PDA

View Full Version : Pretty scary information about recent diseases



eg8r
07-20-2004, 03:47 PM
Earlier today I was reading a website by a Creation Scientist, Dr. Hovind. The website itself is very very interesting but I came across a page on the website that I find pretty scary. The website is www.drdino.com (http://www.drdino.com) and the scientist is Dr. Kent Hovind. If the site interests you enough, you can download a couple of his debates. I would trust him before, I would ever believe an evolutionist who would believe we all came from a rock. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Anyways, the page that scares me is about Man-Made plagues (http://www.drdino.com/QandA/index.jsp?varFolder=Medical&varPage=ManMadePlagues .jsp) He makes some pretty strong accusations. [ QUOTE ]
What do HIV, West Nile Fever, Gulf war syndrome, chronic fatigue syndrome, multiple sclerosis, Wegener's disease, Parkinson's disease, Crohn's colitis, Type I diabetes, and collagen-vascular diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis and Alzheimer's have in common? These plagues were all developed as a joint effort by the money masters and governments of the world under the guise of biowarfare research. ...

In laboratories throughout the United States and a certain number in Canada, including the University of Alberta, the U.S. government provided the leadership for the development of the AIDS virus for the purpose of population control. (I personally suspect it's more about resource extraction by the people who have the gold) After they had it perfected, they sent medical teams from the Centers for Disease Control to Africa and other mid-eastern countries where they thought the population was becoming too large. They gave them all a free vaccination for smallpox, with a 'tainted batch'. Five years after receiving this smallpox vaccination, 60% of them were suffering from AIDS. They tried to blame it on a monkey, which is nonsense. ...

Check out Special Virus Cancer Program: Progress Report 8, prepared by National Cancer Institute, Viral Oncology, Etiology Area, July, 1971 and submitted to NIH Annual Report in May, 1971 and updated July, 1971. www.bodygraves.com (http://www.bodygraves.com) (No longer functioning) has copies from the US Library of Congress, including a flowchart which clearly shows that the HIV virus has been DNA-targeted toward ethnic Africans. (another population control comment)
<hr /></blockquote> Pretty scary stuff if true. I guess it would not be too hard to check to see if the patents (mention elsewhere on the webpage) are legit, but I am not sure what that would tell you as far as intentions on those who requested the patent.

eg8r

Cueless Joey
07-20-2004, 04:20 PM
OK, stop scaring us.
Next thing you're gonna say is we're all eventually going to look like Joan Rivers. /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

highsea
07-20-2004, 05:51 PM
That "scientist" is a total loonie. /ccboard/images/graemlins/crazy.gif

I think it's sad that people really buy into that nonsense.

-CM

Sid_Vicious
07-20-2004, 05:53 PM
I've heard heard this theory and I don't doubt devious intentions presented by big business, especially 1-world order factions. I mostly heard that the AIDS virus was given to us to kill of the homosexual boom, which still puts money into business, with the guise of purifying the earth, big money being the real deal. One thing that I'll add, and probably get a pissing match started,,,wars are also started for money making reasons, and wars are made by powerful mean in powerful positions, strings attached to their shoulders by some of the same worldly powerful forces as those who have possibly let the human diseases become instilled in all countries.

So, if this intentional virus proliferation is believable, I contend that everyone but the ultra wealthy(middle class and lower class) are going to get the brunt of the impact, and for $$$ reasons. I have my own feelings about Pearl Harbor and I definitely have my feelings which contradict your's ED, about what's going on in Iraq. Big money is the steering mechanism to most all of our woes, people in powerful positions are to blame for allowing it to take place, and to make things much more dismal, it's probably too big of a movement for any of us to stop.

The world has simply become so self greed driven, agendas have become so sternly guided that it may be mainly hopeless. Lastly, these powers have separated guys like you and me from the possibility of agreeing due to bullsh!t political mind games, psychological warfare upon even intelligent, educated people. We've become robots geared against our own common sense values. I've never seen such "an either right or left" attitude in all of my life, and I do find that sad, pathetic and dangerous to all of our economic futures and our god given liberties of life and happiness. Jesus Christ himself will be our only hope for those who believe, but for the immediate future, we're hosed unless somebody seriously influential, with solid morals, comes up from the noise floor to announce something to curb the tide, and I don't see either of our candidates in this election as a good guy. That person will surely be dodging bullets, just as Kennedy failed to do...I doubt it'll be successful. Money dictates everything.

Sincerely,
Sid

dg-in-centralpa
07-20-2004, 06:06 PM
I,too, have heard this theory before along with the government having a cure for cancer but not allowing it to be used. Think of how many people would be out of jobs? I bet the government is behind a lot of this.

