> mean the antlers are like ostrich feathers on
> males (large and unwieldy?). this is another part
> of Ev. theory that is explained quite nicely.

i meant peacocks, not ostriches.

coconutcream Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think we do niot come from monkeys but we come
> from humans. Plus people find older and older
> human bones.


Coconutcream, I like & believe what you said.

So far no one who claims to an evoluntionest has been able to answer this question for me. They just scream and yell like crazy when asked this one. Proves very well evolution is false.

here are some but not all of the parts of the body.
Brain
Eyes
Skeloton
Heart
Hands
Feet
Stomach
intestines
blood vessels
nerves
fingers
mouth
tounge
nose
ears
arms
legs
liver
kidneys
reproductive system
spleen
lungs

ok now place all of these in the proper order in which they evolved into being.

After you do that then tell me how a repoductively perfectly matched set male and female evolved at exactly the same time completely independant of the other.


I hear the screams allready - Ah ha ha ha ha ha ha..................

Elnatural

do you purposely misspell things?

first study what evolution is, then get back to me with a real question.

btw, why do you have nipples? or do you not?

sorry,

this got moved and I forgot about it

I have studied evolution, and do have some legitimate science background..but to me it just isn't all that interesting

the real scientific method is observation...most science lost sight of that long time ago. I think aqua's spanking is in line with my thinking that from the research I have done into evolutionary theory's origins, It is very clear to me that what they were observing is simply what they SAW which 'proved' what they already believed.

I thought my example was pretty self-explanatory

I'm not prepared to give my earth shattering blow over the internet..sorry

but another thing which was really great to see at the Smithsonian is they have this petrified tree which is over 300 millions years old. While that is shocking in itself, the crazy thing was the plaque discussed basically what a 'great invention' trees were, how at one point there were no trees, and when trees came about there was this new abundance of species which thrived on and in them.,..Now picture a realm with no trees...and tell me you don't believe in some kind of spontaneous creation..

Was algae too fit for the ocean and sprouted into a Palm?

but that there are significant gaps or leaps in development according to the fossil record proves to me that at some level species are created spontaneously...

Due to the laws of nature - as I see them, adaptation is generally only something the body in question does to lubricate poor conditions. This is easily observed in Humans and is very much in line with Natural Hygiene, which makes me confused as to why Hygienists agree with evolution...other then the fact that they are two very rigid explainable linear doctrines and need some kind of relation to the world of apes to prove their theories.

People that come from locations that live off spicy food have 'adapted' to eating spicy foods..hence mutated their systems, increased their mucus production and lining of their organs - given up health - in order to nullify the effects of poisons.

So in closing, since the fossil record shows no signs of transitional species, I can only assume that formed species result as dictated by spontaneous creation of consciousness, and that variation of species results from mutation and subsequent breeding habits...not by natural selection on survival of the fittest. And that we as humans must reverse our maze (de-evolve so to speak) so that we might once again rise up, and evolve in ways that we see fit..and than we can act as a model for the other species to rise up along with us.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/22/2007 04:06PM by anaken.

Some NHists are Christians and probably believe in Creation.

It seems the Bible is just a collection of writings agreed on by church leaders to be the official reference work for all their flocks. (Would be nice if universities took this attitude toward textbooks.)

There are lots of unadultered accounts of accounts of Jesus' life and God's intentions which stress the humble diet and lifestyle that NH espouses.

I can see why NH gives reason to both Creation and Evolution.

anaken Wrote:

> I have studied evolution, and do have some
> legitimate science background..but to me it just
> isn't all that interesting

do you have religious belief system that prevents you from finding it interesting?

when people say that ETheory is not valid, I wait to hear about a better theory, and i never do


>It is very clear to me that what
> they were observing is simply what they SAW which
> 'proved' what they already believed.

actually one reason evolutionary theory is sound because it has made predictions, as any other good science does.

trees came from the oceans.
simple trees arose, then typical trees later - they didn't just jump into existence.

evolution of plants, transitional fossils, etc.

[www.emc.maricopa.edu]


> but another thing which was really great to see at
> the Smithsonian is they have this petrified tree
> which is over 300 millions years old. While that
> is shocking in itself, the crazy thing was the
> plaque discussed basically what a 'great
> invention' trees were, how at one point there were
> no trees, and when trees came about there was this
> new abundance of species which thrived on and in
> them.,..Now picture a realm with no trees...and
> tell me you don't believe in some kind of
> spontaneous creation..

see above

>
> Was algae too fit for the ocean and sprouted into
> a Palm?


this is what i mean, and why i said what i did.
why not study it first, then make up your mind?

the only reason is a bias that you don't want to change.

study it and then tell me WHY you don't believe it.

your above statement indicates to me that you have not studied it.

i have not studied tree evolution either, but i took a few minutes and from what i read and what has been discovered and theories that arose from it, makes perfect sense to me.

i suspect that once again, religion rears its ugly head and prevents critical thought. tell me i'm wrong. i must be wrong right?


> but that there are significant gaps or leaps in
> development according to the fossil record proves
> to me that at some level species are created
> spontaneously...

if you knew about fossilization, how it works, etc, you would understand about gaps. and there is plenty of non-gap fossil evidence.


>
> Due to the laws of nature - as I see them,
> adaptation is generally only something the body in
> question does to lubricate poor conditions.

this is just not right, sorry.

> This
> is easily observed in Humans and is very much in
> line with Natural Hygiene, which makes me confused
> as to why Hygienists agree with evolution...other
> then the fact that they are two very rigid
> explainable linear doctrines and need some kind of
> relation to the world of apes to prove their
> theories.

there's nothing "linear" or rigid about either one.

do you have an ape bias you'd like to share?



> So in closing, since the fossil record shows no
> signs of transitional species, I can only assume
> that formed species result as dictated by
> spontaneous creation of consciousness, and that
> variation of species results from mutation and
> subsequent breeding habits

you would need to investigate this further.
or define what a transitional species is.

you sound like a creationist.

if so, then certainly discussion is a waste of time, although many former creatoinists have given testimony about conversions to belief in evolutionary theory..

later

aquadecoco Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> There are lots of unadultered accounts of accounts
> of Jesus' life and God's intentions which stress
> the humble diet and lifestyle that NH espouses.
>

watch zeitgeistthemovie www.zeitgeistmovie.com and then tell me about jesus and how you disagree with the movie's assertions...

Is it online? I have an antiquated computer and have to borrow hot young comps to do all cool things like watch movies, so I don't wind up seeing most youtube and other vids. But I'll def. watch if it's interesting.

no, I am not a person of religion

I wasn't skeptical of the planet being well over 300 million years old so I don't think that classifies me as a creationist.

when you are saying with confidence that something that occured 300 million years ago 'they didn't just jump into existance', when we - as a consciousness (in our present form) have only existed for 10's of thousands, it sounds to me like you are the one speculating.


My only question is How can you refute my claim about adaptation? it is the main premise for why people can actually survive on a non-natural diet, constant suppresion of illness. The one's with the least symptoms from crap are the most adapted.

I really wish I didn't bother checking other topics

finished some work...off to get some remaining sun

anaken Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> I wasn't skeptical of the planet being well over
> 300 million years old so I don't think that
> classifies me as a creationist.
>

good point

> when you are saying with confidence that something
> that occured 300 million years ago 'they didn't
> just jump into existance', when we - as a
> consciousness (in our present form) have only
> existed for 10's of thousands, it sounds to me
> like you are the one speculating.


all i'm saying, again, is that it doesn't make sense to hold an opinion without sufficient investigation on the subject. we all do it - i've done it. it's just that i see it done so often with evolution.


the theory consists of a wide array of factors that come together, put together by men and women over 150 years. the story is found in the fossil record, in the genes, etc etc.

> My only question is How can you refute my claim
> about adaptation? it is the main premise for why
> people can actually survive on a non-natural diet,
> constant suppresion of illness. The one's with the
> least symptoms from crap are the most adapted.

that's fine if you think your premise is relevant.
i don't see the relevance to evolutionary theory.

i see that the theory should be understood and evaluated based on its own merit.

-Due to the laws of nature - as I see them, adaptation is generally only something the body in question does to lubricate poor conditions.

it's not necessarily poor conditions, but changing conditions, or differential sexual selection pressures or many other things.

thought experiments

look at this lexus ls430 ? did it just pop into existence? where are the fossils that prove the evolution of the lexus ls430? there seems to be a lot of gaps in the automobile fossil record... it's impossible that the perfection and beauty of the lexus ls430 could have evolved from simpler organisms isn't it? how could the model T be related to the lexus ls430 ? i'm insulted by the comparison to the ape-like model T ?

truth is it is impossible for anyone to create the lexus. it could only have been created over generations of evolution, each generation adding to the knowledge of previous generations over a long period of time.
---

one sperm and one egg. invisible to the naked eye. this is where we come from. we know it's true right? doesn't it seem impossible? how could the sperm and egg Evolve into a human? why is it so easy for us to accept this but we can not accept that virtually the same thing happened with evolution over MILLIONS of years at a higher level...



----------
how many types of dogs are there? incredible variety right? they all came from the wolf over an incredibly short time frame. millions of year of Nature directed evolution is not as powerful as a few thousand years of human directed evolution? right, that's not the same as the change from a dinosaur into a bird, but it really is the same, and the fossil evidence is there.


for anaken and the "scientists assumed what they want to prove" statement.

The "Evolution is Circular" Argument

Allied to the objection listed immediately above is the claim that the argument for evolution is invalid because it is circular; that is, by stating that the fossil-bearing rocks indicate strata laid down over long periods of time at different ages of earth's history, the arguer has assumed the truth that was in question. Hence, the structure of the argument is fallacious.

This objection is, of course, spurious. Science can plausibly explain and confirm that some rock formations are made by solid material and organic remains settling in water, that over time different rock layers will lie on top of each other, that, if the layers are undisturbed, the younger rock layers will lie on top of the older rock layers, and thus, that the fossil material in the higher undisturbed layers will be younger than the fossil material in the lower undisturbed layers. This claim is not something the argument simply assumes: it is based on hundreds of years of observation and testing. For a long time, oddly enough, it was used to defend the Genesis account of the Deluge, until people started to realize just how long it would take for physical processes to create what we see all around us and also how many floods there must have been.

[www.mala.bc.ca]
[www.mala.bc.ca]