Let's get to specifics about evolution.

1/31/2016 5:32:34 PM	Let's get to specifics about evolution.
jrbogie1949 Red Bluff, CA 67, joined Mar. 2009	again, it's all there for you to study. Meet singles at DateHookup.dating, we're 100% free! Join now!
1/31/2016 5:58:29 PM	Let's get to specifics about evolution.
jrbogie1949 Red Bluff, CA 67, joined Mar. 2009	for bard/kb et. al. google really is your friend. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/god-particle-why-the-higgs-boson-matters/
1/31/2016 6:34:01 PM	Let's get to specifics about evolution.
kb2222 Jacksonville, FL 75, joined Apr. 2011	Particle physics experiments have nothing to do with explaining/testing or supporting the BBT.
1/31/2016 6:43:04 PM	Let's get to specifics about evolution.
kb2222 Jacksonville, FL 75, joined Apr. 2011	What the scientists call the "God particle" that holds matter together the UB calls the "mesotron." 8. Atomic Cohesion 42:8.1 (478.5) While gravity is one of several factors concerned in holding together a tiny atomic energy system, there is also present in and among these basic physical units a powerful and unknown energy, the secret of their basic constitution and ultimate behavior, a force which remains to be discovered on Urantia. This universal influence permeates all the space embraced within this tiny energy organization. 42:8.2 (478.6) The interelectronic space of an atom is not empty. Throughout an atom this interelectronic space is activated by wavelike manifestations which are perfectly synchronized with electronic velocity and ultimatonic revolutions. This force is not wholly dominated by your recognized laws of positive and negative attraction; its behavior is therefore sometimes unpredictable. This unnamed influence seems to be a space-force reaction of the Unqualified Absolute. 42:8.3 (479.1) The charged protons and the uncharged neutrons of the nucleus of the atom are held together by the reciprocating function of the mesotron, a particle of matter 180 times as heavy as the electron. Without this arrangement the electric charge carried by the protons would be disruptive of the atomic nucleus. 42:8.4 (479.2) As atoms are constituted, neither electric nor gravitational forces could hold the nucleus together. The integrity of the nucleus is maintained by the reciprocal cohering function of the mesotron, which is able to hold charged and uncharged particles together because of superior force-mass power and by the further function of causing protons and neutrons constantly to change places. The mesotron causes the electric charge of the nuclear particles to be incessantly tossed back and forth between protons and neutrons. At one infinitesimal part of a second a given nuclear particle is a charged proton and the next an uncharged neutron. And these alternations of energy status are so unbelievably rapid that the electric charge is deprived of all opportunity to function as a disruptive influence. Thus does the mesotron function as an “energy-carrier” particle which mightily contributes to the nuclear stability of the atom. 42:8.5 (479.3) The presence and function of the mesotron also explains another atomic riddle. When atoms perform radioactively, they emit far more energy than would be expected. This excess of radiation is derived from the breaking up of the mesotron “energy carrier,” which thereby becomes a mere electron. The mesotronic disintegration is also accompanied by the emission of certain small uncharged particles. 42:8.6 (479.4) The mesotron explains certain cohesive properties of the atomic nucleus, but it does not account for the cohesion of proton to proton nor for the adhesion of neutron to neutron. The paradoxical and powerful force of atomic cohesive integrity is a form of energy as yet undiscovered on Urantia. 42:8.7 (479.5) These mesotrons are found abundantly in the space rays which so incessantly impinge upon your planet [Edited 1/31/2016 6:43:33 PM ]
1/31/2016 6:47:16 PM	Let's get to specifics about evolution.
jrbogie1949 Red Bluff, CA 67, joined Mar. 2009	uh, scientists don't call it the god particle. god fearing folks misnamed the boson. some in the early days of cern some physicists did refer to it as 'that god damn particle,' though.
1/31/2016 7:09:00 PM	Let's get to specifics about evolution.
followjesusonly Kingman, AZ 73, joined May. 2012 online now!	Quote from olderthandirt20: Is the above supposed to be ridicule? Is that all you've got?
1/31/2016 7:11:13 PM	Let's get to specifics about evolution.
followjesusonly Kingman, AZ 73, joined May. 2012 online now!	Quote from olderthandirt20: Space theology is no replacement for biology or physics it leaves you dumbfounded over the simplest things. What is "space theology" exactly?
1/31/2016 8:05:09 PM	Let's get to specifics about evolution.
olderthandirt20 Waldron, AR 69, joined Jul. 2014	Quote from followjesusonly: What is "space theology" exactly? You should recognise it with its non human authors and man descending from lemurs version of genesis. It has its own version of pseudo science.
1/31/2016 11:00:06 PM	Let's get to specifics about evolution.
followjesusonly Kingman, AZ 73, joined May. 2012 online now!	Quote from olderthandirt20: You should recognise it with its non human authors and man descending from lemurs version of genesis. It has its own version of pseudo science. Since you're apparently a non believer, I can tell you that angels are non human. God is non human. And the fact is that you don't know from what humans descended. All you have is charts. I'm not saying their not nice charts. They are. Top notch. And if you don't believe in God or in angels, why are you on the religion Forum? From the management: This forum is for people to discuss religion. It isn't for people who aren't religious to attack people who are. If all you can do is argue with people you will definitely be banned. If religion isn't your thing then stay out of this forum. It's one thing to have nice discussions with thoughtful, polite non believers but if one is a hostile, argumentative non believer then that person probably shouldn't be on this Forum.
1/31/2016 11:20:24 PM	Let's get to specifics about evolution.
cupocheer Assumption, IL 67, joined May. 2010
2/1/2016 2:05:33 AM	Let's get to specifics about evolution.
w6o6l6f_1 Richmond, VA 38, joined May. 2014	Humans are not the center of evolution or the unervise. Homo Sapiens became alpha for this era.
