What do you make of crop circles?

Post questions or suggestions here.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: What do you make of crop circles?

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Carl G wrote: I did hear of that study of women which stated that on average they would be 2/3 of an inch shorter 400 years from now and a couple pounds heavier. I actually don't consider that evolution.
It's not exactly about what you like to consider to be evolution. Who cares?

You're of course talking about polymorphism, the changes in phenotype in one and the same species. But the study we're talking about has used traits that are specifically tied to expressions of genotype. This is a big difference.
User avatar
Kunga
Posts: 2333
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:04 am
Contact:

Re: What do you make of anything ?

Post by Kunga »

is the union of egg and sperm resulting in a human being evolving in the womb an example of evolution ?

i personally think evolution is the natural process of phenomena
and when i was a christian i thought it was Gods way of being creative...as free will is nessesary in the creative process...without the ability of life evolving freely there could be no creator...as creativity has to be free...or else how could it be creative ?

There are many Gods according to Buddhism & Hinduism...
i always wondered what they do in there spare time..

anyways...i know nothing really...this is my intuition...and i'm not a genius...

also i was thinking about the fact that there are still "stone-age" men living in this world....so you can see living proof of how some men have evolved compaired to those that haven't .......although "modern man" (Homo Sapiens ?) is stll full of hatred and waging wars....peace is only attainable through spiritual evolution....



http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_can_you_b ... _same_time


http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2009/08/ ... -god-.html
Last edited by Kunga on Wed Oct 28, 2009 11:58 am, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Pincho Paxton
Posts: 1305
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2007 10:05 am

Re: What do you make of crop circles?

Post by Pincho Paxton »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:
Pincho Paxton wrote: Some of the huge crocodiles, and sharks had advantages over the creatures that they evolved into.
Part of current evolution theory is the notion that developments go downstream, rarely upstream, or even impossibly so. Meaning the new trait, once reached temporary dominance or once reached a certain threshold, gets permanent priority in terms of genetic recombination. This way a superior older quality can easily disappear without external reason for it and even traits that have become useless can still remain competitive comparing to older traits, all at the genetic level. Nature rewarding novelty?
That doesn't really sound like a theory, it sounds more like an observation. I presented the theory for that observation by saying that it was caused by mutation.
User avatar
Carl G
Posts: 2659
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2006 12:52 pm
Location: Arizona

Re: What do you make of crop circles?

Post by Carl G »

Carmel wrote:Carl,

Thanks for the somewhat wacky reply. :)

First evolution- The word "theory" within the scientific community has an entirely different meaning than it does to a layperson.

Theory: Scientific definition

"A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis...
...the biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law describes a single action, whereas, a theory explains an entire group of phenomena."

So, evolution is both fact and theory. It will never be a law because it doesn't fit the criteria of being a single action.
Interesting, and thanks for that. But the fact that most scientists subscribe to evolution theory however it may be defined, does not make it anymore credible to me, being that I do not trust the establishment to tell the truth. I know our irascible member Deibert doesn't give a hoot what I think, but there you have it.

For me, the question is universal, not planetary, for one thing. In other words, how and where did life actually start? Probably not on our little planet. For another I see a case being made for intervention, in the form of an alien hand in the engineering of modern humans, and likely some of the plants and animals as well.
You have it completely backwards with regard to the flat earthers and earth centrics. That mentality describes the ignorance of creationists, not the scientists. It was a scientist, Galileo, who proposed that the earth revolved around the sun and he was subsequently jailed for being a Christian heretic.
Yes, I've Googled these, and it seems that Wikipedia supports your opinion. Galileo is even referred to as the father of modern science. I'm glad they make the distinction "modern", because apparently the knowledge of the planets and their relation to the sun was known by such earlier peoples as the Mayans, the Egyptians, the dwellers of the American Southwest, and multiple others.
I really don't believe that the entire scientific community is part of some mass agenda. The only agenda is see is that of religionists who feebly and unsuccessfully try to discredit evolution
in an effort to impose their values upon others.
To each his own, I suppose, and time may tell. I see evidence of control and the influence of a central power at almost all levels of society. I think this will become apparent to most of us actually within a very short time.
Why would only apply your cynicism to "mainstream" scientists and not the creationists with an obvious agenda?
I don't. Especially if by creationists you mean those who preach that the earth and its creatures was made in six of our 24-hour day cycles.
Good Citizen Carl
User avatar
Carl G
Posts: 2659
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2006 12:52 pm
Location: Arizona

Re: What do you make of crop circles?

