695 replies to this topic

[Arbitran]

I'm not going to even dignify you with a response now. I've done my best to answer all of your questions, but you're obviously beyond any help I can give you. If you want to believe all the things you've said that's alright; it's not my job to talk you out of your delusions. Your ignorance of evolutionary science is one of the most pervasive I have ever encountered; congratulations (and I've gone head-to-head with some of the most scientifically-illiterate creationists imaginable). I gave you the answers to the questions you asked, and all you could do was throw a fit and tell me that it's all lies. And you're perfectly within your rights to go on believing in your little conspiracy theory. But I'm done with you. Your trolling skills are proficient, I'll grant you, but I have more common sense than to continue to attempt to teach someone who obviously refuses to learn.

Upon reading your latest post (which you apparently wrote whilst I was writing out the above), I can only say that I am even more appalled at your utter lack of comprehension of evolution, your twisting and misunderstanding of my explanations, and your oft sheer dishonesty. I am very reserved about resorting to personal attacks, but I must be fully forthright in saying that you are, at present, from what can be gleaned from your posts, a man of both immense ignorance as well as deplorable character. You do not understand anything which I've written, very clearly, and you hide behind your use of scientific terminology (referring at times directly to processes of evolution, claiming that they instead "challenge" evolutionary theory) in a feeble attempt to mask your clear and utter lack of even the most meager of knowledge in pertinence to evolutionary biology. You very obviously have not the slightest clue about what evolutionary biology is about. I reiterate: I'm finished with you. I have more dignity than to continue trying to teach one who has no desire to know the truth. I have more valuable uses for my time.

Edited by Arbitran, 14 September 2012 - 07:57 AM.

[Harsh86_Patel]

MiskatonicGrad, on 14 September 2012 - 01:48 AM, said:

But that is one of my biggest problems with this argument. you people say that evolution takes millions of years to occur. but the outside influences that push spieces to evolve change faster than that. in human history how many ice ages have we had how many droughts. the earth is a very dynamic place and your slow progession from one creature to another just couldn't keep up. the mastedon didn't just appear with the last ice age and just diappear because they couldn't adapt. did they? That doesn't make sense. were they hairy before the ice came? boy that was some luck. after the earth warmed back up they couldn't adapt? tough luck. whales and dolphins noses are on top of their head how the crap did that happen in the time it took for thier nose to migrate to it's current position and grow the flipper thingys what ever drove them to the water would have changed. And who told their bodies " if your nose is on top of your head you can survive in the water better" but didn't tell the seals or turtles. bats use to be little rodent like animals really? who told them to sprout wings and navigate with sonar? in the end it just sounds like a lot of hocus pocus.

what if all the animals that are on the planet now have always been here and the fossil record just shows the ones that didn't adapt and over come.

oops that's creationism and we all know that's just religion and can't possibly be true.

You are on the right track and let not lies cloud critical thinking.

[Harsh86_Patel]

Arbitran, on 14 September 2012 - 07:48 AM, said:

I'm not going to even dignify you with a response now. I've done my best to answer all of your questions, but you're obviously beyond any help I can give you. If you want to believe all the things you've said that's alright; it's not my job to talk you out of your delusions. Your ignorance of evolutionary science is one of the most pervasive I have ever encountered; congratulations (and I've gone head-to-head with some of the most scientifically-illiterate creationists imaginable). I gave you the answers to the questions you asked, and all you could do was throw a fit and tell me that it's all lies. And you're perfectly within your rights to go on believing in your little conspiracy theory. But I'm done with you. Your trolling skills are proficient, I'll grant you, but I have more common sense than to continue to attempt to teach someone who obviously refuses to learn.

Upon reading your latest post (which you apparently wrote whilst I was writing out the above), I can only say that I am even more appalled at your utter lack of comprehension of evolution, your twisting and misunderstanding of my explanations, and your oft sheer dishonesty. I am very reserved about resorting to personal attacks, but I must be fully forthright in saying that you are, at present, from what can be gleaned from your posts, a man of both immense ignorance as well as deplorable character. You do not understand anything which I've written, very clearly, and you hide behind your use of scientific terminology (referring at times directly to processes of evolution, claiming that they instead "challenge" evolutionary theory) in a feeble attempt to mask your clear and utter lack of even the most meager of knowledge in pertinence to evolutionary biology. You very obviously have not the slightest clue about what evolutionary biology is about. I reiterate: I'm finished with you. I have more dignity than to continue trying to teach one who has no desire to know the truth. I have more valuable uses for my time.

