that Creationists make up evidence but, well, you know ....
0 -
Soul Winner wrote: »If this is true then please tell us what happened to the mammoths that were found with undigested tropical vegetation still in the their stomachs in Siberia? And how some of the mammoths were frozen so rapidly that then when they were unearthed wolves and dogs were still able to eat their flesh? How could they have been so well preserved if slow uniformitarianism is true? That no cataclysmic events have struck the earth in millions of years and yet this happened to the mammoths only 10,000 years ago? So come on, what happened to these mammoths? How could they have undigested tropical (i.e. from warm tropical regions) vegetation still in their stomachs and be frozen so quickly? Could something have hit the earth that possible tilted the axis of the earth in such as way that it caused a polar shift? Slow uniformitarianism ? Please!!!
I don't get it Soulwinner. Only recently I told you not to get your science lessons from AIG. They will say things that are not true.By 1929, the remains of only thirty four mammoths with frozen soft tissues (skin, flesh, or organs) had been documented. Only four of them were relatively complete. Since then, about that many more have been found. In most cases the flesh shows signs of decay before its freezing and later desiccation. Stories abound about frozen mammoth carcasses that were still edible once defrosted, but the original sources indicate that the carcasses were in fact terribly decayed, and the stench so unbearable that only the dogs accompanying the finders, and wild scavengers, showed any interest in the flesh.
SRC:Farrand, William R. (1961). "Frozen Mammoths and Modern Geology: The death of the giants can be explained as a hazard of tundra life, without evoking catastrophic events". Science 133: 729–735.
Go to the scientists to learn about science.0 -
Soul Winner, all I can really say to you is that you have a very strange idea of how the scientific community operates. If it actually operated the way you think it does then I would be as opposed to it as you, if not more, but I have never seen anything to suggest that it does operate that way. Yes creationists are ridiculed and ignored throughout the scientific community but that is because "theories" supporting creationism are invariably ridiculous and warranting of nothing more than being ignored.
As I've said several times on this thread, sometimes when everyone laughs at someone and ignores someone it's because they're opposed to new ideas and defending their closely protected paradigms but sometimes it's because the ideas being put forward are simply wrong and has been conclusively shown to be wrong if the proponent would only open their eyes and see it. The reason that the "scientific establishment" rejects creationism and views it as nonsense is that it is nonsense. within the actual scientific community there are debates over the exact mechanism that evolution works by but there is no debate on whether or not it happened. Not because they don't like new ideas but because the evidence for it is so overwhelming that only those who have a very powerful motive to ignore all of this evidence can do so. And this time dilation thing is just one more example in a very long list of things where creationists ignore the facts for religious reasons. Your protest against such practices is admirable but you are pointing your indignance at the wrong people.0 -
.... and so boys and girls ... they all lived happily ever after!!!Soul Winner, all I can really say to you is that you have a very strange idea of how the scientific community operates. If it actually operated the way you think it does then I would be as opposed to it as you, if not more, but I have never seen anything to suggest that it does operate that way. Yes creationists are ridiculed and ignored throughout the scientific community but that is because "theories" supporting creationism are invariably ridiculous and warranting of nothing more than being ignored.
In keeping with the 'Alice in Wonderland' levels of denial that Evolutionists, like Sam, engage in ... I now wish to repeat ... by popular demand ”An Evolutionary Bed Time Story” ...
... this is for all you boys and girls out there, who haven't come to terms with the fact that life doesn't end when you die ... and you will then come face to face with the loving and just God that Created you.
Although written in an ironic style, it does genuinely make me somewhat sad as well.
I too spent the best part of my childhood believing in the Evolution Fairytale ... and all of the “characters” in the Evolutionary Zoo evoke ‘special’ memories for me also.
Quote from
An Introduction to Evolutionary Biology
”In the fossil record, transition from one species to another is usually abrupt in most geographic locales -- no transitional forms are found. In short, it appears that species remain unchanged for long stretches of time and then are quickly replaced by new species. However, if wide ranges are searched, transitional forms that bridge the gap between the two species are sometimes found in small, localized areas. For example, in Jurassic brachiopods of the genus Kutchithyris, K. acutiplicata appears below another species, K. euryptycha. Both species were common and covered a wide geographical area. They differ enough that some have argued they should be in a different genera. In just one small locality an approximately 1.25m sedimentary layer with these fossils is found. In the narrow (10 cm) layer that separates the two species, both species are found along with transitional forms. In other localities there is a sharp transition.”
