Thank you for your candor, Jojo. Appreciate it.
I have no desire to challenge your beliefs. It's pretty clear to me that your beliefs are very important to you, as are my own. I can respect that. Under the circumstances I think it only appropriate that I comment (or critique) my own personal beliefs... assuming I'm willing to share some of them. You might be surprised to realize that I'm open to a form of "Intelligent Design", but not the kind taught by Christian fundamentalism. Personally, I think whatever one wants to call the "Supreme Being", such an Entity does play dice with the universe. I think many intelligent entities, both great and small, do because of the creative surprises random choices offer. As such, I continue to find the macro evolution theory as it is currently described (warts and all) very appealing. IMO, macro-evolution allows for all sorts of random surprises to happen, and that that is a very good thing. I still think the theory (warts and all) does a good job of explaining how different kinds of species most likely came into existence. But like most theories that have managed to gain a lot of traction, it is still being refined. There is still much more to learn about the underlying mechanisms of macro-evolution. One thing is abundantly clear to me however - for macro-evolution to work, one has to have a LOT of patience and time on their hands. Macro-evolution ain't going to happen in 6,000, or 60,000 years. Much longer time-frames are necessary. ;-) Correct me if I'm wrong on this point but I'll assume that the actual length of time needed (i.e. millions of years) is probably another gross misconception you believe we macro evolutionists have made about how the age of the Universe. What's your best-guess as to the age of the Universe? Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.orionworks.com zazzle.com/orionworks From: Jojo Iznart [mailto:jojoiznar...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 8:10 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots I believe in the Bible fully from cover to cover. The Bible says the Universe and the Earth was created in 6 literal days. Now, the day may not necessarily be 24 hours but the idea was that God created everything in a short time. When he did that is not revealed in the Bible. Many Biblical scholars claim that they can backtrace the genealogy and concluded that it is currently about 6000 years old. I have no reason to doubt them although I fully admit that they could be wrong. After all, they are all human and their calculation is not from God. Also, this is a rough estimate. No exact dates are provided in reference to major events. Just hints here and there that place the event in its historical context. Also, Biblical scholars who study Eschatology (study of End times, like Armageddon, 2nd Coming of Christ, Millenial Kingdom, etc.) sometimes apply prophecy to Biblical history. This is a valid Bible Study technique, since "Prophecy is Prologue". What that means is that many events that occur in the Bible always have prophetic significance one way or another. Many scholars equate a 7-day prophecy to our history. 1 day is prophecied to be equal to 1000 years. Many prophecies put us on the 6th day. That is also where the 6000 years came from. The 7th day is the day of rest which they equate to the Millenial reign of King Christ from a literal throne in Jerusalem. So, if you ask me what I believe, there it is. Jojo PS. BTW, as a believer, the Bible says that I am a King and Priest. So, I will be running a city and/or a church in the Millenium. Most likely just a city cause there would only be one church. So, I'll be looking up some of you who have been nasty to me. (In case you missed it, I"M JOKING) ----- Original Message ----- From: Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson <mailto:orionwo...@charter.net> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 8:44 PM Subject: RE: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots Thanks for giving me a specific time-frame within the you tube link to fast forward to. Right now I don't have the time to wade through the entire lecture, but I did listen to the specific section about disproving the horse evolution theory. I did perform a spot check here and there. I do see the lecturer has a lot of charisma. Possessing charisma always helps to persuade the audience. Using a healthy dose of ridicule is always entertaining too. As for me, using ridicule to insinuate we are trying to create a whale from corn is not likely to convince me that evolution is a failed theory, 41:15. I think you would enjoy reading "Forbidden Archeology", if you haven't already. I think there are some intriguing, as well as controversial, findings listed in this book. http://books.google.com/books/about/Forbidden_Archeology.html?id=vhV9AAAAMAAJ http://www.amazon.com/Forbidden-Archeology-Hidden-History-Human/dp/0892132949/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1409142589&sr=1-1&keywords=forbidden+archeology In your personal opinion, how long do you think the Earth has been around? Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.orionworks.com zazzle.com/orionworks From: Jojo Iznart [mailto:jojoiznar...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 9:47 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots Actually, reproduction by cellular mitosis would favor evolution. If Macro-evolution is occuring, cellular mitosis should prove it quickly. Why? Because one one set of genes can produce a trait that would confer a survival advantage. If reproduction is by cellular meiosis. both mutations have to be compatible for it to generate a trait. This task is more difficult and will occur at less probability compounding the long long long odds already facing Macro-Evolution. Regarding Horse Evolution, that was debunked about 5 decades ago. I have a video for that but it is long. Horse evolution discussion starts at time 41:26. It talks about the Equus seris of horse evolution in your article. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ga33t0NI6Fk Jojo ----- Original Message ----- From: Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson <mailto:orionwo...@charter.net> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 10:18 AM Subject: RE: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots From: Jojo > Well, we have conducted evolution experiments in the lab where we > subjected bacteria to artificial stress to stimulate macro-evolution. > These accelerated trials would be the equivalent of millions of years > of natural selection. And yet, what did we find? We find that the > bacteria did change and adapt to the stress but yet remained the same > bacteria. This is micro-evolution, not macro-evolution. The bacteria > was simply expressing certain genetic traits already built into its DNA. > No mutation. > > In this particular experiment I am talking about, E. Coli gained > resistance to penicilin. That is adaptation,no macro evolution. In > the end, E. Coli was still E. Coli. the same bacteria. No species > jump. It did not become some other kind of mold or something. > > And most remarkably, when the stress was removed, the E. Coli population > then reverted to its original form where it was E. Coli susceptible again. > Natural selection was clearly not operative here. > > Its evidence like this that is suppressed to foist the biggest lie on > people. Interesting experiment. I know I also suggested using bacteria in a previous post. I'm glad someone has actually conducted it using bacteria. Do you know how long the experiment was conducted? I do see a problem with this particular experiment, even though I think it was a good stab at trying to observe evolution working. Bacteria don't reproduce sexually. They clone themselves. It's a much more simplified carbon-copy process of perpetuating the species. There's far less potential to introduce mutation and other genetic changes with each successive generation. There is very little chance for the random exchange of genes between two organisms. Introducing random genetic change is, IMO, crucial for the theory of evolution to work effectively. I would like to see an equivalent experiment done with a much more complex organism, say a simple animal, a Planarian. They are fascinating little creatures. They are simple animals but complex multi-cellular organisms nevertheless. But if you split them part way down the middle down their length starting with the head they will eventually split apart completely and become two individuated worms. You wouldn't think a complex multi-cellular animal organism would be capable of doing that, not after they have been hatched! Alas, I'm not sure this kind of an experiment would work because of the time frames involved. It would have to take decades of persistent research in order to possibly notice if we could eventually create a new species of worm that is incapable of sexually reproducing with the original organism. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planarian . . . In the meantime, I'd still like your opinion on what you think is happening concerning what the text below reveals as an example of the evolution of horses starting 30 million years ago. http://www.examiner.com/article/stranger-than-fiction-the-evolution-of-the-horse What do you personally believe is happening here? Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.orionworks.com zazzle.com/orionworks
