Biological diversity does not suggest we evolved from fish

[stcordova]

Humans are more similar to chimps than they are to trees. This was well known by creationists even before Darwin.

We might superficially then claim chimps and humans must have descended from a common ancestor. And we could rinse and repeat and say, "we're more similar to fish than to trees as well so we fish and humans must have descended from a common ancestor of fish and humans."

The problem then is we follow the logic carefully, we must therefore conclude we didn't evolve from fish, at best fish and humans descended from some unspecified a common ancestor.

So let me for the sake of argument assume evolutionism is true. What can we conclude from these diagrams:

Vertebrates descend from Vetebrates
Mammals descend from Mammals
Primates descend from Primates
Humans descend from Humans

Therefore: Humans descended from Humans

Evolutionists however will give the following non-sequitur:

Vertebrates descend from Vetebrates
Mammals descend from Mammals
Primates descend from Primates
Humans descend from Humans

Therefore: Humans descended from Fish

Here is a diagram at the anatomical level that shows a very nice hierarchical pattern from universe review.

http://universe-review.ca/I10-82-vertebrates.jpg




and then regarding the bone morphogenetic proteins

http://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1- ... 18-gr1.jpg




What these diagrams show is that Fish will not give birth to anything but something fish like. It won't give rise to Primates!

As Michael Denton pointed out, superficially the structure of diversity in the biosphere suggest common descent, but the problem is it also suggest that there won't be any transitionals even in principle. Hence a careful study of the diagrams might lead one to think special creation is a better explanation since it is evident that fish don't give any hint of being ancestors to primates.

[mickeymudge]

And yes some insects don't apply to my claim, but my point is that by far, in comparison to most species, our Brain to body ratio is much higher than you would expect. Do you seriously think we are so super that it's size explains it's necessity?

No, it's not just insects.
As I've told you, sperm whales also apply.
Tree shrew, mice, lions...
I mean... this claim is just wrong. Well, unless you just exclude everything that doesn't fit.
"Humans have this amazingly big heat/body ratio... if we ignore all creatures who that applies to. Because if we didn't, this feature of us wouldn't be that special anymore."
I don't know what you mean with "so super". And I don't kow what you mean by "it's size explains it necessity". This phrase doesn't tell me anything. Maybe you can rephrase it?

Let's try looking at this from another angle. We only use 2% of our DNA. The rest is dormant. Now I'm sure this makes an excellent sales pitch for the day that scientists figure out that I'm correct and we have dormant powers,...[/quote]

If you would call having dorment viruses getting reactivated which probably would kill us... then yeah... sure. We have dormant powers!
Because that's what a certain part of our DNA is: Dormant retro-viruses, which we have gotten passed on from an incredibly long line of generations in the past. We still clearly recognize them as viruses, they are just inactivated. So, if you think reactivating them would in any way reveal any powers of us... yeah, I have to say I'm very, very sceptical.
Many other "dormant" features are just long lines of repeated sequences, which really don't do anything. This is not really a secret. We know how our DNA works, what functions it can take. And these long repeated sequences they can't have any specific function, at least not anything that could give us some "powers".
So... I don't know if you have any evidence to support that the inactive DNA gives us "special powers"... but as far as I can tell, you've just looked at the numbers about our inactive DNA, saw a mysterie, and decided that this mysterie must be linked to some super-powers.
Or do you have something more than just your... let's call it "intuition"?

[/quote]...and I think all the doctors and scientists are right that agree that we have abilities. I don't see how so many can be wrong.[/color]

Well... yes, we have "abilities". We can speak, walk, swim, breath, see...
We have many, many abilities.

Now, you didn't answer my other question.
Could you please point me to the peer reviewed studies, that support your claim that these phenomena (telepathy, etc...) are actual, real phenomena? I would like to have a look at it.[/quote]


No, it's not just insects.
As I've told you, sperm whales also apply.
Tree shrew, mice, lions...
I mean... this claim is just wrong. Well, unless you just exclude everything that doesn't fit.
"Humans have this amazingly big heat/body ratio... if we ignore all creatures who that applies to. Because if we didn't, this feature of us wouldn't be that special anymore."
I don't know what you mean with "so super". And I don't kow what you mean by "it's size explains it necessity". This phrase doesn't tell me anything. Maybe you can rephrase it?


Species Simple brain-to body ratio (E:S)[1]
small ants 1:7[2]
tree shrew 1:10
small birds 1:14
human 1:40
mouse 1:40
cat 1:110
dog 1:125
squirrel 1:150
frog 1:172
lion 1:550
elephant 1:560
horse 1:600
shark 1:2496
hippopotamus 1:2789

Maybe we could just agree that I'm mostly correct, OK!

Let's try looking at this from another angle. We only use 2% of our DNA. The rest is dormant. Now I'm sure this makes an excellent sales pitch for the day that scientists figure out that I'm correct and we have dormant powers,...

As long as you're including the fact that God was obviously a space alien per several things in the bible, along with the fact that he mostly punished us all the time, along with the fact that he indicates that the punishments will be handed down to our offspring, along with the fact that he is witnessed in Ezekiel being accompanied by a four headed creature of lion ox eagle and man, along with the fact that aliens have been known to be advanced in technology in comparison to us, along with the fact that there is obvious signs of tampering in our human DNA, along with the fact that most of it appears to be dormant, then YES, you would be making an accurate pitch.