DG - jmho

highsea
07-20-2004, 08:05 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr>....the website is www.drdino.com (http://www.drdino.com) and the scientist is Dr. Kent Hovind. If the site interests you enough, you can download a couple of his debates. I would trust him before, I would ever believe an evolutionist who would believe we all came from a rock. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif eg8r<hr /></blockquote>eg8r, you disappoint me. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

"Scientific" creationists have claimed that the physical evidence, without the need of miracles, supports an earth which is only about 6000 years old. They have written numerous books in support of such claims. If the number of books written, lectures delivered, and debates staged had any relationship to the accuracy of one's claims, the "scientific" creationists would have succeeded a long time ago!

The scientific debate, of course, was settled long ago. However, a public debate is kept very much alive by the activities of the "scientific" creationists. I use quotations here because _real_ scientists look at the data first and _then_ determine if their _hypotheses_ will fit in. "Scientific" creationists begin with biblical "truths" which _may not be questioned_. They look at the data and then decide whether or not the _data_ will fit in with their interpretation of the Bible. Supporting data are collected; contradictory data are assumed to be incomplete or erroneous. That is _not_ science!

The shocking truth, unknown to much of the public, is that the arguments advanced by the "scientific" creationists are not only bad, but shockingly bad. Arguments based solely on obsolete data are by no means rare. Misrepresentation of the data are commonplace! (It is usually a case of bad data being passed along or wishful thinking rather than out- and-out dishonesty.) Thus, the question as to how good the young-earth arguments are takes on a new meaning.

A closer look (http://www.skeptictank.org/hs/matson-v.htm) at Dr.Hovinds "young earth" arguments.

-CM

ras314
07-20-2004, 09:16 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote highsea:</font><hr> That "scientist" is a total loonie. /ccboard/images/graemlins/crazy.gif

I think it's sad that people really buy into that nonsense.

-CM <hr /></blockquote>

Probably not a loonie if there is money in the picture somewhere.

crawdaddio
07-20-2004, 09:56 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Sid_Vicious:</font><hr> Money dictates everything.


<hr /></blockquote>

Sad but true.

CarolNYC
07-21-2004, 03:53 AM
[ QUOTE ]
the AIDS virus was given to us <hr /></blockquote>
I heard it was released in the prison population!

Carol

bluewolf
07-21-2004, 05:11 AM
If this is true, then they have to have been doing it for quite awhile, since some diseases mentioned have a genetic link

Laura

eg8r
07-21-2004, 06:04 AM
Whether you believe in evolution or creationism was not the point of the post and frankly there will come a time when everyone will see who was right. One thing I find interesting from your post was... [ QUOTE ]
The scientific debate, of course, was settled long ago. <hr /></blockquote> What are you talking about? Have you seen any factual proof of evolution? Macroevolution, not microevolution. I know we have different species of dogs (coyotes, wolves, mutts, great dane, etc), however they are all dogs. This is microevolution. My question is, do you have any evidence of a dog coming from a rock? I wonder what those Nova people were thinking out in Texas when they found the dinosaur footprints walking alongside the human footprints. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif If you believe man came from apes, then why aren't apes still making humans? Why did the evolution suddenly stop?

I like Hovind's question for evolutionists and if you can answer it, then we will see, however first you have to agree that science should be based on fact, religion based on belief. Do you agree? With that much settled, then you must agree with the First Law of Thermodynamics, Energy can be changed from one form to another, but it cannot be created or destroyed. If so, then how did we get here (who created the first molecule that suddenly grew to become man). You are forced to believe there was always something. There is no proof of the Big Bang, and it cannot possibly be true because we have planets rotating backwards, and moons rotating and spinning backwards, and that is in this solar system alone, not even accounting for the rest out there. Even if you did believe in the BBT, then where did the first tiny little bit of matter (the text books say it was as big as a period on a written page) come from? You have to believe it was there, there is absolutely zero scientific fact that it is true. If you believe this, then why do you call what you believe science.

Anyways, with you saying creation science is all bunk means little to zero since you are no scientist and you would be blindly arguing something you just cannot prove, it is only something you believe. I made this statement simply because you are questioning my beliefs.

Back to the original post, do you believe it was all a lie because your belief of the earth's history is different than Hovinds?

eg8r

PS. Dr. Hovind has a standing $250,000 offer to anyone who can give empirical evidence for evolution. Since you have it all figured out, why don't you tell me how long it took Hovind to cut you a check. It is amazing that you believe this was all figured out yet no one has stepped forward since 1990 and won the money. Go get it. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

nhp
07-21-2004, 06:15 AM
eg8r you make a very good point. I personally believe that we have evolved to a certain extent, such as our traits inherited for survival, but that doesn't mean there is no God. I believe whatever happened with us, God let happen, IMHO. People's beliefs from the Bible are dictated by how they interpret it. It's funny how certain religions interpret certain parts of the Bible almost exactly opposite of each other. That's one reason why I don't follow any organized religion- how do I know which is the right one when every religion thinks the other one is wrong?

