PDA

View Full Version : Discover Facts. Get Fired!!



Barry Morris
07-26-2014, 09:42 AM
http://godfatherpolitics.com/16394/scientist-fired-discovering-something-publishing-discovered/

A scientist discovers soft tissue on a dinosaur, and gets fired for revealing it.

Hans
07-27-2014, 09:55 PM
Carbon dating is very precise, and it has clearly shown the age of the bones.
Unless you want to make a claim that dinosaurs roamed the Earth during the early times of the Egyptian civilization?

Anapeg
07-27-2014, 10:25 PM
Does this imply dinosaurs could not have in small numbers avoided extinction and lived on in small pockets? There was a fish caught off Madagascar a few years back then was thought to be extinct for about the same amount of time as the dinosaurs as I recall. If it and presumably others of his kind are swimming about today why would a dinosaur traipsing around California within the last few thousand years be any more of a stretch?

Barry Morris
07-28-2014, 01:53 AM
Carbon dating is very precise,....?

Ya right.

Here's an example!

https://www.shroud.com/vanhels3.htm

:) :) :)

Barry Morris
07-28-2014, 02:06 AM
Wow, even I thought carbon dating could be more accurate than this.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/carbon-dating-gets-reset/

Hans
07-28-2014, 06:19 AM
Does this imply dinosaurs could not have in small numbers avoided extinction and lived on in small pockets? There was a fish caught off Madagascar a few years back then was thought to be extinct for about the same amount of time as the dinosaurs as I recall. If it and presumably others of his kind are swimming about today why would a dinosaur traipsing around California within the last few thousand years be any more of a stretch?

Why do you use "lived"? If they avoided extinction in small numbers, why would they not have continued to live?

Hans
07-28-2014, 06:23 AM
Wow, even I thought carbon dating could be more accurate than this.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/carbon-dating-gets-reset/

This article contradicts a theory that started this topic...

"The researchers collected roughly 70-metre core samples from the lake and painstakingly counted the layers to come up with a direct record stretching back 52,000 years."

Hans
07-28-2014, 06:24 AM
Ya right.

Here's an example!

https://www.shroud.com/vanhels3.htm

:) :) :)

The Shroud of Turin. We all know that is not what it claims to be.

Barry Morris
07-28-2014, 08:37 AM
The Shroud of Turin. We all know that is not what it claims to be.

Yes we do.

The point was the confusion and disagreement around testing and dating.

AND, unknown to me, carbon dating only goes back about 50,000 years!!!

Bill Nash
07-28-2014, 09:39 AM
Ya right.

Here's an example!

https://www.shroud.com/vanhels3.htm

:) :) :)
How can this be a validated example of the inaccuracies of carbon dating, when I can pretty much guarantee that no one on SooNet can make heads or tails of the data he presents. He throws a pile of data at the reader, and then gives his conclusion, .... I will bet my pension that no one here can explain his data.

Barry Morris
07-28-2014, 10:36 AM
How can this be a validated example of the inaccuracies of carbon dating, when I can pretty much guarantee that no one on SooNet can make heads or tails of the data he presents. He throws a pile of data at the reader, and then gives his conclusion, .... I will bet my pension that no one here can explain his data.

Considering that, isn't it funny when people say, "Carbon dating is very precise, and it has clearly shown the age of the bones."

Especially as it only goes back about 50,000 years.

Anapeg
07-28-2014, 10:53 AM
Why do you use "lived"? If they avoided extinction in small numbers, why would they not have continued to live?

"Lived" was used advisedly for they no longer live, or do you have information to the contrary?

Hans
07-28-2014, 07:40 PM
Well, I am just wondering why your theory of surviving dinosaurs in remote pockets does not take into account they would continue to live up to this day.
There's no reason I can see why they would need to die out?

Hans
07-28-2014, 07:51 PM
For those who are interested in a simple explanation on how dating of dinosaurs works:

http://australianmuseum.net.au/Dating-dinosaurs-and-other-fossils

Hans
07-28-2014, 07:52 PM
Considering that, isn't it funny when people say, "Carbon dating is very precise, and it has clearly shown the age of the bones."

Especially as it only goes back about 50,000 years.

It has clearly shown some fossils to be less than 50,000 years old.
However, other dating methods have shown a very different timeline.

See my post below on how dating works. I think there are a few interesting methods they use.

