Community > Posts By > rambill79

 
no photo
Thu 08/14/14 02:46 PM
worldk encyclopedia--- "at first, scientists thought thAT NEANDERTHAL MAN WAS A SWQaT, BRUTISH, somewhat apelike creature. later research shows that the bodies of neanderthal manand womenwere completelyhuman, fully erect, and very mucsular, thier brins were as large as those of modern man.
and, evolutionist Le Gros Clark: "tere is a danger of relying on too fe measurments...an example of this difficulty is provided by the famous case of Hesperopithecus. This genetic name was given to a fossil tooth found in nebraska in 1922, on the assumption that it represented an extinct type of anthropod ape... as well known, the tooth later proved to be from a pig.
then there is the Science news letter, which states.., One of the most famous fakes that has been exposed by scientific proof was PILTDOWN MAN,thought to be 500,000years old. After much conterversy, it turned out to be not a priimitave at all but a composite skull of modern man and the jawbone of an ape. The jawbone had been doctored with bicromate of potash and iron to make it look mineralised.

no photo
Thu 08/14/14 02:32 PM
re- Science today... All biologists are not equally satisfied. Some feel that the argument gets uncomfortably close to a point where an adequate number of monkeys tapping typewriter keys for an adequate length of time will inevitably produce an encyclopedia. such a thing is of course concievably possible but nobody in thier senses takes such a thing into consideration in everyday life. We either have to accept natural selection as the only available guide to the mechanism of evolution, and be prepaerd to admit that it involves a considerable amount of speculation, or feel in our bones that natural selection, operating on random mutations, leaves too much to chance. If we look on organic evolution as one of naturesgames of chance, it seems just a little strange that we should have been dealt quite so many winning hands.

no photo
Thu 08/14/14 02:17 PM
Edited by rambill79 on Thu 08/14/14 02:26 PM
q- who said... "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and fo the correction of sperical and chromatic abberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, i freely confess, absurd to the highest degree." and, 'There is another and allied difficulty, which is more serious. I allude tothe manner in which species belonging to several of the main divisions of the animal kingdom suddenly appear in the lowest known fossil rocks.
if the evolution throry be true, it is indisputable that before the lowest Cambrian stratum was deposited long periods elapsed., as long as, or longer thqn the whole interval from the cambrian age to te present age,and that during these vast periods the world swarmed with living creatures. to question why WE DO NOT FIND deposits belonging to these assumed earlier periods prior to the Cambrian, i can give no satisfactory amswer.The difficulty of assigning any good reason for the ABSENCE of vast piles of strata rich in fossils beneath the Cambrianis very great." and also,
Why, if species have decended from other species by fine graduation, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? why is ot all nature in confusion, instead of the species being, AS WE SEE THEM, WELL DEFINED? BUT, AS BY THIS EVOLUTIONAL THEORY, INNUMERABLE TRANSITIONAL SPECIES MUSTN HAVE EXISTED, WHY DO WE NOT FIND THEM IN COUNTLESS NUMBERS IN THE CRUST OF THE EARTH? Geological researsh DOES NOT yield the innumerable many fine graduations between past and present species, as required.


answer... Charles darwin, Origion of the species.

no photo
Thu 08/14/14 06:35 AM
looks. signed shallow bill.

no photo
Thu 08/14/14 06:33 AM
... its time for me to go turn some tricks until i can marry mony.

no photo
Thu 08/14/14 06:31 AM
i was on board with yor profile until i read the part about wannna be- cop. if you want to HELP people, join the fire dept. thats where the action is.

no photo
Thu 08/14/14 06:27 AM
i have found every good girlfriend have ever had when i was NOT looking, fyi.

no photo
Thu 08/14/14 06:27 AM
damn im still alive. still lonely, still poor. still cant afford breakfast. I wonder when ill eat again?