2/1/2016 5:31:15 AM	Let's get to specifics about evolution.
olderthandirt20 Waldron, AR 69, joined Jul. 2014	Quoted from FJO Since you're apparently a non believer, An assumption on your part, altho I admit non belief in the uranta hybrid Jeudo Christian/star trek religion. I can tell you that angels are non human. God is non human. So are fire breathing dragons, unicorns & goblins. And the fact is that you don't know from what humans descended. All you have is charts. I'm not saying their not nice charts. They are. Top notch.Actually I do know because the charts represent scientific investigation which says human beings share a common direct ancestor with the great apes and not lemurs. And if you don't believe in God or in angels, why are you on the religion Forum? Why I am here is to discuss religion and by the way not all religions have fathergods or angels. From the management: This forum is for people to discuss religion. It isn't for people who aren't religious to attack people who are. If all you can do is argue with people you will definitely be banned. If religion isn't your thing then stay out of this forum.Also, not everyone has the same beliefs. Don't argue with each other about which religion is better or who is right. It's one thing to have nice discussions with thoughtful, polite non believers but if one is a hostile, argumentative non believer then that person probably shouldn't be on this Forum. The same might be said for your pal kb who you choose to come to the rescue after his pugnacious attitude gets the best of him with believers and non believers alike.
2/1/2016 9:23:28 AM	Let's get to specifics about evolution.
ludlowlowell Panama City, FL 63, joined Feb. 2008 online now!	On a rare occasion an evolutionist will admit that evolution is just an hypothesis or theory. Charles Darwin, to his credit, admitted that. What gets me is this absolute dogged insistence among most evolutionists that it is a proven fact. It is not, not by any means.
2/1/2016 9:29:32 AM	Let's get to specifics about evolution.
jrbogie1949 Red Bluff, CA 67, joined Mar. 2009	Quote from ludlowlowell: On a rare occasion an evolutionist will admit that evolution is just an hypothesis or theory. Charles Darwin, to his credit, admitted that. What gets me is this absolute dogged insistence among most evolutionists that it is a proven fact. It is not, not by any means. one more time. a theory can never be proved as fact.
2/1/2016 9:59:09 AM	Let's get to specifics about evolution.
kb2222 Jacksonville, FL 75, joined Apr. 2011	Edit [Edited 2/1/2016 9:59:52 AM ]
2/1/2016 10:17:47 AM	Let's get to specifics about evolution.
ludlowlowell Panama City, FL 63, joined Feb. 2008 online now!	Sometimes theories can be proven, but it certainly never has been proven that human beings evolved from any other species.
2/1/2016 10:39:34 AM	Let's get to specifics about evolution.
jrbogie1949 Red Bluff, CA 67, joined Mar. 2009	Quote from ludlowlowell: Sometimes theories can be proven, but it certainly never has been proven that human beings evolved from any other species. name a theory that has been proven.
2/1/2016 11:14:25 AM	Let's get to specifics about evolution.
nonstandard York, PA 53, joined Jun. 2009	Quote from kb2222: Edit I know that I'm an animal . You pretend to be a saint . Who is the beast ?
2/1/2016 11:15:50 AM	Let's get to specifics about evolution.
olderthandirt20 Waldron, AR 69, joined Jul. 2014	Specifically speaking chimpanzees share 98.8% DNA with humans. Well I'll be a monkey's uncle No actually chimps & bonobos are our nearest relative and we share an ancestor with them. Only 1.2% DNA differences This supports evolutionary theory, it holds true to predictions made according to the theory. http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/permanent-exhibitions/human-origins-and-cultural-halls/anne-and-bernard-spitzer-hall-of-human-origins/understanding-our-past/ Examine the Evidence Matching DNA? Human and chimp DNA is nearly identical when you compare the bands on chromosomes, the bundles of DNA inside nearly every cell. Which two chromosomes are more alike? Banding Patterns The light and dark bands on these chromosomes, created by a laboratory dye, reveal similarities and differences among human, chimp and mouse DNA. [Edited 2/1/2016 11:17:15 AM ]
2/1/2016 11:19:52 AM	Let's get to specifics about evolution.
thebard58 Hermiston, OR 57, joined Jul. 2010	Quote from ludlowlowell: What gets me is this absolute dogged insistence among most evolutionists that it is a proven fact. Quote from jrbogie1949: one more time. a theory can never be proved as fact. ERGO- You are actually agreeing with lulowlowell (and others such as myself) that it should not be declared "fact". So what's the argument?
2/1/2016 11:29:52 AM	Let's get to specifics about evolution.
nonstandard York, PA 53, joined Jun. 2009	Its not fact , its speculation . The universe teaches us everything we know , it shows us how everything works . If we have other ideas , its just wishful thinking .
2/1/2016 11:42:51 AM	Let's get to specifics about evolution.
olderthandirt20 Waldron, AR 69, joined Jul. 2014	In order to be proved a theory would have to hold true over all possible outcomes and against all possible variables. It only can be supported by testing over and over again, if it fails any one possible prediction then it is failed and abandoned or modified. If a scientific theory stands true throughout all testing an infinite number of times it maintains it's status as theory, otherwise it is considered failed.
2/1/2016 11:49:00 AM	Let's get to specifics about evolution.
thebard58 Hermiston, OR 57, joined Jul. 2010	Quote from jrbogie1949: name a theory that has been proven. "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction". This (along with "inertia", "momentum") has been so well documented as to be labeled "law" in physics. One might say that proof was not definitive until experimentation was done in a weightless environment, but experiments to verify Newton's theory were included in my very first introduction to physics, as a practical application of "the scientific method".
2/1/2016 12:15:26 PM	Let's get to specifics about evolution.
jrbogie1949 Red Bluff, CA 67, joined Mar. 2009	Quote from thebard58: "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction". This (along with "inertia", "momentum") has been so well documented as to be labeled "law" in physics. One might say that proof was not definitive until experimentation was done in a weightless environment, but experiments to verify Newton's theory were included in my very first introduction to physics, as a practical application of "the scientific method". an observation. not proof of the theory. the observation did not prove the theory because we cannot know what tests in the future might produce a different observation showing a different result. a theory can never be proved to be correct. and of course what does a weightless environment have to do with action reaction? [Edited 2/1/2016 12:17:18 PM ]
2/1/2016 12:19:31 PM	Let's get to specifics about evolution.
jrbogie1949 Red Bluff, CA 67, joined Mar. 2009	Quote from thebard58: ERGO- You are actually agreeing with lulowlowell (and others such as myself) that it should not be declared "fact". So what's the argument? never disagreed that evolution theory should not be declared as fact did I? [Edited 2/1/2016 12:21:52 PM ]
2/1/2016 12:20:21 PM	Let's get to specifics about evolution.
followjesusonly Kingman, AZ 73, joined May. 2012 online now!	Quote from ludlowlowell: Sometimes theories can be proven, but it certainly never has been proven that human beings evolved from any other species. I believe Ludlow is right. And Darwin too:Charles Darwin: “When we descend to details, we cannot prove that a single species has changed; nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory.
