"No. To think that a particular state can just come back 200 years after it was dissolved is simplistic. The component parts have gone their own ways for too long."
***The territory that was in the HRE is still there. The Catholic Church is still there. Descendants of the citizens of the empire is still there. And what God says about this empire (beast) is still there.
Many Europeans can trace their ancestry back hundreds of years. I know of a German count who traced his heritage back to the 1100.
You wrote: "Funny you make him sound exactly like the kind if guy Trump would get on with - like Vladimir Putin or Kim Jong-un."
***Jung-un and Putin started no wars while Trump was in office. And Trump never ran off and deserved our soldiers; personnel of four allies, and nearly 100 billion dollars of Sophisticated weaponry in Afghanistan.
You wrote:
"sure you know. It’s not more of the nonsense that your silly cult puts out like the English being Israelites or 110-year-old Nazis suddenly coming back and taking over. Really how can anyone believe that rot?
***You have no idea who Israel is. You think that all are Jews. You ignore so much scripture in order to believe this.
Moses describes the blessings God gave each tribe in Deuteronomy 33. They are all living separately. Notice what Moses promised Joseph (Ephraim and Manasseh) in verses 13-17.
Also notice what Jacob says about his son's and their respected tribes in Genesis 49. Judah (the Jews) are in verses 9-12. The Jews receive a promise that the Messiah would come through them, which He did.
Verses 22-26 lists the blessings of Joseph (Ephraim and Manasseh). Reuben (much of France) was the firstborn, but he slept with his father's concubine, so the blessings were given to Joseph's two sons
France has had some power through the years, but they were never the strongest nation.
Jacob (Israel) in Genesis 48 bestows the material blessings on Ephraim and Manasseh.
But, even more than that, he bestows his very name (his name was Israel) on them(v. 16). One was to become a company of nations; the other to become a single great nation.
The birthright blessings were withheld from them for 2500 years because of the sins. Not going into that here.
In 2 Kings 16:1-6 (KJV) the first place where the word Jew is used they are fighting a battle against Israel.
C3, you fucking idiot! This topic is not the place for your stupid bullshit lies about evolution! Why the fuck do you keep cow-plopping them all over the place?
I could propose a new topic for this "discussion" (scare quotes because you refuse to engage in discussion), JUST AS IT DID FOR C-14 DISCUSSION WITH Radiocarbon Dating Discussion with candle2, but you just ignore it and never go there exactly as you have done with Message 72.
For that matter, I did indeed propose a new topic to house these messages about evolution and whatever stupid bullshit nonsense you call "evolution": A Creationism Sandbox for candle2 . It was not approved (Message 2, 08-Nov-2023):
I understand and sympathize with what you're trying to do, but we require the evolution discussion threads to have a focused topic. "Explaining everything" is too broad.
So we're stuck with you fowling everything up for everyone, you stupid piece-of-shit asshole.
Why are you that way? Not only repeating the same stupid repeatedly refuted lies, but also advocating for killing innocent women (for no reason except you believe your stupid god demands is) and dumping families with little children dressed only in shorts and t-shirts in the streets of New York City in the middle of December (I forget whether that was DeSantis or Abbot, but in Message 72 you expressed your complete support for such atrocities) while denying the teachings of Jesus.
Are you a victim of the immoral corrupting influence of your evil religion and its evil god? Don't you think that it's time to switch to a different god? To find a better religion?
Have you ever considered Christianity? Have you even heard of it? Sure, it has a plethora of serious problems, but those problems are miniscule compared to your current religion's problems.
Sure, the teachings of Christianity go completely against your monstrous urges, but it's worth looking into. It is painfully obvious that you are far to immoral and spiritually undeveloped to be able to handle the best option, atheism, but proper Christianity should still serve as a workable solution in your situation.
Consider it! You have nothing to lose and you might even get your soul back!
Dwise, you wrote: "The origin of matter has nothing whatsoever to do with evolution. You may as well refute football by complaining that it fails to explain the origin of matter." ***Sure it does. The fact is that you have no idea about the origin of matter.
Wow! Talk about the pot calling the silverware black!
I have absolutely no doubt that I have a far better idea about the origin of matter than you do, especially considering the astounding depths of profound ignorance that you constantly display.
Go ahead, explain to us HOW matter came into existence. Unlike you who explicitly ignores our explanations, we will listen to yours.