An Evolutionary Bed Time Story
Here is your bedtime story boys and girls, of my recent visit to the Evolutionary Zoo.
Once upon a time, when I was very, very young the Evolutionary Zoo was full of many wonderful and strange Beasts. Indeed, there were so many, that it used to take me a whole day to see them all, whenever I visited the Evolutionary Zoo!!
You can imagine, my disappointment when I recently visited the Evolutionary Zoo and I found only the above very sad little beasties, with names that I couldn't even begin to pronounce, all on their own, squeezed into just one “small localised area”.
I found that the Hopeful Monster’s Enclosure was completely unenclosed – with not a Monster in sight. I also found that the Archaeopteryx had “flown it’s coop” – because it was a REAL bird, after all.
I went looking for the Zoo Keeper and I found him over in the Dinosaur Enclosure, MILKING a large Dinosaur!!
The Keeper told me that he thought that it was a actually a large MAMMAL Dinosaur.
“However,” says the Keeper, “the Evolutionists continue to insist that it is a hot-blooded, hairy, lactating LIZARD!!! Either way,” says he, “I have found that the milk tastes great on me Porridge and it's full of Calcium!!”
I then got talking with the Keeper and I asked him what ever happened to the “little horsies” that used to take people for a ride down on the ‘Missing Links Carousel’ and he told me that the Evolutionary Scientists had shot them all – apparently because they weren’t actually Missing Links at all, at all.
“Do you know” says the Keeper, “that an evolutionary Doctor once told me that me Hair Lice evolved from me Skin Lice?” – and looking at the state of his personal hygiene, I could well believe it!!
“Anyway,” says he, “I have found that this stuff kills the lot of them”. And he reached for a tin of Louse Powder and proceeded to pour copious quantities of it down his trousers. “There”, says he smugly, “they’ll all be ‘As Dead as Evolution’ in a few minutes!!”
As we swapped stories of days that are gone, the Keeper told me that both Peking Man and Java Man had gone and disappeared – when he came into work one morning, they just weren’t there any more – they were reported to the Police as missing ‘Missing Links’ so to speak – but all to no avail, and they were never, ever seen again!!!
I then asked about Piltdown Man who used to live in the cage next to Nebraska man. The keeper shook his head and said that Piltdown Man was only pretending to be a Missing Link – he was actually a MAN with a jaw transplanted from an Ape.
Very, very painful boys and girls – and don’t ever, ever, try this at home!!
As for Nebraska Man, the darndest thing happened – he “morphed” into a little piggies tooth!!. When I asked how on Earth such a thing could happen - the Keeper muttered about it being an example of “Punctuated Evolution or something”!!.
I cried a little tear for all of the Great Evolutionary Beasts of my childhood, alas no more – the recapitulated embryos that didn’t recapitulate (serves them right for not recapitulating anyway), the ‘evolving’ grey/brown/white Moths that didn't evolve, Darwin’s Finches that are, how do you say it, still FINCHES, the Cro-Magnon Man that was a MAN and Little Lucy, the Monkey – who surprise, surprise, boys and girls, turned out to be an APE!!
A chance meeting with the Organ Grinder prompted me to ask him what ever happened to the hundreds of Vestigial Organs – that used to be ‘strung out’ all along the wall at the front gate.
“Ah!”, says the Organ Grinder, “there hasn’t been a squeak out of them for years – not since the Medics found out what they all did and put me out of business!”
Many things brought the memories flooding back. The empty perch at the back gate reminded me of the great big ‘Evolutionary Turkey’ that used to sit there, spewing forth vast quantities of gobbledygook onto any unsuspecting visitor who ventured too close to it.
The rusted sign over the Triceratops Enclosure was a reminder that the Triceratops had been found to be a 'Rhinocerous with Attitude' ... and a large bony frill and the long horns to prove it!!
Equally, the profusion of Ostrich feathers blowing on the breeze reminded me of the vulnerability of the ‘Ostrich Dinosaur’ to mauling by the ‘Lion Dinosaur’.
Some things DID remain the same however, in the Evolutionary Zoo. The 300 million year old Coelacanth fish was still swimming in it's tank alongside a 300 million year old Shark and neither of them had changed a bit!!!
Equally a 400 million year old starfish was nibbling away at a 500 million year old Clam while a 600 million year old jellyfish was floating aimlessly about beside them in it’s tank.