Wally_in_Cincy
07-21-2004, 06:19 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Sid_Vicious:</font><hr>
...One thing that I'll add, and probably get a pissing match started,,,wars are also started for money making reasons, and wars are made by powerful mean in powerful positions, strings attached to their shoulders by some of the same worldly powerful forces as those who have possibly let the human diseases become instilled in all countries....<hr /></blockquote>

Sid,

It's the Jews.

Hope this helps.

eg8r
07-21-2004, 06:22 AM
If you end the post with "Sincerely" then it would only be believable if you came back and actually replied to any questions directed towards your post. Staying along the same track, [ QUOTE ]
"One thing that I'll add, and probably get a pissing match started,,,"<hr /></blockquote> , I don't think you have to worry about this since you rarely ever make another post on one of your topics.

With all that being said, I can believe some of what you say. [ QUOTE ]
I definitely have my feelings which contradict your's ED, about what's going on in Iraq. <hr /></blockquote> LOL, no problem, but why are you yelling my name, am I getting under your skin?

[ QUOTE ]
The world has simply become so self greed driven, <hr /></blockquote> This is the type of stuff that you post, in which you have zero credible evidence...When did the world start this ever increasing drive to self-greed, and when did it stop to leave us at this point? /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif I personally believe the world has been driven by greed ever since the first brothers Cain and Abel. This has not been something brewing or growing, rather it has always been there. If you did not start out most of your points with these vague descriptions that make no sense, then there probably would not be such a problem with your ideas. I think it is your sugarcoating that screw it up most of the time.

[ QUOTE ]
So, if this intentional virus proliferation is believable, I contend that everyone but the ultra wealthy(middle class and lower class) are going to get the brunt of the impact, and for $$$ reasons. <hr /></blockquote> I agree as far as my original post is concerned, however I disagree for this same quote to be laid on top of every problem in your's and everyone else's life.

eg8r

Wally_in_Cincy
07-21-2004, 06:23 AM
FYI

the CIA also invented crack and distributed it in East LA.

they also have been putting male birth control in Kool-Aid for years to control the growth of the black population.

eg8r
07-21-2004, 06:25 AM
[ QUOTE ]
That's one reason why I don't follow any organized religion- how do I know which is the right one when every religion thinks the other one is wrong? <hr /></blockquote> Not sure what an answer for you would be. Instead of worrying what all the others are thinking, find one that believes/interprets the Bible the way you do and join that church. In the end, if you do believe there is a God (and frankly even if you did not believe), you will find out if you made the correct choice. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r

eg8r
07-21-2004, 06:27 AM
[ QUOTE ]
the CIA also invented crack and distributed it in East LA. <hr /></blockquote> LOL, I thought it was the East L.A. cops. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r

Wally_in_Cincy
07-21-2004, 06:29 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote nhp:</font><hr> ...I don't follow any organized religion- how do I know which is the right one...<hr /></blockquote>

mine is the right one.

I'm a Frisbee-tyrian. I believe when you die your soul gets stuck on the roof.

Seriously, whenever I hear a newborn baby cry, or touch a leaf, or see the sky, then I know why I believe (those over 40 will know from where I plagarized that)

catscradle
07-21-2004, 07:17 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Wally_in_Cincy:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote nhp:</font><hr> ...I don't follow any organized religion- how do I know which is the right one...<hr /></blockquote>

mine is the right one.

I'm a Frisbee-tyrian. I believe when you die your soul gets stuck on the roof.

Seriously, whenever I hear a newborn baby cry, or touch a leaf, or see the sky, then I know why I believe (those over 40 will know from where I plagarized that) <hr /></blockquote>

From my mothers favorite song "I Believe" as sung by Tennessee Ernie Ford. You're going to make me weep.

Not so seriously, with a handle like "Catscradle" I've got to be a "Bokononist". Wait, one day those same scientist who invented aids, cancer, hemophila (a conspiracy of the French gov against the offspring of Queen Victoria), bubonic plague, hemoroids, and the common cold, will create ice-9 and we'll all be in for it.

Qtec
07-21-2004, 07:36 AM
The tops of the mountains in the Himalayas have sea-shells on/in them. Everest was once on the sea floor! The mountains were pushed up[ over millions of years] as the result of the collision between two drifting plates on the Earths crust.This is a fact.