Post by Carl G »

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:Okay Carl, I'll explain why evolution makes sense without using any scientific references at all - just stuff that you and I both likely are familiar with.

Dog breeding is kind of like evolution, but it has happened since humanity started keeping decent records, so we can see roughly what happened. Some people took some dogs that they liked certain things about, bred the dogs, culled the puppies that did not have the desired traits from the parents, and continued to breed the rest until they reliably came out with the same kind of dog from each litter.

Here you may say "Aha! Intelligent design!" and it did take human intelligence to put together breeds that humans like - however, the dog DNA didn't know that it was being selected because people liked it. All the DNA knew is "this is what we have, so this is what we mix together." If you take that to a larger scale, and what gets removed from the gene pool are specimens that just don't work out (like people who thought they could fly, so they jumped off cliffs - or somehow otherwise the specimen was just not medically viable) and you find that those traits that work best survive. Intelligence does tend to work out pretty well for any species, so if you want to call that intelligent design, you could have a point.

Back to dogs - we know that dogs came from wolves, and are still closely related enough that they can produce offspring - but, as people rapidly became aware a few years after the wolf-hybrid fashion got popular, wolves and dogs are very different animals. We can see for ourselves how centuries of breeding have separated these animals.

When we look at apes, we see about as much difference between the other great apes and us as we see differences between dogs and wolves. When we look back on our history, if we look past the wars, the next thing that we see of great concern is the consideration of that which separates man from beast. This may have been an even greater concern as we get closer back to the split of humans and other apes. Humans can get snobbish about who they are to be seen with, and seem far more selective about who they mate with than other species. Even today, the hairy-backed male is usually considered less attractive than the man without a hairy back. Perhaps this sexual selection goes all the way back to how humans split off - including the shallow cosmetic preference of less hair. The hairier beings may have been forced to choose between not procreating, and going off with the other hairy specimens. Indeed, the earliest philosophers - those unphased by the shallower things in life, and perfectly content to ponder things while wandering the forest, while the less hairy apes concerned themselves with looks, and arranging their environment, and making elegant displays to impress their mate - well the unphased, hairy, forest wanderers unconcerned with proper society to separate them from the beasts - they may well be the forefathers of those who wander the forests or live in the zoos today.

Wolves and dogs have shorter lifespans than humans and other apes, and their generations turn over more rapidly, so we can see the change in them that we can not see so easily in ourselves. Furthermore, whereas dogs were specifically focus-bred, other than Hitler's breeding program, humans have had less to select for since society came into being. Already, the Beluga whale, with an average IQ of 155, is more intelligent than humans, with an average IQ of 100. As natural selection continues in what little of the natural world is left, humans and our tendency to protect the weak may become the most idiotic animals on Earth. How's that for intelligent design? Our ability to build and use complex machinery is more of a viable trait than sheer intelligence for now - although we may also poison the planet for all species with this "viable" trait of ours.

Whatever animal you look at, you will probably see similarities to us. Two eyes, two nostrils, even fish tend to have 5 larger, longer bones or strips of cartilage in each of their front fins and 10 at their tail fin. The heart, lungs, and other internal organs are usually much the same. Do you think that God just got lazy, or do you think that maybe all of us animals might be related?
I don't dispute the principle of adaptation. Does this account for the inception of life out of non-life and for the complexity of life systems, both within an individual (like the chakra system, the meridians, and the soul) and the macro relationships even between galaxies? Does it account for the logic that there is no beginning to existence, therefore how could there be a beginning to life itself?
Good Citizen Carl
User avatar
Carl G
Posts: 2659
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2006 12:52 pm
Location: Arizona

Re: What do you make of crop circles?

Post by Carl G »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:
Carl G wrote: I did hear of that study of women which stated that on average they would be 2/3 of an inch shorter 400 years from now and a couple pounds heavier. I actually don't consider that evolution.
It's not exactly about what you like to consider to be evolution. Who cares?