2/1/2016 12:21:25 PM	Let's get to specifics about evolution.
followjesusonly Kingman, AZ 73, joined May. 2012 online now!	Quote from thebard58: ERGO- You are actually agreeing with lulowlowell (and others such as myself) that it should not be declared "fact". So what's the argument? That's what I thought too. Maybe JR misspoke.
2/1/2016 1:11:30 PM	Let's get to specifics about evolution.
kb2222 Jacksonville, FL 75, joined Apr. 2011	Isn't it "interesting" that this explanation for atomic cohesion currently being sought by particle scientists is found in a book published in 1955? Quote from kb2222: What the scientists call the "God particle" that holds matter together the UB calls the "mesotron." 8. Atomic Cohesion 42:8.1 (478.5) While gravity is one of several factors concerned in holding together a tiny atomic energy system, there is also present in and among these basic physical units a powerful and unknown energy, the secret of their basic constitution and ultimate behavior, a force which remains to be discovered on Urantia. This universal influence permeates all the space embraced within this tiny energy organization. 42:8.2 (478.6) The interelectronic space of an atom is not empty. Throughout an atom this interelectronic space is activated by wavelike manifestations which are perfectly synchronized with electronic velocity and ultimatonic revolutions. This force is not wholly dominated by your recognized laws of positive and negative attraction; its behavior is therefore sometimes unpredictable. This unnamed influence seems to be a space-force reaction of the Unqualified Absolute. 42:8.3 (479.1) The charged protons and the uncharged neutrons of the nucleus of the atom are held together by the reciprocating function of the mesotron, a particle of matter 180 times as heavy as the electron. Without this arrangement the electric charge carried by the protons would be disruptive of the atomic nucleus. 42:8.4 (479.2) As atoms are constituted, neither electric nor gravitational forces could hold the nucleus together. The integrity of the nucleus is maintained by the reciprocal cohering function of the mesotron, which is able to hold charged and uncharged particles together because of superior force-mass power and by the further function of causing protons and neutrons constantly to change places. The mesotron causes the electric charge of the nuclear particles to be incessantly tossed back and forth between protons and neutrons. At one infinitesimal part of a second a given nuclear particle is a charged proton and the next an uncharged neutron. And these alternations of energy status are so unbelievably rapid that the electric charge is deprived of all opportunity to function as a disruptive influence. Thus does the mesotron function as an “energy-carrier” particle which mightily contributes to the nuclear stability of the atom. 42:8.5 (479.3) The presence and function of the mesotron also explains another atomic riddle. When atoms perform radioactively, they emit far more energy than would be expected. This excess of radiation is derived from the breaking up of the mesotron “energy carrier,” which thereby becomes a mere electron. The mesotronic disintegration is also accompanied by the emission of certain small uncharged particles. 42:8.6 (479.4) The mesotron explains certain cohesive properties of the atomic nucleus, but it does not account for the cohesion of proton to proton nor for the adhesion of neutron to neutron. The paradoxical and powerful force of atomic cohesive integrity is a form of energy as yet undiscovered on Urantia. 42:8.7 (479.5) These mesotrons are found abundantly in the space rays which so incessantly impinge upon your planet
2/1/2016 2:19:08 PM	Let's get to specifics about evolution.
olderthandirt20 Waldron, AR 69, joined Jul. 2014	Isn't it odd someone who claims big bang is not legitimate tries to claim higgs boson is religions discovery . BTW the topic is evolution not BBT
2/1/2016 2:45:21 PM	Let's get to specifics about evolution.
jrbogie1949 Red Bluff, CA 67, joined Mar. 2009	Quote from kb2222: Isn't it "interesting" that this explanation for atomic cohesion currently being sought by particle scientists is found in a book published in 1955? Quote from kb2222: What the scientists call the "God particle" that holds matter together the UB calls the "mesotron." 8. Atomic Cohesion 42:8.1 (478.5) While gravity is one of several factors concerned in holding together a tiny atomic energy system, there is also present in and among these basic physical units a powerful and unknown energy, the secret of their basic constitution and ultimate behavior, a force which remains to be discovered on Urantia. This universal influence permeates all the space embraced within this tiny energy organization. 42:8.2 (478.6) The interelectronic space of an atom is not empty. Throughout an atom this interelectronic space is activated by wavelike manifestations which are perfectly synchronized with electronic velocity and ultimatonic revolutions. This force is not wholly dominated by your recognized laws of positive and negative attraction; its behavior is therefore sometimes unpredictable. This unnamed influence seems to be a space-force reaction of the Unqualified Absolute. 42:8.3 (479.1) The charged protons and the uncharged neutrons of the nucleus of the atom are held together by the reciprocating function of the mesotron, a particle of matter 180 times as heavy as the electron. Without this arrangement the electric charge carried by the protons would be disruptive of the atomic nucleus. 42:8.4 (479.2) As atoms are constituted, neither electric nor gravitational forces could hold the nucleus together. The integrity of the nucleus is maintained by the reciprocal cohering function of the mesotron, which is able to hold charged and uncharged particles together because of superior force-mass power and by the further function of causing protons and neutrons constantly to change places. The mesotron causes the electric charge of the nuclear particles to be incessantly tossed back and forth between protons and neutrons. At one infinitesimal part of a second a given nuclear particle is a charged proton and the next an uncharged neutron. And these alternations of energy status are so unbelievably rapid that the electric charge is deprived of all opportunity to function as a disruptive influence. Thus does the mesotron function as an “energy-carrier” particle which mightily contributes to the nuclear stability of the atom. 42:8.5 (479.3) The presence and function of the mesotron also explains another atomic riddle. When atoms perform radioactively, they emit far more energy than would be expected. This excess of radiation is derived from the breaking up of the mesotron “energy carrier,” which thereby becomes a mere electron. The mesotronic disintegration is also accompanied by the emission of certain small uncharged particles. 42:8.6 (479.4) The mesotron explains certain cohesive properties of the atomic nucleus, but it does not account for the cohesion of proton to proton nor for the adhesion of neutron to neutron. The paradoxical and powerful force of atomic cohesive integrity is a form of energy as yet undiscovered on Urantia. 42:8.7 (479.5) These mesotrons are found abundantly in the space rays which so incessantly impinge upon your planet but you said particle physics has nothing to do with the big bang.
2/1/2016 2:50:39 PM	Let's get to specifics about evolution.
kb2222 Jacksonville, FL 75, joined Apr. 2011	Quote from olderthandirt20: Isn't it odd someone who claims big bang is not legitimate tries to claim higgs boson is religions discovery . I claim the BBT is not a theory but rather a hypothesis because it is untestable. And yes the UB authors say the explanation for atomic cohesion is what they call a mesotron but you can call it higgs bosom if you like. What's odd about that? BTW the topic is evolution not BBT A little sidestep and I don't think the op will mind.
2/1/2016 2:53:13 PM	Let's get to specifics about evolution.
kb2222 Jacksonville, FL 75, joined Apr. 2011	Quote from jrbogie1949: but you said particle physics has nothing to do with the big bang. That's right it doesn't. There is no mention of a BB in that quote and particle physics does nothing to support the BBT.
2/1/2016 3:19:03 PM	Let's get to specifics about evolution.
jrbogie1949 Red Bluff, CA 67, joined Mar. 2009	Quote from kb2222: That's right it doesn't. There is no mention of a BB in that quote and particle physics does nothing to support the BBT. unless of course you happen to be a particle physicist.
2/1/2016 3:33:40 PM	Let's get to specifics about evolution.
kb2222 Jacksonville, FL 75, joined Apr. 2011	Quote from jrbogie1949: unless of course you happen to be a particle physicist. ???
2/1/2016 3:36:18 PM	Let's get to specifics about evolution.
followjesusonly Kingman, AZ 73, joined May. 2012 online now!	Quote from kb2222: ??? Maybe that was JR's comment to: A little sidestep and I don't think the op will mind.
2/1/2016 3:39:44 PM	Let's get to specifics about evolution.
followjesusonly Kingman, AZ 73, joined May. 2012 online now!	Quote from olderthandirt20: Isn't it odd someone who claims big bang is not legitimate tries to claim higgs boson is religions discovery . BTW the topic is evolution not BBT I don't think anyone said the Higgs Boson is religion's discovery. You are a distorter. I'm sure kb didn't say that. The Higgs Boson is not mentioned in The Urantia Book. In any case, what The Urantia Book talks about is not a "discovery." It's revealed information. And kb could be right, talking about the mesotron, but I always thought the "God particle" was the ultimaton. And maybe the Higgs Boson is not the God Particle at all. Who really knows? How can there be a God particle for atheists? Is it atheistic scientists who named it that? 42:1.2 The ultimaton, the first measurable form of energy, has Paradise as its nucleus. -The Urantia Book If I was to say what the "God particle" was I'd say it was the ultimaton, which has Paradise as its nucleus. It's all relativity, you know?
2/1/2016 3:46:58 PM	Let's get to specifics about evolution.
cupocheer Assumption, IL 67, joined May. 2010
2/1/2016 4:06:56 PM	Let's get to specifics about evolution.
olderthandirt20 Waldron, AR 69, joined Jul. 2014	Quote from followjesusonly: I don't think anyone said the Higgs Boson is religion's discovery. You are a distorter. I'm sure kb didn't say that. The Higgs Boson is not mentioned in The Urantia Book. In any case, what The Urantia Book talks about is not a "discovery." It's revealed information. And kb could be right, talking about the mesotron, but I always thought the "God particle" was the ultimaton. And maybe the Higgs Boson is not the God Particle at all. Who really knows? How can there be a God particle for atheists? Is it atheistic scientists who named it that? 42:1.2 The ultimaton, the first measurable form of energy, has Paradise as its nucleus. -The Urantia Book If I was to say what the "God particle" was I'd say it was the ultimaton, which has Paradise as its nucleus. It's all relativity, you know? You really need to read & think before posting furch unless you like the taste of your foot. Quoted from kb2222 Isn't it "interesting" that this explanation for atomic cohesion currently being sought by particle scientists is found in a book published in 1955? Quote from kb2222: What the scientists call the "God particle" that holds matter together the UB calls the "mesotron." 8. Atomic Cohesion 42:8.1 (478.5) While gravity is one of several factors concerned in holding together a tiny atomic energy system, there is also present in and among these basic physical units a powerful and unknown energy, the secret of their basic constitution and ultimate behavior, a force which remains to be discovered on Urantia. This universal influence permeates all the space embraced within this tiny energy organization. Anyhow that can happen when people invent their secret language, may be that's where the missed communication came from. "god particle is actually Higgs boson
2/1/2016 4:35:20 PM	Let's get to specifics about evolution.
followjesusonly Kingman, AZ 73, joined May. 2012 online now!	Quote from followjesusonly: I don't think anyone said the Higgs Boson is religion's discovery. You are a distorter. I'm sure kb didn't say that. The Higgs Boson is not mentioned in The Urantia Book. In any case, what The Urantia Book talks about is not a "discovery." It's revealed information. And kb could be right, talking about the mesotron, but I always thought the "God particle" was the ultimaton. And maybe the Higgs Boson is not the God Particle at all. Who really knows? How can there be a God particle for atheists? Is it atheistic scientists who named it that? 42:1.2 The ultimaton, the first measurable form of energy, has Paradise as its nucleus. -The Urantia Book If I was to say what the "God particle" was I'd say it was the ultimaton, which has Paradise as its nucleus. It's all relativity, you know? You really need to read & think before posting furch unless you like the taste of your foot. Quoted from kb2222 Isn't it "interesting" that this explanation for atomic cohesion currently being sought by particle scientists is found in a book published in 1955? I'm really getting tired of your attitude and your distortions. You distort almost everything and you must do it by design. Argumentative design. I wrote, "I don't think anyone said the Higgs Boson is religion's discovery. I'm sure kb didn't say that." kb did NOT say that the Higgs Boson is religion's discovery as you said. Thus, YOU are wrong. All you have to do is look and you can see that you are wrong. Quote from kb2222: What the scientists call the "God particle" that holds matter together the UB calls the "mesotron." kb apparently thinks that the mesotron is the same as the Higgs Boson. Or he thinks science thinks that. He's certainly entitled to his opinion that the so called Higgs Boson is the UB's mesotron. For myself, I always figured it was the "ultimaton" that was the "God particle." In any case, neither "God particle" nor "Higgs Boson" is in The Urantia Book. The entire conversation has become too stupid to believe and that's caused by people distorting things and misstating and misrepresenting other people's views. Anyhow that can happen when people invent their secret language, may be that's where the missed communication came from. It comes from you, the confusion comes from you, distorting and saying that kb said that the Higgs Boson is "religion's discovery." Kb never said that. "god particle is actually Higgs boson." kb didn't say that either. Is that you saying it? You have no idea if the God particle is the Higgs Boson or not. All you know about the subject is what you read in the papers, so to speak. If we had papers anymore.
2/1/2016 4:46:34 PM	Let's get to specifics about evolution.
cupocheer Assumption, IL 67, joined May. 2010	positive evidence that evolution does not exist. Not you, Dirt. [Edited 2/1/2016 4:47:14 PM ]
2/1/2016 4:53:31 PM	Let's get to specifics about evolution.
kb2222 Jacksonville, FL 75, joined Apr. 2011	Question: "What is the God particle?" Answer: The "God particle" is the nickname of a subatomic particle called the Higgs boson. In layman’s terms, different subatomic particles are responsible for giving matter different properties. One of the most mysterious and important properties is mass. Some particles, like protons and neutrons, have mass. Others, like photons, do not. The Higgs boson, or “God particle,” is believed to be the particle which gives mass to matter. http://www.gotquestions.org/God-particle.html And that is exactly what the UB says the mesotron does as well as provide atomic cohesion. "42:8.3 (479.1) The charged protons and the uncharged neutrons of the nucleus of the atom are held together by the reciprocating function of the mesotron, a particle of matter 180 times as heavy as the electron. Without this arrangement the electric charge carried by the protons would be disruptive of the atomic nucleus. Its amazing how you atheists will create and argue about trivial matters while apparently ignoring the content of the UB quote I posted on "Atomic Cohesion." Read that quote again. Does it really sound like to you atheists what is revealed is someone's imagination?
2/1/2016 5:46:50 PM	Let's get to specifics about evolution.
olderthandirt20 Waldron, AR 69, joined Jul. 2014	(this post has been flagged as inappropriate, sorry.) [Edited 2/1/2016 5:47:53 PM ]
2/1/2016 6:00:24 PM	Let's get to specifics about evolution.
rufftreasure Fairmont, MN 61, joined Jun. 2014 online now!	I love to sit back and watch
2/1/2016 6:02:48 PM	Let's get to specifics about evolution.
thebard58 Hermiston, OR 57, joined Jul. 2010	Quote from rufftreasure: I love to sit back and watch Hey now! Did we ask about your sex life?
2/1/2016 6:03:37 PM	Let's get to specifics about evolution.
followjesusonly Kingman, AZ 73, joined May. 2012 online now!	Quote from rufftreasure: I love to sit back and watch Well, I suppose it beats what you have to look forward to. Blizzard Warning for Martin County, MN From 6:00am CST, Tue Feb 2 until 6:00am CST, Wed Feb 3 Issued by The National Weather Service Minneapolis, MN 3:43pm CST, Mon Feb 1 ... BLIZZARD WARNING REMAINS IN EFFECT FROM 6 AM TUESDAY TO 6 AM CST WEDNESDAY... * EXPECT BLIZZARD CONDITIONS TO DEVELOP AROUND 6 AM TUESDAY AND THEN DIMINISH AROUND 6 AM WEDNESDAY. * WINDS GUSTING AS HIGH AS 45 MPH WILL CAUSE WHITEOUT CONDITIONS IN BLOWING SNOW. SIGNIFICANT DRIFTING OF THE SNOW IS LIKELY. * TOTAL SNOW ACCUMULATIONS OF 7 TO 11 INCHES ARE EXPECTED. * TRAVEL WILL BE VERY DIFFICULT TO IMPOSSIBLE... INCLUDING DURING THE MORNING COMMUTE ON TUESDAY. PRECAUTIONARY/PREPAREDNESS ACTIONS... A BLIZZARD WARNING MEANS SEVERE WINTER WEATHER CONDITIONS ARE EXPECTED OR OCCURRING. FALLING AND BLOWING SNOW WITH STRONG WINDS AND POOR VISIBILITIES ARE LIKELY. THIS WILL LEAD TO WHITEOUT CONDITIONS... MAKING TRAVEL EXTREMELY DANGEROUS. DO NOT TRAVEL. IF YOU MUST TRAVEL... HAVE A WINTER SURVIVAL KIT WITH YOU. IF YOU GET STRANDED... STAY WITH YOUR VEHICLE. THE LATEST ROAD CONDITIONS FOR THE STATE YOU ARE CALLING FROM CAN BE OBTAINED BY CALLING 5 1 1. More Information ... SIGNIFICANT TRAVEL IMPACTS DUE TO SNOW AND BLOWING SNOW EXPECTED FOR MUCH OF CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN MINNESOTA AND WEST CENTRAL WISCONSIN TUESDAY AND TUESDAY NIGHT... .SNOWFALL ACCUMULATIONS OF 6 TO 11 INCHES ARE EXPECTED ALONG AND SOUTH OF A LINE FROM REDWOOD FALLS... TO MINNEAPOLIS... TO CUMBERLAND WISCONSIN ON TUESDAY AND TUESDAY NIGHT. THE HEAVY SNOWFALL ACCUMULATIONS WILL COMBINE WITH BRISK NORTH WINDS TO YIELD BLOWING AND DRIFTING SNOW AND SIGNIFICANT VISIBILITY REDUCTIONS. A BLIZZARD WARNING IS IN EFFECT FOR PARTS OF SOUTHWEST AND SOUTH CENTRAL MINNESOTA... GENERALLY FROM REDWOOD FALLS... TO MANKATO... TO OWATONNA... WHERE SUSTAINED WINDS OF 25 TO 30 MPH WITH GUSTS TO 45 MPH ARE EXPECTED TO REDUCE VISIBILITIES TO ONE QUARTER MILE OR LESS. TO THE NORTH AND EAST... A WINTER STORM WARNING IS IN EFFECT ... GENERALLY FROM A GRANITE FALLS... TO LITCHFIELD... TO TWIN CITIES METRO... TO RICE LAKE WISCONSIN LINE. A WINTER WEATHER ADVISORY IS IN EFFECT JUST SLIGHTLY NORTH OF THE BLIZZARD WARNING AND WINTER STORM WARNING AREAS.
2/1/2016 6:48:59 PM	Let's get to specifics about evolution.
rufftreasure Fairmont, MN 61, joined Jun. 2014 online now!	Yes sir, I am hunkered down, have everything I need for a few days. Schools closing all around us already, they're running the closings across the bottom of the screen. Yep, it's fixin to dump on us,...... yeah buddy!! SO Bard, you gettin any
2/1/2016 7:46:36 PM	Let's get to specifics about evolution.
followjesusonly Kingman, AZ 73, joined May. 2012 online now!	Quote from rufftreasure: Yes sir, I am hunkered down, have everything I need for a few days. Schools closing all around us already, they're running the closings across the bottom of the screen. Yep, it's fixin to dump on us,...... yeah buddy!! SO Bard, you gettin any Is Bard gettin any?
2/1/2016 8:17:19 PM	Let's get to specifics about evolution.
clarence2 South Yorkshire United Kingdom 58, joined May. 2011	. Quote from thebard58: Positing outside agencies that themselves have a biological origin does nothing to answer the problem of how life arose and speciated. Quote from thebard58: Granted. It does not answer the question of the origin of life. However... "seeding" would explain the diversity of life forms, and solve the dilemma of the Cambrian era that was referred to earlier in the thread. I don't see how. You're using a highly improbable and unsupported explanation for something that is readily explainable by rational scientific means, which is tantamout to doing what Brent Dalrymple warns against in the quote I posted and invoking magic - something prohibited in science because it's unfalsifiable and therefore useless. The speed at which the Cambrian explosion happened does not pose an insurmountable problem to the theory of evolution. The Cambrian commenced 545 million years ago, but the animal species that appeared in the Cambrian did so over a gradual period of 80 million years that is similar to the time taken for adaptive radiations of new species following mass extinctions, such as the current period following the Cretaceous Tertiary extinction 65 million years ago. The difference with the Cambrian is that it's an era when many of the established phyla make their first appearance in the fossil record, along with the first animals with hard body parts that fossilize well. But the evidence indicates that the Cambrian doesn't represent a sudden event that demands a magical explanation, and the ancestral roots of major phyla lie in the Pre-Cambrian. The Ediacaran era, named after a group of mountains in Australia where the first fossils were found, started something like 600 million years ago, and molecular clock studies on some modern forms indicate their common ancestors date back even earlier, to as much as 900 million years. Finding fossils this old may be compromised by forms being small and soft bodied, and also by geological factors. http://www.evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/VIIB1cCambrian.shtml Another point that may help to explain the Cambrian Explosion, is that at it's inception the planet is thought to have just emerged from a worldwide ice age, which may have had the effect while it persisted of retarding the rate of evolution in a kind of deep freeze. It's also theorized that genes that comprise a "genetic toolkit" for producing hard body parts and complex forms, such as hox genes, may have first evolved in the Cambrian and resulted in a relatively rapid "arms race" in the evolution of species analogous to how the industrial revolution affected human progress and our impact on the planet in what would appear a dramatic and sudden way if viewed in geological time. You'll no doubt notice I'm using qualifiers such as "may have" to indicate uncertainty here, but all the same, these speculations are far more down to earth and plausible than invoking outside supernatural or extra-terrestrial agencies. We do after all, know that periodic extreme climate change and hox genes exist. Quote from the clarence2: ...Also, there's no serious evidence that intelligent aliens exist and have visited earth. Writers like Von Daniken are merely clever opportunists creatively misinterpreting ancient atefacts... Quote from thebard58: Just what would you consider "serious evidence"? IMO Von Daniken presented his argument quite logically. Carl Sagan disagrees with you: That writing as careless as von Däniken's, whose principal thesis is that our ancestors were dummies, should be so popular is a sober commentary on the credulousness and despair of our times. I also hope for the continuing popularity of books like Chariots of the Gods? in high school and college logic courses, as object lessons in sloppy thinking. I know of no recent books so riddled with logical and factual errors as the works of von Däniken. —?Carl Sagan, Foreword to The Space Gods Revealed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erich_von_D%C3%A4niken#Criticism Quote from thebard58: Whether someone deems what he considered evidence for his POV to be so, in fact, is subject to interpretation. And POV will depend on how rational and educated on the subject a person is, and how susceptible a person is to the influence of pseudoscience and pop culture, which is why the "ancient aliens" view will not be found in the POV of most scientists and academics. Quote from thebard58: And one might make the same statement you make here about Von Daniken, in regards to espousers of evolution as the process/cause for the existence of diverse species. People who accept evolution because they've assessed the mountain of evidence have nothing in common with writers like Von Daniken, who make sensational unsupported assertions based on creative misinterpretations of ancient texts and artefacts. I find it astounding that you think there's any common ground between the hypothesis of ancient aliens and the theory of evolution, but this isn't unusual among Americans who have no grasp of what standards of evidence and falsifiability are required for something to be designated a scientific theory - which is a point we keep returning to. Quote from thebard58: If I "blithely dismiss" something, I don't generally bother discussing it. I'm not sure you can be described as "discussing" evolution in a rational way, when you compare the chances of it being true with pseudoscientific "ancient aliens" ideas. Your POV sounds much on the same lines as other forum evolution denialists - a staunch rejection of science and reason coupled with an easy credulity for accepting pseudoscience, fringe theories and supernaturalism as an alternative. I realize this general trend is a curious malaise that characterizes particular subcultures in the US, and has complex psycho-social roots. New Scientist mag published a feature on it a few years ago: [Edited 2/1/2016 8:20:07 PM ]
2/1/2016 8:17:36 PM	Let's get to specifics about evolution.
clarence2 South Yorkshire United Kingdom 58, joined May. 2011	More stuff.. Quote from thebard58: I am simply pointing out that IMO the same concept applies to discussions regarding evolution as the origin of the species, as is often asserted regarding theological discussions. (I.E.- A led to B, though we can't explain it...which contains the inherent assumption that A led to B.) I see scant resemblance between science and theology in the aspect of how inferences about reality are made. Theology is usually about the nature, behaviour and intentions of unseen counter-intuitive agencies as represented in the religious texts of ancient cultures, what religious practitioners wish to be true about them, and the dogmatic rejection of contradictory evidence, whereas science (including the science of evolutionary theory) is exclusively about what the physical evidence indicates to be true, whether we like it or not. Quote from thebard58: If you look over the sources you, yourself, have quoted, and see how many words such as "may have", "must have", or "might have" and "scientists" "think", or "believe", etc., you should (giving you credit for the intelligence I believe you possess) see what I mean. As bogie and some of the scientists I've quoted have continually reiterated, science, unlike religion, doesn't claim eternal, infallible, final truth. By convention, a scientific theory always remains open to falsification and disproof. Nor do individual pieces of evidence, such as a range of hominid fossils for instance, come out of the ground ready labelled, so it isn't unusual for scientists to argue the toss with each other and make estimates, with the kinds of qualifiers you cite, of which forms were probably directly ancestral to which others. I understand that some types of people have a problem with uncertainty and would rather have some religious authority tell them what they have "infallibly" decided is the truth. Just one small problem with that though is that those religious authorities are almost certainly lying for reasons of retaining personal or institutional power, or are mistaken. I can understand people finding comfort in false certitudes, but personally, I'm okay with the honesty of a system of thought that explains reality by giving relative degrees of probability for its truth claims. Quote from thebard58: Something I found intriguing about Von Daniken's concept, is that it explains certain archaeological finds, and reports found in "religious" texts around the globe, including such things as the NAZCA lines, the "giants", and the designs for "vimana" found in the Vedas (I believe Jim has referred to those frequently). National Geographic says of NAZCA lines: At one time or another, they have been explained as Inca roads, irrigation plans, images to be appreciated from primitive hot-air balloons, and, most laughably, landing strips for alien spacecraft. http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2010/03/nasca/hall-text/2 Nuff said. Quote from thebard58: Seems to me that extra-terrestrial interference would explain a lot of mysteries. It seems to me that "extra-terrestrial interference" hypotheses are unsupported, fanciful, unnecessary, and raise more questions than they answer. I think they cheapen the very real scientifically interesting and, in my opinion, important question of is there intelligent life elsewhere in the universe by pretending to have found the answer without producing any credible evidence. It's as if the proponents of these theories don't care about evidence in deciding what is true, which is a feature I identify in many forum members in discussions like these. Brute prejudice and credulity towards the weakest and worst sources seems to be the rule of the day for many people in forming their beliefs.
2/1/2016 9:03:51 PM	Let's get to specifics about evolution.
jrbogie1949 Red Bluff, CA 67, joined Mar. 2009	Clarence, did you understand bard as I did? he can accept as plausible that et had an influence in the ascension of the species???
2/1/2016 10:04:07 PM	Let's get to specifics about evolution.
followjesusonly Kingman, AZ 73, joined May. 2012 online now!	* "The Seeding," as Bard suggests: Richard Dawkins: "For example the Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years, are the oldest ones in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history." It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history." 58:4.2 550,000,000 years ago the Life Carrier corps returned to Urantia. In co-operation with spiritual powers and superphysical forces we organized and initiated the original life patterns of this world and planted them in the hospitable waters of the realm. All planetary life (aside from extraplanetary personalities) down to the days of Caligastia, the Planetary Prince, had its origin in our three original, identical, and simultaneous marine-life implantations. These three life implantations have been designated as: the central or Eurasian-African, the eastern or Australasian, and the western, embracing Greenland and the Americas. -The Urantia Book It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history." It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history." It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history." It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history."
2/2/2016 4:56:37 PM	Let's get to specifics about evolution.
clarence2 South Yorkshire United Kingdom 58, joined May. 2011	The context surrounding furch's favourite creationist quote mine. It's from page 229 of Chapter 9 of Richard Dawkins, book, The Blind Watchmaker. The chapter is titled Puncturing Punctuationism, and contains RD's critique of Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Etheridge's hypothesis of Punctuated Equilibrium. The discarded early 20th century hypothesis of Saltationism—as featured in the Urantia book is also refuted. Saltationism proposes that evolution progresses by means of large, improbable, sudden mutations where new species are created in real time leaving no intermediate forms. Dawkins makes clear (not in this short extract) that Gould and Etheridge were not proposing Saltationism in their hypothesis of Punctuated Equilibrium. The substance of the quote for what interests us here, is that RD admits to gaps in the fossil record in the era preceding the Pre-Cambrian that may be due to organisms being soft bodied before this time and therefore not conducive to fossilization. Before we come to the sort of sudden bursts that they had in mind, there are some conceivable meanings of 'sudden bursts' that they most definitely did not have in mind. These must be cleared out of the way because they have been the subject of serious misunderstandings. Eldredge and Gould certainly would agree that some very important gaps really are due to imperfections in the fossil record. Very big gaps, too. For example the Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years, are the oldest ones in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists. Evolutionists of all stripes believe, however, that this really does represent a very large gap in the fossil record, a gap that is simply due to the fact that, for some reason, very few fossils have lasted from periods before about 600 million years ago. One good reason might be that many of these animals had only soft parts to their bodies: no shells or bones to fossilize. If you are a creationist you may think that this is special pleading. My point here is that, when we are talking about gaps of this magnitude, there is no difference whatever in the interpretations of 'punctuationists' and 'gradualists'. Both schools of thought despise so-called scientific creationists equally, and both agree that the major gaps are real, that they are true imperfections in the fossil record. Both schools of thought agree that the only alternative explanation of the sudden appearance of so many complex animal types in the Cambrian era is divine creation, and both would reject this alternative.
2/2/2016 5:41:39 PM	Let's get to specifics about evolution.
followjesusonly Kingman, AZ 73, joined May. 2012 online now!	* 48:7.30 28. The argumentative defense of any proposition is inversely proportional to the truth contained. -The Urantia Book Quote from clarence2: The context surrounding furch's favourite creationist quote mine. It's from page 229 of Chapter 9 of Richard Dawkins, book, The Blind Watchmaker. The chapter is titled Puncturing Punctuationism, and contains RD's critique of Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Etheridge's hypothesis of Punctuated Equilibrium. The discarded early 20th century hypothesis of Saltationism—as featured in the Urantia book is also refuted. Saltationism proposes that evolution progresses by means of large, improbable, sudden mutations where new species are created in real time leaving no intermediate forms. Dawkins makes clear (not in this short extract) that Gould and Etheridge were not proposing Saltationism in their hypothesis of Punctuated Equilibrium. The substance of the quote for what interests us here, is that RD admits to gaps in the fossil record in the era preceding the Pre-Cambrian that may be due to organisms being soft bodied before this time and therefore not conducive to fossilization. Before we come to the sort of sudden bursts that they had in mind, there are some conceivable meanings of 'sudden bursts' that they most definitely did not have in mind. These must be cleared out of the way because they have been the subject of serious misunderstandings. Eldredge and Gould certainly would agree that some very important gaps really are due to imperfections in the fossil record. Very big gaps, too. For example the Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years, are the oldest ones in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists. Evolutionists of all stripes believe, however, that this really does represent a very large gap in the fossil record, a gap that is simply due to the fact that, for some reason, very few fossils have lasted from periods before about 600 million years ago. One good reason might be that many of these animals had only soft parts to their bodies: no shells or bones to fossilize. If you are a creationist you may think that this is special pleading. My point here is that, when we are talking about gaps of this magnitude, there is no difference whatever in the interpretations of 'punctuationists' and 'gradualists'. Both schools of thought despise so-called scientific creationists equally, and both agree that the major gaps are real, that they are true imperfections in the fossil record. Both schools of thought agree that the only alternative explanation of the sudden appearance of so many complex animal types in the Cambrian era is divine creation, and both would reject this alternative.