But know that the question is HOW? The answer to a HOW question provides a sequence of events and description of the processes that play a part. You will try to avoid providing an answer by muttering the encantation: "goddidit" "goddidit" does absolutely nothing to answer a HOW question. Instead, invoking "goddidit" is nothing but an appeal to God of the Gaps, which itself is a desperate attempt to cover up your abject ignorance. Which means that invoking "goddidit" is your tacit admission of your own complete and utter ignorance.
And you have the arrogance and audacity to demand complete details explanations (which you just ignore anyway) while refusing to even try to answer any of our highly pertinent questions. What an asshole!
You do not get the benefit of ooze in a murky pond in which life came about. You must first explain how the material came to be.
Wow! Talk about the pot calling the silverware black!
Please explain COMPLETELY why I "must first explain how the material came to be" and why it's supposed to matter!
The reality is that it does not matter because it's undeniably there regardless of how it got there! It does not matter at all where or how matter came from since it's undeniably here and it behaves the same.
Basically, your argument would apply to everything you ever put together with screws: YOU are claiming that if we don't know where screws (and the material they consist of), then everything we have ever screwed together will suddenly and spontaneously fall apart. That is really stupid, even for you!
Matter exists and behaves as it does regardless of how it came into existence.
Life exists and behaves as it does regardless of how it came into existence.
Evolution is an integral part of life, basically the complete set of the consequences of life doing what life naturally does; ie, populations of individuals surviving and reproducing, etc.
REGARDLESS OF HOW LIFE GOT HERE, be that naturally or supernaturally, EVOLUTION STILL STARTS UP WHEN THE FIRST LIVING THING COMES INTO EXISTENCE. Life works as it works regardless of how it got started.
Therefore, THERE IS NO CONFLICT BETWEEN DIVINE CREATION AND EVOLUTION. The only conflict that could possibly exist is if idiots like you create that conflict by telling lies about Creation and evolution, which is exactly what you keep doing.
And just because things are caused by natural processes, that does not conflict with "God", since according to Creation the Creator also created those natural processes to do what they do. So no conflict unless you create a conflict with stupid lies; eg, creationism.
What part of that are you too willfully stupid to understand?
quote:
**The territory that was in the HRE is still there. The Catholic Church is still there. Descendants of the citizens of the empire is still there.
None of which addresses the problems of reviving a state which has been gone for over 200 years. You could create a new state occupying the same territory - but it still wouldn’t be the Holy Roman Empire. That’s just stupid.
quote:
… And what God says about this empire (beast) is still there.
God says nothing about the Holy Roman Empire. You’re just refusing to admit that the interpretations of the men you worship could be wrong - even though it is obvious. What more proof do we need of your idolatry?
quote:
***Jung-un and Putin started no wars while Trump was in office. And Trump never ran off and deserved our soldiers; personnel of four allies, and nearly 100 billion dollars of Sophisticated weaponry in Afghanistan.
And Trump - who arranged the pull-out from Afghanistan and boasted that Biden couldn’t stop it - attributes that to his good relationship with Putin and Kim.
quote:
***You have no idea who Israel is. You think that all are Jews. You ignore so much scripture in order to believe this.
You know perfectly well that I don’t think that all the descendants of the Israelite tribes are Jews so why you decide to lie about it I have no idea. However that doesn’t mean that I’m dumb enough to think that people who are culturally, linguistically and genetically Indo-European are “really” Semites. Especially not when the “evidence” is a silly crank book.
And stupid interpretations of scripture aren’t any better.
And that’s all you have.
I’ll stick with the real evidence and reject the dumb fantasies of cranks. Too bad you haven’t the sense to do the same. Your salvation does not depend on believing ridiculous falsehoods and any Christian would agree.
Dwise, stop acting like a wild man; you are running off at the mouth because I am not buying the lies of evolutionists.
No, it is because YOU ARE BUYING THE LIES OF CREATIONISTS.
When I started studying creationist claims, I did so thinking that maybe there's something to it after all and I wanted to see what it was.
That was well over forty years ago with my online discussions having started just barely forty years ago. In all that time, four decades, I have never encountered a single creationist claim that didn't prove to be false. Not even one had even a glimmer of truth to it, nor any validity.
If you honestly believe this propaganda crap that you spew, then you are indeed very gullible.
You're projecting again. YOU are indeed very gullible since you actually seem to believe the PROPAGADA CRAP THAT YOU SPEW.