Thanks for calling me names,it makes me affirm that i am getting to your notions of evolution.Also before you dismiss any form of knowledge or pretend to know stuff please get yourself updated.You are the first so called biologist who i have came across who calls 'Cell biology','Systems Biology' and 'Molecular biology' as a lie.You have not answered any of my questions so don't try to please yourself,all you have done through out the discussion is point out two different completely formed species and assumed one evolved from the other.Since our dialogue you initially claimed "evolution is not about random mutations" which is as stupid as one who is arguing for evolution can get,though you did later rectify it.Then you claimed "evolution is just a fancy word for herditary" which literally would make any biologist of any worth roll on the floor and laugh,hereditary is a process which takes place within the same species and doesn't give rise to new species.You deplored and questioned my knowledge for stating "A monkey turned into a man" according to the theory of evolution and then cleverly stated the same saying "human ancestors diverged from chimps xyz years ago".At the end when i asked you "Can any person create life in the Lab using whatever means possible from non-living things(and hence disprove the 'Law of Biogenesis',the assumption on which the entire concept of evolution is based 'spontaneous appearance of life'. " i guess you know i am right and hence you hung your gloves and started calling me names.Though i helped you by suggesting newer concepts of evolutionary biology to support the lies of evolution like 'saltation' 'mutations in duplicate genes which lead to speciation''punctuated equilibrium' ......you yourself dismissed all of them as 'not accepted by majority'.Which majority are you talking about,is it about the mindless parrots who claim to have read a few outdated text books and think it is the word of God.When you insinuated that i was using technical terms,let me tell you i was trying to keep it as 'lay' as i could.
Allelic gene flows and recombination cause 'variation' in a limited way and not speciation or evolution,please check out the study they did on Drosophila and do yourself a favour.

Conclusion - you have only studied outdated evolutionary biology and have a lot of textbook knowledge about falsified case studies of proevolution concepts.Your approach to evolution is of repetation of 150 year old outdated concepts in utter ignorance of all other branches of biological knowledge 'cell biology,systems biology,molecular biology,epigenetic etc' and modern biological knowledge.It is not me who can learn from you but probably you need to learn about a lot of new things yourself before you can claim to answer any questions about evolutionary biology.I have seen way better arguments from proponents of evolution of which you touched on none.

P.S.-since you blanket and ask people to blanket any information from creationist sites:
http://scienceagains...info/v16i6f.htm
http://scienceagains...info/topics.htm

Thanks for nothing and hope we can still be friends.

Edited by Harsh86_Patel, 14 September 2012 - 09:09 AM.

[Harsh86_Patel]

kmt_sesh, on 13 September 2012 - 10:37 PM, said:

During my first college degree I minored in anthropology, which included large doses of evolution. It's not that I'm unfamiliar with the science, I'm just not that interested in it. Although I have to admit those college studies were many years ago, and as my interests took me in other directions and I never kept up with the advances in evolutionary theory, I'm sure my understanding of it is outdated. This is also why I tend not to comment much on evolution debates.

But the salient points in my previous posts do not involve evolution. Yes, the evolution of modern humans is directly related to the topic, but the advent of socio-political civilizations is not. Had nothing changed since the Bronze Age and mankind would still be experiencing the same life conditions for tens of thousands of years, it's altogether possible humans would've been subjected to evolutionary changes. But that's not the case. Advances in all fields of sciences from medicine to biology have negated potential evolutionary changes from the Bronze Age—a timespan representing the blink of an eye as far as evolution is concerned.

