Somthing for alex.
- 24 October 2013 19:46249753Alexander D wrote:The scientific explanation I have as to why the evolution theory is impossible will utterly shatter said error, to the extent that it will become impossible to believe Darwin's error.
It is currently under creation and will be presented in due course on the Web.
That's not science, that's blogging! - Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
24 October 2013 20:47249761he wont see other points of view rayALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS - 24 October 2013 21:25249767He will on the Day of Judgment.I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
- 24 October 2013 22:53249789Scientific proof will be presented, Ray.
To make it easier, I will be using modern-day terms to translate from the ancient Greek, so that it is easily understood.
I know the thought process of the evolutionary theory, it leaves open some embarrassing gaps that will make peoples' eyes water.
We're talking science here, Ray.
I'm formulating a key-grid with a conventional translation of the unintelligible Greek (and sometimes Latin) words used in genetic science, which will be for reference to the text. This is essential so that people can actually understand what it is all about.
I will undoubtedly prove that evolutionary cell mutation does not exist.
Oh and by the way, Ray, the evolution theory is anchored on the big bang theory and the amino-acids theory.
I've studied this long ago and know of the experiments that have been conducted.Chanters, Drums and Drones Potty Time http://youtu.be/99fMqpjnXYA
Rule Britannia!
Kent First http://youtu.be/04F3mAP3fV4 Keep banging on http://youtu.be/qYCU_SKmkGQ - 24 October 2013 22:56249790It so happens that I've also studied Greek and can pretty much understand what evolutionist scientists are erroneously trying to state. My knowledge of Latin also helps.Chanters, Drums and Drones Potty Time http://youtu.be/99fMqpjnXYA
Rule Britannia!
Kent First http://youtu.be/04F3mAP3fV4 Keep banging on http://youtu.be/qYCU_SKmkGQ - 25 October 2013 01:00249803Ray, are you able to explain how atoms became cells?
Do you know the periodic table of the elements?
In theory, as a proponent of the evolutionary theory, you should be able to give an account of how material or immaterial elements, for example gas, evolved into living cells.
Best of luck with your research, and looking forward to hearing from you here.
OK, give it a few billion years, and it may happen. If not, fling a few billion more at it.
Long before that has happened, I'll have presented to the national curriculum my text.Chanters, Drums and Drones Potty Time http://youtu.be/99fMqpjnXYA
Rule Britannia!
Kent First http://youtu.be/04F3mAP3fV4 Keep banging on http://youtu.be/qYCU_SKmkGQ - 25 October 2013 08:52249808All the questions you ask have been answered by scientists over hundreds of years of study and are presented with the necessary evidence in original peer-reviewed research papers and serious educational books.
You don't need a knowledge of Greek and Latin terms to understand genetics and evolution, they are used as an international language to avoid confusion between scientists with different native languages, not to hide anything (although as English is now the international language of science they are needed less).
As for me knowing the periodic table, hard to use the EDAX system on my SEM without such knowledge, I'm sure Wikipedia will explain all! - Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
25 October 2013 12:24249845Ray
will he be convinced
or open his mind?
i think the answer is no lolALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS - Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
25 October 2013 20:02249954here you are alex cheer up.
- Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
25 October 2013 20:46249960ray seems to tell a good storyALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS - Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
25 October 2013 20:46249961ray seems to tell a good storyALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS - 25 October 2013 22:48249984No, Ray, hundreds of years ago scientists did not believe in the evolution theory.
Many still don't now.
The question you mention has not been either answered or explained by any scientist.
Namely: how did atoms evolve into organic cells?
(In fact, they didn't.)
Many people are not aware how the evolution theory is as prone as a sieve to being water-tight.
As for your assertion that you don't need knowledge of Greek and Latin terms to understand genetics and "evolution" (the speech marks are mine), I'm afraid you do!
The vast majority of people do not understand most Greek words present in genetic science.
That's part of the trick to make them believe everything.
By the way, Ray, I've noticed you haven't even supplied any link, let alone an explanation, to the question "how did atoms evolve into organic cells?".
Because you know there is no answer.Chanters, Drums and Drones Potty Time http://youtu.be/99fMqpjnXYA
Rule Britannia!
Kent First http://youtu.be/04F3mAP3fV4 Keep banging on http://youtu.be/qYCU_SKmkGQ - Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
25 October 2013 22:52249987the religious readings are no more explained than rays scientistsALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS - 26 October 2013 01:06250000We're into science here, Keith.
I've studied science, know what I'm talking about.
The smallest organic form of life consists of a single cell.
Complex life forms consist of many different groups of cells. Humans are among these.
Single cells, whether as independent life forms, or as part of complex forms of organisms, only divide to reproduce.
For example, the cells within us divide to multiply.
I won't say more than that here, so as not to give away my up-coming presentation that will be presented to the national curriculum.
However, a proper research must include atoms, which are not organic life, but comprise all elements, solid, fluid or gas.
Keith, do YOU know that cells are made of atoms?
Ray has gone silent. He's even ceased posting links.
Have you ever heard of the periodic table of elements, Keith?
They do not include any form of organic life.
Do you know that the air is full of atoms of various kinds, and is comprised of nine gases?
The ground is full of atoms, as too the human body, and any material body.
Water is full of atoms.
How atoms were created, or "evolved", this Ray cannot and will not tell you, Keith.
Darwin was a botanist of sorts, he knew precious little of genetic science or of atoms.
His confusion of natural selection with cell structure was an eye-watering error that a primary teacher of the day could have corrected at school.
Natural selection, making sense, could be: banana trees do not grow in England. Not even in the Sahara Desert if there is not enough water to irrigate them. They do grow in the jungle. Reason: climatic and atmospheric conditions.
Modern evolutionary science states: "the giraffe developed a long neck over millions of years in order to reach the leaves at the top of trees from which it feeds".
Fact: it would have died in the first generation for lack of these leaves.
The evolutionary theory is much worse than: "Santa descends a chimney with a sack".Chanters, Drums and Drones Potty Time http://youtu.be/99fMqpjnXYA
Rule Britannia!
Kent First http://youtu.be/04F3mAP3fV4 Keep banging on http://youtu.be/qYCU_SKmkGQ - 26 October 2013 01:43250001This might help explain...
http://www.sciencelearn.org.nz/Contexts/Just-Elemental/Science-Ideas-and-Concepts/How-elements-are-formed
And this...
http://www.physics.org/article-questions.asp?id=52
And maybe this...
http://www.universetoday.com/51797/nucleosynthesis/ - 26 October 2013 10:57250017Alexander D wrote:We're into science here, Keith.
I've studied science, know what I'm talking about. . . . . Darwin was a botanist of sorts
Alex, I haven't posted any links recently for two reasons - firstly, I've got a life away from the keyboard, secondly, you have shown by your own postings such as the above that you are unable or unwilling to try to understand the evidence that people point you to (like the excellent links above from SW).
I asked you a question previously that you didn't answer and it's plain from your post above that you can't - can you explain the difference between mitosis and meiosis? It's crucial to the arguments you are making. - 26 October 2013 12:12250022There is no evidence, Ray, in anything posted by you in relation to evolution.
The above links from Stuart are about the big bang theory, which is the starting point of the evolution theory.
The two words mentioned above are descriptions given to cell division.
Mitosis is the division of single cells in the process of their multiplication.
The two new cells are identical to the original.
Meiosis is a form of cell division in more complex organic structures comprised of many different cells.
The DNA of a male and a female parent each diminish and then combine with each-other to form a new DNA that has half the maternal and half the paternal DNA.
Therefore neither the maternal nor the paternal DNA are fully represented in the new DNA, which forms a new identity DERIVED from the parents, remaining, however, within the same species as the parents.
Evolutionary science diverges from this, claiming that the DNA combination of maternal and paternal genetic code can lead to a transformation into a different (and new) species.
Combined with a warped interpretation of natural selection, it has led to the misrepresentation of science.Chanters, Drums and Drones Potty Time http://youtu.be/99fMqpjnXYA
Rule Britannia!
Kent First http://youtu.be/04F3mAP3fV4 Keep banging on http://youtu.be/qYCU_SKmkGQ - 26 October 2013 12:20250023Well you got mitosis right, the rest of it shows you don't really understand how random changes during meiosis by processes that are well understood can lead to a new species developing.
I'm not going into any more lessons on here, I'm sure everyone else is as bored with it as I am, but will repeat I have no problem with you or anyone else promoting their faith, just don't agree with you presenting a corrupt view of science while doing so. - 26 October 2013 12:31250024There are minor variations in DNA-controlled attributes between individuals within species. If it were not so, we would all look identical. And DNA alters slightly during the lifespan of an organism. Natural selection means that organisms with attributes better adapted to their environment will predominate, while the weaker will die out. Eventually, these imperceptible changes in DNA, generation by generation, will lead to a new species. We see it all the time with micro-organisms in which a generation is as little as 10 minutes. 50,000 generations of Clostridium perfringens bacteria takes 12-18 months, during which time they can mutate to become drug-resistant, effectively becoming a new species. Likewise the influenza virus.
50,000 human generations is over a million years. Natural selection has resulted in today's Hom. Sap. being very different from our ancestors. In the last 2 millennia human size has increased on average by 15%. By how much might the race have changed over the previous 1000? Or over a billion years?I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson - Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
26 October 2013 13:10250028ray,i think we got this radio station on.