Meanwhile, a 500 million year old snail was busily munching-away at what was left of the flowerbed – and it also hadn’t changed (or evolved) one iota during all that time!!!
I called into the ‘Chip Shop’ before leaving and I noticed that the ‘Menu Special’ was ‘Dinosaur Burger a la chips’ – apparently the Palaeontologist had brought in a ‘fresh’ T. Rex leg that morning!!
The waitress looked at me with that wide eyed, faith-filled expression common to all Evolutionists, and proceeded to re-assure me that even though it was 90 million years old, the meat was still perfect – and it tasted great.
I decided that she might be as wrong about the quality of the meat as she was about it’s age – and so I went for a freshly caught Coelacanth ‘Fish and Chips’ instead!!!
As I was leaving, I read a notice on the gate, which said that the Evolutionary Zoo was closing down due to a lack of exhibits.
Aaah, the terrible price we pay for SCIENTIFIC PROGRESS boys and girls!!!
And WHO do you think I met on the way in as I was on the way out?
You guessed it – a guy called ‘Ham' with a group of 1,000 engineers called ‘Steve’!!!
So I asked Ken what he was doing there. He said, that he had just bought the Evolutionary Zoo and he had asked the 1,000 engineers called ‘Steve’ to draw up plans to redevelop the site – as a Creation Science Research Facility!!!
Nighty, nite boys and girls – sleep tight – and don’t let the bedbugs bite!!!0 -
Advertisement
-
.... and so boys and girls ... they all lived happily ever after!!!
In keeping with the 'Alice in Wonderland' levels of denial that Evolutionists, like Sam, engage in ... I now wish to repeat ... by popular demand ”An Evolutionary Bed Time Story” ... this is for all you boys and girls out there, who haven't grown up enough to come to terms with the fact that it isn't all going to end when you die ... and you will come face to face with the loving and just God that Created you.
Although written in an ironic style, it does genuinely make me somewhat sad as well.
I too spent the best part of my childhood believing in Evolution Fairytale ... and all of the “characters” in the Evolutionary Zoo evoke ‘special’ memories for me also.
Quote from
An Introduction to Evolutionary Biology
”In the fossil record, transition from one species to another is usually abrupt in most geographic locales -- no transitional forms are found. In short, it appears that species remain unchanged for long stretches of time and then are quickly replaced by new species. However, if wide ranges are searched, transitional forms that bridge the gap between the two species are sometimes found in small, localized areas. For example, in Jurassic brachiopods of the genus Kutchithyris, K. acutiplicata appears below another species, K. euryptycha. Both species were common and covered a wide geographical area. They differ enough that some have argued they should be in a different genera. In just one small locality an approximately 1.25m sedimentary layer with these fossils is found. In the narrow (10 cm) layer that separates the two species, both species are found along with transitional forms. In other localities there is a sharp transition.”
An Evolutionary Bed Time Story
Here is your bedtime story boys and girls, of my recent visit to the Evolutionary Zoo.
Once upon a time, when I was very, very young the Evolutionary Zoo was full of many wonderful and strange Beasts. Indeed, there were so many, that it used to take me a whole day to see them all, whenever I visited the Evolutionary Zoo!!
You can imagine, my disappointment when I recently visited the Evolutionary Zoo and I found only the above very sad little beasties, with names that I couldn't even begin to pronounce, all on their own, squeezed into just one “small localised area”.
I found that the Hopeful Monster’s Enclosure was completely unenclosed – with not a Monster in sight. I also found that the Archaeopteryx had “flown it’s coop” – because it was a REAL bird, after all.
I went looking for the Zoo Keeper and I found him over in the Dinosaur Enclosure, MILKING a large Dinosaur!!
The Keeper told me that he thought that it was a actually a large MAMMAL Dinosaur.
“However,” says the Keeper, “the Evolutionists continue to insist that it is a hot-blooded, hairy, lactating LIZARD!!! Either way,” says he, “I have found that the milk tastes great on me Porridge and it's full of Calcium!!”
I then got talking with the Keeper and I asked him what ever happened to the “little horsies” that used to take people for a ride down on the ‘Missing Links Carousel’ and he told me that the Evolutionary Scientists had shot them all – apparently because they weren’t actually Missing Links at all, at all.
“Do you know” says the Keeper, “that an evolutionary Doctor once told me that me Hair Lice evolved from me Skin Lice?” – and looking at the state of his personal hygiene, I could well believe it!!
