The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
To all those who insist in following the Cult that is "evolution" here are yet more of the infinite flaws in the fairy tale. This is the side the evolutionist scientists of course don't tell you.
I DID NOT WRITE THIS, BUT JUST AS THE EVOLUTIONISTS ONLY BELIEVE DARWIN, I BELIEVE THE LORD AND ALL THOSE WHO STRESS HOW REDICULOUS EVOLUTION IS.
Doughboy writes the following from
http://www.netaxs.com/~doughboy/montana.htm
Hi there!
I am very happy to receive your mail.
I believe that this dialogue began with a question of whether evolution is legit. My argument is that I think it deceives students; going directly in opposition to testable science.
1. the laws of nature
The First Law of Thermodynamics
The first law of thermodynamics is the law of energy conservation. As you know, this is an empirical or testable law of science. This law states while energy can be converted from one form to another, it can not be created or annihilated. It has been considered the most powerful or most fundamental generalization of the universe that scientists have ever been able to make. This would mean that mass nor energy can appear from nothing. If there were that would be a free lunch. Some have suspected black holes, but I believe that one has not been observed. Today, matter does not spring out of nothing. If I were to tell someone that something appeared or reappeared, they'd say it were a lie, fairy tale, or legend.
The question seems to choke many evolutionists when one tests the theory of evolution with the first law of thermodynamics. There are all sorts of untested hypothesis of how something could come from nothing and that something that people hypothesis about is actually something. If it exists, it is something.
This reminds me of the 19th century concept of spontaneous generation. Flies can't come from rotten meat. At that time, people speculated how flies came about or how some sort of growth came about and it was believed that spoiled foods caused it. We later found out that there was a much different mechanism occurring. Science at one point was clueless, and we now know insects and other living things don't come from dead ones. In the time of Darwin, scientists believed that "simple organisms" came from inanimate objects. Just put millions of years in between and an open system, and you have life beginning on Earth.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics
As you know that the law of entropy is this. Without any intelligence acting on a system, entropy is always increasing and order is decreasing. Entropy is that free energy or energy lost.
For example, after I straighten up my room, it is a natural process that it will start becoming chaotic over time. It will not get clean or straight on its own, but I will have to do it. Entropy in the big bang/evolution theory moves from disorder (a soupy primordial slime), to order (man, plants, and animals). Supposedly, there is no intelligent being acting on the young Earth and the world then moves from disorder and chaos, to order and complexity. It is that "blind random chance" that makes it impossible for life to be created in this order. It is amino acids, to amoebas, to apes, and then to astronauts.
This is not true because the energy of the earth flows from hot to cool bodies. Evolution requires constant violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Some evolutions then try to dogmatically defend their position of getting past the second law.
One argument is that it is only speaking of energy relationships of matter, while evolution deals with complex organisms arising from simpler ones. This is false.
Contemporary information theory deals with information entropy and militates against evolution on a genetic level. While in an energy conversion system, entropy dictates that energy will decay. In an informational system, entropy dictates that information will be distorted. It is certain that there is a conceptual connection between information and second law of thermodynamics.
Some evolutionists also say that entropy can't prevent evolution because the Earth was an open system heated by the rays of the sun. This is nonsense.
the sun's raise have never produced an upswing in complexity without teleonomy (ordering principal of life).
Energy from the sun doesn't produce an orderly structure of growth and development without information and an engine.
I may be incorrect in my analogy, but it reminds me of poring gas on a heap of junk that used to be a car. If the junk doesn't know how to use the gas, there is no way it will drive down the street. If the sun beats down on a dead plant, it does not produce growth, but rather speeds up decay!
If the sun beats on a live plant, it produces a temporary increase in complexity in growth.
Evolutionists sometimes also say that entropy did not occur in the past. Well, hey, I wouldn't say that if I was an evolutionist, because that would suggest some supernatural occurrence. *wink*
This is just the first topic on the long list of flaws that the theory of evolution has.
I'm not doubting that evolution is the best theory that scientists can come up with, but biology, anthropology, psychology, chemistry, and other science students are not told of the weaknesses of the theory. (As Phillup Johnson put it, Evolution is a “half-baked theory.” And guess what? Scientists nor students have to accept it.)