If you would call having dorment viruses getting reactivated which probably would kill us... then yeah... sure. We have dormant powers!
Because that's what a certain part of our DNA is: Dormant retro-viruses, which we have gotten passed on from an incredibly long line of generations in the past. We still clearly recognize them as viruses, they are just inactivated. So, if you think reactivating them would in any way reveal any powers of us... yeah, I have to say I'm very, very sceptical.
Many other "dormant" features are just long lines of repeated sequences, which really don't do anything. This is not really a secret. We know how our DNA works, what functions it can take. And these long repeated sequences they can't have any specific function, at least not anything that could give us some "powers".
So... I don't know if you have any evidence to support that the inactive DNA gives us "special powers"... but as far as I can tell, you've just looked at the numbers about our inactive DNA, saw a mysterie, and decided that this mysterie must be linked to some super-powers.
Or do you have something more than just your... let's call it "intuition"?

Yes I agree that there are probably dormant viruses in the dormant sections. God was punishing us before Isaiah 6:8> Pick up a book and stop being sceptical. At least base your scepticisim on something other than, I just can't understand how we could possibly have dormant abilities? Of course I don't have any obvious proof that there is disabled abilities in our DNA, I wouldn't be talking to you right now if I did. What I do have is a plethora of doctors that all agree that there is more to the brain than we know about right now, and for the most part, some of it is obviously supernatural abilities that appear to be weakened or disabled. Seriously how many things have to all point to the same issue of DNA before you start to accept is as plausible? Sequences that don't do anything? Now that's what I would call intuition, or do you have something solid that says we just have useless DNA in our bodies? I'm sorry I don't buy it.

...and I think all the doctors and scientists are right that agree that we have abilities. I don't see how so many can be wrong.
Well... yes, we have "abilities". We can speak, walk, swim, breath, see...
We have many, many abilities.

Oh I'm sorry for not being clear, those weren't the doctors or the abilities I was referring too. I was referring to the following....

Francis S. Collins, M.D., Ph.D. is the one who led the work in the human genome project.
Author / researcher, Lloyd Pye, for tampering in our DNA.
Elgar G, and Vavouri T, claims that over 98% of our genome, is noncoding.
Allan Whitenack Snyder is the director of the Centre for the Mind at the University of Sydney, Australia. His research has proven that transcranial magnetic stimulation to the left temporal lobe can induce savant-like skills in healthy people.
Dr Michael Persinger, is a cognitive neuroscience researcher and university professor.
Some famous remote viewers include David Morehouse, Ingo Swann and Joseph McMoneagle.
We have known since the early 17th century, that a rare meta-physician claimed to have the ability to visualize the inner workings of his brain. Robert Fludd, explained that his images were projected onto a screen on a perceived space beyond the back of the head.
"Thought" photographs do exist, and a selection of them were on display in an exhibition through March 27, 2011. at the Albin O. Kuhn Library and Gallery at the University of Maryland-Baltimore County. Theodore Judd Serios (1918-2006)
Nina Kulagina could move objects that were close to her hands, and even stop a frog's heart from beating. Scientists claim that poltergeist activity is generated from the mind of the subject, yet not coherently controlled. Dr. John Ankerberg, Dr. John Weldon, for parapsychologists, and other psychical researchers, poltergeists are often seen as a merely human phenomenon—a manifestation of alleged human (usually adolescent) psychokinesis.
Donald Decker in Rain man / Donald Decker, was able to cause it to rain, indoors. Witnessed by police, landlord, and tenants. Even stranger was the rain, could form on the floor as a drop, and shoot upward, or sideways. Donald levitated in the event as well, but it was proven that he was possessed. He gave up his abilities when he was exorcised.


Now, you didn't answer my other question.
Could you please point me to the peer reviewed studies, that support your claim that these phenomena (telepathy, etc...) are actual, real phenomena? I would like to have a look at it.

Well it's not an exhausted list, but here are some links helping with the aforementioned...

Erich Von Daniken is who came up with the Arc of the covenant being a radio device and sodom and gomorrah being an atomic bomb. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erich_von_D%C3%A4niken

Earth-is-not-our-home-hebrews-111-16.html for the supernatural intention translation. http://gspcsermons.blogspot.com/2008/08/

http://www.spiritscienceandmetaphysics. ... equencies/

Allan Snyder http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allan_Snyder

Dr and author / Ecologist, Ellis Silver, http://humansarefree.com/2013/11/humans ... s-our.html

aborted alien fetus, http://www.ufosightingsdaily.com/2013/0 ... cking.html

10% brain myth. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_percent_of_brain_myth

mtDNA wiki. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve

abduction and militant control engineering by proxy. http://www.ufoevidence.org/cases/case354.htm

The Search for Mitochondrial Eve. "NewsWeek" http://www.virginia.edu/woodson/courses ... erney.html

The UFO Threat A Fact. http://www.greatdreams.com/ufos/firefighters.htm

Endangered animal Author, George, S Fichter, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction ... ite_note-2

Andrew Weil, M.D. http://www.drweil.com/drw/u/QAA400757/P ... e-Ice.html

Hopkins, Jacobs and sociologist Dr. Ron Westrum, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_abduction_claimants

Kelly Cahill,

Donald Decker, http://beforeitsnews.com/strange/2013/1 ... 53368.html

David Morehouse, Ingo Swann and Joseph McMoneagle. http://realpsychicpower.com/famous-remote-viewers

Elgar G, and Vavouri T. http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-coding_DNA

Author/researcher, Lloyd Pye,

Francis S. Collins, M.D., Ph.D. http://www.nih.gov/about/director/

Robert Fludd, Ted Serios, http://chronicle.com/article/Ted-SeriosPsychic/126388/

Dr. Dmitri Alden, http://hauteliving.com/2013/12/food-kil ... en/433471/

Dr. John Ankerberg, Dr. John Weldon, http://www.inplainsite.org/html/polterg ... uLckK.dpuf

Most bible passages as well as variations, and indexing searces were taken from. http://legacy.biblegateway.com/

Michael A. Persinger http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Persinger

http://www.remoteviewed.com/rvhistorymap.html

[Freddy_Scissorhands]

ie must be linked to some super-powers.
Or do you have something more than just your... let's call it "intuition"?

Species Simple brain-to body ratio (E:S)[1]
small ants 1:7[2]
tree shrew 1:10
small birds 1:14
human 1:40
mouse 1:40
cat 1:110
dog 1:125
squirrel 1:150
frog 1:172
lion 1:550
elephant 1:560
horse 1:600
shark 1:2496
hippopotamus 1:2789

Maybe we could just agree that I'm mostly correct, OK!

Not at all!
What you present here is BRAIN to body ration, you originally talked about head to body ratio!
Also: No, you are still no mostly correct because:
"Small birds" and "small ants" make up a HUGE variety of animals! Enormous, actually! To just ignore them, because they don't fit with what you want me to acknowledge, sorry, that doesn't fly.
You are not correct. Not even "mostly".

Yes I agree that there are probably dormant viruses in the dormant sections. God was punishing us before Isaiah 6:8> Pick up a book and stop being sceptical.

No way! Why?
Why on earth should I stop being sceptical?
You know what's the oposite of being sceptical is? Being gullible!
I understand that your ideas are much more easily to sell to people who aren't sceptical, but that's no evidence for their validity... rather to the contrary!
If ideas can't hold up to sceptisism... then they aren't worth a dime!

Why At least base your scepticisim on something other than, I just can't understand how we could possibly have dormant abilities?

Not once, not ONCE, did I say ANYTHING like that!
My sceptisism is based on a very, very, very simple principle: You claim that we have hidden/dormant abilities? Can you demonstrate that? No? In that case, I remain sceptical and won't believe your claim, until you can prove it!
I know, it would be much easier for you, if I said "Yeah, sure, I'm gonna believe you, until somebody proves that you are wrong!".... but that's not how this works!
You claim that we have these abilities, so you have a burden of proof.

Of course I don't have any obvious proof that there is disabled abilities in our DNA, I wouldn't be talking to you right now if I did. What I do have is a plethora of doctors that all agree that there is more to the brain than we know about right now, and for the most part, some of it is obviously supernatural abilities that appear to be weakened or disabled.

And as long as these doctors can present ANY evidence, this will remain their opinion!
And you know why we work that way?
Because I can show you just as many doctors (probably even more than you can) who will strongly disagree with your doctors opinion!
So why did you chose to believe the opinions of your doctors and not the others? Just because the ones you've chosen match with your already existing believes?
Here is a better way to go about that:
Don't accept any of it! These are OPINIONS! Just because doctors hold them, doesn't mean anything!
Wait until they have evidence... THEN you can believe them! If they claim that your brain has some supernatural powers, but there is nothing to demonstrate it... well, then there is nothing to believe!

Seriously how many things have to all point to the same issue of DNA before you start to accept is as plausible?

Well... so far you have presented NOTHING that points into that direction. I'm sorry, but that's just how it is!
What you've given me is the fact that some doctors have some opinions, and your great position of "You can't prove that there aren't any abilities, so stop being so scpetical!"
I'm sorry, but I need a lot more... a lot more than nothing, that is!

Sequences that don't do anything? Now that's what I would call intuition, or do you have something solid that says we just have useless DNA in our bodies? I'm sorry I don't buy it.

Well... yeah, I have. And actually, I've said it before.
A certain part is inactivated viruses. They don't do anything.
Other sections are repeating sequences, that also don't do anything.
We know from mice, that we can actually remove a big part of these non-coding pieces of DNA, without really effecting the mice. We can't do that with humans, sure, that would be unethical, but at least all the evidence that we have points to the idea, that these DNA-sequences are in fact practically useless.
I'm not saying it defenetly is that way. Only, that the evidence we have points to this direction.
If you have an alternative model, then present it... but please WITH some evidence!
Heck, I'm still confused about how ANY DNA should give us some supernatural power! You haven't even presented a model for that hypothetical, let alone presented anything that demonstrates that it ACTUALLY is that way!

Oh I'm sorry for not being clear, those weren't the doctors or the abilities I was referring too. I was referring to the following....

Please...
Listen.
Stop just throwing around names, and events that are claimed to have happend...
My original point, if you go back, was to ask you why none of these things can be verified and dublicated under controlled conditions.
You've claimed they can.
Which means, there must be papers and studies about that.
Please, just cite ONE peer reviewed study, that demonstrates ANY of the supernatural abilities you claim exist.
Any study that has demonstrated telecinesis, or mind-reading, or what have you.
Just give me one source. I have good access to most of the major public journals (I think, huge things like that would probably very easily be found in science or nature), so if you just give me the titel of the publication, I most likely can find it.

We'll just start with one, give me your best example you can find. Apparently you have extensive reliable resources, so knock me out!

[mickeymudge]

ie must be linked to some super-powers.
Or do you have something more than just your... let's call it "intuition"?