What I have been posting are corrections to your propaganda crap. You keep spewing crap and I keep having to clean up after you. And what makes matters worse, regardless of how many times I correct you and explain to you how things work, you keep returning spewing the exact same tired old stupid propaganda crap as if you had never been informed of what's wrong with it.
Your sheer inability to ever learn anything is mind-boggling!
As is your gullibility. I mean, just look at your fascination with such total idiocies as "giant mud fossils" and that magic tricks are caused by demons!
Please do yourself and us a big favor: start asking questions about what you are told.
Asking questions about what you are being told is an essential skill when reading creationist claims, because creationists constantly lie. For example, when a creationist quotes a scientist or scientific article (he's actually quote mining so he can lie about it), get that reference and read the original article. Forrest Valkai's favorite advice is "Go to the original source and read the next sentence." Erika "Gutsick Gibbon" loves to display the source being "quoted" to point out that the creationist only quotes from the first sentence or two of the abstract, where they state the problem being studied, but leaves out the concluding sentences which states that they had solved the problem and this is how, just so the creationist can lie that "the paper admits to this huge problem that has no solution", THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF WHAT THE PAPER ACTUALLY SAYS.
I even came across a creationist "single-sentence quote" from a scientific paper from the 1920's or 1930's with an ellipsis ( ... ) in the middle. When I went to the original article I found that that ellipsis had replaced FOUR FULL PAGES of text, such that the two halves of that "single sentence" were from two different sentences in two different contexts saying different things. Kind of like that bird fossil that a Chinese farmer had codged together from two different fossils. Yet another object lesson to always go to the primary source.
IOW, creationists always lie, so we must always investigate and verify a creationist's claim instead of just being very gullible and accepting it at face value.
The same goes for scientific claims. If you have questions about a scientific claim, then investigate, study, and verify it. The difference between scientific claims and creationist claims is that scientific claims will stand up to scrutiny, whereas creationist claims fall completely apart the moment you start poking it with your finger.
Oh! You could start with the false creationist claims about Dr. Mary Schweitzer's work by going to the original source, Dr. Mary Schweitzer herself! I already provided you with LINKS to her in my Message 2943 (18-Sep-2023):
You keep misrepresenting Dr. Mary Schweitzer's work.
She never did find neither soft tissues nor blood cells. She doesn't know what the fuck you creationists are talking about, but she is really pissed off at you assholes for lying about her work.
Remember, she used to be a young-earth creationist herself and started working on her PhD Biology in order to learn more to use against evolution. Instead, she learned that creationists had been lying to her all along. And now they are lying even more, but this time about her and her work.
What she did find was that there is much more involved in fossilization than was previously thought. She did find fossilized remains of soft tissue and blood vessels, but not the original tissue and vessels. She had to soak that in an acid bath in order to remove the minerals which rendered the sample flexible. And she was able to find trace collagen, which is more durable than many proteins. Also, that was found inside a femur, which would have protected the original tissue longer, much like insect tissue can be preserved longer in amber or "green fossil" leaves can be preserved much longer when sealed in mud (such that the phylogenetic tree of those species of tree could be constructed by the evolution of its proteins).
Here are a few videos to bring you up to date on this subject:
Aron Ra's interview with Dr. Mary Schweitzer, ¡yet again!:
Tony Reed's How Creationism Taught Me Real Science 21 Dinosaur Soft Tissue video:
That last video is from a series of about 100 videos called How Creationism Taught Me Real Science. The reason for that title is that by examining and investigating creationist claims, one can learn a lot about real science.
You should give it a try yourself. You might even learn something.
Personally, I don't think that you believe it.
Don't know what you mean by "believe", since it's not a matter of blind faith as in your case.
Rather, I accept evolution as our best explanation for the diversity of life because I have studied it and tested it to the best of my ability.
I'm an engineer by nature. If I see something, I immediately try to figure out how it works. For example, as we were crossing a pedestrian bridge in the mills area of Strasbourg, I noticed a curved joint running across it. I immediately deduced it must be a swing bridge and I quickly determined where its pivot point was and where its "receiving recess" (can't think of the proper term) was even though it was overgrown with vegetation -- the ones at the Albert Docks in Liverpool are freely visible and helped me know what to look for in Strasbourg.
At the same time, I almost never accept something just because I'm told that that is how it is. I still have to think about it and try to figure out how it works (that includes social structures, protocols, etc). For me, everything has to make some kind of sense; if something doesn't make sense then that's a problem that needs to be solved.
There have been a number of times in my life when I had accepted something that turned out to be wrong. What had happened was that I would think about it, mentally applying it and testing it, find a problem which I then resolved through further study (that's how you learn), and so on. But when I found things unresolvedly wrong with it, then I would let it go and no longer accept it. Many times.
So if evolution were wrong, I would have eventually realized it and would no longer accept it. But so far it has passed every test and examination.
OTOH, creationism immediately failed the first test, then the next, and then every single test applied to it. So why do you believe in creationism? Especially when it actually opposes the Creation (you might want to go back and actually readMessage 77).
You just do not wish to accept the alternative.
The alternative would be to become a creationist. To go from honest truth-seeker to dishonest lying deceiving piece of shit would be intolerable. I wouldn't be able to live with myself.
How could you even suggest such a despicable thing?
If you honestly believe this propaganda crap that you spew, then you are indeed very gullible.
If you want to discuss evolution then start a thread on the topic and participate in the conversation. I would be more than happy to present the evidence to you.
A quick continuation. I will start a new topic for this, but we all know that you will never go to it like you have never gone to the Radiocarbon topic I started for you.
As I described in Message 81, creationists are lying to you. In that message, I described the approaches of two YouTubers with science degrees (Forrest Valkai in biology, Erika "Gutsick Gibbon" working on her doctorate in primate paleontology (or something like that) -- Erika had also been raised on YEC, so she is very familiar with that -- , so they know what they're talking about far more than you or other creationists do): both go to the primary source cited by creationists which immediately refutes the creationist claim; Forrest does it by reading the next sentence after the "quote" and Erika does it by reading the rest of the "quoted" abstract.
Bottom line: creationists lie about everything and anything they get their hands on. Prove me wrong.
Also, Schweitzer did find blood cells and soft tissue in a supposedly 75,000,000 T-Rex fossil.
No, she did not. Yes, creationists claim that she did, but they are lying to you.
Go to the primary source, which is Dr. Mary Schweitzer. I keep pointing you to this interview with her:
Watch it. Listen to her. Trust her, the primary source, over lying creationists.
talk.origins also has a lot of material about the creationist lies about her findings. For example, Dino-blood and the Young Earth (Last updated: February 16, 2004). That site's Index to Creationist Claims project has this entry (copy-and-pasted from that page's HTML source):
quote:
Claim CC371:
Schweitzer et al. (1997a) found evidence of hemoglobin and red blood cells in an unfossilized Tyrannosaurus rex bone. This indicates that the dinosaur died rather recently, not millions of years ago, which in turn indicates that the earth is young.
Ham, K., J. Sarfati and C. Wieland, 2000. The Revised and Expanded Answers Book. Green Forest AR: Master Books, pp. 246-247.
Response:
Schweitzer et al. did not find hemoglobin or red blood cells. Rather, they found evidence of degraded hemoglobin fragments and structures that might represent altered blood remnants. They emphasizd repeatedly that even those results were tentative, that the chemicals and structures may be from geological processes and contamination (Schweitzer and Horner 1999; Schweitzer and Staedter 1997; Schweitzer et al. 1997a, 1997b). The bone is exceptionally well preserved, so much so that it may contain some organic material from the original dinosaur, but the preservation should not be exaggerated.
The bone that Schweitzer and her colleagues studied was fossilized, but it was not altered by "permineralization or other diagenetic effects" (Schweitzer et al. 1997b). Permineralization is the filling of the bone's open parts with minerals; diagenetic effects include alterations like cracking. Schweitzer commented that the bone was "not completely fossilized" (Schweitzer and Staedter 1997, 35), but lack of permineralization does not mean unfossilized.
An ancient age of the bone is supported by the (nonradiometric) amino racemization dating technique.
Soft tissues have been found on fossils tens of thousands of years old, and DNA has been recovered from samples more than 300,000 years old (Stokstad 2003; Willerslev et al. 2003). If dinosaur fossils were as young as creationists claim, recovering DNA and non-bone tissues from them should be routine enough that it would not be news.
Schweitzer, Mary H., Mark Marshall, Keith Carron, D. Scott Bohle, Scott C. Busse, Ernst V. Arnold, Darlene Barnard, J. R. Horner, and Jean R. Starkey, 1997a. Heme compounds in dinosaur trabecular bone. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA 94: 6291-6296. href="http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/94/12/6291">Just a moment...
Schweitzer, M. H., C. Johnson, T. G. Zocco, J. H. Horner and J. R. Starkey, 1997b. Preservation of biomolecules in cancellous bone of Tyrannosaurus rex. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 17(2): 349-359.
Schweitzer, M. and T. Staedter, 1997. The real Jurassic Park. Earth, June, pp. 55-57.
Schweitzer, Mary Higby and John R. Horner, 1999. Intrasvascular microstructures in trabecular bone tissues of Tyrannosaurus rex. Annales de Paléontologie 85(3): 179-192.
Stokstad, Erik. 2003. Ancient DNA pulled from soil. Science 300: 407.
Willerslev, E. et al. 2003. Diverse plant and animal genetic records from Holocene and Pleistocene sediments. Science 300: 791-795.
Stop relying on creationist lies and learn what really happened.
But, she is not the only who has done so. I am not about to list them all; you would only call them liars, or insist that they are mistaken.
She brought attention to the fact that there's a lot more involved in fossilization than had been thought previously. And, yes, many scientists have done follow-up research. I would not call those scientists liars nor insist that they are mistaken.Rather, I DO CALL LIARS THE CREATIONISTS WHO LIE ABOUT THE FINDINGS OF THOSE SCIENTISTS.
However, Maidment and Bertazoo found nucleus of red blood cells and amino acid that make up collagen in 75,000,000 year old fossils of what they believe to be from a triceratops, a duck-billed dino; and, a carnivorous theropod.
No, they did not. When you read their paper, THE PRIMARY SOURCE, where did you read them saying that?
Oh, you didn't read the primary source. You only read what some stupid lying creationists falsely claimed; stupid lying creationists who like you relied on other stupid lying creationists instead of going to the primary source.
Abstract:Exceptionally preserved organic remains are known throughout the vertebrate fossil record, and recently, evidence has emerged that such soft tissue might contain original components. We examined samples from eight Cretaceous dinosaur bones using nano-analytical techniques; the bones are not exceptionally preserved and show no external indication of soft tissue. In one sample, we observe structures consistent with endogenous collagen fibre remains displaying ∼67 nm banding, indicating the possible preservation of the original quaternary structure. Using ToF-SIMS, we identify amino-acid fragments typical of collagen fibrils. Furthermore, we observe structures consistent with putative erythrocyte remains that exhibit mass spectra similar to emu whole blood. Using advanced material characterization approaches, we find that these putative biological structures can be well preserved over geological timescales, and their preservation is more common than previously thought. The preservation of protein over geological timescales offers the opportunity to investigate relationships, physiology and behaviour of long extinct animals.
"Structures", "remains", not what your creationists have been hawking.
More specifically, you claim "Maidment and Bertazoo found nucleus of red blood cells". There is only one paragraph in the primary source which comes even close to that:
Maidment et al.:Internal structures investigated by FIB
To evaluate the internal structure of the features imaged by SEM, we initially used a FIB to section the erythrocyte-like structures from NHMUK R12562 and fibrous structures present in NHMUK R4493, rib fragments from an indeterminate dinosaur (Supplementary Fig. 1). Interestingly, denser structures (as imaged by the backscattering detector) were observed inside the erythrocyte-like structures (Figs 2a,b). To further investigate these features, three-dimensional (3D) reconstruction of serial sections of an agglomeration of erythrocyte-like structures (Fig. 2c and Supplementary Movie 1) showed that each was concave, whereas the dense internal features resembled nuclei and could be clearly distinguished within each of them.
Not "nuclei" but rather "dense internal features resembled nuclei". And no blood cells, but rather "erythrocyte-like structures".
BTW, since you obviously have never studied biology (you really should try to correct that personal deficiency), "erythrocyte" (Greek, "red cell") refers to red blood cells, which have no nucleus. Immature erythrocytes do initially have a nucleus but then expel it during development. Since the sample could have been bone marrow, immature red blood cells could have been present when the dinosaur died, but no longer. Despite creationist lies.
Stop wasting your life on this garbage. It's a dead end.
Take your own advice!
You should stop wasting your life on creationist garbage. It is truly a dead end, as well as a death trap for your faith and the faith of others.
Those who live by the lie will die by the lie. Just ask countless ex-Christians who have gone before you and had their faith killed by creationism.
™ Version 4.2
(1)