Sincerely,
The Doughboy
DOUGHBOY WROTE THIS LETTER TO AN EVOLUTIONIST, AND NEVER GOT A RESPONSE. THIS IS A COMMON PATTERN, WHEN THE CREATIONIST WINS THE POINT, THE EVOLUTIONIST BACKS DOWN.
I DID NOT WRITE THIS, BUT JUST AS THE EVOLUTIONISTS ONLY BELIEVE DARWIN, I BELIEVE THE LORD AND ALL THOSE WHO STRESS HOW REDICULOUS EVOLUTION IS.
Doughboy writes the following from
http://www.netaxs.com/~doughboy/montana.htm
Hi there!
I am very happy to receive your mail.
I believe that this dialogue began with a question of whether evolution is legit. My argument is that I think it deceives students; going directly in opposition to testable science.
1. the laws of nature
The First Law of Thermodynamics
The first law of thermodynamics is the law of energy conservation. As you know, this is an empirical or testable law of science. This law states while energy can be converted from one form to another, it can not be created or annihilated. It has been considered the most powerful or most fundamental generalization of the universe that scientists have ever been able to make. This would mean that mass nor energy can appear from nothing. If there were that would be a free lunch. Some have suspected black holes, but I believe that one has not been observed. Today, matter does not spring out of nothing. If I were to tell someone that something appeared or reappeared, they'd say it were a lie, fairy tale, or legend.
The question seems to choke many evolutionists when one tests the theory of evolution with the first law of thermodynamics. There are all sorts of untested hypothesis of how something could come from nothing and that something that people hypothesis about is actually something. If it exists, it is something.
This reminds me of the 19th century concept of spontaneous generation. Flies can't come from rotten meat. At that time, people speculated how flies came about or how some sort of growth came about and it was believed that spoiled foods caused it. We later found out that there was a much different mechanism occurring. Science at one point was clueless, and we now know insects and other living things don't come from dead ones. In the time of Darwin, scientists believed that "simple organisms" came from inanimate objects. Just put millions of years in between and an open system, and you have life beginning on Earth.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics
As you know that the law of entropy is this. Without any intelligence acting on a system, entropy is always increasing and order is decreasing. Entropy is that free energy or energy lost.
For example, after I straighten up my room, it is a natural process that it will start becoming chaotic over time. It will not get clean or straight on its own, but I will have to do it. Entropy in the big bang/evolution theory moves from disorder (a soupy primordial slime), to order (man, plants, and animals). Supposedly, there is no intelligent being acting on the young Earth and the world then moves from disorder and chaos, to order and complexity. It is that "blind random chance" that makes it impossible for life to be created in this order. It is amino acids, to amoebas, to apes, and then to astronauts.
This is not true because the energy of the earth flows from hot to cool bodies. Evolution requires constant violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Some evolutions then try to dogmatically defend their position of getting past the second law.
One argument is that it is only speaking of energy relationships of matter, while evolution deals with complex organisms arising from simpler ones. This is false.
Contemporary information theory deals with information entropy and militates against evolution on a genetic level. While in an energy conversion system, entropy dictates that energy will decay. In an informational system, entropy dictates that information will be distorted. It is certain that there is a conceptual connection between information and second law of thermodynamics.
Some evolutionists also say that entropy can't prevent evolution because the Earth was an open system heated by the rays of the sun. This is nonsense.
the sun's raise have never produced an upswing in complexity without teleonomy (ordering principal of life).
Energy from the sun doesn't produce an orderly structure of growth and development without information and an engine.
I may be incorrect in my analogy, but it reminds me of poring gas on a heap of junk that used to be a car. If the junk doesn't know how to use the gas, there is no way it will drive down the street. If the sun beats down on a dead plant, it does not produce growth, but rather speeds up decay!
If the sun beats on a live plant, it produces a temporary increase in complexity in growth.
Evolutionists sometimes also say that entropy did not occur in the past. Well, hey, I wouldn't say that if I was an evolutionist, because that would suggest some supernatural occurrence. *wink*
This is just the first topic on the long list of flaws that the theory of evolution has.
I'm not doubting that evolution is the best theory that scientists can come up with, but biology, anthropology, psychology, chemistry, and other science students are not told of the weaknesses of the theory. (As Phillup Johnson put it, Evolution is a “half-baked theory.” And guess what? Scientists nor students have to accept it.)
Sincerely,
The Doughboy
DOUGHBOY WROTE THIS LETTER TO AN EVOLUTIONIST, AND NEVER GOT A RESPONSE. THIS IS A COMMON PATTERN, WHEN THE CREATIONIST WINS THE POINT, THE EVOLUTIONIST BACKS DOWN.
Page:
http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/odin/odin-10.htm
What about the poems Pandaemonium?
What about the poems Pandaemonium?
loki wrote:
> Forest Fan wrote:
> Nope, science tells us, our OLDEST ancestors were a man and a woman.
> They themselves had no ancestors, because they were the first
> humans,
> they were not half monkey / half human or half slime / half human,
> but fully human just like anybody else; hence there was no-one
> before
> them, no-one to have evolved from.
>
> No it doesn't. You just made that up. Stop telling lies, it's bad for
> your soul.
Strong claim loki and a false claim, as this article proves;
Have New Scientific and Mathematical Tools Detected Adam and Eve?
Figure 137: Language Divergence. Languages are related as are genes. One of thousands of examples is the word for “from, of.” It exists in French (de ), Italian (di ), Spanish (de ), Portuguese (de), and Romanian (de). So these languages, now spoken generally in southwestern Europe, are twigs on a tree branch called the Romance languages (Romance meaning Rome). This branch joins a larger branch that includes all languages derived primarily from Latin. They merge with other large branches, such as the Germanic branch that includes English, into a family called the Indo-European languages. When these and other languages are traced back in time, they appear to converge near Mount Ararat, the likely landing site of Noah’s Ark. (See pages 38–41.) Linguists admit they do not understand the origin of languages, only how multiple languages spread.7
Virtually all cells of every living thing (plants, animals, and humans) contain tiny strands of coded information called DNA. DNA directs the cell, telling it what to produce and when. Therefore, much of your appearance and personality is determined by the DNA you inherited from your parents.
In human cells, the nucleus contains 99.5% of the DNA. Half of it came from the individual’s mother and half from the father. Because both halves are shuffled together, it is difficult to identify which parent contributed any tiny segment. In other words, half of this DNA changes with each generation. However, each cell has, outside its nucleus, thousands of little energy-producing components called mitochondria, each containing a circular strand of DNA. Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) comes only from the mother. Where did she get hers? From her mother—and so on. Normally, mtDNA does not change from generation to generation.
DNA is written with an alphabet of four letters: A, G, T, and C. One copy of a person’s MtDNA is 16,559 letters long. Sometimes a mutation changes one of the letters in the mtDNA that a mother passes on to her child. These rare and somewhat random changes allow geneticists to identify families. For example, if your grandmother experienced an early mutation in her mtDNA, her children and any daughters’ children would carry the same changed mtDNA. It would differ, in general, from that in the rest of the world’s population.1
In 1987, a team at the University of California at Berkeley published a study comparing the mtDNA of 147 people from five of the world’s geographic locations.2 They concluded that all 147 had the same female ancestor. She is now called “the mitochondrial Eve.”
Where did mitochondrial Eve live? Initial research concluded it was probably Africa. Later, after much debate, it was realized that Asia and Europe were also possible origins for the mitochondrial Eve.3
From a biblical perspective, do we know where Eve lived? Because the flood was so destructive, no one knows where the Garden of Eden was.4 However, Noah’s three daughters-in-law, who lived only a dozen or so generations after Eve, began raising their families near Mount Ararat in eastern Turkey—very near the common boundary of Asia, Africa, and Europe. (Each of us can claim one of Noah’s daughters-in-law as our ever-so-great grandmother.) So, it is not surprising that Asia, Africa, and Europe are candidate homes for mitochondrial Eve.
Likewise, when similar words, sounds, and grammar of the world’s most widely spoken languages are traced back in time, they also seem to originate near Ararat.5 Another convergence near eastern Turkey is found when one traces agriculture back in time.6
When did mitochondrial Eve live? To answer this, one must know how frequently mutations occur in mtDNA. Initial estimates were based on the following faulty reasoning: “Humans and chimpanzees had a common ancestor about 5 million years ago. Because the mtDNA in humans and chimps differ in 1,000 places, one mutation occurs about every 10,000 years.” Another erroneous approach began by assuming that Australia was first populated 40,000 years ago. The average number of mitochondrial mutations among Australian aborigines divided by 40,000 years provided another extremely slow mutation rate for mtDNA. These estimated rates, based on evolution, led to the mistaken belief that mitochondrial Eve lived 100,000 – 200,000 years ago. This surprised evolutionists who believe that our common ancestor was an apelike creature that lived 31/2 million years ago.8
A greater surprise, even disbelief, occurred in 1997, when it was announced that mutations in mtDNA occur 20 times more rapidly than had been estimated. Mutation rates can now be determined directly by comparing the mtDNA of many mother-child pairs. Using the new, more accurate rate, mitochondrial Eve lived only about 6,000 years ago.9
Is there a “genetic Adam”? A man receives from his father a segment of DNA which lies on the Y chromosome; this makes him a male. Where did your father receive his segment? From his father. If we all descended from one man, all males should have the same Y chromosome segment—except for rare mutations.
A 1995 study of a worldwide sample of 38 men showed no changes in this segment of the Y chromosome that is always inherited from fathers. Had humans evolved and all men descended from one male who lived 500,000 years ago, each should carry about 19 mutations. Had he lived 150,000 years ago, 5.5 mutations would be expected.10 Because no changes were found, our common father probably lived only thousands of years ago. While Adam was father of all, our most recent common male ancestor was Noah.
For completeness, we must also consider another possibility. Even if we all descended from the same female, other females may have been living at the same time. Their chains of continuous female descendants may have ended; their mtDNA died out. This happens with family names. If Mary and John XYZ have no sons, their unusual last name dies out. Likewise, many other men may have lived at the same time as our “genetic Adam (or Noah).” They might have no male descendants living today. How likely is it that other men lived a few thousand years ago but left no continuous male descendants, and other women lived 6,000 years ago but left no continuous female descendants, and we end up today with a world population of 6 billion people? Extremely remote!11
Yes, new discoveries show that we carry traces of Adam and Eve in our cells. Furthermore, our common “parents” are probably removed from us by only 200 – 300 generations. All humans have a common and recent bond—a family bond. We are all cousins.
OR [URL] http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ13.html [/URL]
> Forest Fan wrote:
> Nope, science tells us, our OLDEST ancestors were a man and a woman.
> They themselves had no ancestors, because they were the first
> humans,
> they were not half monkey / half human or half slime / half human,
> but fully human just like anybody else; hence there was no-one
> before
> them, no-one to have evolved from.
>
> No it doesn't. You just made that up. Stop telling lies, it's bad for
> your soul.
Strong claim loki and a false claim, as this article proves;
Have New Scientific and Mathematical Tools Detected Adam and Eve?
Figure 137: Language Divergence. Languages are related as are genes. One of thousands of examples is the word for “from, of.” It exists in French (de ), Italian (di ), Spanish (de ), Portuguese (de), and Romanian (de). So these languages, now spoken generally in southwestern Europe, are twigs on a tree branch called the Romance languages (Romance meaning Rome). This branch joins a larger branch that includes all languages derived primarily from Latin. They merge with other large branches, such as the Germanic branch that includes English, into a family called the Indo-European languages. When these and other languages are traced back in time, they appear to converge near Mount Ararat, the likely landing site of Noah’s Ark. (See pages 38–41.) Linguists admit they do not understand the origin of languages, only how multiple languages spread.7
Virtually all cells of every living thing (plants, animals, and humans) contain tiny strands of coded information called DNA. DNA directs the cell, telling it what to produce and when. Therefore, much of your appearance and personality is determined by the DNA you inherited from your parents.
In human cells, the nucleus contains 99.5% of the DNA. Half of it came from the individual’s mother and half from the father. Because both halves are shuffled together, it is difficult to identify which parent contributed any tiny segment. In other words, half of this DNA changes with each generation. However, each cell has, outside its nucleus, thousands of little energy-producing components called mitochondria, each containing a circular strand of DNA. Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) comes only from the mother. Where did she get hers? From her mother—and so on. Normally, mtDNA does not change from generation to generation.
DNA is written with an alphabet of four letters: A, G, T, and C. One copy of a person’s MtDNA is 16,559 letters long. Sometimes a mutation changes one of the letters in the mtDNA that a mother passes on to her child. These rare and somewhat random changes allow geneticists to identify families. For example, if your grandmother experienced an early mutation in her mtDNA, her children and any daughters’ children would carry the same changed mtDNA. It would differ, in general, from that in the rest of the world’s population.1
In 1987, a team at the University of California at Berkeley published a study comparing the mtDNA of 147 people from five of the world’s geographic locations.2 They concluded that all 147 had the same female ancestor. She is now called “the mitochondrial Eve.”
Where did mitochondrial Eve live? Initial research concluded it was probably Africa. Later, after much debate, it was realized that Asia and Europe were also possible origins for the mitochondrial Eve.3
From a biblical perspective, do we know where Eve lived? Because the flood was so destructive, no one knows where the Garden of Eden was.4 However, Noah’s three daughters-in-law, who lived only a dozen or so generations after Eve, began raising their families near Mount Ararat in eastern Turkey—very near the common boundary of Asia, Africa, and Europe. (Each of us can claim one of Noah’s daughters-in-law as our ever-so-great grandmother.) So, it is not surprising that Asia, Africa, and Europe are candidate homes for mitochondrial Eve.
Likewise, when similar words, sounds, and grammar of the world’s most widely spoken languages are traced back in time, they also seem to originate near Ararat.5 Another convergence near eastern Turkey is found when one traces agriculture back in time.6
When did mitochondrial Eve live? To answer this, one must know how frequently mutations occur in mtDNA. Initial estimates were based on the following faulty reasoning: “Humans and chimpanzees had a common ancestor about 5 million years ago. Because the mtDNA in humans and chimps differ in 1,000 places, one mutation occurs about every 10,000 years.” Another erroneous approach began by assuming that Australia was first populated 40,000 years ago. The average number of mitochondrial mutations among Australian aborigines divided by 40,000 years provided another extremely slow mutation rate for mtDNA. These estimated rates, based on evolution, led to the mistaken belief that mitochondrial Eve lived 100,000 – 200,000 years ago. This surprised evolutionists who believe that our common ancestor was an apelike creature that lived 31/2 million years ago.8
A greater surprise, even disbelief, occurred in 1997, when it was announced that mutations in mtDNA occur 20 times more rapidly than had been estimated. Mutation rates can now be determined directly by comparing the mtDNA of many mother-child pairs. Using the new, more accurate rate, mitochondrial Eve lived only about 6,000 years ago.9
Is there a “genetic Adam”? A man receives from his father a segment of DNA which lies on the Y chromosome; this makes him a male. Where did your father receive his segment? From his father. If we all descended from one man, all males should have the same Y chromosome segment—except for rare mutations.
A 1995 study of a worldwide sample of 38 men showed no changes in this segment of the Y chromosome that is always inherited from fathers. Had humans evolved and all men descended from one male who lived 500,000 years ago, each should carry about 19 mutations. Had he lived 150,000 years ago, 5.5 mutations would be expected.10 Because no changes were found, our common father probably lived only thousands of years ago. While Adam was father of all, our most recent common male ancestor was Noah.
For completeness, we must also consider another possibility. Even if we all descended from the same female, other females may have been living at the same time. Their chains of continuous female descendants may have ended; their mtDNA died out. This happens with family names. If Mary and John XYZ have no sons, their unusual last name dies out. Likewise, many other men may have lived at the same time as our “genetic Adam (or Noah).” They might have no male descendants living today. How likely is it that other men lived a few thousand years ago but left no continuous male descendants, and other women lived 6,000 years ago but left no continuous female descendants, and we end up today with a world population of 6 billion people? Extremely remote!11
Yes, new discoveries show that we carry traces of Adam and Eve in our cells. Furthermore, our common “parents” are probably removed from us by only 200 – 300 generations. All humans have a common and recent bond—a family bond. We are all cousins.