We are not aware of these things because they happen over a long period of time.

The Galaxy,s are speeding away from each other and from the point of the BB.ie, the Universe is expanding.

Energy should be able to make matter although WE cant do it doesnt mean its not possible.

Evolution hasnt stopped, it goes on but at a pace that is undecernable to us , because of our short lifespan.

Creationism is an American phenomenon, the rest of the modern world has already accepted this as bunkum.

Its not even an issue anymore!

As for the $250,000,I will give the dear Dr $ 1 million if he can prove that G-d exists or that Creationism is true! /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

Q

Wally_in_Cincy
07-21-2004, 07:39 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote catscradle:</font><hr>..will create ice-9 and we'll all be in for it.

<hr /></blockquote>

just don't drop that stuff in the ocean

crawdaddio
07-21-2004, 09:15 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Wally_in_Cincy:</font><hr>


I'm a Frisbee-tyrian. I believe when you die your soul gets stuck on the roof.
<hr /></blockquote>

This is funniest thing I've ever read from you ........LMFAO /ccboard/images/graemlins/shocked.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

eg8r
07-21-2004, 09:24 AM
[ QUOTE ]
The Galaxy,s are speeding away from each other and from the point of the BB.ie, the Universe is expanding.
<hr /></blockquote> If the BB is true, why are there planets rotating backwards, and moons rotating backwards and revolving backwards?

[ QUOTE ]
Energy should be able to make matter although WE cant do it doesnt mean its not possible.
<hr /></blockquote> This is just stupid. The definition that I posted, "Energy can be changed from one form to another, but it cannot be created or destroyed", makes not mention of WHO. It would be a good idea for you to think prior to posting.

[ QUOTE ]
Evolution hasnt stopped, it goes on but at a pace that is undecernable to us , because of our short lifespan. <hr /></blockquote> LOL, well then answer me why apes quit turning into humans. If you believe (not science) that we come from apes you believe that it takes such a long time, don't you think we would have more levels evolution (I say more, but I probably really mean at least 1 example) present right now. We don't, there are apes, and there are humans. Shouldn't there be some levels inbetween the two since they are still working through the evolutionary cycle to become humans?

[ QUOTE ]
Creationism is an American phenomenon, the rest of the modern world has already accepted this as bunkum. <hr /></blockquote> So you say. I remember at one time the whole world thought the sun revolved around the earth, do you still believe it? Because you have a view of what the whole world believes does not make it correct.

[ QUOTE ]
As for the $250,000,I will give the dear Dr $ 1 million if he can prove that G-d exists or that Creationism is true! <hr /></blockquote> LOL, I am willing to bet you could not get the money together (Hovind does have the money ready). If so, I am sure someone would be willing to kill you and wait for you to come back with the answer. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif <font color="red">In the edit I am hoping no harm come to Q as a result of this post and I am in no way offering for anyone to kill Q. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif </font color>

eg8r &lt;~~~Does not want Q to die in an effort to prove there is no God /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Wally_in_Cincy
07-21-2004, 09:24 AM
I'm an unabashed plagarist /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Wally_in_Cincy
07-21-2004, 09:29 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> Creationism is an American phenomenon, the rest of the modern world has already accepted this as bunkum.<hr /></blockquote>

I think creationism actually started in the Garden of Eden, assumed to be what was later known as Babylon

I don't know how any logically thinking person can look at a spider-web, or the Grand Canyon, or a coral reef, or the human body, or a puppy, and not believe that there is a higher power.

moblsv
07-21-2004, 09:57 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr><hr /></blockquote> We don't, there are apes, and there are humans. Shouldn't there be some levels inbetween the two since they are still working through the evolutionary cycle to become humans?<hr /></blockquote>
http://www.amalah.com/amalah/images/at_the_races-thumb.jpg

eg8r
07-21-2004, 10:25 AM
LOL, that was scary. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif Is that what all NASCAR fans look like. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r

catscradle
07-21-2004, 10:50 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Wally_in_Cincy:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> Creationism is an American phenomenon, the rest of the modern world has already accepted this as bunkum.<hr /></blockquote>

I think creationism actually started in the Garden of Eden, assumed to be what was later known as Babylon

I don't know how any logically thinking person can look at a spider-web, or the Grand Canyon, or a coral reef, or the human body, or a puppy, and not believe that there is a higher power. <hr /></blockquote>

I see no logical reason at all to believe there is or there isn't a higher power (God). As I recall the Catholic (believing) philosopher St Thomas Aquinas ultimately came to that conclusion. All the arguments can be made by Creationist (whatever that really means), theists, atheists, agnostics, and just plain crazys, but ultimately you decide what you believe based upon a leap of faith everything else is just window dressing to justify it. Whether you choose to believe there is a God or there isn't a God it is still nevertheless a leap of faith.
For the record, when push comes to shove I believe there is a purpose to this thing called life, but I don't neccessarily believe that the human race is part of the end point of that purpose. We may be just a temporary cog in the mechanism grinding towards that purpose, and that's okay. The purpose is what matters, not the process.

