Was there a Pre-Adamic race?

originally posted by: TerraLiga
a reply to: Quadrivium

It's one thing being a Christian, Muslim, Jew - or any other religion - but being a creationist is something else entirely. It's not a religion as I would describe it, it's a fanatical fundamentalist cult.

Why is it so asinine to you that intelligent creatures come from an intelligent Creator? We're called "creatures" for that very reason. To suppose this all came to be by random chance without a higher intelligence is by its own definition the least intelligent possibility.

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: Quadrivium

Coop does not believe in God. He believes in his anti-science bullsheeeeeeeeeeet.
God does not fit into his thought processes. He's a cultist.

I came back to Christianity from atheism after delving into an unbiased assessment of science. As Heiseinberg said,

"The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you."

a reply to: cooperton

You're conflating again. You do this always. God and creationism are not the same. One can believe in a god or gods and not be so naive to believe that Genesis is literal.

I would love to know what brought you back to faith from atheism. There must have been a great loss or sense unfulfillment - and if there was I am truly sorry that you suffered from it. Run into the arms of your god, and away from these cultist psychopaths.

originally posted by: TerraLiga
a reply to: cooperton

. God and creationism are not the same. One can believe in a god or gods and not believe that Genesis is literal.

I believe God was the creator of biological life. Most Christians do as well. Some believe God orchestrated evolution, but to me this doesn't make sense. Why would God use random mutations and time to create, when He could create by speaking things into existence?

There are human footprints in the same strata as dinosaurs, dinosaur bones containing soft tissue and being carbon dated to less than 40,000 years old. This alone ruins the theorized evolutionary timeline.

I would love to know what brought you back to faith from atheism. There must have been a great loss or sense unfulfillment - and if there was I am truly sorry that you suffered from it. Run into the arms of your god, and away from these cultist psychopaths.

No misery.. although a lot of people come to God at their lowest point and realize there is hope. But me personally it was just a persistent search for answers from all facets of life, and it brought me back to the necessity of a logical Creator God.

a reply to: cooperton

I suspect your (creationist) definition of creation is not the same as most. Yours, like Genesis, is literal fact as written. For most, and has been endorsed by many Abrahamic followers, their god is more of a universe and rule creator or governor of universal life. If your god created every single species of flora and fauna why is it content that so many are extinct? Why create the conditions on Earth that would condemn so many? Why so much overlap in some areas and gaps in others? Why create such a murderous and consuming creature such as Man? This version makes no sense.

Perhaps you believe it, or perhaps you're using creationist propaganda to convince others, but genuine human footprints have never been found alongside those of dinosaurs. All of them have been 'created'.

And I also know you know the difference between carbon- and radiometric-dating, but you choose - by deception - to continue to repeat this lie. What would your god make of that? If you believe in it, you are being watched and recorded. What will happen on your judgement day?

a reply to: TerraLiga

Coop's philosophy and creationism in general is similar to the Catholic Inquisition of 1616 which condemned Galileo and Copernican theory. Galileo had made observations (like a real scientist) using a more advanced telescope. The Church wouldn't accept the evidence mainly because it wasn't in the bible (along with other irrational reasoning).
The outcome is well known. Galileo was forbidden from discussing or teaching heliocentric ideas including his theory of the tides and the motion of the Earth. Creationism seeks to do exactly the same thing: Deny observational science and replace it with ideas that control the PERSON. They don't challenge science. They deny that the data exists.

It's a cult and similar to other cults like the Jonestown crazies, eventually it will disappear into the trash bin of history.

originally posted by: cooperton
I came back to Christianity from atheism after delving into an unbiased assessment of science. As Heiseinberg said,

"The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you."

Assuming you meant Heisenberg instead of Heiseinberg, that quote has been attributed to Heisenberg by you and some others, but did he ever say it?

A search of his published works didn't show that he ever published that in any writing, and a source who attributed that to Heisenberg didn't give an actual source as to where and when Heisenberg said it or wrote it. Moreover, it doesn't appear to be consistent with Heisenberg's style, according to Eike Christian Hirsch PhD, a personal acquaintance of Heisenberg.

Wikiquote page on Werner Heisenberg

Misattributed
The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for her.

“Der erste Trunk aus dem Becher der Naturwissenschaft macht atheistisch, aber auf dem Grund des Bechers wartet Gott.” in 15 Jahrhunderte Würzburg: e. Stadt u. ihre Geschichte [15 centuries Würzburg. A city and its history] (1979), p. 205, by Heinz Otremba. Otremba does not declare his source, and the quote per se cannot be found in Heisenberg's published works.

The journalist Eike Christian Hirsch PhD, a personal acquaintance of Heisenberg, whom he interviewed for his 1981 book Expedition in die Glaubenswelt, claimed in de.wikiquote.org on 22 June 2015, that the content and style of the quote was completely foreign to Heisenberg's convictions and the way he used to express himself, and that Heisenberg's children, Dr. Maria Hirsch and Prof. Dr. Martin Heisenberg, did not recognize their father in this quote.

A protégé of Heisenberg, Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker published something along the lines of the quote misattributed to Heisenberg in Die Geschichte der Natur (The History of Nature) (1948), appearing to consider it an adage, though it looks at both sides of the coin instead of a single side:

Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker, a protégé of Heisenberg, did publish a version of the quote itself in Die Geschichte der Natur (The History of Nature) (1948), appearing to consider it an adage:

"Aus dem Denken gibt es keinen ehrlichen Rückweg in einen naiven Glauben. Nach einem alten Satz trennt uns der erste Schluck aus dem Becher der Erkenntnis von Gott, aber auf dem Grunde des Bechers wartet Gott auf den, der ihn sucht. Wenn es so ist, dann gibt es einen Weg des Denkens, der vorwärts zu religiösen Wahrheiten führt, und nur diesen Weg zu suchen ist lohnend. Wenn es nicht so ist, wird unsere Welt auf die Religion ihre Hoffnungen vergeblich setzen." ("From thinking there is no honest way back into a naive belief. According to an old phrase, the first sip from the cup of knowledge separates us from God, but at the bottom of the cup God is waiting for the one who seeks him. If so, then there is a way of thinking that leads to religious truths, and to seek only that way is rewarding. If it is not so, our world will put its hopes to religion in vain.")

So there, a similar quote is attributed to "an old phrase", and not to Heisenberg, by Heisenberg's own protégé.

At least it's not another fake Einstein quote...there are far too many of those circulating.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Well he was a Christian and the quote comes from a biographer from 1979, but they dont cite a source. The dissension to the quote has no source either. But It is no coincidence that Carl Friedrich, a protégé of Werner Heisenberg, references the very same quote:

"According to an old phrase, the first sip from the cup of knowledge separates us from God, but at the bottom of the cup God is waiting for the one who seeks him. If so, then there is a way of thinking that leads to religious truths, and to seek only that way is rewarding. If it is not so, our world will put its hopes to religion in vain"

(The History of Nature) (1948)


It appears that they were citing an idea that has persisted for some time:


"A little philosophy inclineth man’s mind to atheism; but depth in philosophy bringeth men’s minds about to religion"
-Francis Bacon

"A little learning is a dangerous thing; drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring: there shallow draughts intoxicate the brain, and drinking largely sobers us again."
-Alexander Pope


Heisenberg also has other corroborating quotes that match the sentiment of the quote:

"The first thing we could say was simply: 'I believe in God, the Father, the almighty creator of heaven and earth.' The next step — at least for our contemporary consciousness — was doubt. There is no god; there is only an impersonal law that directs the fate of the world according to cause and effect... And yet [today], we may with full confidence place ourselves into the hands of the higher power who, during our lifetime and in the course of the centuries, determines our faith and therewith our world and our fate."

Source From: "Ordnung der Wirklichkeit” ("Reality and Its Order"), published in Collected Works. Section C: Philosophical and Popular Writings. Volume I. Physics and Cognition. 1927-1955 (1984)

originally posted by: Phantom423
They deny that the data exists.

What empirical data specifically have I ignored?

You know there's no empirical evidence that a population of organisms can evolve into something distinctly new, right? Fruit flies remain fruit flies, E. Coli remains E. Coli, mice remain mice. Evolutionary theory does not have empirical evidence to show that it happens.

a reply to: cooperton

And here we are again with your deliberately deceptive claims, proving again that you don't have any knowledge of which you claim. To the ignorant your arguments sound convincing, but let's have a look.

Experiments with fruit flies. There are a few creatures that reproduce quickly, but for its prodigious nature, ease and cost of upkeep and its relatively simple genome, the fruit fly is perfect for producing hundreds of generation in a very short time. Why? To study genes. Sequences can be edited or added or cut, and the results of those changes can be seen fairly quickly. At no time in history has an experiment been designed to create a new creature from fruit flies.

Experiments with E.coli. This bacterium is lethal. It's also prolific and continually evolving. It takes considerable resources to monitor its evolution and to develop vaccines for new strains. At no time in history has an experiment been designed to create a new creature from E.coli.

Experiments with mice. There have been thousands of experiments with mice, from growing human liver cells to human ear cartilage, but at no time in history has an experiment been designed to create a new creature from a mouse.

Despite some experiments designed to produce species hybrids, there has never been an experiment designed to produce new genera, let alone any higher order. To suggest otherwise is deliberately misleading, and only fools the ignorant. Cooperton is relying on you being ignorant of science - he literally prays for it.

No life is able to jump branches on the tree of life this late into the specialisation and development of life. It is stupid - and I really mean that - for a person supposedly educated on this topic to suggest that, unless that person is deliberately deceiving you, and Cooperton is doing exactly that.

Creationists rely on your ignorance. I'm not going to try to convince anyone of anything, but if you want to learn a conspiracy forum is not the place.

a reply to: neoholographic

The Bible is not a verifiable historic source. So in answer to your question: there's no such thing as a 'pre-Adamic' race, as Adam was a myth.

a reply to: cooperton

You're delusional.

originally posted by: TerraLiga

Experiments with E.coli. This bacterium is lethal. It's also prolific and continually evolving. It takes considerable resources to monitor its evolution and to develop vaccines for new strains. At no time in history has an experiment been designed to create a new creature from E.coli.

There's a lab that has had a continuous strain of E. Coli going for over 73,000 generations. It's literally called the long-term evolution experiment. Guess what? It's still E. Coli, no signs of becoming any other bacteria besides E. Coli. To put 73,000 generations in perspective, that's approximately 1,460,000 years of human evolution ( 73,000 generations x 20 years generational gap = 1,460,000 years). So if we can't observe any noticeable transition of E. Coli becoming some other bacteria in 73,000 generations, then that strongly insists that many generations also could not begin to transition an ape-like predecessor into a human

Believe as you'd like, but there's no empirical evidence that populations of organisms can mutate gradually into a distinctly new organism.

a reply to: cooperton

If you are going to refer to Lenski's ongoing E-Coli experiment then name it and don't be disingenuous about it, because it actually explodes your creationist nonsense. Here's a link to Lenski's paper in Nature on how his team observed evolution in it.
Andrew Schlafly, the 'brains' behind the dead thing that is Conservapedia, made an absolute fool of himself when he tried to disprove Lenski's findings. Here's a handy link.
Once again, because you're either unable or unwilling to recognise this, evolution takes time and we have a great deal of what you would doubtless secretly describe as awkward evidence that proves that evolution exists.

a reply to: cooperton

There are literally dozens of peer-reviewed articles on the evolution of E-Coli to include chromosomal evolution, evolution of mutation rate, genetic changes over time.

I asked you on several occasions to produce a biology textbook which said that dogs turn into cats, cats turns into horses and E-Coli turns into a frog. You can't do it because that's not what evolution is about. It's about COMMON ANCESTRY.

You made up a lot of crap and continue to post it. You're out of your element. Go back to your prehistoric cave and look for that E-Coli - I'm sure you have plenty of it.

a reply to: cooperton

There is one organism that doesn't change though. It's YOU. You have the integrity and credibility of a rattlesnake in heat.

a reply to: cooperton

So, what drives diversity, evolution and speciation? What are the factors that could produce new, related organisms? Is it a steady state? A perfect environment? A population with no competition? You know, like in a lab.

No, it isn't. And if you were honest with yourself and your ignorant audience you would know it and admit it.

A diverse biosystem is driven by adversity. You will find - OK, not you, but honest people - that new phyla come about after major extinction events. Huge sections of existing flora and fauna are removed from a (presumably) balanced system which in turn creates opportunities for those left. That's when new species arrive.

Cooperton, you should prepare yourself for a very hot afterlife, buddy. An honest and truthful god is not going to reward a manipulative and cunning liar in its ranks. I feel sorry for you.

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
a reply to: cooperton

If you are going to refer to Lenski's ongoing E-Coli experiment then name it and don't be disingenuous about it

sigh....

Look at my post again, I called it the "long-term evolution experiment". You would know this was the name of the experiment if you read beyond the introduction. Instead you rely on blind belief, simply relying on others to make conclusions for you.

Good try. Notice how you rely on semantics rather than actually debating the empirical evidence in the paper? You all do this. Look at phantom, she can barely post without insulting someone, while failing to debate any aspects of the actual evidence.

because it actually explodes your creationist nonsense. Here's a link to Lenski's paper in Nature on how his team observed evolution in it.
Andrew Schlafly, the 'brains' behind the dead thing that is Conservapedia, made an absolute fool of himself when he tried to disprove Lenski's findings. Here's a handy link.
Once again, because you're either unable or unwilling to recognise this, evolution takes time and we have a great deal of what you would doubtless secretly describe as awkward evidence that proves that evolution exists.

What's their to disprove? It's still E. Coli. The laughable metric they used to measure 'evolution' was merely which E. Coli strain was able to survive better versus other strains, and differences in nucleotide base pairs (which would always be observable regardless of the population)

What they refer to as evolution is just the E. Coli adapting to a glucose-limited environment. Of course the strains will adapt to these conditions, and therefor be better fit for glucose-limited conditions. Just like Caucasians adapted to lower sunlight in the northward latitudes by producing less melanin. The alleles for this transition was already a possibility within the genome (google 'skin tone alleles' and you'll see the charts I'm referring to. Image upload isn't working). But this is not evolution, it is adaptation. You can see that the skin tone alleles involved must have already been established in the genome for the allele shift in a population to take place before the migrating population began to change skin tone.

To assume the adaptation is evolution is rather silly in light of other experiments that have tried to determine exactly what biological mechanism makes bacteria more fit for an environment over time. Take for example studies done with antibiotics... The headlines read that you could watch evolution right before your eyes as the bacterial strain managed to spread into the higher antibiotic zones. But what they don't tell you is that these traits are quickly reversible:

"Adaptive resistance emerges when populations of bacteria are subjected to gradual increases of antibiotics. It is characterized by a rapid emergence of resistance and fast reversibility to the non-resistant phenotype when the antibiotic is removed from the medium."

source

This fast reversibility proves it is mere adaptation, and not evolution. The study actually determined what the mechanism was. Genes are able to turn up and down their expression based on environmental cues. Surely enough, the bacterial strain was merely increasing production of a detoxification pump that was already present in its genome. No mutations, no evolution, it was just using a mechanism that was already at its disposal.

And don't forget, at the end of the day, it's always still E. Coli.

originally posted by: TerraLiga
a reply to: cooperton

So, what drives diversity, evolution and speciation? What are the factors that could produce new, related organisms? Is it a steady state? A perfect environment? A population with no competition? You know, like in a lab.

No, it isn't. And if you were honest with yourself and your ignorant audience you would know it and admit it.

A diverse biosystem is driven by adversity. You will find - OK, not you, but honest people - that new phyla come about after major extinction events. Huge sections of existing flora and fauna are removed from a (presumably) balanced system which in turn creates opportunities for those left. That's when new species arrive.

Cooperton, you should prepare yourself for a very hot afterlife, buddy. An honest and truthful god is not going to reward a manipulative and cunning liar in its ranks. I feel sorry for you.

Is this your way of ignoring the fact that you were wrong about there being no experiments that tried to evolve E. Coli?

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton

There is one organism that doesn't change though. It's YOU. You have the integrity and credibility of a rattlesnake in heat.

Can you admit that you need to know the initial concentration to solve for time elapsed in the half-life equation? Or will you continue to refuse to admit you were wrong?

Can you admit that protein monomer polymerization is non-spontaneous in an aqueous solution? Or will you continue to refuse to admit you were wrong?

There are literally dozens of peer-reviewed articles on the evolution of E-Coli to include chromosomal evolution, evolution of mutation rate, genetic changes over time.

Let me guess, it's still E. Coli? lol.

I asked you on several occasions to produce a biology textbook which said that dogs turn into cats, cats turns into horses and E-Coli turns into a frog. You can't do it because that's not what evolution is about. It's about COMMON ANCESTRY.

I never said a dog turns into a cat. You rely on hyperbolic misrepresentations and then burn the strawman that you yourself built. The theory of evolution is contingent upon population of organisms being able to gradually evolve into something distinctly new. If you can't prove that, then the theory is merely faith-based, and not an actual fact.

a reply to: cooperton

You're a liar and a fraud. There are dozens of articles on the evolution of E-Coli in Google Scholar. You're just too arrogant and ignorant to look them up.

You've been wrong on everything. You're just the last one to admit it. Fraud.

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton

You're a liar and a fraud. There are dozens of articles on the evolution of E-Coli in Google Scholar. You're just too arrogant and ignorant to look them up.

You've been wrong on everything. You're just the last one to admit it. Fraud.

Show me one where the E. Coli is no longer E. Coli by the end of the experiment.