If one can disprove evolution then it would spell doom for our known understatnding of advent of civilization Also Sesh when you say that advances in technology have prevented potential evolutionary changes it is a very logical statement but only to people who don't believe in basic tenets of evolution and the continous "random mutations" it insinuates and heavily relies on.Since continous and beneficial 'random mutations' would be impossible to avoid (if it even exists) irrespective of our lifestyles.Since there has been no observable evolutionary changes in Humans since last 250000 years,evolutionists have very little proof to protect their pet theory.
P.S- few years back i was a hardcore believer of evolution but then due to huge amounts of contradictions and falsification and inconsistencies i encountered in the theory it changed my entire perspective of life and history.So great and far reaching is the impact of this 'theory of evolution' which has been blinding us since last 150 years.

[Oniomancer]

Harsh86_Patel, on 14 September 2012 - 06:23 AM, said:

Omg same old lies of evolution where are the fossils with half formed intermediate organs,everything evolution has stated is a lie,again you point out different species and say one evolved from another,you are the perfect candidate to state a monkey can turn into a man.Lol the cess pool of lies that you pass of as evolution will not stand for 10 more years in modern biology,soon the jokers called evolutionists sitting in high post will retire and will take this stupid doctrine to the grave along with them.
Probably you are a really old biologist from before the 70's when molecular biology,systems biology and cell biology were not so advanced and the cell was considered a simple membrane bound protoplasm,hence you still hang on this theory.I don't think Darwin would continue believing in his own theory if had the knowledge we have today of biology and life but you still want to crusade on.

If a bee is half a bee, must ipso facto half not be.

You don't need new organs to have detectable linear genetic progression between ends of a species ring. If you must have a physical example though, the progression from ambulocetus through to modern whales will do nicely, prior objections to the contrary not withstanding.

Quote

Arbitran you should just give up,heredity is the inheritance of existing genes and alleles from parents to offspring and has nothing to do with mutations (addition) or evolution (speciations).Our body and cells have remarkably effiecient and complex mechanism to gaurd against mutations (which are by default almost bad for us) like tumor suppressor proteins,rectifying mechanism in DNA polymerase etc if you look into the functioning of a single proharyotic (considered to be the simplest cell) bacterial cell accounting for all the details we presently have regarding its complexity then you would definately hang your gloves trying to explain these using evolution and natural selection.

Oh this is hilarious. You're arguing against something so basic they use it for high school class experiments. Astonishingly, mutant fruit flies don't all  automatically drop dead or end up  in tiny cancer wards in the lab. I don't know who came up with that but it sounds like it was caged from Tyrell's talk with Roy Batty from Bladebunner.

[Harsh86_Patel]

Oniomancer, on 14 September 2012 - 03:11 PM, said:

If a bee is half a bee, must ipso facto half not be.

You don't need new organs to have detectable linear genetic progression between ends of a species ring. If you must have a physical example though, the progression from ambulocetus through to modern whales will do nicely, prior objections to the contrary not withstanding.


Oh this is hilarious. You're arguing against something so basic they use it for high school class experiments. Astonishingly, mutant fruit flies don't all  automatically drop dead or end up  in tiny cancer wards in the lab. I don't know who came up with that but it sounds like it was caged from Tyrell's talk with Roy Batty from Bladebunner.

So basically you are talking about 'spontaneous evolution'.There is presently a big movement going on in the US to ban teaching evolution in public schools,never said the drosophila fall dead but no matter how many mutations you induce they continue to be drosophila at the end of the day.

[kmt_sesh]

Arbitran, on 14 September 2012 - 03:20 AM, said:

Thank you very much. That is high praise indeed, coming from you, kmt_sesh. I'll say the same of your arguments for Egyptology.

And indeed, the motivation of certain of these anti-evolutionists is a perplexing conundrum. Because some of them aren't creationists (though several of them are). And what's worse is that it's hard to tell the difference; for instance, I have no idea whether or not Harsh86_Patel is a genuine creationist or simply an anti-evolutionist (which frankly opens up an entire new realm of argument; what on earth constitutes non-creationist anti-evolutionism, I wonder?). In any case, I hope I can be at least a bit educational for those here who are in fact willing to listen (and, with any luck, eventually get through to those who aren't...).