OR [URL] http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ13.html [/URL]
loki wrote:
> Okay then, Y Chromosomal Adam.
>
> There ya go.
:D
actually that rings bells.
*impressed*
> Okay then, Y Chromosomal Adam.
>
> There ya go.
:D
actually that rings bells.
*impressed*
Rosalind wrote:
> loki wrote:
> Rosalind wrote:
> If your interested, Mitochondrial eve (and her male equivalent - I
> forget his name)...
>
> At a guess Mitochondrial Adam? Or would that be too obvious?
>
> No it doesn't work like that.
Okay then, Y Chromosomal Adam. At least I got his surname right ;)
> loki wrote:
> Rosalind wrote:
> If your interested, Mitochondrial eve (and her male equivalent - I
> forget his name)...
>
> At a guess Mitochondrial Adam? Or would that be too obvious?
>
> No it doesn't work like that.
Okay then, Y Chromosomal Adam. At least I got his surname right ;)
OOPs that turned into a bit of a lecture....
sorry.
sorry.
loki wrote:
> Rosalind wrote:
> If your interested, Mitochondrial eve (and her male equivalent - I
> forget his name)...
>
> At a guess Mitochondrial Adam? Or would that be too obvious?
No it doesn't work like that.
Mitochondrial eve is so called because the DNA in our mitochondria is inherited directly from our Mother (as opposed to our other DNA which is a mix of Mother and Father).
This being so the only variation in our mitochondrial DNA comes from mutations, there is NO other way for variation to occur. This being so, and with scientist knowing the rate at which mutations in DNA occur, we can guesstimate how long ago all our mitochondrial DNA was the same (i.e, came from the same woman.) The same is not true in the case of men, and although there is a male equivalent, it isn't based on the same principles and is much more recently discovered (and I don't know much about him.)
Mitochondrial eve is supposed to be the latest (not only) Woman from who all modern humans are decended. But logic suggests that even in the time of M.eve there was a wiman from who all her contemparies were evolved.
Mitcondrial eve is evidence FOR evolution NOT against it.
> Rosalind wrote:
> If your interested, Mitochondrial eve (and her male equivalent - I
> forget his name)...
>
> At a guess Mitochondrial Adam? Or would that be too obvious?
No it doesn't work like that.
Mitochondrial eve is so called because the DNA in our mitochondria is inherited directly from our Mother (as opposed to our other DNA which is a mix of Mother and Father).
This being so the only variation in our mitochondrial DNA comes from mutations, there is NO other way for variation to occur. This being so, and with scientist knowing the rate at which mutations in DNA occur, we can guesstimate how long ago all our mitochondrial DNA was the same (i.e, came from the same woman.) The same is not true in the case of men, and although there is a male equivalent, it isn't based on the same principles and is much more recently discovered (and I don't know much about him.)
Mitochondrial eve is supposed to be the latest (not only) Woman from who all modern humans are decended. But logic suggests that even in the time of M.eve there was a wiman from who all her contemparies were evolved.
Mitcondrial eve is evidence FOR evolution NOT against it.
Forest Fan wrote:
> The science parts tell us, the perfectly formed human had NO
> ancestors, thus disproof of evolution and with one theory left,
> namely the fact stated in Genesis 1:1, CREATION wins through.
This explains creation too, but from a different perspective. Interesting, but just as meaningless as "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."
You see, words alone do not constitute evidence.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/odin/odin-10.htm
The Voluspa (Viking creation poem)
3. This was the first of aeons, when Ymer built.
There was no soil, no sea, no waves;
Earth was not, nor heaven;
Gaping abyss alone: no growth.
4. Until Bur's sons raised the tables;
They who had power to fashion Midgard.
Sun shone from the south on the stones of the court;
Then grew green grass in fertile soil.
5. The sun bore south together with moon.
On her right hand was the heaven's door.
Sun knew not what hall she had;
Stars knew not their places yet.
Moon knew not his power.
6. The mighty drew to their judgment seats,
All holy gods to hold council;
They named night and moon phases, separated morn from noon,
Dusk and evening, to tell the years.
