Golden ratio in guitar solos?

_{Denyse O'Leary

December 2, 2014

Intelligent Design, Mathematics, News}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Golden rectangle/Ahrecht (Original), Pbroks13, Joo

Further to Does the golden ratio, 1.618, unify science?

A reader kindly writes to say that his high school guitar teacher told him that one can find the golden ratio in guitar solos that sneak into songs:

Golden section and golden rectangles, the harmonic series and the model of its ideal behavior simplified, equal temperament and just intonation and a description of the beat frequency conflict produced by the deviations between simultaneous sounding of harmonic partials and prime frequencies and how it affects the tone and timbre of the guitar. Read to the end for some cool videos demonstrating the properties detailed here.

Design? Chance? Chance only if there are a zillion universes that don’t have anything like this. So the evidence for their existence is… ? Uh, right.

Chances are, today’s art establishment won’t take the golden ratio seriously unless it helps chimps fling poop at each other. That’s art too, didn’t you know? Well, it will be if some project gets funded.

See also: The multiverse: Where everything turns out to be true, except philosophy and religion

and

Human origins: The war of trivial explanations

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments

fifthmonarchyman #144
If dinosaurs existed at any time they exist “right now” from the perspective of a Timeless observer to the universe.
The idea of 'right now' is non-sensical if you're timeless.
You could imagine what a T-Rex looks like before you even knew that a person called Fifthmonarchyman existed.
But I didn't know that that was the virtual dinosaur you were thinking of. I still don't know what your cave looks like. How big it is. How long it is. How dark it is. Does it have dripping lichen? Are the walls darkened from generations of cave dwellers' fire pits? Is there a poop corner? Are there bats? The idea of T-Rex being some kind of ideal form is silly anyway. Just like humans each animal was unique and different. There is no 'ideal' T-Rex. If you took all the T-Rexs that ever existed (if it's even possible to say exactly when the species began and ended) you'd have a spectrum of heights, weights, colours, temperaments, etc. The T-Rex in your head will be different from the one in my head.
I’d bet you could even describe it in some detail.
I could describe my virtual T-Rex but it would differ from yours.Jerad_{December 6, 2014
December
12
Dec
6
06
2014
09:42 AM
9
09
42
AM
PDT}

you say, So, you can know some of the mind of God. I say, Of course if he chooses to reveal it to me You say, Where is the world of forms? Do things exist in triplicate? I say, That you would even ask where or how many when it comes to forms shows that you are starting from a worldview that assumes that questions that assume physicality are the only sort that mater You say, I still can’t see or experience your cave or dinosaurs. I say, That is because you refuse to follow the evidence. I told you this would happen ;-) peacefifthmonarchyman_{December 6, 2014
December
12
Dec
6
06
2014
09:41 AM
9
09
41
AM
PDT}

fifthmonarchyman: I’m sure that to be considered scientific BA was thinking an observation must at least associated with a theory or hypothesis. The hypothesis is that non-avian dinosaurs once roamed the Earth. The evidence is the fossil. We can extend our hypothesis by determining how they walked, what they ate, how they reproduced. If someone suggests they are not really bones of real organisms, we can marshal specific evidence based on our hypothesis to refute these objections (blood vessels, cell structure, wearing of the teeth, etc.). fifthmonarchyman: It explains a lot to know you think that science equals bare observation. Are you saying we can observe a non-avian dinosaur roaming the Earth?Zachriel_{December 6, 2014
December
12
Dec
6
06
2014
09:39 AM
9
09
39
AM
PDT}

fifthmonarchyman #142
Though if I had to guess I’m sure you would agree with Jerad that only physical observations count.
Not something I've espoused. I said observer independent which is not the same thing. Do not put words in my mouth please. There is a question of where or not you can 'observe' something like Goldbach's Conjecture. Most people get exposed to it by reading some physical text or hearing about it (also a physical experience) but I'm not sure grasping the concept is really observational. It requires some thought and mental processing. The words themselves are not the conjecture.Jerad_{December 6, 2014
December
12
Dec
6
06
2014
09:35 AM
9
09
35
AM
PDT}

Jerad says. Proof by contradiction is one of my favourite methods by the way. I say, cool common ground lets see what we can do with that If dinosaurs existed at any time they exist "right now" from the perspective of a Timeless observer to the universe. Do you agree or disagree? you say, All my examples exist independently of me. I could die right now and you could still experience them. I say, Same with me. You could imagine what a T-Rex looks like before you even knew that a person called Fifthmonarchyman existed. I'd bet you could even describe it in some detail peacefifthmonarchyman_{December 6, 2014
December
12
Dec
6
06
2014
09:34 AM
9
09
34
AM
PDT}

fifthmonarchyman #139
If Platonism or Christian Theism for that mater is true then dinosaurs necessarily exist right now.
That will make filming more Jurassic Park movies easier.
If Platonism is true they exist in the world of the forms if Christian Theism is true they exist in the mind of God
So, you can know some of the mind of God. Where is the world of forms? Do things exist in triplicate?
Since I know for certain that one of those schools of thought is true I can infer with certainty the existence of dinosaurs.
What is your evidence that one of those schools of thought must be true? What if you're being deceived by a mirror universe which is reflecting back your thoughts to you so you think they're true?
I know this by simply following the data where it leads.
I still can't see or experience your cave or dinosaurs.Jerad_{December 6, 2014
December
12
Dec
6
06
2014
09:29 AM
9
09
29
AM
PDT}

Wow Zac, I had no idea that for you the bar was so low for something to count as science. I'm sure that to be considered scientific BA was thinking an observation must at least associated with a theory or hypothesis. It explains a lot to know you think that science equals bare observation. Though if I had to guess I'm sure you would agree with Jerad that only physical observations count. peacefifthmonarchyman_{December 6, 2014
December
12
Dec
6
06
2014
09:26 AM
9
09
26
AM
PDT}

fifthmonarchyman #138
Ask yourself what qualifies as evidence to Jerad. I think you will find that in order to qualify as evidence in your view a thing must be in some way physical.
Not at all. Take a look at Goldbach's Conjecture. The concept is abstract and to prove it's not true would just require the presentation of a counter-example. Proof by contradiction is one of my favourite methods by the way. Anyone who takes the time can come to understand the problem and look for an exception. Consider non-Euclidean geometry. We have a very hard time perceiving it but some mathematical spaces can be parsed because we can learn how to follow the axioms. We can all learn how. I happen to like Magritte and Haydn. A lot. They are both considered masters in their fields. And these days you can find most of all their works online. So you too can indulge. The novel The Shadow Cabinet by WT Tyler is a marvellous, non-material construction which I have read multiple times. You can find a used copy on ebay and share it with me. I will rewatch The Prisoner (60s TV show) one of these days. Absolutely brilliant metaphor. Truly astounding. And widely acclaimed. And something anyone can experience.
now ask yourself what evidence you have to support this understanding of “evidence”.
Evidence is something that is observer independent. Not dependent on a person.
Your cave and virtual dinosaurs are just dreams.
what “evidence” do you have for this claim?
You can't impart your experience to me. All my examples exist independently of me. I could die right now and you could still experience them.Jerad_{December 6, 2014
December
12
Dec
6
06
2014
09:20 AM
9
09
20
AM
PDT}

fifthmonarchyman: Do you think that the question of whether dinosaurs existed is a scientific question? If so you have a very broad definition of science IMHO Of course it's a scientific question. Why in Heavens would you think otherwise? fifthmonarchyman: The existence of dinos can be inferred by observation and logic alone no hypotheses no experiment no theory nothing but a man and a fossil. So, your answer is "yes", we have a great deal of certainty concerning the existence of non-avian dinosaurs. This is an historical claim. Dinosaur fossils aren't just rock, but the remains of once living organisms of flesh and blood.Zachriel_{December 6, 2014
December
12
Dec
6
06
2014
09:13 AM
9
09
13
AM
PDT}

Jerad asks, How do you know it exists otherwise? I say, If Platonism or Christian Theism for that mater is true then dinosaurs necessarily exist right now. If Platonism is true they exist in the world of the forms if Christian Theism is true they exist in the mind of God Since I know for certain that one of those schools of thought is true I can infer with certainty the existence of dinosaurs. I know this by simply following the data where it leads. peacefifthmonarchyman_{December 6, 2014
December
12
Dec
6
06
2014
09:13 AM
9
09
13
AM
PDT}