2/2/2016 5:50:44 PM	Let's get to specifics about evolution.
clarence2 South Yorkshire United Kingdom 58, joined May. 2011	. Quote from followjesusonly: * 48:7.30 28. The argumentative defense of any proposition is inversely proportional to the truth contained. -The Urantia Book Does that mean we know the UB is untrue as an argument because the book's so bloated?
2/2/2016 5:58:20 PM	Let's get to specifics about evolution.
followjesusonly Kingman, AZ 73, joined May. 2012 online now!	Quote from clarence2: . Quote from followjesusonly: * 48:7.30 28. The argumentative defense of any proposition is inversely proportional to the truth contained. -The Urantia Book Does that mean we know the UB is untrue as an argument because the book's so bloated? No. It means look at all the verbiage, time, and energy you've wasted trying to explain away "It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history."
2/3/2016 6:53:45 AM	Let's get to specifics about evolution.
clarence2 South Yorkshire United Kingdom 58, joined May. 2011	I can see how the quote suits your purposes very well because in his Readers Digest compendium of Jesusy religion and early 20th century (mostly discarded) science, Sadler has written that the Life Carriers implanted life on earth in the Cambrian era (like tooth fairies), but Dawkins doesn't have magic in mind, and is using exaggerated rhetoric there to set the scene for his critique of Punctuated Equilibrium, which is a hypothesis devised by its creators to address the problem of discontinuities in the fossil record. RD gives a plausible scientific explanation for the relatively sudden appearance of the fossils. I think you'd be better using the time spent endlessly reposting those quote mines and doing your daily round of heckling Lud for calling priests "father" for reading some books on evolution and learning something new. It's never too late. This is interesting from the BBC News site: Are humans driving evolution in animals? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-35462335 [Edited 2/3/2016 6:55:03 AM ]
2/3/2016 7:29:41 AM	Let's get to specifics about evolution.
nonstandard York, PA 53, joined Jun. 2009	Quote from clarence2: I can see how the quote suits your purposes very well because in his Readers Digest compendium of Jesusy religion and early 20th century (mostly discarded) science, Sadler has written that the Life Carriers implanted life on earth in the Cambrian era (like tooth fairies), but Dawkins doesn't have magic in mind, and is using exaggerated rhetoric there to set the scene for his critique of Punctuated Equilibrium, which is a hypothesis devised by its creators to address the problem of discontinuities in the fossil record. RD gives a plausible scientific explanation for the relatively sudden appearance of the fossils. I think you'd be better using the time spent endlessly reposting those quote mines and doing your daily round of heckling Lud for calling priests "father" for reading some books on evolution and learning something new. It's never too late. This is interesting from the BBC News site: Are humans driving evolution in animals? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-35462335 The rodents have been getting smarter , by observing the habits , and habitats of humans . Now , even the forest creatures are getting in on the action . In our urban habitats , there's never a shortage of food , water , and shelter .
2/3/2016 7:41:22 AM	Let's get to specifics about evolution.
clarence2 South Yorkshire United Kingdom 58, joined May. 2011	I just came across this piece of UB evolutionary unwisdom on an old thread. [Edited 2/3/2016 7:42:27 AM ]
2/3/2016 8:46:03 AM	Let's get to specifics about evolution.
kb2222 Jacksonville, FL 75, joined Apr. 2011	65:2.6 (732.4) The stage was thus set for the appearance of the first backboned animals, the fishes. From this fish family there sprang two unique modifications, the frog and the salamander. And it was the frog which began that series of progressive differentiations in animal life that finally culminated in man himself. 65:2.7 (732.5) The frog is one of the earliest of surviving human-race ancestors, but it also failed to progress, persisting today much as in those remote times. The frog is the only species ancestor of the early dawn races now living on the face of the earth. The human race has no surviving ancestry between the frog and the Eskimo. 65:2.8 (732.6) The frogs gave rise to the Reptilia, a great animal family which is virtually extinct, but which, before passing out of existence, gave origin to the whole bird family and the numerous orders of mammals. 65:2.9 (732.7) Probably the greatest single leap of all prehuman evolution was executed when the reptile became a bird. The bird types of today — eagles, ducks, pigeons, and ostriches — all descended from the enormous reptiles of long, long ago.
2/3/2016 9:48:52 AM	Let's get to specifics about evolution.
nonstandard York, PA 53, joined Jun. 2009	Quote from kb2222: 65:2.6 (732.4) The stage was thus set for the appearance of the first backboned animals, the fishes. From this fish family there sprang two unique modifications, the frog and the salamander. And it was the frog which began that series of progressive differentiations in animal life that finally culminated in man himself. 65:2.7 (732.5) The frog is one of the earliest of surviving human-race ancestors, but it also failed to progress, persisting today much as in those remote times. The frog is the only species ancestor of the early dawn races now living on the face of the earth. The human race has no surviving ancestry between the frog and the Eskimo. 65:2.8 (732.6) The frogs gave rise to the Reptilia, a great animal family which is virtually extinct, but which, before passing out of existence, gave origin to the whole bird family and the numerous orders of mammals. 65:2.9 (732.7) Probably the greatest single leap of all prehuman evolution was executed when the reptile became a bird. The bird types of today — eagles, ducks, pigeons, and ostriches — all descended from the enormous reptiles of long, long ago. Its a potpourri of fact , and fiction . Every book that tells people how to behave does this . They have an agenda , yes they are smart as hell , but they're using the dimwits to lead their parade .

free hookup apps without in app purchases

london hookup app