Species Simple brain-to body ratio (E:S)[1]
small ants 1:7[2]
tree shrew 1:10
small birds 1:14
human 1:40
mouse 1:40
cat 1:110
dog 1:125
squirrel 1:150
frog 1:172
lion 1:550
elephant 1:560
horse 1:600
shark 1:2496
hippopotamus 1:2789

Maybe we could just agree that I'm mostly correct, OK!

Not at all!
What you present here is BRAIN to body ration, you originally talked about head to body ratio!
Also: No, you are still no mostly correct because:
"Small birds" and "small ants" make up a HUGE variety of animals! Enormous, actually! To just ignore them, because they don't fit with what you want me to acknowledge, sorry, that doesn't fly.
You are not correct. Not even "mostly".

Yes I agree that there are probably dormant viruses in the dormant sections. God was punishing us before Isaiah 6:8> Pick up a book and stop being sceptical.

No way! Why?
Why on earth should I stop being sceptical?
You know what's the oposite of being sceptical is? Being gullible!
I understand that your ideas are much more easily to sell to people who aren't sceptical, but that's no evidence for their validity... rather to the contrary!
If ideas can't hold up to sceptisism... then they aren't worth a dime!

Why At least base your scepticisim on something other than, I just can't understand how we could possibly have dormant abilities?

Not once, not ONCE, did I say ANYTHING like that!
My sceptisism is based on a very, very, very simple principle: You claim that we have hidden/dormant abilities? Can you demonstrate that? No? In that case, I remain sceptical and won't believe your claim, until you can prove it!
I know, it would be much easier for you, if I said "Yeah, sure, I'm gonna believe you, until somebody proves that you are wrong!".... but that's not how this works!
You claim that we have these abilities, so you have a burden of proof.

Of course I don't have any obvious proof that there is disabled abilities in our DNA, I wouldn't be talking to you right now if I did. What I do have is a plethora of doctors that all agree that there is more to the brain than we know about right now, and for the most part, some of it is obviously supernatural abilities that appear to be weakened or disabled.

And as long as these doctors can present ANY evidence, this will remain their opinion!
And you know why we work that way?
Because I can show you just as many doctors (probably even more than you can) who will strongly disagree with your doctors opinion!
So why did you chose to believe the opinions of your doctors and not the others? Just because the ones you've chosen match with your already existing believes?
Here is a better way to go about that:
Don't accept any of it! These are OPINIONS! Just because doctors hold them, doesn't mean anything!
Wait until they have evidence... THEN you can believe them! If they claim that your brain has some supernatural powers, but there is nothing to demonstrate it... well, then there is nothing to believe!

Seriously how many things have to all point to the same issue of DNA before you start to accept is as plausible?

Well... so far you have presented NOTHING that points into that direction. I'm sorry, but that's just how it is!
What you've given me is the fact that some doctors have some opinions, and your great position of "You can't prove that there aren't any abilities, so stop being so scpetical!"
I'm sorry, but I need a lot more... a lot more than nothing, that is!

Sequences that don't do anything? Now that's what I would call intuition, or do you have something solid that says we just have useless DNA in our bodies? I'm sorry I don't buy it.

Well... yeah, I have. And actually, I've said it before.
A certain part is inactivated viruses. They don't do anything.
Other sections are repeating sequences, that also don't do anything.
We know from mice, that we can actually remove a big part of these non-coding pieces of DNA, without really effecting the mice. We can't do that with humans, sure, that would be unethical, but at least all the evidence that we have points to the idea, that these DNA-sequences are in fact practically useless.
I'm not saying it defenetly is that way. Only, that the evidence we have points to this direction.
If you have an alternative model, then present it... but please WITH some evidence!
Heck, I'm still confused about how ANY DNA should give us some supernatural power! You haven't even presented a model for that hypothetical, let alone presented anything that demonstrates that it ACTUALLY is that way!

Oh I'm sorry for not being clear, those weren't the doctors or the abilities I was referring too. I was referring to the following....

Please...
Listen.
Stop just throwing around names, and events that are claimed to have happend...
My original point, if you go back, was to ask you why none of these things can be verified and dublicated under controlled conditions.
You've claimed they can.
Which means, there must be papers and studies about that.
Please, just cite ONE peer reviewed study, that demonstrates ANY of the supernatural abilities you claim exist.
Any study that has demonstrated telecinesis, or mind-reading, or what have you.
Just give me one source. I have good access to most of the major public journals (I think, huge things like that would probably very easily be found in science or nature), so if you just give me the titel of the publication, I most likely can find it.

We'll just start with one, give me your best example you can find. Apparently you have extensive reliable resources, so knock me out!

Not at all!
What you present here is BRAIN to body ration, you originally talked about head to body ratio!
Also: No, you are still no mostly correct because:
"Small birds" and "small ants" make up a HUGE variety of animals! Enormous, actually! To just ignore them, because they don't fit with what you want me to acknowledge, sorry, that doesn't fly.
You are not correct. Not even "mostly".

I apologize, I originally meant brain to body ration, and I disagree with you, as we have to many other animals here that are much larger than us.