I have been having a nagging question, as a note, that I thought I'd ask: as an Egyptologist, what is your opinion of the god Set? What animal is he represented as? I haven't done a great deal of research on it myself, but I would be fascinated to hear your take on it. I've heard a number of hypotheses, ranging from an okapi, to an aardvark, a donkey, or an Egyptian cryptid called a salawa. I personally think it resembles an African wild dog, Lycaon pictus, or perhaps even a brown hyena, Hyaena brunnea (it is, however, endemic to southern Africa; ergo, how would it have been known of in Egypt? Trade?). In any case, I look forward to your views on the matter.

Perhaps you should copyright "non-creationist anti-evolutionism," Arbitran. Call it NCAE? I'm one of those who likes to know the why and how people think what they think, so it still leaves me wondering, if an anti-evolutionist isn't a creationist, what is his or her replacement for evolution? Are such people motivated merely by the desire not to side with science, but are satisfied to leave the questions unanswered? To me this smacks of intellectual sloth. It's back to the motivations of creationists, who are content to leave it with "Because God says so" and explore no further. Think what life would be like if everyone felt that way: we'd still be mired in the ignorance and filth of the Dark Ages.

I don't get it. If people don't believe in evolution but at the same time are not espousing religious bias, what is their motivation and what do they believe? Personally I dislike people who doubt for the sake of doubting but cannot offer anything suitable as an explanation.

As for Set, first, let me stress that I'm not an Egyptologist. I don't want to wear titles that don't belong to me. But it's a good question, and one with which Egyptologists have wrestled for a very long time. The problem is, the ancient Egyptians themselves seem to have left us no written record of the animal forms with which they identified Set. They depicted the god in this strange way and left it at that. One can clearly see some kind of canid aspect in Set's form, but a firmer identification may not be possible. The best Egyptological explanation I've come across for Set is a direct reflection of his personality or character as a deity: chaos. Set might not be represented by just one animal form but by a combination of several disparate forms, reflecting his chaotic nature. That's the explanation I tend to favor.

Carry on the evolutionary fight, as maddening as it can be. As you well know, some people will refuse to to accept the science, while others simply do not understand the science and feel no motivation to educate themselves. Nevertheless, others who happen along these pages might see your argument and the light will click—and you will have helped them.

[Oniomancer]

Harsh86_Patel, on 14 September 2012 - 03:23 PM, said:

So basically you are talking about 'spontaneous evolution'.There is presently a big movement going on in the US to ban teaching evolution in public schools,never said the drosophila fall dead but no matter how many mutations you induce they continue to be drosophila at the end of the day.

They're also still mutants. It's only a matter of time before they develop eye beams and weather control.

[kmt_sesh]

Harsh86_Patel, on 14 September 2012 - 03:23 PM, said:

So basically you are talking about 'spontaneous evolution'.There is presently a big movement going on in the US to ban teaching evolution in public schools,never said the drosophila fall dead but no matter how many mutations you induce they continue to be drosophila at the end of the day.

This "ban" is largely restricted to mostly southern states, in what we call the Bible Belt, and sadly the efforts continue but are not as avid as they used to be. But the salient point is, it was brought to court and the "intelligent design" faction failed. The judge ruled against them. "Intelligent design" is merely a softer and more covert term for creationism.

Even in most of these situations, the fight is not so much to ban evolution as it is to have creationism taught side by side with it. The bible scientists have been fighting for equal footing. In the end, however, regardless of what you want to call it—creationism, bible science, intelligent design—it is not based on science and therefore does not stand equal to evolution. Creationism is a subject for comparative religions, not for scientific inquiry.

I will admit, much to my own disgust as an American, that a poll conducted some years ago found that the majority of Americans still favor the biblical explanation over evolution. This is especially disconcerting given that the United States is one of the world leaders in scientific research. I suppose it's an unfortunate summation that many adults lack common sense.

[Oniomancer]

I probably should add, There's nothing in there that could be intimated as saying spontaneous. It's still a matter of heritability and accumulation of mutations over multiple generations. OTOH, you and I both know you're indirectly quoting the "death or cancer" creationist party line.

[Arbitran]

Fine, fine, well done; you've riled me up enough that I'll bother to argue with you some more, because the quality of your information is so appallingly poor that I have to say something​.

Harsh86_Patel, on 14 September 2012 - 08:47 AM, said:

Thanks for calling me names,it makes me affirm that i am getting to your notions of evolution.

You wish.

Harsh86_Patel, on 14 September 2012 - 08:47 AM, said:

Also before you dismiss any form of knowledge or pretend to know stuff please get yourself updated.You are the first so called biologist who i have came across who calls 'Cell biology','Systems Biology' and 'Molecular biology' as a lie.

Except that I don't. Where you got that idea I haven't the slightest clue... We haven't even discussed much of cellular, system, or molecular biological facets yet, apart from all that I had to explain about cell death earlier...

Harsh86_Patel, on 14 September 2012 - 08:47 AM, said:

You have not answered any of my questions so don't try to please yourself,all you have done through out the discussion is point out two different completely formed species and assumed one evolved from the other.Since our dialogue you initially claimed "evolution is not about random mutations" which is as stupid as one who is arguing for evolution can get,though you did later rectify it.

That's because evolution is not about purely random mutation, you're just leaving out one of the most vital aspects: natural selection. Natural selection is a filter and magnifier of mutation, steering it a direction which will be beneficial for the organism in question. And it is no "assumption" whatsoever, the species I've listed for you: that you assume that yourself only demonstrates that you haven't bothered to do any research, and just jumped to your own, baseless conclusions. Again...

Harsh86_Patel, on 14 September 2012 - 08:47 AM, said:

Then you claimed "evolution is just a fancy word for herditary" which literally would make any biologist of any worth roll on the floor and laugh,hereditary is a process which takes place within the same species and doesn't give rise to new species.

Interesting, because given I am a biologist, and work with other biologists on a regular basis, I beg to differ. Heredity can indeed give rise to new species, and, again, is among the driving forces of the evolutionary process.

Harsh86_Patel, on 14 September 2012 - 08:47 AM, said:

You deplored and questioned my knowledge for stating "A monkey turned into a man" according to the theory of evolution and then cleverly stated the same saying "human ancestors diverged from chimps xyz years ago".

You misunderstand. Again. You were claiming that somehow a monkey "transformed" into a man one day; which didn't happen, and will never happen. Groups evolve, not individuals, as I've said before. Hominin human ancestors did diverge from chimpanzees 4.1 million years ago, as both fossil and molecular evidence demonstrate overwhelmingly. That you misunderstand and deny that fact is irrelevant.

Harsh86_Patel, on 14 September 2012 - 08:47 AM, said:

At the end when i asked you "Can any person create life in the Lab using whatever means possible from non-living things(and hence disprove the 'Law of Biogenesis',the assumption on which the entire concept of evolution is based 'spontaneous appearance of life'. "

You're clearly just reading from a creationist website. The "spontaneous appearance of life" and abiogenesis are two different things. The "SAOL" ("spontaneous appearance of life") hypothesis is an antiquated one from the 19th Century, which claimed that life on earth diversified from worms and maggots, which were thought to "spontaneously arise" out of mud. This was later disproved. The concept of abiogenesis (which has nothing to do with evolution, by the way, since evolution is about the diversity and development of life, not its origin) which exists today is completely unrelated, and well supported by fossil, molecular, and experimental evidence. Yes, in the lab, numerous experiments have taken place over the past century which demonstrate conclusively that amino acids and proto-proteins can form organically.

Harsh86_Patel, on 14 September 2012 - 08:47 AM, said:

i guess you know i am right and hence you hung your gloves and started calling me names.

You wish. Excuse me while I go and laugh my ass off. You're certainly not right; I considered ending he conversation, again, because you refuse to learn. But I'll keep trying... as foolish as it is to try and teach someone who refuses education.

Harsh86_Patel, on 14 September 2012 - 08:47 AM, said:

Though i helped you by suggesting newer concepts of evolutionary biology to support the lies of evolution like 'saltation' 'mutations in duplicate genes which lead to speciation''punctuated equilibrium' ......you yourself dismissed all of them as 'not accepted by majority'.

That's because saltation is not a majority view in biology. Punctuated equilibrium is more reasonable, but still not substantiated effectively enough to have a majority subscription. And mutations in duplicate genes are one among numerous factors which can result in the process of speciation over time. I didn't dismiss any of them; saltation is improbable and unsubstantiated; punctuated equilibrium is better, but still not majority; and mutation in gene duplication is an irrefutable fact.

Harsh86_Patel, on 14 September 2012 - 08:47 AM, said:

Which majority are you talking about,is it about the mindless parrots who claim to have read a few outdated text books and think it is the word of God.When you insinuated that i was using technical terms,let me tell you i was trying to keep it as 'lay' as i could.

The majority I refer to is the bulk of the biological community; none of whom are "mindless parrots" (ironically, you yourself would better fit that description, given you're just spouting long-ago debunked creationist arguments, not any original ones). And you can pretend that you are using "technical terms"; it's clear that you're just borrowing from fringe sites that happen to have access to Wikipedia.

Harsh86_Patel, on 14 September 2012 - 08:47 AM, said:

Allelic gene flows and recombination cause 'variation' in a limited way and not speciation or evolution,please check out the study they did on Drosophila and do yourself a favour.

You give no evidence of this whatsoever, and you are 100% incorrect. You have given no case to substantiate that there are "limits" to allelic gene flow and evolution. All evidence demonstrates that it is among the primary driving forces of evolution. Do yourself a favor, and read a remedial science textbook.

Harsh86_Patel, on 14 September 2012 - 08:47 AM, said:

Conclusion - you have only studied outdated evolutionary biology and have a lot of textbook knowledge about falsified case studies of proevolution concepts.Your approach to evolution is of repetation of 150 year old outdated concepts in utter ignorance of all other branches of biological knowledge 'cell biology,systems biology,molecular biology,epigenetic etc' and modern biological knowledge.

Intriguing you think so, because everything you've so far only demonstrates your own ignorance of modern biology. You have given not a single refutation of any of the information I have presented.  

Harsh86_Patel, on 14 September 2012 - 08:47 AM, said:

It is not me who can learn from you but probably you need to learn about a lot of new things yourself before you can claim to answer any questions about evolutionary biology.I have seen way better arguments from proponents of evolution of which you touched on none.

Interesting. Your trolling skills are no less potent than ever, but fortunately I can see through them now. You're just trying to rile me up by telling me I haven't studied. Honestly, when you spend years studying to become a biologist, dedicate years studying marine species, observe African ecology and animal behavior, participate in studies of evolutionary epigenetics and the fossilized structure of theropodan crania, and any number of other things, then maybe we could talk about evolutionary science on equal ground. You need to prove yourself, son. And so far all you've proven is your own monstrous ignorance of evolutionary biology.

Harsh86_Patel, on 14 September 2012 - 08:47 AM, said:

P.S.-since you blanket and ask people to blanket any information from creationist sites:
http://scienceagains...info/v16i6f.htm
http://scienceagains...info/topics.htm

Thanks for nothing and hope we can still be friends.

We haven't been friends to start with.

[The_Spartan]

Ok. Harsh..enough of the Harsh dealings.

Let me ask you one thing -what are your educational qualifications?

for example - I am an Electrical Engineer. I have a B.E in Electrical & Electronics Engineering.
Indian Culture, Civilizations, Mythology etc are my hobbies but what i know best is Electrical Engineering.
If someone comes to discuss /debate or argue about Electrical Engineering, i know my footing, i can argue till eternity because i know my subject.
But when it comes to  discussion of Indian Mythology or civilization, since its my hobby only, i may be wrong sometimes and when i am wrong i will correct myself.

Like me, Arbitran is a Professional in his field. He learned Biology and is a Biologist - having spent long years studying, working in the field.

Do you  think a layman like or me can argue successfully with a person who knows his science??
When you came on UM, i thought that you were another layman like me who would love to discuss with an analytical mind, but i realised later that you have hidden agendas.

You are a Hindu Nationalist. You are a creationist.

Period!

Never argue with a Person who knows his sciences!!

[kmt_sesh]

The_Spartan, on 15 September 2012 - 05:03 AM, said:

...

You are a Hindu Nationalist. You are a creationist.

...

Both counts are obvious to everyone participating in this discussion. Painfully so, but how exactly does that work? Is it a rigid belief in Hindu creationism similar to how Christians spin their creationism?

[Harsh86_Patel]

kmt_sesh, on 14 September 2012 - 03:36 PM, said:

Perhaps you should copyright "non-creationist anti-evolutionism," Arbitran. Call it NCAE? I'm one of those who likes to know the why and how people think what they think, so it still leaves me wondering, if an anti-evolutionist isn't a creationist, what is his or her replacement for evolution? Are such people motivated merely by the desire not to side with science, but are satisfied to leave the questions unanswered? To me this smacks of intellectual sloth. It's back to the motivations of creationists, who are content to leave it with "Because God says so" and explore no further. Think what life would be like if everyone felt that way: we'd still be mired in the ignorance and filth of the Dark Ages.

I don't get it. If people don't believe in evolution but at the same time are not espousing religious bias, what is their motivation and what do they believe? Personally I dislike people who doubt for the sake of doubting but cannot offer anything suitable as an explanation.

As for Set, first, let me stress that I'm not an Egyptologist. I don't want to wear titles that don't belong to me. But it's a good question, and one with which Egyptologists have wrestled for a very long time. The problem is, the ancient Egyptians themselves seem to have left us no written record of the animal forms with which they identified Set. They depicted the god in this strange way and left it at that. One can clearly see some kind of canid aspect in Set's form, but a firmer identification may not be possible. The best Egyptological explanation I've come across for Set is a direct reflection of his personality or character as a deity: chaos. Set might not be represented by just one animal form but by a combination of several disparate forms, reflecting his chaotic nature. That's the explanation I tend to favor.

Carry on the evolutionary fight, as maddening as it can be. As you well know, some people will refuse to to accept the science, while others simply do not understand the science and feel no motivation to educate themselves. Nevertheless, others who happen along these pages might see your argument and the light will click—and you will have helped them.

Sesh 'evolution' is not science,it merely a consensus build by forceful means and underhand tactics and not on the firm foundation of obejctive proof (which is an absolute requirement when it comes to science).Heralding an outdated and falsified concept as still correct and stating it as fact is intellectual laziness,unless you accept that your existing doctrine is wrong how/why will you look for a new one.And when the question of a valid alternative comes,i rather not tell lies if i am unaware of the truth.Like i said assumptions should be stated as assumptions and not as facts.
I love and believe in science which is objective,experimentally verifiable and sensible.Stupid theories and stories using scientific terms is not science it is fiction.Try finding one argument or critic of Organic chemistry,Laws of motion etc you won't find any since these are actual scientific laws or deductions which have experimentally verifiable,observable and reproducable proof.If you wan't to turn science into a matter of faith then might as well look towards something that requires faith.


Let me give you an anology you can better relate to,if people would claim that something like great pyramid but only 10000000 more complex(still a understatement) could be created by chance and random geological events over how ever long a period of time,without the burden of objective proof or reproducing anything of that sort,would you believe it?This is what evolutionist want modern biologist to believe.

Edited by Harsh86_Patel, 15 September 2012 - 05:56 AM.

[The_Spartan]

Harsh86_Patel, on 15 September 2012 - 05:45 AM, said:

I love and believe in science which is objective,experimentally verifiable and sensible.Stupid theories and stories using scientific terms is not science it is fiction.Try finding one argument or critic of Organic chemistry,Laws of motion etc you won't find any since these are actual scientific laws or deductions which have experimentally verifiable,observable and reproducable proof.If you wan't to turn science into a matter of faith then might as well look towards something that requires faith.

That is a complete contradiction to everything that you have debated here.
So, you mean to say that the Evolutionary Biology that Arbitran has studied is all humbug?
Know the science, Lear the Science, before you can debate on it.
When it doesn't suit your belief or agenda, you call it humbug.
When you  yourself cant verify or substantiate your pet theories, you call the accepted sciences as hogwash.
Way to go, Kid!! But you are going the wrong way, only!

through out your posts the only links you have given, pertaining to evolution/devolution are links to your guru cremo, or silly creationist sites. have you ever lined to any peer reviewed papers/journals?
No. you  wouldn't because, if you linked to them , all your silly notions will fly in the wind.

What Arbitran called you was right -  you are indeed a troll with an agenda!!