“Anyway,” says he, “I have found that this stuff kills the lot of them”. And he reached for a tin of Louse Powder and proceeded to pour copious quantities of it down his trousers. “There”, says he smugly, “they’ll all be ‘As Dead as Evolution’ in a few minutes!!”
As we swapped stories of days that are gone, the Keeper told me that both Peking Man and Java Man had gone and disappeared – when he came into work one morning, they just weren’t there any more – they were reported to the Police as missing ‘Missing Links’ so to speak – but all to no avail, and they were never, ever seen again!!!
I then asked about Piltdown Man who used to live in the cage next to Nebraska man. The keeper shook his head and said that Piltdown Man was only pretending to be a Missing Link – he was actually a MAN with a jaw transplanted from an Ape.
Very, very painful boys and girls – and don’t ever, ever, try this at home!!
As for Nebraska Man, the darndest thing happened – he “morphed” into a little piggies tooth!!. When I asked how on Earth such a thing could happen - the Keeper muttered about it being an example of “Punctuated Evolution or something”!!.
I cried a little tear for all of the Great Evolutionary Beasts of my childhood, alas no more – the recapitulated embryos that didn’t recapitulate (serves them right for not recapitulating anyway), the ‘evolving’ grey/brown/white Moths that didn't evolve, Darwin’s Finches that are, how do you say it, still FINCHES, the Cro-Magnon Man that was a MAN and Little Lucy, the Monkey – who surprise, surprise, boys and girls, turned out to be an APE!!
A chance meeting with the Organ Grinder prompted me to ask him what ever happened to the hundreds of Vestigial Organs – that used to be ‘strung out’ all along the wall at the front gate.
“Ah!”, says the Organ Grinder, “there hasn’t been a squeak out of them for years – not since the Medics found out what they all did and put me out of business!”
Many things brought the memories flooding back. The empty perch at the back gate reminded me of the great big ‘Evolutionary Turkey’ that used to sit there, spewing forth vast quantities of gobbledygook onto any unsuspecting visitor who ventured too close to it.
The rusted sign over the Triceratops Enclosure remined me that it had been found to only be a 'Rhinocerous with Attitude' ... and a large bony frill and horns to prove it!!
Equally, the profusion of Ostrich feathers blowing on the breeze reminded me of the vulnerability of the ‘Ostrich Dinosaur’ to mauling by the ‘Lion Dinosaur’.
Some things DID remain the same however, in the Evolutionary Zoo. The 300 million year old Coelacanth fish was still swimming in it's tank alongside a 300 million year old Shark and neither of them had changed a bit!!!
Equally a 400 million year old starfish was nibbling away at a 500 million year old Clam while a 600 million year old jellyfish was floating aimlessly about beside them in it’s tank.
Meanwhile, a 500 million year old snail was busily munching-away at what was left of the flowerbed – and it also hadn’t changed (or evolved) one iota during all that time!!!
I called into the ‘Chip Shop’ before leaving and I noticed that the ‘Menu Special’ was ‘Dinosaur Burger a la chips’ – apparently the Palaeontologist had brought in a ‘fresh’ T. Rex leg that morning!!
The waitress looked at me with that wide eyed, faith-filled expression common to all Evolutionists, and proceeded to re-assure me that even though it was 90 million years old, the meat was still perfect – and it tasted great.
I decided that she might be as wrong about the quality of the meat as she was about it’s age – and so I went for a freshly caught Coelacanth ‘Fish and Chips’ instead!!!
As I was leaving, I read a notice on the gate, which said that the Evolutionary Zoo was closing down due to a lack of exhibits.
Aaah, the terrible price we pay for SCIENTIFIC PROGRESS boys and girls!!!
And WHO do you think I met on the way in as I was on the way out?
You guessed it – a guy called ‘Ham' with a group of 1,000 engineers called ‘Steve’!!!
So I asked Ken what he was doing there. He said, that he had just bought the Evolutionary Zoo and he had asked the 1,000 engineers called ‘Steve’ to draw up plans to redevelop the site – as a Creation Science Research Facility!!!
Nighty, nite boys and girls – sleep tight – and don’t let the bedbugs bite!!!
This spam doesn't progress the conversation, and only serves to keep a thread alive that should have died a long time ago.
Kind of like the creationist movement.0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yTfRy0LTD0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement