Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes. Archaeology of a sort. Yes indeed. Problem is that it wasn't found in situ and the efforts to retrace it via Constantinople and Edessa to Jerusalem are interesting but speculative.
I'd say that the bottom line is that it cannot be a shroud. Anything that is wrapped or even draped around a body would be grossly distorted. That image has got to be a flat rendition. Whether painted or camera obscura, it was done on a flat surface. It is not a real shroud.
Very nicely stated, Voyager. I have now, officially, asked at least 8 or 10 theists to answer a simple question: To Wit:
"Which key element or component of Evolution do you know to be technically wrong or inoperative and, in point form, why?"
To date, (in well over 8 months, BTW...) not a singleone of these scientifically illiterate, blustering rote-chanting fear-mongers (IMHO of course....) has ever answered this simple challenge, but they will run on and on with their own obviously ill-advised "facts" and error-filled dogmatic denials.
Please.
Ok, to answer your question about what part of the theory of
Evolution I dispute, here I go:
How does one get from primordial soup, to multicellular organisms?
In lab the eat science
Has been able to do is create generic
Peptides from a mix of the proper enzymes and pieces of peptides, they can not even make amino acids without the proper enzymes (which are quite complex structures
In their own right and
Would not have developed without the proper substrates upon which they react). Once you get amino acids, science
Has still yet
To show they can create a useful organized
protein unless the proper enzymes are present, again beggin the question of where they came from. Once you get true proteins in a mix of soup, how do you then get cell walls formed from lipids, followed by mitochondria, followed by single called organisms. This is all of
Course made without DNA which has yet been shown to develop inlan just
Of basic primordial soup...so fancy me with the details
Of your great research that has shown life
Is able to be created in lab from nothing hut a bunch of methane, nitrogen, and other
Simple organic materials...
Last edited by stuckinbalad; 09-03-2010 at 02:21 PM..
Reason: Typos--sent from iphone
Ok, to answer your question about what part of the theory of
Evolution I dispute, here I go:
How does one get from primordial soup, to multicellular organisms?
Thank you for clearly demonstrating that you have no understanding of Theory of Evolution. The Theory of Evolution is no more concerned with the origin of life than is the Theory of Gravity or Quantum Field Theory. The Theory of Evolution describes the process of the change in inherited traits within a gene pool over generations due to a variety of forces.
Claiming the Theory of Evolution is deficient because it doesn't address the origin of life is like claiming Plate Tectonic Theory is deficient because it doesn't address the formation of the Earth.
Hint: educate yourself by googling 'abiogenesis', read it and understand it, and thereby avoid making this same embarrassing mistake again in the future.
Quote:
In lab the eat science
Has been able to do is create generic
Peptides from a mix of the proper enzymes and pieces of peptides, they can not even make amino acids without the proper enzymes (which are quite complex structures
In their own right and
Would not have developed without the proper substrates upon which they react). Once you get amino acids, science
Has still yet
To show they can create a useful organized
protein unless the proper enzymes are present, again beggin the question of where they came from. Once you get true proteins in a mix of soup, how do you then get cell walls formed from lipids, followed by mitochondria, followed by single called organisms. This is all of
Course made without DNA which has yet been shown to develop inlan just
Of basic primordial soup...so fancy me with the details
Of your great research that has shown life
Is able to be created in lab from nothing hut a bunch of methane, nitrogen, and other
Simple organic materials...
So?
A century ago, science had not managed fusion. By your logic ("Science hasn't duplicated it yet, so it can't be true!") in the year 1910 fusion was a bogus concept.
Scientists have never created life from scratch so God did it! is, to put it mildly, an illogical proposition. The latter simply does not follow from the former. And any cursory glance at the history of science would give you a multitude of examples illustrating this.
Ok, to answer your question about what part of the theory of
Evolution I dispute, here I go:
How does one get from primordial soup, to multicellular organisms?
Voyageur, going back to post #173 (not yours) and forward, I thought we were discussing the theory of evolution as it related to the beginning of life, as described in that post, how evolution has disproven the creation story.
I don't disagree with microevolution, that is the adaptation of organisms to their enviroment...I just don't buy that macroevolution theory (darwins origination of species) that we all evolved from the same lineage. Two very different thoughts; one has been shown to happen, the other has most certainly not.
I apologize for the confusion..I should have been more specific.
However, the direct post I quoted was discussing how mitochondria have supposedly been passed from continent to continent, "proving" that we all orignated from one common origin (I guess that is what it was supposed to be proving, certainly was the context within which the discussion was taking place) and someone raised the point that no one in 8 months had been able to refute any part of evolution (macro or micro I guess I do not know since it wasn't defined) and I was attempting to show my discontent with the theory of macroevolution...
But to start anew, are we discussing the theory of evolution which supposedly created life and is the origin of all species, or are discussing adaptation of species to their environment, aka microevolution?
Last edited by stuckinbalad; 09-03-2010 at 03:27 PM..
Reason: Awful typing... :)
A century ago, science had not managed fusion. By your logic ("Science hasn't duplicated it yet, so it can't be true!") in the year 1910 fusion was a bogus concept.
Scientists have never created life from scratch so God did it! is, to put it mildly, an illogical proposition. The latter simply does not follow from the former. And any cursory glance at the history of science would give you a multitude of examples illustrating this.
No, science can create everything needed for life in the lab, the problem they have is that they can not get it done without human intervention. This stuff does not spontaneously happen, no matter how much energy you put into the system.
I know we will never know the contents of the primordial soup, or the atmosphere at that time, or really what happened, so it is a near impossible thing to exactly experiement with. But when we can not even get amino acids to form in the presence of all the building blocks minus enzymes, how could life ever be created based on an amino acid based protein structure?
What does it take before it sinks in Evo? Perhaps if we shout..............
EVOLUTION HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE BEGINNING OF LIFE!
I agree, but in post #173 it was stated the theory of evolution had disproven the theory/idea of creationism...and all discussion following was about that concept.
It seems you and I agree that post #173 is fallacy, that is all I am trying to point out.
Voyageur, going back to post #173 (not yours) and forward, I thought we were discussing the theory of evolution as it related to the beginning of life, as described in that post, how evolution has disproven the creation story.
It is obvious that you think this. But you are incorrect when you think that the Theory of Evolution has anything to do with the origin of life. I explained this quite clearly, but apparently you do not understand.
Quote:
I don't disagree with microevolution, that is the adaptation of organisms to their enviroment...I just don't buy that macroevolution theory (darwins origination of species) that we all evolved from the same lineage. Two very different thoughts; one has been shown to happen, the other has most certainly not.
"macroevolution" is nothing more than a lot of "microevolution". Saying you believe in the latter but not the former is like saying "Oh, I believe you could walk from New York to Philadelphia but from New York to Los Angeles? No way!". There is no more of a barrier between what you call microevolution and macroevolution than there is a barrier between Philadelphia and Los Angeles; if you can get to the former, you can get to the latter. It just takes longer.
And if you don't accept The Origin of Species then how do you explain speciation (ie, originating species) observed and documented in both the lab and the wild? Observed Instances of Speciation
But I get the impression that maybe you're confusing speciation with common descent. See, it's hard to have this conversation with someone who simultaneously rejects evolutionary theory yet doesn't understand it or the relevant terminology at all.
Quote:
I apologize for the confusion..I should have been more specific.
However, the direct post I quoted was discussing how mitochondria have supposedly been passed from continent to continent, "proving" that we all orignated from one common origin (I guess that is what it was supposed to be proving, certainly was the context within which the discussion was taking place) and someone raised the point that no one in 8 months had been able to refute any part of evolution (macro or micro I guess I do not know since it wasn't defined) and I was attempting to show my discontent with the theory of macroevolution...
But to start anew, are we discussing the theory of evolution which supposedly created life and is the origin of all species, or are discussing adaptation of species to their environment, aka microevolution?
Once again, no. The Theory of Evolution did not supposedly create life. Why you believe this is beyond me - maybe your pastor, as confused as you about biological science, told you this. Maybe you cribbed it from some crackpot website. But, yet again, the Theory of Evolution has nothing - nothing at all, nothing whatsoever, nada, zilch - to do with the origin of life. "life" means one thing and "species" means another. Please understand the difference. And this time, please find out what 'abiogenesis' means -- it is a subject you mistakenly think the Theory of Evolution addresses. Since you clearly didn't google as I suggested, here, I'll do it for you. Can I trust you to at least click the link and read a bit? Abiogenesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
) has ever answered this simple challenge, but they will run on and on with their own obviously ill-advised "facts" and error-filled dogmatic denials. 