7. The Aesir met on the Ida sward,
Timbered lofty courts and altars;
They founded forges, smithied gold,
Fashioned tongs and tempered tools.
8. Goldtable they joyfully played in the court;
Lacked not abundance of gold;
Until there came from the giants' home
Three very immoderate giant maids.
9. The mighty drew to their Judgment seats,
All holy gods to hold council:
Who should fashion a host of dwarfs
From Brimer's blood and the limbs of the dead?
10. There was Force-sucker, master of dwarfs
As Durin knows;
There were fashioned many humanoid dwarfs from the earth
As Durin said.
> The science parts tell us, the perfectly formed human had NO
> ancestors, thus disproof of evolution and with one theory left,
> namely the fact stated in Genesis 1:1, CREATION wins through.
This explains creation too, but from a different perspective. Interesting, but just as meaningless as "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."
You see, words alone do not constitute evidence.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/odin/odin-10.htm
The Voluspa (Viking creation poem)
3. This was the first of aeons, when Ymer built.
There was no soil, no sea, no waves;
Earth was not, nor heaven;
Gaping abyss alone: no growth.
4. Until Bur's sons raised the tables;
They who had power to fashion Midgard.
Sun shone from the south on the stones of the court;
Then grew green grass in fertile soil.
5. The sun bore south together with moon.
On her right hand was the heaven's door.
Sun knew not what hall she had;
Stars knew not their places yet.
Moon knew not his power.
6. The mighty drew to their judgment seats,
All holy gods to hold council;
They named night and moon phases, separated morn from noon,
Dusk and evening, to tell the years.
7. The Aesir met on the Ida sward,
Timbered lofty courts and altars;
They founded forges, smithied gold,
Fashioned tongs and tempered tools.
8. Goldtable they joyfully played in the court;
Lacked not abundance of gold;
Until there came from the giants' home
Three very immoderate giant maids.
9. The mighty drew to their Judgment seats,
All holy gods to hold council:
Who should fashion a host of dwarfs
From Brimer's blood and the limbs of the dead?
10. There was Force-sucker, master of dwarfs
As Durin knows;
There were fashioned many humanoid dwarfs from the earth
As Durin said.
Rosalind wrote:
> If your interested, Mitochondrial eve (and her male equivalent - I
> forget his name)...
At a guess Mitochondrial Adam? Or would that be too obvious?
> If your interested, Mitochondrial eve (and her male equivalent - I
> forget his name)...
At a guess Mitochondrial Adam? Or would that be too obvious?
Forest Fan wrote:
> The science parts tell us, the perfectly formed human had NO
> ancestors...
How many times?! No it doesn't.
Really.
It doesn't tell us that.
I promise you.
No.
> The science parts tell us, the perfectly formed human had NO
> ancestors...
How many times?! No it doesn't.
Really.
It doesn't tell us that.
I promise you.
No.
loki wrote:
> there was once a human being
> (nicknamed mitachondrial eve or summat) that we are all descended
> from. She had ancestors just like everyone else. It's just that it's
> her offspring that most successfully reproduced and prospered.
If your interested, Mitochondrial eve (and her male equivalent - I forget his name) is explained and disscused along with lots of other human evolutionary questions in the popular science book "River out of Eden" by Richard Dawkins. Another great book discussing evolution (pre-human) is "Wonderful Life" by Stephen J. Gould, although people who struggle with science might find this one a bit heavy going.
Forest Fan, you would do well to read the two above books, to compliment your bible reading.
> there was once a human being
> (nicknamed mitachondrial eve or summat) that we are all descended
> from. She had ancestors just like everyone else. It's just that it's
> her offspring that most successfully reproduced and prospered.
If your interested, Mitochondrial eve (and her male equivalent - I forget his name) is explained and disscused along with lots of other human evolutionary questions in the popular science book "River out of Eden" by Richard Dawkins. Another great book discussing evolution (pre-human) is "Wonderful Life" by Stephen J. Gould, although people who struggle with science might find this one a bit heavy going.
Forest Fan, you would do well to read the two above books, to compliment your bible reading.
Page: