sammy7

ok sorry wont do anymore hi sorry mod i have moved it to speculations please delete this last 3 posts if you want.

hi i just thought id try out this methodology of doing something/analyzing something and see how it works. let us look at september 11 from a scientific perspective. i will try to "model" it, please someone comment on somethings if they want... i will assign just one or two things to the fact column (no one debates these they are easily verified observations, no one would doubt them,) then the opposing explanations in there relevant column and see how we go from there... ( i have never done this before but its so easy and makes so much sense etc) please just look at pic briefly on google too of what it *used* to look like (wtc7) ( if i could i would have 3 separate vertical columns with the facts in the middle but this was easier- FACTS 1-wtc 7 a 47 story building collapsed neatly into itself 2-no plane hit it 3-eyewitness report hearing explosions at ground level 4-larry silverstein on youtube says "we made the decision to pull it" 5-unreaacted thermatic material was found in numerous areas surrounding that whole area- (link to literature below) OFFICIAL STORY MODEL 1-no problem *fire* caused it 2-*semi* no problem falling debris landed on it and started the fires 3-*problem* how does this get explained? 4-*hmmmm* well maybe he was referring to something completely unrelated to this building and controlled demolition. 5-i dont know what they say about this... (someone else comment please) CONTROLLED DEMOLITION EXPLOSIVES MODEL 1-fine obv 2-again fine obv 3-makes sense in this model 4-again no problem at all 5-self explanatory.... http://nielsharrit.org/ (thermite literature) please comment and add things if you want or explain to me its shortcomings thanks

"9/11 conspiracy theorists are idiots, let's just leave it at that." this isnt personal-these are the exact kind of presuppositions that stops science getting done, presuppose something (based on media usually)-fail to even investigate opposing side of mainstream belief=standard indoctrination into a intentional way of thinking. (thank you karl marx hitler etc lol) let us look at september 11 from a scientific perspective. i will try to "model" it, please someone comment on somethings if they want... i will assign just one or two things to the fact column (no one debates these they are easily verified observations, no one would doubt them,) then the opposing explanations in there relevant column and see how we go from there... ( i have never done this before but its so easy and makes so much sense etc) please just look at pic briefly on google too of what it *used* to look like (wtc7) ( if i could i would have 3 separate vertical columns with the facts in the middle but this was easier- FACTS 1-wtc 7 a 47 story building collapsed neatly into itself 2-no plane hit it 3-eyewitness report hearing explosions at ground level 4-larry silverstein on youtube says "we made the decision to pull it" OFFICIAL STORY MODEL 1-no problem *fire* caused it 2-*semi* no problem falling debris landed on it and started the fires 3-*problem* how does this get explained? 4-*hmmmm* well maybe he was referring to something completely unrelated to this building and controlled demolition. CONTROLLED DEMOLITION EXPLOSIVES MODEL 1-fine obv 2-again fine obv 3-makes sense in this model 4-again no problem at all please comment someone and add more if they want.

lol it already got asked did it?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Huq0EM3aGkI&feature=plcp please "debunk" this thanks

i dont know how to "interpret" if you will his comment on people at 2.00. "if we do a really great job...." i cant believe he is blatently saying "lets kill/sterilize people with vaccines" so i guess he has to be referring to another mechanism of action (by which vaccines lower population growth rate) but i dont know what it is? (i have some speculations but will wait) comments please....