no photo
Thu 08/14/14 06:22 AM
Edited by rambill79 on Thu 08/14/14 06:34 AM
why would i take seriously anyones beliefs from the catholic church? signed, confused. They wrote the book on church doctrine being more important than the bible. When i was in catholic schools, i would get the nuns and 'fathers' so mad at me , when i asked them questions they couldent answer, like for example, who are these saints and where in the bible does it say i should worship them? thier amswer was usually something like,,, "we will tell you what is important," or " you cant read that part of the bible, its not for you". .... And what about this mother mary worship? Or, " thou shalt not kneel before a craven image", and then i see 21 kneeling stations in the catholic church, before carved images...? Do you really think jesus wants to see another cross? If he had been electrocuted, would they all wear little electric chairs around thier necks? Holy water? calling the priest 'father"? Also, these are the same people who have brought us the inquisition. IF YOU WANT TRUTH, LOOK ELSEWHERE. IF you are happy with being told what to believe, then thats your choice. so, to recap, any time i see any writings by any bishop, pope, ect, i dont waste my precious time reading it. life is too short for that.

no photo
Thu 08/14/14 06:04 AM



s MIT CALCULATED THE ODDS


Are you talking about Murray Eden, the electrical engineer at MIT?




Don't you love how creationists will go to great lengths to show academic credentials? Even when they demonstrate no relation/scholarship/experience with the subject at hand. I esp love the Dr. So and So's whose doctorate is in Xian education and not geology, biology, etc

who cares as long as he can add? dont you love how evolutinists, when confronted with facts from a place like MIT, THAT dont support thier position, how they nit pick details, theoroze that who did the work wasent cometent, ect? who has faith here? i look at all this with an OPEN mind. do you?

no photo
Wed 08/13/14 04:09 AM
Edited by rambill79 on Wed 08/13/14 04:11 AM

so not true, the mutations & evolving organisms are the very proof that it did happen... having faith is good but blind faith not so good... religion i feel is complete bull it is the biggest killer of mankind..
mutations are just that, mutations. ther flies are always still flies. the bacteria is always the same bacteria, ect ect ad nauseum. as for "evolving organisms, Where are they/ where are the fossils? artists recreations that we all saw in science class are not evidence, they are extrapolations. To recap using the scientific method, MIT CALCULATED THE ODDS AGAINST LIFE ORIGIONATING BY CHANCE AT 1 TO 10 TO THE 28TH POWER, WHICH IS MORE THAAN THERE ARE GRAINS OF SAND ON THE BEACH. There is usually one (1) example of the so called transitional species, not hundreds, or thousands of them, and where are the rest of the steps recorded? a University tested a clam shell and dated it at 600 million years, when it was alive the day before. Global warming is now climate change, almost every planet we have sent robotic explorers to was WAY different than the scientists predictions.., ect ect ect.., not inspiring much confidence, that, expecially when the bible has stood, uncorrected foever. There are countless examples of people setting out to disprove the bible, only to finally admit that it must be fact. Itstates plainly that the earth is round, and suspended in the heavens for example. Then there is the part about giants walking the earth breeding our women. Just recently it was found that a race of giant humanoids were here for a time. i could go on for hours but.. why? peoples FAITH in science doesent allow them to be objective. and lets not confuse religion, which is of man and isclearly fiction, with the bible, which i believe is fact.

no photo
Tue 08/12/14 12:45 PM
probably like every other woman in any country would react. people are people, regardless of location. i have however pretty much sworn off American woman, so i guess i am contradicting myself. Have dated a phillipino, and she was just as decietful, just as fun to play with, as any other, However, she was ( at least at first) very humble, not demanding, not into drinking or drugs, no baggage, much better educated, and most importantly, approchable,. fyi- dont make the mistake that foreign women are ignorant or dumb, most have aty least two degrees and speak several languages.

no photo
Tue 08/12/14 12:43 PM
.. then you arent. we must have confisdence in ourselves..., make a list of what you bring to the table in a relationship, and im sure you will be suprised at what a catch you are.

no photo
Tue 08/12/14 12:33 PM
.... not lies, observations made by me. not other peoples research.., but commomn sense. THERE is plenty of proof that all these so called intermediate steps are fiction. i say again, where are the thousands of lucy skeletons? where are all the half lucy, half next step? Artists renderings based on someones throry or beliefs are just that, renderings. Dont care what someone elses research says, as i have done plenty of my own. I am not ignorant, blindly following the bible, rather, i set out to disprove it and here i am., I can only say what my 30 plus years of research plainly shows me. iF ONE LOOKS AT THE FOSSIL RECORD IN THE MUSEUMS BY THEMSELVES, NOT IN A BOOK SOMEONE ELSE WROTE, ONE WILL EVENTUALLY DRAW THE SAME CONCLUSIONS I CAME TOO.
Sometimes what we DONT see tells us everything.

no photo
Tue 08/12/14 08:37 AM
soo. this pic? this artists rendering of what they THINK should have hapened is now proof? i see ONE REPEAT ONEskeleton of each so called transformation species... where are the hundreds, or thousands or millions of intermediate steps that should exist? The fossi above has been determined to be two diferent species fosilised together, yet they drag this thing out like its the gospel proof!. where are the thousands of these creatures? There is one example of this. one example of lucy. one example of piltdown man.., and they have been proved to be hoaxes.EVEN IF THEY ARE NOT HOAXES, , where are the thousands of similar skeletons? ever see the skeleton f elephant man? Are they proof of evolution, or freaks of nature? the fossil record shows me that they are either hoaxes or freaks.
fyi... lucy has been proven long ago to be a tea stained ape skeleton with an infant head, yet they still believe.

no photo
Mon 08/11/14 09:59 AM

Is there any normal women in northern mi. That can have a deceit conversion with a normal guy?? If so please contact me.
.... judging from my 50 yrs of experience, NO..., but i am forever hopeful. I have however, taken to ordering out for Phillipino in the interim.

no photo
Mon 08/11/14 09:55 AM
There was an incident here Saturday, where someone Shot thier gf,and the fugitive was (presumably) in the area. Sure was fun to do a sweep and clear of the property with an AK-47 when i got home...
Any women who wouldent wait for the police to check thier property to see if it was safe , but instead would sweep the place, guns drawn; please apply for girlfriend-ship here.

no photo
Sat 08/09/14 07:31 PM
Edited by rambill79 on Sat 08/09/14 07:37 PM
Gods 101: THERE is the father, God. note capitol G.
( Catholic friends: 'call no one father except your Father IN HEAVEN,)
There is the Son, Jesus. They are not the same anymore than you and your father are the same.
as for the trinity, or three godheads, or God being God and Jesus;
Church Doctrine. Show it to me in the Bible. aint there.
THERE ARE also piles of small g gods, otherwise it would be impossible to break the first commandment. Sports and money are two small g gods that are quite common.....Racing, shoes, arming your cat with a pistol, ect ect you get the idea. ( Basicley, anything that gets between you and God could be considered a small g god).

no photo
Fri 08/08/14 04:54 PM

Why you should stop believing in evolution
KEITH BLANCHARD | AUGUST 4, 2014
322
30.0k

692
When people joyously discover on Ancestry.com that they're related to, say, a medieval archduke or a notorious Victorian criminal, evolutionary biologists may be permitted to snicker. Because in actuality, we are all related: Humans all share at least one common ancestor if you go far enough back. You are related to every king and criminal who ever lived, to Gandhi and Paris Hilton and Carrot Top. You are even related to me.

But buckle up — that's only the beginning.

Humanity, after all, is but one ugly branch on the big tree of life. Go back far enough, and you'll find an ancestor common to you and to every creature on Earth. You are related to your cat — which may help explain why you get that stare all the time. You are related to a Tyrannosaurus Rex, and to the mosquito you just murdered, and to your houseplants. At any given meal, you may eat all or part of a dozen extremely distant relatives.

It's remarkable how poorly understood evolution is today — how easily "debated" it is — given that its rules have been in place at least since life on Earth began, and that the truth of it is easily demonstrated. In fact, the basic theory has been in a state of continuous reconfirmation since Darwin proposed it in 1859, with geology, biology, anthropology, carbon dating, Pangaea, and every dinosaur bone ever found providing a nonstop barrage of additional proof points.

Here are the rules, in a nutshell:

• Genes, stored in every cell, are the body's blueprints; they code for traits like eye color, disease susceptibility, and a bazillion other things that make you you.

• Reproduction involves copying and recombining these blueprints, which is complicated, and errors happen.

• Errors are passed along in the code to future generations, the way a smudge on a photocopy will exist on all subsequent copies.

• This modified code can (but doesn't always) produce new traits in successive generations: an extra finger, sickle-celled blood, increased tolerance for Miley Cyrus shenanigans.

• When these new traits are advantageous (longer legs in gazelles), organisms survive and replicate at a higher rate than average, and when disadvantageous (brittle skulls in woodpeckers), they survive and replicate at a lower rate.

That's a little oversimplified, but the general idea. As advantageous traits become the norm within a population and disadvantageous traits are weeded out, each type of creature gradually morphs to better fit its environment.

The very notion of "species" is even a little misleading — a discrete-sounding artifice created for the convenience of people who live about a hundred years. If you had eyes to see the big picture, and could watch life change on a geologic time frame, you'd see constant gradual change, as generations adapt to circumstance.

It's that incredibly slow pace that makes it hard for people to grasp intuitively. When you only live long enough to see three or four generations — a few ticks of evolution's clock — any tiny generational changes, like humanity getting marginally blonder or taller, are dwarfed by differences in the members among any one generation. Pile on enough eons, and tiny pidgin horses gradually become rideable by gradually less hairy apes. But it's impossible to see for yourself.

(iStock)

That's evolution left to proceed at its own lazy, trial-and-error pace. But it turns out you can make the gears turn a lot faster — in fact, we do it all the time. Have you ever seen strawberries in the wild? They're little tiny things, easily missed if you are not a bird or a bee. We bred them to be big and fat, specifically by only allowing the seeds from the biggest, fattest ones in each generation to reproduce. We similarly manipulate almost every other "natural" food we eat today: Take a stroll through any modern produce section and you can see the fruits, literally and figuratively, of evolution turbocharged by human intervention.

Dogs are another example: We invented the dog, starting with wolves and quickening the natural but poky process of evolution by specifically selecting breeding pairs with desirable traits, gradually accentuating particular traits in successive populations. Poodles, Rottweilers, Great Danes, Hollywood red-carpet purse dogs — all this fabulous kinetic art was created, and continues to be created, by humans manually hijacking the mechanism of evolution.

Listen, nobody wants to be related to monkeys. (Scientist 1, after the Scopes trial: "Well, that was a catastrophe." Scientist 2: "Yeah? Wait until they find out they're also related to friggin' carrots.") But "that's just too crazy to believe" cannot be a defense against science. Why do you have sharp canine teeth? An appendix? Hair under your arms? If your body was designed for its current usage, there's a lot of inefficiency there. If it seems, rather, to be in the process of becoming less…bestial, well, that's because it is.

So if someone asks, "Do you believe in evolution," they are framing it wrong. That's like asking, "Do you believe in blue?"

Evolution is nothing more than a fairly simple way of understanding what is unquestionably happening. You don't believe in it — you either understand it or you don't. But pretending evolution is a matter of faith can be a clever way to hijack the conversation, and pit it in a false duality against religion. And that's how we end up with people decrying evolution, even as they eat their strawberries and pet their dogs, because they've been led to believe faith can only be held in one or the other.

But there's no reason for people of faith to reject the mountains of data and the evidence of their own senses. Reconciling is easy: Believe, if you want to, that God set up the rules of evolution among His wonders, along with the laws of physics, and probability, and everything else we can see and measure for ourselves. But don't deny evolution itself, or gravity, or the roundness of Earth. That's just covering your eyes and ears. And only monkeys would do that.

322
30.0k



yes, but strawberries, wit all thier varieties are still strawberries. Flies are always flies, deer are always deer. they adapt, they get stronger with manipulation but they will always be what they are., which isexactly what the bible, and the foissil record shows is we look at it objectivly. They Still havent found the half one species half the other remains. not there.

no photo
Fri 08/08/14 04:50 PM


Yet any life, even simple life is way more complicated than anything we have ever made with our so called advanced science , ect. the math just isnt there and it is not logical.


Do you believe that humans did not descend from non-human primates? If so, are you fully committed to this belief? Is it at all possible that you might learn something new one day, which could change your mind?


i believe we were created, as humans. i also have a hunch that we have been here a lot longer than most believe.., I dont think there will ever be anything found to dispute this...barring the discovery of a few thousand "lucy skeltons":.. I dont believe one or two pieced together skeletos prove anything. ever see pics of the elephant man? i HAVE BEEN alive for over a half centurey, and have seen scientific theories come and go, For example i was taught in school that we are heading towards another ice age, Then it was Global warming, and now its climate change. What is next? I see the bible as in perfect harmony with what i have seen not only in the fossil record, but just plain common sense.

1 2 7 8 9 11 13 14 15 24 25