You're of course talking about polymorphism, the changes in phenotype in one and the same species. But the study we're talking about has used traits that are specifically tied to expressions of genotype. This is a big difference.
Diebert, you who cannot grok the obvious lies in the 9/11 official story, you who cannot recognize instances of genuine anomaly appearing year after year in some crop formations, want me to follow your opinion on the history of life? You're right, who cares?
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: What do you make of crop circles?

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Carl G wrote:
Diebert van Rhijn wrote:
Carl G wrote: I did hear of that study of women which stated that on average they would be 2/3 of an inch shorter 400 years from now and a couple pounds heavier. I actually don't consider that evolution.
It's not exactly about what you like to consider to be evolution. Who cares?

You're of course talking about polymorphism, the changes in phenotype in one and the same species. But the study we're talking about has used traits that are specifically tied to expressions of genotype. This is a big difference.
Diebert, you who cannot grok the obvious lies in the 9/11 official story, you who cannot recognize instances of genuine anomaly appearing year after year in some crop formations, want me to follow your opinion on the history of life? You're right, who cares?
The reason I asked "who cares" had to do with science starting with agreeing on the definitions and following them through in the context of peers. Why disagreeing or doubting an article on 'evolution' if you already argue about the premises?

Philosophers modify definitions all the time but this is not about a philosophical theory.

And I do not "grok" the 9/11 lies because if you actually had read Heinlein's book you'd know that grokking has nothing to do with factual research or the outcome of any hard-nosed investigation.

And I do not "recognize genuine anomalies" because one cannot just recognize genuineness by glancing at them or reading an article of the web.

And I do not ask to "follow my opinion" either, just to not assume too much like the idea you "know" something I didn't look into hard enough.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: What do you make of crop circles?

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

One thing about evolution many opponents fail to pick up is the difference between slower adaptions over a long stretch in time and the more violent, fast speciation that can occur in shorter times, happening by its very nature in tiny populations, obscure isolated places or extreme circumstance, the catastrophic.

The expected consequence of this is that the fossil record will mostly contain variations within species. It would be a very rare event to find something from a speciation period because of the little timeframe and amount involved. That doesn't mean there are none found, they are being found in just the amount one would expect.
User avatar
Carl G
Posts: 2659
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2006 12:52 pm
Location: Arizona

Re: What do you make of crop circles?

Post by Carl G »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:And I do not "grok" the 9/11 lies because if you actually had read Heinlein's book you'd know that grokking has nothing to do with factual research or the outcome of any hard-nosed investigation.
Heinlein? What book? I searched Genius and Googled.

By 'grok' I mean think, along with factual research and hard-nosed investigation. We agree on this but obviously our study has brought us to different 9/11 conclusions. So yeah, I'd like to check out your source(s).
Elizabeth Isabelle
Posts: 3771
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:35 am

Re: What do you make of crop circles?

Post by Elizabeth Isabelle »

Carl,
The book is Stranger in a Strange Land and to grok means to understand so completely that it becomes part of who you are. If I remember correctly, in the book, the example was given that in order to grok someone else, not only must you be fully aware of their life and thoughts, but when they die, you must eat their body.

I'll get back to you on the concept of no beginning of life.

Prince, congratulations on proving that you don't recognize sarcasm. I guess that takes someone who has actually evolved all the way out of the slime phase.
Last edited by Elizabeth Isabelle on Thu Oct 29, 2009 5:39 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Cory Duchesne
Posts: 2320
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 10:35 am
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: What do you make of crop circles?

Post by Cory Duchesne »

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:Carl,
grok means to understand so completely that it becomes who you are.
Carl seems to really grok Bozo the Clown. ;-)
Carmel

Re: What do you make of crop circles?

Post by Carmel »

Cory:

Carl seems to really grok Bozo the Clown. ;-)[/quote]

Carmel:

There's value in the absurd. Some of the philosophers that the QRS subscribe to are absurdists. No need to bash Bozo. ;)
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: What do you make of crop circles?

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:Prince, congratulations on proving that you don't recognize sarcasm.
Sarcasm useful for detecting dementia
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: What do you make of crop circles?