"What are you trying to say exactly? Could you clarify? What about sources? I won't bitch if it's Discovery Institute stuff. I'm just curious to fully identify what you're on about." Hi thanks for the response. if you want the actual literature for those sources i will have to try to find it (i am having a semi-hard time myself , its easy to find overviews etc) but the mechanism of action of those things referenced above *probably* (i will have to find the actual literature itself) have nothing to do with "evolution" (unless evolution in the context of the overviews=variation/adaptation/mutations, in which case anyone would agree)the use of the word "evolution" even in literature can be very deceptive-just because they use that term doesnt mean macro-evolution (completely new functional/novel genetic information arising somehow which is what lay people reading these overviews might be deceived into thinking imo) they frequently use the word "evolution" in the context of micro=evolution (as described above) so i agree with them in that context (as anyone on the planet would) ok so the mechanism of action of the above listed phenomena (ecoli etc etc)- mutations *may*destroy the specificity of an enzyme allowing it to accept different substrates (so citrate was one thing that was observed) this is not evidence of macro-evolution obv, you cannot gain something new by destroying a little of something a little at a time (which is what n-d-t claims or "evolution via natural selection"). it may not of even have been a mutation ( again i will have to find the literature to nail the exact mechanism of action) because within only 9 days of one of the nylon related bacteria experiment they found it could start using nylon (within only 9 days)so this is unlikely to be a mutation from one generation to the next as it was only 9 days-i cant explain this exatcly but if there was no mutations that means the enzyme present for using nylon were already contained in the organisms and possibly (speculation) something in the environment switched them "on" or something. so here we have 2 things heralded as being "scientific evidence" for evolution (which they are if were referring to micro-evolution lol) so yeah...aslo same with antibiotics-mutation, slight destruction/degradation of something/survives in antibiotic environment again not evidence for n-d-t as it started with a loss or "destruction" of something, again you cannot gain something new by destroying a little of something a little at a time. no i dont read that website you said although i have read stephen c meyers book "signature in the cell" and quite enjoyed it...

im starting with the presupposition no macro-evolutionary changes have been observed -yes no one doubts mutations obv, but lenskis experiments/ecoli/bacteria "gaining" antiobiotic resistance, trisomy 21 etc,- i dont count as the type necessary for the n-d-t theory to be possible, ie lenksis, they found that within only 9 days some of them were able to use/digest nylon , i presume this is to short for a mutation to arise and a new generation to come forth, so it can be explained by a "swapping" of genes with other bacteria that did have the ability to digest nylon/had nylonase, so the information was already present in some of them, it didnt have to "evolve" or gain new functional infromation from anywhere...and if it was a mutation i will propose something for the ecoli experiments below... ecoli experiments-same thing (not saying no mutations were involved) mutation-loss of specificity of an enzyme-enzyme can now accept new substrate(s) (citrate) but i presume it started with a DOWNHILL trend of "information" (the catalytic activity across all the "new" different types of substrates is less than that compared to the wild type on the original substrate), so again this is a loss of information. (or again they just "swapped" genes around that were pre -existing.) bacteria "gaining" resistance, same thing i guess? swapping of genes, mutation changes structure of ribosome, antibiotics cant attach to it, it survives, natural selection kicks in etc etc. but again this starts with a "loss" of information (the ribosome has been degraded a little) this is a downhill trend... also im not here just to "debate" and i think you get that, im putting ideas forward and getting rebutted and thank you for that. "To add to that you are just trying to push a ridiculous burden of proof when you say there are no transitional fossils, I show them to you, and you say since they weren't observed while they were alive it can't be shown to be transitional. If that is the case every creation myth falls just as short as well as all the other failings they have. I gave you a link to predictions made and verified. " hay yes thats what im saying they fail as "scientific evidence" (no im not claiming i have a better model/nor that the bible nor any other religion creation story is "scientific") "Just because something happened in the past doesn't mean it is outside the realm of science. Where could you possibly have gotten this idea? I could use your same logic and say that since we couldn't observe light before we were around and it was recorded we can safely assume that light didn't exist until recorded history." no but we cant claim with certainty that just because we observe something acting in a certain way today it has always been acting that way... ie - i see my friend mowing his lawn one day at 3pm, i then claim that every day in the past he has been mowing his lawn at 3pm based on that one observation..science??imo not... thanks for any constructive thoughts again...

hay thanks for the reply molecule, i will work my way through those topics, but it seems "transition" fossils suffer in the same way that the telomere-telomere paper does, ie-they assign an unobserved cause in the past (a "transition process") to an observed effect today (we dig up a dead thing). does that make sense? (unless im missing something?) using that same logic i can observe any effect today, (say i look at something in my room) then create a story about it in the past (and state it was unobserved ). how is there anyway of "proving" my story (yes some people can believe it if they want but it was never observed so how do we call this science?) i assume this is where the "prediction" model comes in and if you would be so kind to write it out i would be interested?. ie. no one observed this "transition process" imo they are just dead things that may/may not still be around today (assuming archeoptryx isnt fake which imo it probably is but lets just say it is "real") so saying it is a "transition" fossil, is just a story? (i guess this is where the prediction model comes in again but i will be interested to see it) ie i claim process "x" once started and stopped in the past both without observation, and that effect "a" is the effect of the cause "x". obviously we can observe "a" today but how can we actually go back in time and observe this "x" process? if we cant actually observe claimed cause then this is outside the realm of science and becomes a belief system/religion like every other one (buddhism, etc etc)? thanks molecule

wow fascinating thanks dude will read more about it

hay that pic on the start of the vid, i think its java man or nebraska man or something right? lmao they found a tooth and someone (with a good imagination) draw up those pics...then they later found it was a pigs tooth..oops anyway i will not be responding to your posts anymore im only interested in science not ones personal attempt to undermine someone elses religion (i have to assume that a bunch of those youtube guys well...thats what they are interested in) so yeah... thanks for reading my posts etc etc lol

no offence moontana this is the exact kind of crap they spoon feed us in school, any one can believe it (and i did l) im starting to realise the whole thing is a mirage ie geologic cloumn or whatever used to date "index" fossils which they themselves are used to date the geologic column, so before they even radiometric date something they know the range their aiming for "if the dating fits our model we publish it, if it doesnt we dont publish it, and if its way off we chuck it" so.... The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches … in any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the gradual transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and fully formed. stephen j gould. someguy wrote to the author of a book called "evolution" he wrote for the british museum or something i think asking "why no transition fossils in your book?"- I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it… Gradualism is a concept I believe in, not just because of Darwin's authority, but because my understanding of genetics seems to demand it. Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils… It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test. theres about a bazillion of these quotes everywhere the whole thing is based on imagination (no offense)...

hay they were able to replicate this in like 9 days or something so it wasnt through mutations, again nothing novel was added (there was no mutations) somehow the bacteria just adapted to different food sources (like that ecoli experiment) even if by mutations some things do gain the ability to use different food sources its because of a loss of specificity of an enzyme so it starts accepting different substrates..i will not be replying to your posts anymore because of what youve been doing on other threads...

hi sorry thought it was a personal or private thread or something.

hay i will read about polyploidy then. also i have been posting here for less than 24 hrs and my profile has already been "thumbed" down or something (lol?) this is what questioning evolution does.... also with c14 dating i am going to email a lab and ask this-if i have what i think is a dinosaur bone will you c14 date it for me ( i dont really have one but id like to know), i would like to hear what there answer is and if it is "no" i would like to know why ( i loosely understand they have that predesignated position in the strata or fossil record or whatever so they already "know" the date they are aiming for kind of thing?) i dont see how/why they would say yes because if it did have c14 in it....well...can someone guess the implications this has? also to the person posting after my posts/voting down my profile or whatever i was indoctrinated into the public school system just like you (evolution/big bang/ etc) but am just starting to question this now...so please let me question and dont delete me or whatever..lol science (real science) =questions "As to, what I assume is, neo-Darwinian Theory (n-d-t) being bankrupt of scientific evidence; do you agree that there is competition among, as well as within, species? " hmm i dont understand by what you mean competition? if you mean nature "selects" if you will what survives, this i agree (obv) but darwins "evolution via natural selection"..well..im starting to disagree with the "evolution" part of that...(as is obv obv lol) "I showed a few ways in which evolution could be disproved, none of these things have happened. Not only that, nothing has been shown to disprove evolution. On the contrary every bit of evidence supports what is expected with the evolutionary model." so has novel/functional genetic information been observed to arrive from one generation to the next? this is what im after? ( i guess you may have already cited some and i will start reading about that now) ok thanks for your time

lmao i like this post looool fda trials or whataver cost a few bazillion dollars sooo.... you could use some animals but you need access to some testing equipment or whatever (or know someone who works in a pathology lab), take some blood from whatever animal your using, then plug up there billary trees or whatever then take some blood after it llllmmaooo easy game...

