26 May 13
Originally posted by sonhouseThis is nothing more than adaptation.
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/350636/description/How_roaches_developed_disgust_at_first_bite
Evolution in action and in a very short time. Now traps will have to be baited with fructose or Maltose (males make maltose to attract females).
The Instructor
26 May 13
Originally posted by RJHindsLots of these little 'adaptations' as you call them and you have a new species.
This is nothing more than adaptation.
The Instructor
That is evolution in action. You can poo poo it all you want, relic. In a few years you will be dead and that will be one less burden on the truth. New ideas win out when the old haters die off and you will for sure and maybe I can be around to laugh on your grave.
29 May 13
Originally posted by mikelomBill Maher is ignorant and is trying to spread false rumors. For one thing, Christ was not born on December 25 and no one has claimed the Holy Bible was a science book, but only the word of truth.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5ACyiSPAmE
-m. 😉
No other man in history has been reported to have been crucified to death and raised back to life after 3 days. There is even physical evidence of this incident. We have his empty tomb that many freely visit each year. we have the burial cloth with a miracle recorded negative image of the crucified Christ, which has been examined by scientists, who have been unable to disprove its authenticity.
The Instructor
The Instructor
29 May 13
Originally posted by RJHindsWell, I LIVED in Israel for almost a decade and I can say for sure there are at least 3 supposed JC graves, every one claiming to be the real one, I saw all of them and a lot more besides.
Bill Maher is ignorant and is trying to spread false rumors. For one thing, Christ was not born on December 25 and no one has claimed the Holy Bible was a science book, but only the word of truth.
No other man in history has been reported to have been crucified to death and raised back to life after 3 days. There is even physical evidence of this incid ...[text shortened]... ientists, who have been unable to disprove its authenticity.
The Instructor
The Instructor
I think the real story was as told in the book 'Jesus Lived in India' where the idea was he didn't die on the cross but it was well known he was cut down early, if indeed he was even on a cross, and was covered with Aloe and other healing lotions not embalming fluid and came back to life enough 3 days later to have made this miraculous coming back from the dead which he didn't and then knowing full well he had better not be seen by the Roman authorities, booked out of town, along the silk road where monasteries were built by unknown persons, most likely JC and there is a suspicious grave in Kashmir that could well be his grave but fighting in the area is pretty much continuous and will be for decades to come, which is religion for you, and so the gravesite is unavailable for archaeologists because they would be killed. So that sounds a thousand times, no a million times more likely a story than he magically came back from the dead. I don't buy the bible god story even a little bit, just that much more a piece of croc to go along with MANY other pieces of croc in the bible.
30 May 13
1 edit
Originally posted by sonhouseHe must have multiplied those empty gaves then. But how do you explain the burial cloth with the miraculous crucified image of His body on it. The scientist have been unable to explain it away.
Well, I LIVED in Israel for almost a decade and I can say for sure there are at least 3 supposed JC graves, every one claiming to be the real one, I saw all of them and a lot more besides.
I think the real story was as told in the book 'Jesus Lived in India' where the idea was he didn't die on the cross but it was well known he was cut down early, if in ust that much more a piece of croc to go along with MANY other pieces of croc in the bible.
The Instructor
30 May 13
Originally posted by RJHindsYou are making a huge assumption and you know what it means, making an ass out of you and me when you assume. You and nobody else on Earth knows who that body is. Your faith REQUIRES you to positively believe it is JC himself but that is just your subjective opinion. It could be king Tut for all you know. You were not there when it was discovered and even if the date goes back a couple thousand years you can't say with any certainty it was the shroud of Jesus. Otherwise, prove it.
He must have multiplied those empty gaves then. But how do you explain the burial cloth with the miraculous crucified image of His body on it. The scientist have been unable to explain it away.
The Instructor
30 May 13
Originally posted by sonhouseIt is not really an assumption when all the evidence is considered. It is more like a slam dunk.
You are making a huge assumption and you know what it means, making an ass out of you and me when you assume. You and nobody else on Earth knows who that body is. Your faith REQUIRES you to positively believe it is JC himself but that is just your subjective opinion. It could be king Tut for all you know. You were not there when it was discovered and even i ...[text shortened]... housand years you can't say with any certainty it was the shroud of Jesus. Otherwise, prove it.
The Instructor
31 May 13
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsYou godda be kidding. There is ZERO evidence pinpointing a single person. This is not a slam dunk it is a dam slunk.
It is not really an assumption when all the evidence is considered. It is more like a slam dunk.
The Instructor
This is only in your dreams that it belongs to JC. If it is, it only goes to prove the theory sited in the book Jesus lived in India, where he didn't die on the cross at all but was cut down early, dudes paying off the Roman sentries, coating him with HEALING aloe and such and if he was in a cloth, then it was more like a big bandage that he regained consciousness from and maybe the cloth was stored and such but if anything the stains were the 2000 year old remains of the Aloe and other healing herbs said to have been put on him IN YOUR BIBLE.
But it has never been proven even that much because they don't know what the stains are made of or were made of 2000 years ago.
Jesus never died on the cross, he lived to found monasteries going up the silk road all the way to India. The bible story was just made up for good PR.
01 Jun 13
3 edits
Originally posted by sonhouseThe scientist say the evidence on the burial cloth proves the man was dead. So much for your theory.
You godda be kidding. There is ZERO evidence pinpointing a single person. This is not a slam dunk it is a dam slunk.
This is only in your dreams that it belongs to JC. If it is, it only goes to prove the theory sited in the book Jesus lived in India, where he didn't die on the cross at all but was cut down early, dudes paying off the Roman sentries, coat es going up the silk road all the way to India. The bible story was just made up for good PR.
http://www.evidencetobelieve.net/shroud_of_turin.htm
The Instructor
03 Jun 13
Originally posted by vivifyI guess they left that out because it wasn't central to the article. Cockroaches don't all get killed by any one pesticide so there are always bugs that are immune to the effects of said pesticide. One measure they can't evolve out of is their reaction to boric acid powder. You sprinkle Boric acid powder on the floor where they regularly pass and within two weeks they are gone. It seems when they walk on boric acid powder, it collects on their legs and they invariably try to lick them clean. The problem for them is when they lick the powder, it gets in their digestive tracts and the powder dissolved them from the inside out. But in the case of the sweet response the scientists studying them saw they were avoiding that sugar and found they had evolved a response that made more of them survive the traps.
Shouldn't the roaches that first fed off of the poison have died? If so, how then did this trait pass on? This study is annoyingly vague on the important details.
08 Jun 13
Originally posted by vivifyInsecticides kill approx. 85% of insects. The remaining ones develop an immunity and reproduce others who are resistant. This is the reason why insects go on and on. One interesting method I was told about was to place beer in a bowl and leave it out for them. They climb in and get drunk then can't get out and drown.
Shouldn't the roaches that first fed off of the poison have died? If so, how then did this trait pass on? This study is annoyingly vague on the important details.
08 Jun 13
Originally posted by caissad4Well it wouldn't be the alcohol, you put beer on an open plate and the alcohol will soon evaporate. The sugars in the beer are more likely the attractant.
Insecticides kill approx. 85% of insects. The remaining ones develop an immunity and reproduce others who are resistant. This is the reason why insects go on and on. One interesting method I was told about was to place beer in a bowl and leave it out for them. They climb in and get drunk then can't get out and drown.