Cueless Joey
07-21-2004, 11:18 AM
Actually, St Thomas argument only proved man's limited thinking or understanding.
His theory of transformation from potentiality to actuality was probably his best argument. He wrote anything in actuality now was one time in potentiality. But that transition cannot go on infinitely so something in PURE actuality had to exist. That being God.
He cites the law of generation too. He had 5 "proofs" of God's existence.
But, they're really not proofs.
We cannot imagine the beginning of time or the notion of inifinity but that doesn't mean they are not possible.
My teacher even argued, how do we know time is going forward?

catscradle
07-21-2004, 11:24 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote moblsv:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr><hr /></blockquote> We don't, there are apes, and there are humans. Shouldn't there be some levels inbetween the two since they are still working through the evolutionary cycle to become humans?<hr /></blockquote>
http://www.amalah.com/amalah/images/at_the_races-thumb.jpg <hr /></blockquote>


Hmmmm, I can't help but wonder what she has shaved on her back. /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif

highsea
07-21-2004, 11:27 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> Have you seen any factual proof of evolution? Macroevolution, not microevolution. I know we have different species of dogs (coyotes, wolves, mutts, great dane, etc), however they are all dogs. This is microevolution. My question is, do you have any evidence of a dog coming from a rock?

<font color="blue"> This is a bizarre statement, and not really worth commenting on. No one ever said life evolved from rocks. Why do you accept evolution on a micro scale, but not a macro one? There is a scientific model for the origin of life, i.e. the creation of amino acids (the building block for proteins). One only needs to recreate the atmosphere of a young earth and run an electrical spark (simulating lightning)through it. </font color>

I wonder what those Nova people were thinking out in Texas when they found the dinosaur footprints walking alongside the human footprints. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

<font color="blue"> Lol, the flintstones. Footprints side by side to not mean they were made at the same time. I can say with 100% confidence that man and prehistoric dinosaurs did not co-exist. </font color>

If you believe man came from apes, then why aren't apes still making humans? Why did the evolution suddenly stop?

<font color="blue"> Evolution hasn't stopped, and won't, as long as there is life. The evidence is that man and apes shared a common ancestor. Nobody said men evolved from say, modern Lowland Gorillas, or Chimpanzees. DNA analysis makes a strong case for this, though it was developed long after the theory of evolution. Antibiotic resistant bacteria is one example of evolution at work. We can take a culture of bacteria and introduce an antibiotic, and a certain percentage will develop a resistance. This resistant strain has evolved from the original, and will reproduce the immunity naturally from that point on. </font color>

I like Hovind's question for evolutionists and if you can answer it, then we will see, however first you have to agree that science should be based on fact, religion based on belief. Do you agree?

<font color="blue"> In general, yes. There are exeptions to both, as there are "beliefs" and "facts" in both. </font color>

With that much settled, then you must agree with the First Law of Thermodynamics, Energy can be changed from one form to another, but it cannot be created or destroyed.

<font color="blue"> BBT does not contradict 1LOT. GR gives us the mass-energy equivalence. Energy and matter can be interchanged, with no net loss. We do this in the laboratory all the time. In fact, there is a growing body of evidence that indicates the net sum of energy and matter in the universe to be zero!</font color>

If so, then how did we get here (who created the first molecule that suddenly grew to become man). <font color="blue">Why must there be a "who"? </font color>

You are forced to believe there was always something. There is no proof of the Big Bang, and it cannot possibly be true because we have planets rotating backwards, and moons rotating and spinning backwards, and that is in this solar system alone, not even accounting for the rest out there.

<font color="blue"> This does not contradict BBT. Why must the cosmic bodies all have the same polar orientation? Spin an orange in a clockwise direction. Now invert it. It is now spinning counterclockwise. Now look at it from one pole. Now one hemisphere is always facing the observer, as in our moon. What in any of this disproves BBT? </font color>

Even if you did believe in the BBT, then where did the first tiny little bit of matter (the text books say it was as big as a period on a written page) come from?

<font color="blue"> I don't know what textbook you are referring to. BBT states that all matter coalesced from the original amount of hydrogen (and a small amount of helium) created in the Big Bang. All of the other elements were created in fusion reactions in stars. </font color>

You have to believe it was there, there is absolutely zero scientific fact that it is true. If you believe this, then why do you call what you believe science.

<font color="blue"> The background cosmic radiation (3 deg. K.)is direct evidence of the Big Bang, and the measurements support the theory. A better question would be why do you call "creationism" science? </font color>

Anyways, with you saying creation science is all bunk means little to zero since you are no scientist and you would be blindly arguing something you just cannot prove, it is only something you believe. I made this statement simply because you are questioning my beliefs.

<font color="blue"> No, I'm saying "creation science" is not science. It's religion masquerading as science. While I do not work in the field, my major in college was Chemistry, so I do know a little bit of science. Blind beliefs are the domain of religion, not science. </font color>

Back to the original post, do you believe it was all a lie because your belief of the earth's history is different than Hovinds?

<font color="blue"> No, I like a good conspiracy theory as much as the next guy. I just don't buy into this one, that's all. There is too much evidence to the contrary. Diseases like Parkinsons and Diabetes predate biochemistry, and have a genetic explanation. HIV has been shown to originate in monkeys, then it jumped species. This is not uncommon. Rabies, Mad Cow, Malaria, etc.</font color>

eg8r

PS. Dr. Hovind has a standing $250,000 offer to anyone who can give empirical evidence for evolution. Since you have it all figured out, why don't you tell me how long it took Hovind to cut you a check. It is amazing that you believe this was all figured out yet no one has stepped forward since 1990 and won the money. Go get it. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

<font color="blue"> He would just deny the evidence. He isn't really going to pay anyone, no matter how much evidence is presented. </font color> <hr /></blockquote>

Qtec is correct. "Creation science" is a US phenomonen. It's not science, because it starts out with an assumption, and picks and chooses the evidence to fit the theory. Evidence that doesn't fit is simply discarded.

My objection is that the fundamentalists are trying to push this into the education system. I oppose the dumbing down of our schools. Creationists would discard Biology, Geology, Astronomy, Meteorology, Anthropology, and a host of other sciences in favor of a literal interpretation of the Bible. I guess it would save a bundle on textbooks, though, because you would only need one book per student. /ccboard/images/graemlins/frown.gif

-CM

catscradle
07-21-2004, 11:32 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Cueless Joey:</font><hr> ... He wrote anything in actuality now was one time in potentiality. But that transition cannot go on infinitely so something in PURE actuality had to exist. That being God.

<font color="blue"> Or in concepts my limited mind can better wrap itself around ... the unmoved mover, the uncaused cause, right? </font color>

He cites the law of generation too. He had 5 "proofs" of God's existence.
But, they're really not proofs.

<font color="blue"> We are in agreement then? </font color>

<hr /></blockquote>

crawdaddio
07-21-2004, 11:54 AM
Man, I better stay out of this one/ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/frown.gif
One quick thing and then I'm out.

I just saw an off topic correlation between this quote and the pre-war Iraqi intelligence gathering of the CIA\Bush Co.



<blockquote><font class="small">Quote highsea:</font><hr> It's not science, because it starts out with an assumption, and picks and chooses the evidence to fit the theory. Evidence that doesn't fit is simply discarded.


-CM <hr /></blockquote>

-Sorry about hijacking your thread eg8, just ignore me /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

highsea
07-21-2004, 11:57 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote crawdaddio:</font><hr>I just saw an off topic correlation between this quote and the pre-war Iraqi intelligence gathering of the CIA\Bush Co.
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote highsea:</font><hr> It's not science, because it starts out with an assumption, and picks and chooses the evidence to fit the theory. Evidence that doesn't fit is simply discarded.


-CM <hr /></blockquote> <hr /></blockquote>I certainly never claimed that intelligence gathering was science. /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif

catscradle
07-21-2004, 01:17 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote highsea:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote crawdaddio:</font><hr>I just saw an off topic correlation between this quote and the pre-war Iraqi intelligence gathering of the CIA\Bush Co.
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote highsea:</font><hr> It's not science, because it starts out with an assumption, and picks and chooses the evidence to fit the theory. Evidence that doesn't fit is simply discarded.


-CM <hr /></blockquote> <hr /></blockquote>I certainly never claimed that intelligence gathering was science. /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif <hr /></blockquote>

It might even be argued that intelligence gathering isn't intelligent.

eg8r
07-21-2004, 01:26 PM
[ QUOTE ]
This is a bizarre statement, and not really worth commenting on. No one ever said life evolved from rocks. Why do you accept evolution on a micro scale, but not a macro one? <hr /></blockquote> Rocks are simply a joke on macroevolution. Evolutionists believe everything has evolved from one single thing (there had to be a beginning correct?). Well this is macroevolution in a completely watered down description. I believe in microevolution because these are changes within species or kinds. Dogs is a good example, wolves, coyotes, labs, etc are all part of the same species. Same with cats, lions, cheetahs, etc. The difference is that macroevolution says dogs, cats, bananas and flowers all come from the same thing. There is a big difference.

[ QUOTE ]
One only needs to recreate the atmosphere of a young earth and run an electrical spark (simulating lightning)through it.
<hr /></blockquote> Has this ever been done, actual life created from an electrical spark and all of a sudden the evolutionary process began? Rocks, bananas, lions, kitty cats, and people all began evolving from the atmosphere/lightening reaction?

[ QUOTE ]
Footprints side by side to not mean they were made at the same time. I can say with 100% confidence that man and prehistoric dinosaurs did not co-exist. <hr /></blockquote> The Nova guy did not want to believe it either (actually he turned his back and shut off the video footage), especially when the explorers continued to dig and found more and more tracks hidden under the layers. This was mentioned in the link you provided and the author tried to discredit the human foot prints, but I have seen other accounts (non-religious) whom agree with the pro-human foot crowd.

[ QUOTE ]
Evolution hasn't stopped, and won't, as long as there is life. The evidence is that man and apes shared a common ancestor. Nobody said men evolved from say, modern Lowland Gorillas, or Chimpanzees. DNA analysis makes a strong case for this, though it was developed long after the theory of evolution. <hr /></blockquote> I am asking you, if we evolved from apes (no one said modern) why are the apes not doing it anymore? Why would the evolutionary process suddenly just stop? Why don't we see examples of part-human part-ape?

[ QUOTE ]
Antibiotic resistant bacteria is one example of evolution at work. We can take a culture of bacteria and introduce an antibiotic, and a certain percentage will develop a resistance. This resistant strain has evolved from the original, and will reproduce the immunity naturally from that point on.
<hr /></blockquote> Once again, this is microevolution not macroevolution. The two are completely different. In your example you are not creating a "new" bacteria, just a different one. They are both the same kind of bacteria.

[ QUOTE ]
In general, yes. There are exeptions to both, as there are "beliefs" and "facts" in both. <hr /></blockquote> Your belief in macroevolution is many times more religion than science. You have a lot of faith in things that just cannot be proved, primarily everything in the universe coming from one small little molecule. This is religion not science.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote segment of eg8rs quote that highsea copied:</font><hr> With that much settled, then you must agree with the First Law of Thermodynamics, Energy can be changed from one form to another, but it cannot be created or destroyed.
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote highseas argument to part of my post:</font><hr>
BBT does not contradict 1LOT. GR gives us the mass-energy equivalence. Energy and matter can be interchanged, with no net loss. We do this in the laboratory all the time. In fact, there is a growing body of evidence that indicates the net sum of energy and matter in the universe to be zero!<hr /></blockquote>
<hr /></blockquote> You ignored the rest of my sentence in your argument of the first law, and that is where the problem starts. The sentence that was omitted plainly states something had to come from somewhere (vague on purpose). If energy cannot be created or destroyed, then how did it get there in the first place? This should be easy for you to answer, "it just was". That is faith and that is religion, not science.

[ QUOTE ]
Why must there be a "who"?
<hr /></blockquote> You are being trivial, since the real question is "How" as in how did it get there if it cannot be created or destroyed.

[ QUOTE ]
This does not contradict BBT. Why must the cosmic bodies all have the same polar orientation? Spin an orange in a clockwise direction. Now invert it. It is now spinning counterclockwise. <font color="red"> You are joking right? It never quit spinning in the original direction, you just took a different viewpoint. </font color> Now look at it from one pole. Now one hemisphere is always facing the observer, as in our moon. What in any of this disproves BBT?
<hr /></blockquote> When I mention that the planets are spinning in the wrong direction, surely you understood this to mean they are actually spinning the wrong way, and not that we are just seeing them backwards. The law of Conservation of angular momentum states they will all be spinning in the same direction, however Venus and Uranus do not. The matter that all the planets are formed from should all be spinning in the same direction (at least until they are acted upon).

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know what textbook you are referring to. BBT states that all matter coalesced from the original amount of hydrogen (and a small amount of helium) created in the Big Bang. All of the other elements were created in fusion reactions in stars. <hr /></blockquote> Where did you hear that BBT states all matter coalesced from the original amount of hydrogen (and small amount of helium)? LOL, this is ridiculous because one would have to question where did these 2 molecules come from (you don't state quantities)? How did they get there, why did they have a reaction? Something had to happen to them to cause anything to happen otherwise they would have stood still and nothing happens. You are not making any sense as far as the laws of physics is concerned. Sounds like religion to me.

[ QUOTE ]
The background cosmic radiation (3 deg. K.)is direct evidence of the Big Bang, and the measurements support the theory. A better question would be why do you call "creationism" science? <hr /></blockquote> Actually that question is no better, just the same, you are using the exact same question just changing around the order. I believe all you have is faith in something you cannot prove, that is religion. If you want to call your religion science why should mine not be referred to the same? You bring up cosmic radiation, well where did that come from? If it started with the original hydrogen and helium molecules you mentioned before, then frankly you are still tripping up on the very laws you base your religion.

[ QUOTE ]
No, I'm saying "creation science" is not science. It's religion masquerading as science. While I do not work in the field, my major in college was Chemistry, so I do know a little bit of science. Blind beliefs are the domain of religion, not science. <hr /></blockquote> It is quickly becoming apparent in all your chemistry studies, that you are just "believing" what you were told, and that is not science. As a student in chemistry did you ever notice a phenomenon in which a hydrogen atom appeared from no where for no apparent reason? If it happened in the big bang why does it not continue to happen. You believe in the 1LOT and you don't call that religion? LOL, then you are playing games in your head. Everything had to start from something, and I don't really care how small or how many "billions" of years you say it took. If everything has to come from something then 1LOT cannot be true, or you are believing it was all there in the first place. At that point you are obviously believing in a creator or you just really do not believe in the 1LOT.

[ QUOTE ]
HIV has been shown to originate in monkeys, then it jumped species. <hr /></blockquote> I know this theory has been around for a long time, but where is the proof?

[ QUOTE ]
He would just deny the evidence. He isn't really going to pay anyone, no matter how much evidence is presented. <hr /></blockquote> LOL, sounds like you don't have it all figured out.

[ QUOTE ]
Qtec is correct. "Creation science" is a US phenomonen. It's not science, because it starts out with an assumption, <hr /></blockquote> Let's not be hypocritical, are you not stating that BBT started out with some hydrogen and a little less helium, yet you have no proof and furthermore no explanation on why that goes against the 1LOT? To put it in your words, you are "assuming" these molecules started reacting and somehow without any outside force they began expanding? That sir is an assumption and is exactly why you are believing nothing more than another religion.

[ QUOTE ]
My objection is that the fundamentalists are trying to push this into the education system. <font color="red"> Actually I believe they are trying to remove the lies or unproven crap in the books. If it is alright to push your religion why not allow some of the others in? </font color> I oppose the dumbing down of our schools. <font color="red"> Then quit teaching kids stuff you cannot prove. </font color> Creationists would discard Biology, Geology, Astronomy, Meteorology, Anthropology, and a host of other sciences <font color="red"> Absolute bull and this sounds a lot like the rhetoric Sid puts on the board. Absolutely sugarcoating a non-truth. </font color> in favor of a literal interpretation of the Bible. I guess it would save a bundle on textbooks, though, because you would only need one book per student. <hr /></blockquote>
eg8r

highsea
07-21-2004, 01:56 PM
eg8r, I will not engage in a circular argument about this. I can see where your head is at.

Suffice it to say that there is no such thing as "Science". There is only the scientific method. It is not a religion, it is a process.

Sorry you don't see that. I will leave you the last word.

-CM

SteveEllis
07-21-2004, 07:32 PM
eg8r,
I would suggest you read a book called "The Blind Watchmaker" by Richard Dawkins (no, not the game show host). It is a little dated probably, but it might still give you a little more perspective on the theory of evolution. You might be right that evolutionary theory is wrong, but I don't think so. For that matter, all of creation may have come into existence a nanosecond ago complete with fake scientific evidence, but I don't think so. There is no guarantee that the scientific process illuminates "truth", but it is the best we have and with all it's blind alleys seems to be moving forward in our quest for knowledge. Of course we will never know the "truth" because with all we can learn it is virtually non-existent compared to what there is to know. I always like to keep this quote from Xenophanes in the 6th century BC in mind:

"But as for certain truth, no man has known it.
Nor will he know it;
neither of the gods nor yet of all the things of which I speak.
And even if by chance he were to utter the final truth,
he would himself not know it;
for all is but a woven web of guesses."

Qtec
07-21-2004, 10:46 PM
When Jesus was around, WE were the center of the Universe and everything revolved around us. We were special.
Later on,along came a guy with a telescope and that idea went down the drain big time and science prevailed[ ie logic].

I personally think there are a lot of things in the Bible that are compatible with modern science, ie ''"G-d said , let there be light", ie the big Bang!


Q