No way! Why?
Why on earth should I stop being sceptical?
You know what's the oposite of being sceptical is? Being gullible!
I understand that your ideas are much more easily to sell to people who aren't sceptical, but that's no evidence for their validity... rather to the contrary!
If ideas can't hold up to sceptisism... then they aren't worth a dime!

skep·ti·cism
ˈskeptəˌsizəm/
noun
noun: scepticism

1.
a skeptical attitude; doubt as to the truth of something.
"these claims were treated with skepticism"
synonyms: doubt, doubtfulness, a pinch of salt; More
disbelief, cynicism, distrust, mistrust, suspicion, incredulity;
pessimism, defeatism;
formaldubiety
"his ideas were met with skepticism"
agnosticism, doubt;
atheism, unbelief, nonbelief
"he passed from skepticism to religious belief"
2.
Philosophy
the theory that certain knowledge is impossible.


I think you're probably an incredulous philosopher.I think a certain amount of it is fine, but when you're taking a stand BEFORE you have seen any proof, that sort of tells me you already have your mind made up.

Not once, not ONCE, did I say ANYTHING like that!
My sceptisism is based on a very, very, very simple principle: You claim that we have hidden/dormant abilities? Can you demonstrate that? No? In that case, I remain sceptical and won't believe your claim, until you can prove it!
I know, it would be much easier for you, if I said "Yeah, sure, I'm gonna believe you, until somebody proves that you are wrong!".... but that's not how this works!
You claim that we have these abilities, so you have a burden of proof.

Well you're going to have to explain what constitutes proof. With someone as incredulous as you, I'm thinking this is probably going to go like my conversation with my mother in law yesterday. She fought me for years that the Ezekiel chapter explains a space craft descending from the skies. Well she must have talked to her pastor and he set her straight to where she now acknowledges it to be a space craft, but now has a different claims. She says that just because God is seen descending in a space craft doesn't mean he is an alien.
Of course we assume that a second opinion will seal the deal in this arena, but the problem is these doctors work in very specialized areas.

And as long as these doctors can present ANY evidence, this will remain their opinion!
And you know why we work that way?
Because I can show you just as many doctors (probably even more than you can) who will strongly disagree with your doctors opinion!
So why did you chose to believe the opinions of your doctors and not the others? Just because the ones you've chosen match with your already existing believes?
Here is a better way to go about that:
Don't accept any of it! These are OPINIONS! Just because doctors hold them, doesn't mean anything!
Wait until they have evidence... THEN you can believe them! If they claim that your brain has some supernatural powers, but there is nothing to demonstrate it... well, then there is nothing to believe!

Well I don't doubt we have more incredulous people than not.

It sort of reminds me of the time I told one guy on my google account that it looks like solar flares are hitting our planet and causing the Earths atmosphere to radiate like a speaker


Seriously how many things have to all point to the same issue of DNA before you start to accept is as plausible?


Well... so far you have presented NOTHING that points into that direction. I'm sorry, but that's just how it is!
What you've given me is the fact that some doctors have some opinions, and your great position of "You can't prove that there aren't any abilities, so stop being so scpetical!"
I'm sorry, but I need a lot more... a lot more than nothing, that is!

mickeymudge wrote:
Sequences that don't do anything? Now that's what I would call intuition, or do you have something solid that says we just have useless DNA in our bodies? I'm sorry I don't buy it.


Well... yeah, I have. And actually, I've said it before.
A certain part is inactivated viruses. They don't do anything.
Other sections are repeating sequences, that also don't do anything.
We know from mice, that we can actually remove a big part of these non-coding pieces of DNA, without really effecting the mice. We can't do that with humans, sure, that would be unethical, but at least all the evidence that we have points to the idea, that these DNA-sequences are in fact practically useless.
I'm not saying it defenetly is that way. Only, that the evidence we have points to this direction.
If you have an alternative model, then present it... but please WITH some evidence!
Heck, I'm still confused about how ANY DNA should give us some supernatural power! You haven't even presented a model for that hypothetical, let alone presented anything that demonstrates that it ACTUALLY is that way!

mickeymudge wrote:

Oh I'm sorry for not being clear, those weren't the doctors or the abilities I was referring too. I was referring to the following....


Please...
Listen.
Stop just throwing around names, and events that are claimed to have happend...
My original point, if you go back, was to ask you why none of these things can be verified and dublicated under controlled conditions.
You've claimed they can.
Which means, there must be papers and studies about that.
Please, just cite ONE peer reviewed study, that demonstrates ANY of the supernatural abilities you claim exist.
Any study that has demonstrated telecinesis, or mind-reading, or what have you.
Just give me one source. I have good access to most of the major public journals (I think, huge things like that would probably very easily be found in science or nature), so if you just give me the titel of the publication, I most likely can find it.

We'll just start with one, give me your best example you can find. Apparently you have extensive reliable resources, so knock me out!

Actually there is no question that we have hidden abilities. You're just not willing to peruse the sources and look for it. So I will cherry pick just one for you. And just to show you how incredulous you are, you did NO research prior to making your firm decision that it's simply not possible.

Scientists claim that poltergeist activity is generated from the mind of the subject, yet not coherently controlled. Dr. John Ankerberg, Dr. John Weldon, for parapsychologists, and other psychical researchers, poltergeists are often seen as a merely human phenomenon—a manifestation of alleged human (usually adolescent) psychokinesis.

http://www.inplainsite.org/html/polterg ... uLckK.dpuf

[Freddy_Scissorhands]

I apologize, I originally meant brain to body ration, and I disagree with you, as we have to many other animals here that are much larger than us.

Ok, so your argument has gone from "Why do humans have the largest brain/body ratio" to "Why have humans the largest brain/body ration, ignoring the cases where they haven't?"
Well... why are humans the fastest animal on this planet?
I mean, of course, why are humans the fastest animal on this planet, ignoring the cases where they aren't?
Why are humans the tallest animal on this planet, ignoring the cases where they aren't?

If your argument is simply that we have a certain attribute, and it becomes significantly extraordinary... once you've ignored the animals that out-do us in that area, then.... well, I don't know what I can say to that. This applies to litereally EVERYTHING!

skep·ti·cism
ˈskeptəˌsizəm/
noun
noun: scepticism

1.
a skeptical attitude; doubt as to the truth of something.
"these claims were treated with skepticism"
synonyms: doubt, doubtfulness, a pinch of salt; More
disbelief, cynicism, distrust, mistrust, suspicion, incredulity;
pessimism, defeatism;
formaldubiety
"his ideas were met with skepticism"
agnosticism, doubt;
atheism, unbelief, nonbelief
"he passed from skepticism to religious belief"
2.
Philosophy
the theory that certain knowledge is impossible.

Yes. The first definition seems to say more or less what I've described.

I think you're probably an incredulous philosopher.I think a certain amount of it is fine, but when you're taking a stand BEFORE you have seen any proof, that sort of tells me you already have your mind made up.

No. You can take a stand before you have seen prove! This stand is: I don't believe it (yet)!
Actually, taking ANY OTHER STAND is not a very good idea... and can actually be dangerous!
Why on earth would you believe something BEFORE you have seen any proof?
I don't get your approach here!

Well you're going to have to explain what constitutes proof. With someone as incredulous as you, I'm thinking this is probably going to go like my conversation with my mother in law yesterday. She fought me for years that the Ezekiel chapter explains a space craft descending from the skies. Well she must have talked to her pastor and he set her straight to where she now acknowledges it to be a space craft...

Oh... my... god...
I don't think I've ever heard something as funny!
Really? A bible verse actually was talking about a space craft?
Ok, if you say so... and hey your pastor agrees, so it must be reasonable!

Well I don't doubt we have more incredulous people than not.

Actually, this is just a little language problem, because English isn't my first language, but:
What do you mean by "incredulous"?
My translater here pretty much sets it equal to "sceptical".
So, if you just mean "sceptical" than yes: We have more sceptical people than gullible ones... and this is a very good thing!

Actually there is no question that we have hidden abilities. You're just not willing to peruse the sources and look for it.

You haven't given me anything so far!
How can you honestly say that I'm "just unwilling to look", if so far I have constantly been asking you for your sources!
This is just rediculous! If you WANT people to look at the things you present... PRESENT IT first! DON'T dismiss them, before you've even answered their request! That's dishonest!

Scientists claim that poltergeist activity is generated from the mind of the subject, yet not coherently controlled. Dr. John Ankerberg, Dr. John Weldon, for parapsychologists, and other psychical researchers, poltergeists are often seen as a merely human phenomenon—a manifestation of alleged human (usually adolescent) psychokinesis.[/color]

http://www.inplainsite.org/html/polterg ... uLckK.dpuf

Not a reliable source at all.
And that "Dr." John Ankerberg isn't a real doctor in anything I would recognzie as a respectable field. These people don't seem qualified at all, and the source you present is just a number of claims. No experiments to test anything, no case-studies, nothing.
I think I did ask you for specificly peer reviewed papers.
What you've given me is a website, where these guys can publish whatever they want without quality control.
Was this your best example?
I hope not. I specificly asked you for your best example, didn't I?

[Freddy_Scissorhands]

So I will cherry pick just one for you. And just to show you how incredulous you are, you did NO research prior to making your firm decision that it's simply not possible.

I DARE you to find ANY quote of mine where I said that it was not possible!
Actually: I demand it.
Before I continue any further conversation with you, you either present to me a quote of mine where I said that it was impossible, or you appologize for that lie.
I'm having enough with you making things up that I've never said! I find it extremly dishonest!
I do nothing here, but try to adress your claims as carefully and precise as possible, and you come back with made up claims, that I've never made...
This is not ok.
So, either present a quote where I said that any of what you've said is impossible, or admit that you've misrepresented me here.
On this, I insist.

[Clownboat]

As long as you're including the fact that God was obviously a space alien per several things in the bible

This is where you lost me. Why do you give any credit to the Bible whatsoever? You get the Adam and Eve story from the Bible, but then invent your own tree of knowledge. You get the god idea from the Bible, but then turn god from a creator to an alien.

If you are going to invent Bible concepts to go along with your preconceived ideas, I wonder why you start with the Bible in the first place.

Can donkeys and snakes talk in reality, or were they aliens perhaps as well?

[mickeymudge]

I apologize, I originally meant brain to body ration, and I disagree with you, as we have to many other animals here that are much larger than us.

Ok, so your argument has gone from "Why do humans have the largest brain/body ratio" to "Why have humans the largest brain/body ration, ignoring the cases where they haven't?"
Well... why are humans the fastest animal on this planet?
I mean, of course, why are humans the fastest animal on this planet, ignoring the cases where they aren't?
Why are humans the tallest animal on this planet, ignoring the cases where they aren't?

If your argument is simply that we have a certain attribute, and it becomes significantly extraordinary... once you've ignored the animals that out-do us in that area, then.... well, I don't know what I can say to that. This applies to litereally EVERYTHING!

skep·ti·cism
ˈskeptəˌsizəm/
noun
noun: scepticism

1.
a skeptical attitude; doubt as to the truth of something.
"these claims were treated with skepticism"
synonyms: doubt, doubtfulness, a pinch of salt; More
disbelief, cynicism, distrust, mistrust, suspicion, incredulity;
pessimism, defeatism;
formaldubiety
"his ideas were met with skepticism"
agnosticism, doubt;
atheism, unbelief, nonbelief
"he passed from skepticism to religious belief"
2.
Philosophy
the theory that certain knowledge is impossible.

Yes. The first definition seems to say more or less what I've described.

I think you're probably an incredulous philosopher.I think a certain amount of it is fine, but when you're taking a stand BEFORE you have seen any proof, that sort of tells me you already have your mind made up.

No. You can take a stand before you have seen prove! This stand is: I don't believe it (yet)!
Actually, taking ANY OTHER STAND is not a very good idea... and can actually be dangerous!
Why on earth would you believe something BEFORE you have seen any proof?
I don't get your approach here!

Well you're going to have to explain what constitutes proof. With someone as incredulous as you, I'm thinking this is probably going to go like my conversation with my mother in law yesterday. She fought me for years that the Ezekiel chapter explains a space craft descending from the skies. Well she must have talked to her pastor and he set her straight to where she now acknowledges it to be a space craft...

Oh... my... god...
I don't think I've ever heard something as funny!
Really? A bible verse actually was talking about a space craft?
Ok, if you say so... and hey your pastor agrees, so it must be reasonable!

Well I don't doubt we have more incredulous people than not.

Actually, this is just a little language problem, because English isn't my first language, but:
What do you mean by "incredulous"?
My translater here pretty much sets it equal to "sceptical".
So, if you just mean "sceptical" than yes: We have more sceptical people than gullible ones... and this is a very good thing!

Actually there is no question that we have hidden abilities. You're just not willing to peruse the sources and look for it.

You haven't given me anything so far!
How can you honestly say that I'm "just unwilling to look", if so far I have constantly been asking you for your sources!
This is just rediculous! If you WANT people to look at the things you present... PRESENT IT first! DON'T dismiss them, before you've even answered their request! That's dishonest!

Scientists claim that poltergeist activity is generated from the mind of the subject, yet not coherently controlled. Dr. John Ankerberg, Dr. John Weldon, for parapsychologists, and other psychical researchers, poltergeists are often seen as a merely human phenomenon—a manifestation of alleged human (usually adolescent) psychokinesis.[/color]

http://www.inplainsite.org/html/polterg ... uLckK.dpuf

Not a reliable source at all.
And that "Dr." John Ankerberg isn't a real doctor in anything I would recognzie as a respectable field. These people don't seem qualified at all, and the source you present is just a number of claims. No experiments to test anything, no case-studies, nothing.
I think I did ask you for specificly peer reviewed papers.
What you've given me is a website, where these guys can publish whatever they want without quality control.
Was this your best example?
I hope not. I specificly asked you for your best example, didn't I?

Well that's a very good point. Maybe instead of going around in circles where I'm trying to prove a point, I can try this in a backwards fashion.

Would you agree that humans are superior in comparison to anything else on the planet?

[mickeymudge]

[Replying to post 53 by Freddy_Scissorhands]

Not a reliable source at all.
And that "Dr." John Ankerberg isn't a real doctor in anything I would recognzie as a respectable field. These people don't seem qualified at all, and the source you present is just a number of claims. No experiments to test anything, no case-studies, nothing.
I think I did ask you for specificly peer reviewed papers.
What you've given me is a website, where these guys can publish whatever they want without quality control.
Was this your best example?
I hope not. I specificly asked you for your best example, didn't I?

I think I explained before that peer reviews are only relevant to the masses. These types of subjects we are talking about aren't usually agreed upon per the masses. Peer reviews, nor the lack of, prove or disprove anyone's credibility. For the most part I have found them to be mostly opinion. I myself am not interested in opinion like you are, I'm more into the facts.

Peer reviews weren't even common until 1967, but you know as well as I do there was credible people before 1967. Albert Einstein, with all his theory's only ever had one peer review, and that was shared with another persons work. Yet most people find him to be credible. So again, peer reviews are sort of like religion. We know god is all around us because the masses believe so, or we know Jesus is around us because we feel him in our hearts. I'm sorry, I don't have imaginary friends.

[mickeymudge]

As long as you're including the fact that God was obviously a space alien per several things in the bible

This is where you lost me. Why do you give any credit to the Bible whatsoever? You get the Adam and Eve story from the Bible, but then invent your own tree of knowledge. You get the god idea from the Bible, but then turn god from a creator to an alien.

If you are going to invent Bible concepts to go along with your preconceived ideas, I wonder why you start with the Bible in the first place.

Can donkeys and snakes talk in reality, or were they aliens perhaps as well?

I think I understand what you're saying, so I can tell this needs a little more explanation for sure.

I have an extensive knowledge in the study of the Supernatural. Now let me explains what this means in laymen terms.

If you open up an ESD version of the bible, in the preface, you will see that this book warns you that it is filled with Supernatural events. So when people make snide remarks about it being fiction, or sci-fi, I can tell you they are obviously wrong and didn't read the preface. Now we have no other book like this just so you know. So it's in a category of it's own in terms of our selection.

Because most people choose not to believe in such things, I find myself educated in a pretty rare field. Now lets pretend that the Supernatural is what we would call math today. And lets pretend that you know NOTHING about math. But of course I do. So I'm presenting you with a problem of four times four. And for the life of you, you aren't able to figure out what this means, because you have no math skills. I tell you the answer is sixteen. You tell me that's my belief. But you're out of context. You see, just because I understand it, and you don't doesn't make it an opinion.

Now you know as well as I do that four times four is sixteen. It's not a belief, it's a fact. When Adam and Eve were abducted as revealed in the Garden of Eden, it's not a belief, it's simply a fact. There is no ulterior motive. No one would ever set out to prove that we were abducted by an alien, there is simply no benefit to it. I was working on an Etiology at the time, and stumbled onto this, and my Etiology took a drastic turn when I found all this out. Now this event is compounded by about 87 other things in the bible and science today that all prove conclusively that Adam and Eve were in fact abducted. The proof is even in our DNA.

Hopefully that clears things up.

OMG this is so cute...

You can build a man a fire and he will be warm for a day, or you can set a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life.

Well I have a much better one that's in line with I'm presenting. If we were on our home planet, we would not need to build a fire, as this is a work around from us not being home. Our planet would accommodate us, unlike this one.

[Clownboat]

I apologize, I originally meant brain to body ration, and I disagree with you, as we have to many other animals here that are much larger than us.

Ok, so your argument has gone from "Why do humans have the largest brain/body ratio" to "Why have humans the largest brain/body ration, ignoring the cases where they haven't?"
Well... why are humans the fastest animal on this planet?
I mean, of course, why are humans the fastest animal on this planet, ignoring the cases where they aren't?
Why are humans the tallest animal on this planet, ignoring the cases where they aren't?

If your argument is simply that we have a certain attribute, and it becomes significantly extraordinary... once you've ignored the animals that out-do us in that area, then.... well, I don't know what I can say to that. This applies to litereally EVERYTHING!

skep·ti·cism
ˈskeptəˌsizəm/
noun
noun: scepticism

1.
a skeptical attitude; doubt as to the truth of something.
"these claims were treated with skepticism"
synonyms: doubt, doubtfulness, a pinch of salt; More
disbelief, cynicism, distrust, mistrust, suspicion, incredulity;
pessimism, defeatism;
formaldubiety
"his ideas were met with skepticism"
agnosticism, doubt;
atheism, unbelief, nonbelief
"he passed from skepticism to religious belief"
2.
Philosophy
the theory that certain knowledge is impossible.

Yes. The first definition seems to say more or less what I've described.

I think you're probably an incredulous philosopher.I think a certain amount of it is fine, but when you're taking a stand BEFORE you have seen any proof, that sort of tells me you already have your mind made up.

No. You can take a stand before you have seen prove! This stand is: I don't believe it (yet)!
Actually, taking ANY OTHER STAND is not a very good idea... and can actually be dangerous!
Why on earth would you believe something BEFORE you have seen any proof?
I don't get your approach here!

Well you're going to have to explain what constitutes proof. With someone as incredulous as you, I'm thinking this is probably going to go like my conversation with my mother in law yesterday. She fought me for years that the Ezekiel chapter explains a space craft descending from the skies. Well she must have talked to her pastor and he set her straight to where she now acknowledges it to be a space craft...

Oh... my... god...
I don't think I've ever heard something as funny!
Really? A bible verse actually was talking about a space craft?
Ok, if you say so... and hey your pastor agrees, so it must be reasonable!

Well I don't doubt we have more incredulous people than not.

Actually, this is just a little language problem, because English isn't my first language, but:
What do you mean by "incredulous"?
My translater here pretty much sets it equal to "sceptical".
So, if you just mean "sceptical" than yes: We have more sceptical people than gullible ones... and this is a very good thing!

Actually there is no question that we have hidden abilities. You're just not willing to peruse the sources and look for it.

You haven't given me anything so far!
How can you honestly say that I'm "just unwilling to look", if so far I have constantly been asking you for your sources!
This is just rediculous! If you WANT people to look at the things you present... PRESENT IT first! DON'T dismiss them, before you've even answered their request! That's dishonest!

Scientists claim that poltergeist activity is generated from the mind of the subject, yet not coherently controlled. Dr. John Ankerberg, Dr. John Weldon, for parapsychologists, and other psychical researchers, poltergeists are often seen as a merely human phenomenon—a manifestation of alleged human (usually adolescent) psychokinesis.[/color]

http://www.inplainsite.org/html/polterg ... uLckK.dpuf

Not a reliable source at all.
And that "Dr." John Ankerberg isn't a real doctor in anything I would recognzie as a respectable field. These people don't seem qualified at all, and the source you present is just a number of claims. No experiments to test anything, no case-studies, nothing.
I think I did ask you for specificly peer reviewed papers.
What you've given me is a website, where these guys can publish whatever they want without quality control.
Was this your best example?
I hope not. I specificly asked you for your best example, didn't I?

Well that's a very good point. Maybe instead of going around in circles where I'm trying to prove a point, I can try this in a backwards fashion.

Would you agree that humans are superior in comparison to anything else on the planet?

I would disagree.
You see, cheetahs are superior when it comes to speed.
Birds, when it comes to flying.
Elephants when it comes to strength.
Dogs when it comes to smell.

Humans, when it comes to intelligence. Ironically, a cheetah cannot use its speed to invent alien ideas, but a human with intelligence and imagination can. I must assume that, this is all that is happening.

Either way, superiority does not = aliens, so I'm not sure what point you are trying to make.

What I notice is a dodge being made by you. Rather than attempt to defend your source, you would prefer to avoid having to admit that you supplied it.