trisomy 21, if someone wants to use this as evidence of macro-evolution...well enough said? i assume no one does and richard dawkins knows of it but why would he give an answer like that on tape?, or why would someone on tv say it (knowing that it makes evolution look silly)? btw too theres no new information coming into being its just a copy...( and look what it does to someone? ?????? "In effect, lack of evidence for one model isn't evidence for another. If Creationism really wants to supercede evolution it needs evidence as well as explanatory power (meaning it can explain what we see and predict what we may later find). " yah yah i wasnt proposing my own model just posting ideas to get a rational discussion going... and thanks for your thoughtful responses.. "You most likely wouldn't find flesh in a body that has decomposed for a long period of time. If anything that is evidence against Genesis because the younger the planet is the less time dinosaur flesh has to decompose." yah thats what i mean google "dinosaur bones collagen"... the evolutionary model says dinos are x million years old or whatever and a bone still has identifiable collagen in it.... that doesnt "prove" they are x amount of years "young" so to speak but its an interesting thought... and the carbon thing, just saying as soon as c14 is found in something it has to be less than 100k years old or whataver or it would of decayed back off into n14 already, is that right or? in summary i have no scientific evidence for "creation" but want people to realise n-d-t is bunkrupt of any scientific evidence whatsoever...

The Big Bang is presently the only considered model in cosmology. When seriously contradicted by observations, the BB model must be able to evolve. When or if it no longer could, it would be replaced. hay im not a astronomer or cosmologist (as you may be?) but i found this guys videos the other day on youtube and found them quite intriguing

"2. Does schizophrenia has any cure? Is there any instance of a person being fully cured of it?" please google "abram hoffer niacin" or "linus pauling niacin" or "abram hoffer schizophrenia" these guys were absolute geniuses and got nothing of what they deserved (well pauling did loosely i guess)...

why do i beleive it? because i believe (this came before me seeing this video, and yes it is only a belief/opinion) that certain people *cough cough bill gates cough* (lol) would like to eliminate a very large % of the worlds population...

this is the easiest thing in the world to believe, if this stuff WASNT happening would you believe it? i wouldnt... i think thats why einsteins model has been held on to so tightly..because as soon as nikola teslas model gets any creedance...well...people will start realising that he was on to something...

"I'll play ball here. So evolution is bunk and it is not true. Now if this stands how does Creationism become the accepted model? It's not the default, there are many other religions with creation myths, so what evidence allows Genesis to stand above the rest?" hi thanks for the honest reply , i havnt thought that far ahead.. (i only started believing this a few weeks ago) im just trying to get people to understand evolution is a religion/belief system like christianity hindu buddhism whatever, we have these quacks who get on tv 24/7 and indoctrinate the laymen (and ppl in schools colleges etc too) that macro-evolution is a "scientific fact" and that if you reject evolution well...you are somehow rejecting gravity... and imo a huge % of the population senses there is a discrepancy in the dogmatic statement "evolution is a scientific fact" but there not quite sure what it is.....and its preached in a fashion that if you do actually question it...well you are a *insert dawkins style demeaning comment here* but these are the people who still have an iota of common sense left and are thinking for themselves and havnt swallowed the thing hook line and sinker so to speak, so yeah you do have a choice what to believe because thats what it comes down to...a belief (no one observed creation event/or alleged starting and stopping of macro-evolutionary process) so yeh.... you guys probably read all dawkins books right? and watch his stuff? have you seen "richard dawkins stumped" on youtube? and "richard dawkins fails to remember origin of species" for me when i saw these i was like...wow....the emporer is really really wearing no clothes...and thats what inspired me to start looking for actual evidence for n-d-t... so yeh...comments please thanks for reading evidence for genesis, hmmm well this is just some preliminary opinion/comments (no i dont claim it to be a "scientific fact") but didnt they find flesh (identifiable protein, i think it was collagen) in dino bones? and what about c14? ie as soon as something has c14 in it, it has to be less than like 50 60 70 80 or 90k years old or something doesnt it? (not sure exact number obv lol) anyway comments like yours welcome thanks

that entire model (einsteins general relativity) or whatever sucks as evidenced by the number of "fillers" if you will that has to be put into it to "prop" it up (dark energy dark matter blah blah blah) never ever been observed....the scientific oligarchy owns us all arrrgghhhh! lol... just bored...

hay buzz aldrin has some interesting comments to make on these (on youtube) he says some other interesting things too...