The Left Sock
07-28-2014, 08:32 PM
From the link in the OP:

” It’s a matter of faith among scientists that soft tissue can survive at most for a few tens of thousands of years, not the 65 million since T.rex walked what’s now Hell Creek Mountain in Montana.”

This statement is false, as illustrated by the following story:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2358695/Woolly-mammoth-frozen-Siberia-39-000-YEARS-goes-display-Tokyo-woolly.html

Researchers have discovered intact blood, hair, and muscle tissue from a 39,000 year old woolly mammoth, which goes far beyond the above-mentioned 'matter of faith'.

In other words, the article in the link posted in the OP, is junk science.

The Left Sock
07-28-2014, 08:39 PM
This is the more likely reason the scientist got fired:

“Since some creationists, like [Armitage], believe that the triceratops bones are only 4,000 years old at most, [Armitage's] work vindicated his view that these dinosaurs roamed the planet relatively recently,”.

http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2014/07/24/scientist-alleges-csun-fired-him-for-discovery-of-soft-tissue-on-dinosaur-fossil/

If a 39,000 year old mammoth can be found almost completely intact, with viable blood cells that can be cloned, then it should be obvious that a claim that the triceratops bones are at most 4,000 years old is junk science, and for a scientist to make such a claim, is probably the grounds for him being fired.

That's the problem when belief gets in the way of fact. People are too quick to jam information into a package that meets their preconceived ideas about reality, and they miss out on reality.

Barry Morris
07-28-2014, 09:10 PM
...That's the problem when belief gets in the way of fact. People are too quick to jam information into a package that meets their preconceived ideas about reality, and they miss out on reality.

Pretty sure this works both ways!! :) :) :)

Barry Morris
07-28-2014, 09:34 PM
By the way, Sock, I hope you aren't assuming I believe in a young earth.

Why, that would be like voting conservative provincially!!! :) :) :)

Aristotle
07-29-2014, 11:52 AM
The Shroud of Turin. We all know that is not what it claims to be.

Really?

Aristotle
07-29-2014, 11:54 AM
By the way, Sock, I hope you aren't assuming I believe in a young earth.



I thought you believed everything in the Bible is literally true?

The Voice
07-29-2014, 12:21 PM
http://godfatherpolitics.com/16394/scientist-fired-discovering-something-publishing-discovered/

A scientist discovers soft tissue on a dinosaur, and gets fired for revealing it.

Seems like some people don't think this is a very reliable source.

http://www.city-data.com/forum/politics-other-controversies/1435571-godfather-politics-fundie-hate-site.html

Aristotle
07-29-2014, 05:23 PM
Seems like some people don't think this is a very reliable source.

http://www.city-data.com/forum/politics-other-controversies/1435571-godfather-politics-fundie-hate-site.html

A far-right conservative site that lauds the likes of Rush Limbaugh, et al ...I love it1 :) :) :)

Hans
07-30-2014, 06:28 AM
Really?

Yes, supposedly the death shroud Jesus was wrapped in after death, but before rise.
Fits right up there with the spear of destiny, the holy grail and a bunch of other mythic relics.

Aristotle
07-30-2014, 09:20 AM
Yes, supposedly the death shroud Jesus was wrapped in after death, but before rise.
Fits right up there with the spear of destiny, the holy grail and a bunch of other mythic relics.

Yes, Hans,I know what the Shroud is, I just didn't know it was for once and all determined to be a fake.

Because, well, it's not been determined at all: http://shroudstory.com/

Barry Morris
07-30-2014, 10:13 AM
I thought you believed everything in the Bible is literally true?

Looks like you're wrong twice.

Barry Morris
07-30-2014, 10:15 AM
Yes, Hans,I know what the Shroud is, I just didn't know it was for once and all determined to be a fake.

Because, well, it's not been determined at all: http://shroudstory.com/

Anything to take mans eyes off God.

Aristotle
07-30-2014, 12:47 PM
Looks like you're wrong twice.

It seems it depends on which month it is as to if you'll admit you're a fundamentalist or not. I suppose this is to be expected.

Aristotle
07-30-2014, 12:48 PM
Anything to take mans eyes off God.

Is Jesus God?

After you're done grappling with that, care to address the issue? That it is not at all a settled debate that the Shorud is a fake.

Barry Morris
07-30-2014, 01:47 PM
It seems it depends on which month it is as to if you'll admit you're a fundamentalist or not. I suppose this is to be expected.

I've never believed that I should sit back and let my denomination tell me exactly what to believe.

Let's talk about the work of the Holy Spirit in individual lives.

Barry Morris
07-30-2014, 01:49 PM
Is Jesus God?

After you're done grappling with that, care to address the issue? That it is not at all a settled debate that the Shorud is a fake.

The Shroud takes peoples eyes of God, and for the weak minded gives a physical focal point to waste their lives on.

Whether it's fake or not doesn't matter.

Aristotle
07-30-2014, 02:46 PM
I've never believed that I should sit back and let my denomination tell me exactly what to believe.

Let's talk about the work of the Holy Spirit in individual lives.

Okay, you start:

Aristotle
07-30-2014, 02:48 PM
The Shroud takes peoples eyes of God, and for the weak minded gives a physical focal point to waste their lives on.

So does music take eyes off God? Does entertainment? How about reading?

Sports? Leisure time? Dinner?

Whether it's fake or not doesn't matter.


So if it is real, which means of God, so from God, then it is still insignificant?

Barry Morris
07-30-2014, 08:59 PM
The Shroud takes peoples eyes of God, and for the weak minded gives a physical focal point to waste their lives on.

So does music take eyes off God? Does entertainment? How about reading?

Sports? Leisure time? Dinner?

Yes indeed, any of those things can do that.


Whether it's fake or not doesn't matter.


So if it is real, which means of God, so from God, then it is still insignificant?

If it's real, it's of God?? Why??

Sorry, it's as important as a picture of Jesus on a piece of toast, regardless of it's reality.

Aristotle
07-30-2014, 09:02 PM
If the Shroud is indeed real and is a picture of Jesus then it is obviously from God.

God showing us a representation of Himself in human form is a bit more important than a piece of toast.

Aristotle
07-30-2014, 09:03 PM
Yes indeed, any of those things can do that.

.

Do you watch any sports? Movies? Read? Listen to music?

If so, why do you avert your gaze so much from God?

Barry Morris
07-30-2014, 09:04 PM
Okay, you start:


Luke 11:13
13 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?


Eph 1:13
13 In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation-- having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise,


Eph 4:30
30 And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption.


1Thes 4:7-8
7 For God hath not called us unto uncleanness, but unto holiness.
8 He therefore that despiseth, despiseth not man, but God, who hath also given unto us his holy Spirit.

Is the Holy Spirit in the individual believer??

Barry Morris
07-30-2014, 09:06 PM
Do you watch any sports? Movies? Read? Listen to music?

If so, why do you avert your gaze so much from God?

I said they can. Even church can take your eyes off God, Studying the bible can take your eyes off God. Serving your fellow man can take your eyes off God.

Remember eyes and specks and beams.

Aristotle
07-30-2014, 09:08 PM
Yes, the Holy Spirit was sent to help guide us under the New and Everlasting Covenant.

Aristotle
07-30-2014, 09:09 PM
I said they can. Even church can take your eyes off God, Studying the bible can take your eyes off God. Serving your fellow man can take your eyes off God.

Remember eyes and specks and beams.

So everything can take our gaze off God.

What do we do?

Barry Morris
07-30-2014, 09:13 PM
Yes, the Holy Spirit was sent to help guide us under the New and Everlasting Covenant.

So you agree the Holy Spirit guides the individual believer??

Barry Morris
07-30-2014, 09:14 PM
So everything can take our gaze off God.

What do we do?

Seek the gifts of the Spirit.

List them for us.

Aristotle
07-30-2014, 09:16 PM
So you agree the Holy Spirit guides the individual believer??

It was sent to guide each person. As history shows, we can choose to follow that guidance or not.

Following the Holy Spirit can lead to fruits that can instill in each individual things such as love, patience, self-control, etc

Aristotle
07-30-2014, 09:18 PM
Seek the gifts of the Spirit.

List them for us.


Okay,stop with this "us" stuff, this is where you start pleading for someone to come in and help carry your water. Either try to discuss on your own, or let's back off for now.

This isn't an "us" v Aristotle thing, it's simply you and I. Quit trying to make it some childish team sport

Aristotle
07-30-2014, 09:39 PM
...and that's what I thought.

Off to continue Belloc's "The Crisis of Civilization" (though I don't think you'll applaud the "thing" he believes causes the crisis).

Barry Morris
07-31-2014, 12:51 AM
Okay,stop with this "us" stuff, this is where you start pleading for someone to come in and help carry your water. Either try to discuss on your own, or let's back off for now.

This isn't an "us" v Aristotle thing, it's simply you and I. Quit trying to make it some childish team sport

Oh, trust me, I know what it's all about!!!

Barry Morris
07-31-2014, 12:52 AM
It was sent to guide each person. As history shows, we can choose to follow that guidance or not.

Following the Holy Spirit can lead to fruits that can instill in each individual things such as love, patience, self-control, etc

I guess we need to define the filling of the Holy Spirit.

Barry Morris
07-31-2014, 12:52 AM
...and that's what I thought.

Off to continue Belloc's "The Crisis of Civilization" (though I don't think you'll applaud the "thing" he believes causes the crisis).

Learn a little patience.

Aristotle
07-31-2014, 10:13 AM
Learn a little patience.


Waiting until 1 AM for your response?


No thanks.

Aristotle
07-31-2014, 10:13 AM
I guess we need to define the filling of the Holy Spirit.

okay, start:

Bluesky
07-31-2014, 02:51 PM
I thought you believed everything in the Bible is literally true?

The question should better be posed, "To what extent do you believe the Bible to be literally true?"

And the spectrum ranges from 0% to 95%.

For instance, Some people believe that Gen 1-3 is an allegory that serves to encourage the Jews as they trudge through the wilderness to the Promised Land.
Others take Gen 1 and the Creation account literally (Special creation) but not the 7 24-hour days. At the other end of the Bible we have the book of Revelation. Some just regard the entire book as a mystery, and others take most of it quite literally.

But no one takes the figures of speech literally. So when the Bible says "I am so hungry I could eat a horse", we recognize it as an exaggeration. :)
We also recognize that the Bible doesn't have that last phrase.

Aristotle
07-31-2014, 05:31 PM
Hello Blue, you've been expected :)

Hans
08-03-2014, 01:46 PM
Yes, Hans,I know what the Shroud is, I just didn't know it was for once and all determined to be a fake.

Because, well, it's not been determined at all: http://shroudstory.com/

Ah well, that reminds me of the various myth documentaries I have watched this past weekend.
Spear of destiny, ark of the covenant, titulus crusis, and the shroud was in there also yes.

At the end, there's 1 common thread: denial of researchers and discoverers when a scientific method does not fit with their personal beliefs that it has to be true because there is so much "other" evidence proving it is real.
If you think about it what are the chances that someone would have kept, preserved and handed down these fairly fragile items from generation to generation and all of a sudden they are "discovered".

Aristotle
08-03-2014, 02:13 PM
Ah well, that reminds me of the various myth documentaries I have watched this past weekend.
Spear of destiny, ark of the covenant, titulus crusis, and the shroud was in there also yes.

At the end, there's 1 common thread: denial of researchers and discoverers when a scientific method does not fit with their personal beliefs that it has to be true because there is so much "other" evidence proving it is real.
If you think about it what are the chances that someone would have kept, preserved and handed down these fairly fragile items from generation to generation and all of a sudden they are "discovered".

your logic is illogical:

some relics are fake
the Shroud is a relic
The Shroud is fake

Barry Morris
08-03-2014, 06:08 PM
Amazing that we have all this accurate age testing, but the shroud is still not dated.

Or is it??

Aristotle
08-03-2014, 07:20 PM
Amazing that we have all this accurate age testing, but the shroud is still not dated.

Or is it??

Just in time for the current Easter season, news emerged from Italy that a new approach to dating the Shroud of Turin has located it squarely in the time frame necessary for it to have wrapped the crucified body of Jesus Christ.

A new book written in Italian, Il Mistero della Sindone (The Mystery of the Shroud), by Giulio Fanti, professor of mechanical and thermal measurement at the University of Padua’s Engineering Faculty, and journalist Saverio Gaeta, states that by measuring the degradation of cellulose in linen fibers from the shroud, two separate approaches show the cloth is at least 2,000 years old.

And while Fanti’s methodology has been questioned by others, the book also states that another series of mechanical tests, designed to measure the compressibility and breaking strength of the fibers, corroborated these findings.

According to Italian journalist Andrea Tornielli, the three separate tests, when averaged, showed the linen fibers of the shroud to have been woven into cloth around 33 B.C., give or take 250 years, thus nicely bracketing the year 30, when most historians say Jesus died on the cross.


Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/science-shines-new-light-on-shroud-of-turins-age/#ixzz39NG5ErYL

Aristotle
08-03-2014, 07:23 PM
The Shroud of Turin is not old enough to be the burial cloth of Jesus, according to a radiocarbon dating done in 1988, but a new study says neutron radiation from an ancient earthquake could have been responsible for an incorrect date.

According to Alberto Carpinteri, from the Politecnico di Torino in Italy, a massive earthquake, measuring 8.2 on the Richter Scale, in 33 A.D. in Jerusalem (soon after the time of the Crucifixion) could have led to the release of free neutrons, attaching to other atoms, to form carbon isotopes, a process called neutron radiation. The research was published in the journal Meccanica.

http://www.ibtimes.com/shroud-turin-wrong-carbon-dating-due-ancient-earthquake-new-study-sparks-controversy-1554922

Aristotle
08-03-2014, 07:25 PM
"The fact that vanillin cannot be detected in the lignin on shroud fibres, Dead Sea scrolls linen and other very old linens indicates that the shroud is quite old," Mr Rogers writes.

"A determination of the kinetics of vanillin loss suggests the shroud is between 1,300 and 3,000 years old."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4210369.stm



Five reasons why the Shroud of Turin could be authentic

http://www.bizpacreview.com/2014/04/17/five-reasons-why-the-shroud-of-turin-could-be-authentic-113215

Barry Morris
08-03-2014, 07:31 PM
The skeptical can google "shroud worshippers" for more information.

Aristotle
08-03-2014, 07:38 PM
The skeptical can google "shroud worshippers" for more information.

That sounds like a very unbiased site.

By typing "shroud worshipers" into Google you certainly aren't trying to find sites that conform to your preconceived notions. :) :) :)

Barry Morris
08-03-2014, 07:56 PM
That sounds like a very unbiased site.

By typing "shroud worshipers" into Google you certainly aren't trying to find sites that conform to your preconceived notions. :) :) :)

I have no pre-conceived notions about the shroud. It doesn't matter to me if it's real or not.

A waste of time, IMO.

The Left Sock
08-03-2014, 09:57 PM
Well, even if they demonstrate that it's the burial cloth of someone from 2000 years ago, it still doesn't put them any closer to proving it was Jesus.

Lots of people were crucified in that time period.

Hans
08-03-2014, 11:32 PM
your logic is illogical:

some relics are fake
the Shroud is a relic
The Shroud is fake

I am not following what you just said. Give some more detail.

Aristotle
08-07-2014, 03:23 PM
You are claiming the Shroud is a fake just because some relics are fake. your line of thought appears to be: relic = fake

Barry Morris
08-08-2014, 07:47 AM
You are claiming the Shroud is a fake just because some relics are fake. your line of thought appears to be: relic = fake

In all too many cases, that is a reasonable assumption.

Aristotle
08-08-2014, 11:06 AM
In all too many cases, that is a reasonable assumption.

source? link?

Hans
08-09-2014, 08:33 PM
You are claiming the Shroud is a fake just because some relics are fake. your line of thought appears to be: relic = fake

You must have misunderstood me, or have drawn a conclusion that is not there.

The Shroud I believe not to be real, simply because at the time it was used Jesus was considered a criminal, a nobody, a fake, someone who had to be crucified.
I highly doubt anybody would have kept the cloth used, and handed it successfully down from generation to generation.

It is simply too far fetched for anything to have survived, or even kept to begin with.

Barry Morris
08-10-2014, 08:23 AM
You must have misunderstood me, or have drawn a conclusion that is not there.

The Shroud I believe not to be real, simply because at the time it was used Jesus was considered a criminal, a nobody, a fake, someone who had to be crucified.
I highly doubt anybody would have kept the cloth used, and handed it successfully down from generation to generation.

It is simply too far fetched for anything to have survived, or even kept to begin with.

I have to disagree with that argument.

A guy, certifiably dead, who came to life again and was seen by hundreds of people, would abe a tad unusual.

That a cloth used to cover his body might be saved is entirely plausiblle.

Hans
08-10-2014, 06:00 PM
By whom would it have been saved?

Barry Morris
08-10-2014, 06:47 PM
By whom would it have been saved?

By His family, by one of His followers, etc

Hans
08-10-2014, 09:21 PM
1390 AD is roughly the accepted time at which the history of the Shroud starts. Prior to that date very little to nothing is historically known about it.
That would mean many different people would have passed it on between roughly 32 AD and 1390 AD.

Just seems implausible to me.

Barry Morris
08-10-2014, 11:27 PM
Implausible, I agree. Impossible, no.

But I neither believe the shroud to be a true relic, nor, even if it were, believe it to be of any value to the Christian walk.

Aristotle
08-11-2014, 11:26 AM
1390 AD is roughly the accepted time at which the history of the Shroud starts.

No, it's not. It's an old theory that has since been proven wrong.

Aristotle
08-11-2014, 11:30 AM
But I neither believe the shroud to be a true relic, nor, even if it were, believe it to be of any value to the Christian walk.

Which is totally irrelevant to the conversation.

The question is this: is the Shroud real?

Barry Morris
08-11-2014, 01:57 PM
Which is totally irrelevant to the conversation.

The question is this: is the Shroud real?

Wasting time again. Why is this worship of relics peculiar to one denomination??

Distracts people, I guess.

Aristotle
08-11-2014, 03:18 PM
Wasting time again. Why is this worship of relics peculiar to one denomination??

Distracts people, I guess.

A denomination worships the Shroud, or any relic?

Source? Link?

The Left Sock
08-11-2014, 03:50 PM
It's a piece of cloth. It's old.

That's the only truth that will ever be known about the Shroud, so there's no point losing sleep over it.

Unless, of course, someone has some of Jesus's DNA kicking around.

Hans
08-11-2014, 07:33 PM
No, it's not. It's an old theory that has since been proven wrong.

Do you happen to have a link from a semi reputable source for that?
All I could find were these links:

http://www.history.com/shows/the-real-face-of-jesus/articles/the-shroud-of-turin
http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/apologetics/ShroudTurinHistory.htm
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_shro2.htm

Hans
08-11-2014, 07:41 PM
It's a piece of cloth. It's old.

That's the only truth that will ever be known about the Shroud, so there's no point losing sleep over it.

Unless, of course, someone has some of Jesus's DNA kicking around.

Veil of Veronica held by the Vatican should contain Jesus's DNA. I highly doubt they will allow you to touch it.

Aristotle
08-12-2014, 11:04 AM
Do you happen to have a link from a semi reputable source for that?
All I could find were these links:

http://www.history.com/shows/the-real-face-of-jesus/articles/the-shroud-of-turin
http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/apologetics/ShroudTurinHistory.htm
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_shro2.htm

yes, see the earlier link I provided

Aristotle
08-12-2014, 11:06 AM
It's a piece of cloth. It's old.

That's the only truth that will ever be known about the Shroud, so there's no point losing sleep over it.

Unless, of course, someone has some of Jesus's DNA kicking around.

Yet you firmly believe in Darwinian Evolution...even though that theory had to make up the "Missing Link" to bolster its claim.


"This is how we got here, please ignore the fact we developed the Missing Link theory to cover a massive hole in our theory. Thanks"

Hans
08-12-2014, 07:26 PM
I am not aware of any missing link in DNA. Care to elaborate?

Barry Morris
08-12-2014, 07:58 PM
I am not aware of any missing link in DNA. Care to elaborate?

He never said anything about DNA. What are you talking about??

Aristotle
08-12-2014, 08:11 PM
I am not aware of any missing link in DNA. Care to elaborate?

Not DNA. The "Missing Link" is (supposedly) an intermediate phase in our development that we just can't seem to find a shred of evidence for. And, as you can imagine, that makes the entire premise of Darwinian Evolution a bit,shall we say, lacking.

Scientist: "We have solved the riddle. We know how we got here"

The World: "REALLY??? COOL!!!! HOW?!?!?!?!?!?!"

Scientist(points to chart): "As you can see, we were first "A",then "B", then "D", which leads us to now, "E"

The World(scratches its collective head):"ummmm, how does "B" lead to "D"? Where is "C"?

Scientist: "We don't know, not a clue, can't find a shred of evidence. We have no proof,at all. It just does"



Scientist: "Oh, and before I leave, I'd like to remind you that people who believe in God are superstitious fools!"

The World: "Why??"

Scientist: "Why??Because they believe in something in which there is no proof!!"

The Voice
08-12-2014, 08:39 PM
http://godfatherpolitics.com/16394/scientist-fired-discovering-something-publishing-discovered/

A scientist discovers soft tissue on a dinosaur, and gets fired for revealing it.

I am still waiting for you to respond to this being a Garbage Right Wing Site?

I see no creditability here?

Hans
08-12-2014, 08:58 PM
He never said anything about DNA. What are you talking about??

DNA is the basis for all live forms we know on Earth.
So whatever link you claim is missing is not missing.

Barry Morris
08-12-2014, 11:47 PM
DNA is the basis for all live forms we know on Earth.
So whatever link you claim is missing is not missing.

Uh-huh.

Absolutely.

Sure.

About like this: "Carbon dating is very precise, and it has clearly shown the age of the bones."

Barry Morris
08-12-2014, 11:56 PM
I am still waiting for you to respond to this being a Garbage Right Wing Site?

I see no creditability here?

Could be a garbage site.

Or that could be shooting the messenger.

Don't know.

But if the news item is untrue, I'd be interested in knowing about it.

The Voice
08-13-2014, 09:26 AM
Could be a garbage site.

Or that could be shooting the messenger.

Don't know.

But if the news item is untrue, I'd be interested in knowing about it.

So you are saying is that this site is credible when it comes to debunking Darwin but not credible when it comes to debunking michael moore.


http://godfatherpolitics.com/16400/multi-millionaire-owner-9-homes-michael-moore-big-fat-hypocrite/

Barry Morris
08-13-2014, 10:13 AM
So you are saying is that this site is credible when it comes to debunking Darwin but not credible when it comes to debunking michael moore.


http://godfatherpolitics.com/16400/multi-millionaire-owner-9-homes-michael-moore-big-fat-hypocrite/

Am I saying that?? Don't think so.

The Left Sock
08-13-2014, 11:46 AM
Yet you firmly believe in Darwinian Evolution...even though that theory had to make up the "Missing Link" to bolster its claim.


"This is how we got here, please ignore the fact we developed the Missing Link theory to cover a massive hole in our theory. Thanks"

I guess you missed the detailed thread where I put forward an argument that Darwin's Theory was a failed one. You must have been, um.... hibernating during all that.

Well, you can always look it up in the archives.

Took yourself a long walk on a short dock here, methinks.

Aristotle
08-13-2014, 02:29 PM
I must have missed that legendary treatise of yours.

I am assuming it can be accessed here: http://www.thegreatcourses.com/courses/great-minds-of-the-western-intellectual-tradition-3rd-edition.html?cid=470

Aristotle
08-13-2014, 02:30 PM
DNA is the basis for all live forms we know on Earth.
So whatever link you claim is missing is not missing.

wait...what???

Hans
08-13-2014, 07:17 PM
wait...what???

I will say it again. DNA is the basis for all life forms we know on earth.
So whatever link you claim is missing it not missing.

If it would be, we would all have an incomplete DNA sequence because it would be missing a link.

Aristotle
08-13-2014, 07:33 PM
So you are saying there is no Missing Link?

Did you let the rest of the world know this?

Aristotle
08-13-2014, 07:34 PM
If it would be, we would all have an incomplete DNA sequence because it would be missing a link.

you're misunderstanding what it is.

Some scientists believe it existed once, it's just that we can't find any trace.

The Left Sock
08-13-2014, 08:07 PM
Human development was radically altered when the aliens intervened. Everybody knows that.

Most of the religions in the world today are based off of that intervention.

So, there is no 'missing link'. Just a whole lot of denial.

Barry Morris
08-13-2014, 08:35 PM
Human development was radically altered when the aliens intervened. Everybody knows that.

Most of the religions in the world today are based off of that intervention.

So, there is no 'missing link'. Just a whole lot of denial.

I knew that!!!

Hans
08-13-2014, 09:49 PM
you're misunderstanding what it is.

Some scientists believe it existed once, it's just that we can't find any trace.

I don't believe I am misunderstanding what it is:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-missing-genetic-link-in-human-evolution/
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/are-dna-tests-the-missing-link-496957.html
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2013/07/125-missing-human-ancestor/shreeve-text

Aristotle
08-14-2014, 12:37 PM
Yup, you are

Hans
08-14-2014, 07:31 PM
You know how DNA replicates over time, correct?

Aristotle
08-14-2014, 10:13 PM
You know how DNA replicates over time, correct?

If that were true there would be a discernible difference between Don Cherry and Neanderthal Man.

Hans
08-15-2014, 06:24 AM
It is all in the way it replicates. Read up on it, it is interesting.

The Voice
08-15-2014, 07:53 PM
If that were true there would be a discernible difference between Don Cherry and Neanderthal Man.

If I was lined up across from you I'd throw down the gloves and DUMMY you the second they dropped the puck.

Then Don Cherry would turn me into a national hero.

:):):)

Barry Morris
08-16-2014, 10:46 AM
If I was lined up across from you I'd throw down the gloves and DUMMY you the second they dropped the puck.

Then Don Cherry would turn me into a national hero.

:):):)

Hmmm. Then I doubt either one of you could really define "sportsmanship".

Aristotle
08-16-2014, 11:06 AM
lololol

The Voice
08-16-2014, 12:29 PM
Hmmm. Then I doubt either one of you could really define "sportsmanship".

In the Immortal words of Vince Lombardi "Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing".

;)

Barry Morris
08-16-2014, 05:14 PM
In the Immortal words of Vince Lombardi "Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing".

;)

No, it's not,

To win dishonorably is ultimately not very satisfying.

The Voice
08-17-2014, 06:14 AM
No, it's not,

To win dishonorably is ultimately not very satisfying.

Oh but I am quite sure that is exactly what Vince Lombardi said.

Considering he is a legendary football coach whom the Super Bowl trophy is named after, I'll take his philosophy over yours any day.

Barry Morris
08-17-2014, 08:30 AM
Oh but I am quite sure that is exactly what Vince Lombardi said.

Considering he is a legendary football coach whom the Super Bowl trophy is named after, I'll take his philosophy over yours any day.

Then I suspect that you have no idea what I'm talking about.

The Voice
08-17-2014, 09:29 AM
Then I suspect that you have no idea what I'm talking about.

I suspect it is actually the other way around.:)

Barry Morris
08-17-2014, 12:39 PM
Lombardi would call Ben Johnson and Lance Armstrong heroes.

I would not.

Do you?

The Voice
08-17-2014, 01:19 PM
Lombardi would call Ben Johnson and Lance Armstrong heroes.

I would not.

Do you?

I am pretty sure the NFL could teach Lance and Ben a thing or two about Steroids.

FYI: They weren't doing anything their competition wasn't doing, they just got caught.

I feel sorry for both of them because they probably were only doing what they thought they had to in order to win. In that they had no chance of winning if they didn't.

I think Ben Johnson was pushed to do it.

Barry Morris
08-17-2014, 04:49 PM
So it's honourable to win any way you can??

Barry Morris
08-18-2014, 01:07 AM
This is a paraphrase of the words of a favourite author.

Honour is what you think of yourself. Reputation is what others think of you. There is nothing more soul destroying than receiving the applause of men while your honour lays shattered at your feet.

The reverse is merely annoying.

The Voice
08-18-2014, 08:53 PM
So it's honourable to win any way you can??

This thread is getting a little sidetracked. None the less that is not what I said.

You asked about my opinion of Lance and Ben and I gave it. I didn't endorse or condemn them I stated my view of the situation. They did what they thought they had to in order to win.

Barry Morris
08-19-2014, 06:47 AM
Implicit in this whole thread is today's moral "flexibility". Self-interest rules, and some think it will lead to a better future.

I do not. Neither do I see any evidence in today's world, as atheism and the condemnation of Christianity increase, that there is any improvement in man's interaction with his fellow man.

Aristotle
08-20-2014, 07:51 PM
Neither do I see any evidence in today's world, as atheism and the condemnation of Christianity increase, that there is any improvement in man's interaction with his fellow man.

Facebook hasn't helped.

Barry Morris
08-20-2014, 08:45 PM
Facebook hasn't helped.

Technology has neither helped nor harmed. Merely made communication easier.

Aristotle
08-21-2014, 09:02 PM
Technology has neither helped nor harmed. Merely made communication easier.

Technology is so innocuous it hasn't had an affect on society at all???

The Voice
08-22-2014, 12:31 AM
No, it's not,

To win dishonorably is ultimately not very satisfying.

I guess you missed the smiley face it's ok to tell jokes in the religious forum as long as it is not during services.

:):):)