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Carl G wrote: Heinlein? What book? I searched Genius and Googled.
Try Wikipedia! How did you ever find and check out all that 9/11 information on the web? ;-p
We agree on this but obviously our study has brought us to different 9/11 conclusions. So yeah, I'd like to check out your source(s).
My conclusions will never be very firm because of the immense complexity of the event. Many lose ends will probably never be solved just like with similar Big Events. But I've some more intuitive and very obscure ideas on what happened but they don't involve explosions or sabotaging air defenses. It's more in the line of social thinkers like Baudrillard who talked in the 1980's already about Islam being the only force capable bringing down these towers, of course in the sense of what they represented as perfect 'digital' twin, stereo-monolithic-globalism, a non-competitive form of capitalism, pure self-imploding meaninglessness. It's a complex topic though, it's all more part of a symbolic universe and the nuts and bolts of steel, kerosene, shadowy agenda's and box cutters are merely gross mechanics here, never supplying a reason.
Elizabeth Isabelle
Posts: 3771
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:35 am

Re: What do you make of crop circles?

Post by Elizabeth Isabelle »

I'd agree that the components of life were always there. One could measure existence (arbitrarily) starting a measure of time with a big bang where everything spreads out, then things interact with each other and stars burn out and become black holes that suck everything in eventually sucking even each other in until a critical point where another big bang happens - and life happens sometime between the big bangs and the big sucks.

I see the possibility that the critical point that changes a big suck into a big bang may not be the Totality, and literally Everything gets sucked in and burst out. It may even be possible that life forms, either of an intelligent nature or space dwelling, gets out of the way of the big sucks, but even if it is Everything that gets sucked in and becomes one big bang, all the components of everything that got sucked in are in there. When released, some will come together and form life again.

If you release a whole bunch of hydrogen into a room, and then add a bunch of oxygen, you're probably going to get a wet room. No one had to go in and physically link 2 parts of hydrogen to one part oxygen to get that water, they just hook up that way. There is no reason to believe that the smaller components of life might not do exactly the same thing. Of course that is an oversimplified analogy, and it would make much more sense that when life reappears, it does so in stages of development. Throwing a bunch of elements together would far more likely produce some kind of slime than a fully developed human being. We still see slime developing spontaneously today. I actually found some in the bottom of a forgotten glass just the other day... and yet I have never heard of a human just appearing out of the dirt (except for Adam, right prince?). I'm not totally knocking the Bible story; I just think they oversimplified the process of evolution. Since I am not ruling out the possibility that life could have escaped the last big suck, I'm not totally ruling out the possibility that space aliens came to earth and populated the planet, and we are their descendants, but you'd think that stories about that would get passed down through the generations. I'd have to say that there is more evidence pointing at the primordial ooze.
User avatar
Carl G
Posts: 2659
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2006 12:52 pm
Location: Arizona

Re: What do you make of crop circles?

Post by Carl G »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:
Carl G wrote: Heinlein? What book? I searched Genius and Googled.
Try Wikipedia! How did you ever find and check out all that 9/11 information on the web? ;-p
Not on Wiki!

Thanks. The way your reply was worded I thought the Heilein comment was regarding 9/11, and without first name or book title my search was in vain :)
We agree on this but obviously our study has brought us to different 9/11 conclusions. So yeah, I'd like to check out your source(s).
My conclusions will never be very firm because of the immense complexity of the event. Many lose ends will probably never be solved just like with similar Big Events. But I've some more intuitive and very obscure ideas on what happened but they don't involve explosions or sabotaging air defenses. It's more in the line of social thinkers like Baudrillard who talked in the 1980's already about Islam being the only force capable bringing down these towers, of course in the sense of what they represented as perfect 'digital' twin, stereo-monolithic-globalism, a non-competitive form of capitalism, pure self-imploding meaninglessness. It's a complex topic though, it's all more part of a symbolic universe and the nuts and bolts of steel, kerosene, shadowy agenda's and box cutters are merely gross mechanics here, never supplying a reason.
Thanks for the well-worded reply. I agree about the complexity and the need to look for the reason. I disagree that Islam is the only force on earth with the means or the motive. I know you don't believe in a global controlling elite, and you don't live in the U.S. but you might be shocked to see what has happened to this country since 9/11. Thanks in great part to that event we have since become essentially a fascist dictatorship.

The shock and awe of the twins coming down was indeed major psychological warfare. Now as far as some are concerned, the nano-thermite found in the wreckage is the smoking gun. Evidence also continues to emerge in Washington, where it seems the airliner that supposedly hit the Pentagon would have done so in contradiction to multiple witnesses and the laws of physics.
Good Citizen Carl
User avatar
Blair
Posts: 1527
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2005 2:47 pm

Re: What do you make of crop circles?

Post by Blair »

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:Prince, congratulations on proving that you don't recognize sarcasm. I guess that takes someone who has actually evolved all the way out of the slime phase.
Actually it takes considerably more to realize that you did not evolve from slime at all.

Take a look at your eye in a mirror, and try to see it not as a machine that was purposely designed.
User avatar
Nick
Posts: 1677
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2005 8:39 pm
Location: Detroit, Michigan

Re: What do you make of crop circles?

Post by Nick »

It's very easy to not see the eye as purposefully designed considering all the diseases of the eye.
User avatar
Carl G
Posts: 2659
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2006 12:52 pm
Location: Arizona

Re: What do you make of crop circles?

Post by Carl G »

You're kidding, Nick. You're asking us to make the leap with you that all or most eye disorders are due to weak design, therefore supporting evolution theory?

Fairy tales don't cut it, Nick. We deal in hard science here at Genius.
User avatar
Nick
Posts: 1677
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2005 8:39 pm
Location: Detroit, Michigan

Re: What do you make of crop circles?

Post by Nick »

Addressing evolution was not my intent, I was specifically addressing prince's statement, i.e. when you take into account all the flaws, diseases, cancers, disorders, and frailties of the human body and it's parts, it's easy to see it was not purposefully designed as he purported.

Whether you take this as supporting evolution or not is up to you.
User avatar
Carl G
Posts: 2659
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2006 12:52 pm
Location: Arizona

Re: What do you make of crop circles?

Post by Carl G »

Gotcha, but I don't think your logic is sound. At all.
User avatar
Cory Duchesne
Posts: 2320
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 10:35 am
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: What do you make of crop circles?

Post by Cory Duchesne »

Just to build upon Nick's point to prince,

From an engineering perspective, some features of the body really are poorly designed. If you know how evolution works, it really shouldn't be a surprise.

I'm quoting from another thread, because he presents the info very well:

When new features evolve in a species, they tend to build on already existing features. They aren't built from scratch. It's just too costly for evolution to go back to the drawing board and start over. This explains why lungs evolved from the swim bladders of ancient fish. This also explains why dolphins don't move their tails from side to side like fish do. The up and down movement of dolphin tails was built upon the galloping motion of their land-dwelling four-legged ancestors.

From an evolutionary standpoint new features don't need to have the best possible design either. They just need to be good enough to allow the organism to live long enough to reproduce. The evolution of the human body is no exception. We have body parts whose design is wanting, but they've been good enough to keep our species from going the way of the dinosaurs. Consider the following suboptimal designs in the human body.

The Pharynx

Image

The human pharynx is the part of the throat that begins behind the nose and leads down to the voice box. It does double duty as a tube for breathing and for swallowing. But when you're swallowing you can't breathe, and when you're breathing you can't swallow. That's why humans run a serious risk of choking if the pharynx doesn't close at the right time when eating.

Curiously, human infants under six months and chimpanzees don't have this problem. But infants and chimps can't talk, and without our uniquely situated pharynx we wouldn't be able to talk either. The evolutionary advantage of talking must have outweighed the risks of choking in our early human ancestors. All in all, it's not a bad tradeoff, but engineers could certainly come up with a safer design especially if they didn't have to build on preexisting features.


Design Two: The Birth Canal

Image

The Bible says that God punished Eve and her female descendants with painful childbirth because she partook of the forbidden fruit. (Really mature of God to spitefully punish innocent people for the crime of someone else, huh?) Presumably, childbirth would be a snap if not for that damned curse. And not only has pain long accompanied childbirth, but so has death. The rate of mothers dying during childbirth in the United States in 1900 was about 65% higher than it is today.

You could blame God, or Eve, or the serpent. Or you could point the finger at bipedalism--walking upright on two legs. This evolutionary innovation forced a smaller pelvis on us. But bipedalism isn't the whole story. Humans have evolved big brains, and we needed a big container to hold those brains. This is why human infants are born more premature and helpless than other mammals. Babies need to get through the birth canal before their heads get too big.


Design Three: The Jaw

Image

The human jaw has too many teeth for its size. Many people have no room for wisdom teeth (third molars) if they get them, and a lot of people's teeth have to fight one another for limited territory, leading to crooked teeth and orthodontists. Impacted wisdom teeth can result in serious infections, and before modern dentistry these late eruptors could be deadly. If you couldn't eat, you died. How's that for well developed?

There's no consensus on why human jaws got smaller, but the fossilized jawbones of our Homo erectus ancestors show that, compared to us, they had massive jaws with huge molars. Some scientists suggest that our small jaw may have evolved in response to eating smashed and cooked food, so that over time there was little advantage to having a bigger jaw. Other scientists implicate the deactivation of a gene responsible for large jaw muscles, which may have allowed for our skulls to take on a new shape providing more room for those big brains of ours. Either way, we're stuck with small toothy mouths.


Design Four: The Appendix

Image

This is a case of a vestigial organ if ever there was one. The human appendix has no known function, except perhaps to put money in surgeons' pockets. About the size of a finger, this organ is located at the beginning of the large intestine. Undigestible food that enters the appendix is normally forced out by muscular contractions. But when it isn't, the result is a potentially deadly infection.

The appendix is related to a digestive organ found in many other vertebrates. This is the cecum (pronounced SEE-cum), and it's largest in herbivores, where it helps to digest plant matter. Since evolution isn't keen on cleaning up after itself, we're left with a useless and potentially life-threatening organ. In fact, NASA is so concerned about appendixes bursting in outer space that it's considering requiring appendectomies prior to future long-term missions.


Design Five: The Spine

Image

The spines of four-legged mammals work well horizontally. But when the spine stands up vertically, as in humans, it creates a lot of pressure on the vertebral discs. These discs can become compressed and slip, causing herniated discs and all manner of back pain and expensive therapy.

Standing on two legs must have benefited our early hominid ancestors who first adapted the upright position. A brand new spine designed for walking upright would have been an improvement, but instead evolution had to work with what it already had. There's no consensus on what advantages walking upright initially provided, but a widely-held view is that it freed up the hands for carrying food and manipulating objects. That's not a bad tradeoff, considering that it now allows us to rub our aching backs.

Building Upward

While evolution has created some wonderful adaptations that really do seem like optimal designs, it hasn't always done so. This is because novel features aren't designed from the ground up, but built up slowly on already existing features. Where an engineer would start from scratch, natural selection builds on whatever foundations it already has.
User avatar
Carl G
Posts: 2659
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2006 12:52 pm
Location: Arizona

Re: What do you make of crop circles?

Post by Carl G »

So far as making a case against intelligent design, that's strictly pseudo-science. Or actually, it's the equivalent of a witch hunt. It's laughable.
User avatar
Blair
Posts: 1527
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2005 2:47 pm

Re: What do you make of crop circles?

Post by Blair »

It's laughable really.

The principle of evolution is flawed. it's dogshit.

A human can not beget from less than a human.

Humans are defined by emotions, feelings, sensitivety to the atmos. They are covered in hairless skin and are intensely exposed to extremes of all types.

What, do you think God could have created a more intense experience than what he did for the human?
User avatar
Nick
Posts: 1677
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2005 8:39 pm
Location: Detroit, Michigan

Re: What do you make of crop circles?

Post by Nick »

Cory Duchesne wrote:But bipedalism isn't the whole story. Humans have evolved big brains, and we needed a big container to hold those brains. This is why human infants are born more premature and helpless than other mammals. Babies need to get through the birth canal before their heads get too big.
I could be wrong, but I suspect that Carl and prince's mothers didn't have to worry about any complications arising due to the physiology being addressed here.
Locked