Jerad said, A thought cave and virtual dinosaurs aren’t evidence. I say, Ask yourself what qualifies as evidence to Jerad. I think you will find that in order to qualify as evidence in your view a thing must be in some way physical. now ask yourself what evidence you have to support this understanding of "evidence". you say, Your cave and virtual dinosaurs are just dreams. I say, what "evidence" do you have for this claim? peacefifthmonarchyman_{December 6, 2014
December
12
Dec
6
06
2014
09:02 AM
9
09
02
AM
PDT}

fifthmonarchyman #135
Does existence equal useful to Jared in your view? Does the existence of something have to be proven to Jared in order to be actual?
How do you know it exists otherwise? I find lots and lots of abstract, non-physical constructs interesting and useful. Seven for example. Or beauty. Or hyperbolic trig functions. Or Hilbert Space. Or Klein Bottles. Or love. Or imagining what it's like to ride on a beam of light. Or grandeur. Or Zorn's Lemma. Or complex analysis. Or least upper bounds. But these are common shared experiences or represent concepts/models which can be shown to be useful. Your cave and virtual dinosaurs are just dreams. And not everyone's dreams. Just yours perhaps.
“Jared is a materialist so only claims consistent with materialism are valid to Jared”
Nope. But I don't see what use virtual dinosaurs are. And it's Jerad.
If that is your point then fine I already knew that and it conflicts with your other claim about following the evidence where it leads
A thought cave and virtual dinosaurs aren't evidence.Jerad_{December 6, 2014
December
12
Dec
6
06
2014
08:52 AM
8
08
52
AM
PDT}

ba77 #131
Everything is cited in the articles I referenced is to ‘respectable’ (read ‘they conform to neo-Darwinian orthodoxy’) journals. I’m not going to dig the specific cites out for you. You have to do some work on your own!
You've got several things from The Discovery Institute's Evolution News and Views blog which isn't even an academic publication let alone peer reviewed. You've also go some material from Cornelius Hunter's blog. Again, NOT an academic publication.
Evolutionary theory, no matter what evidence may contradict it, can never be ‘on its way out’ because neo-Darwinism is, in reality, a non-falsifiable pseudo-science instead of a real science that is open to falsification:
You've been told many times how evolutionary theory could be falsified; why do you persist in saying things you know aren't true?
Since you are clearly seem not interested in questioning your basic assumption that ‘evolution is true’, no matter what evidence is presented against your belief, Good day sir!
I certainly am willing to question it but I'd like to see some high quality data and publications not a rag-tag bag of blogposts and mis-interpreted papers. Find some repeatable, witness independent results. Lynn Margulis had to do that when she challenged aspects of evolutionary theory. And because she was persistent and right she eventually shifted some paradigms. You gotta get the evidence.Jerad_{December 6, 2014
December
12
Dec
6
06
2014
08:42 AM
8
08
42
AM
PDT}

Jared says, But I don’t see a cave or any dinosaurs. Can’t prove either of those exist now. Can’t prove they don’t exist. They seem to have limited use. I say, Does existence equal useful to Jared in your view? Does the existence of something have to be proven to Jared in order to be actual? I just don't follow your point. It seems to be something like "Jared is a materialist so only claims consistent with materialism are valid to Jared" If that is your point then fine I already knew that and it conflicts with your other claim about following the evidence where it leads Peacefifthmonarchyman_{December 6, 2014
December
12
Dec
6
06
2014
08:37 AM
8
08
37
AM
PDT}

fifthmonarchyman #133
I pointed out that such a question only makes sense if you assume materialism from the very outset. If Platonism or something like it is true the dinosaurs were not wiped out they still every much exist literally just outside the cave.
But I don't see a cave or any dinosaurs. Can't prove either of those exist now. Can't prove they don't exist. They seem to have limited use.Jerad_{December 6, 2014
December
12
Dec
6
06
2014
08:26 AM
8
08
26
AM
PDT}

Jared asked I’m not really sure what you’re getting at or what it has to do with the conversation. I reply You wondered why the designer would "create" dinosaurs only to let them be wiped out. I pointed out that such a question only makes sense if you assume materialism from the very outset. If Platonism or something like it is true the dinosaurs were not wiped out they still every much exist literally just outside the cave. peacefifthmonarchyman_{December 6, 2014
December
12
Dec
6
06
2014
08:17 AM
8
08
17
AM
PDT}

Jerad says, Just don’t put words in my mouth or motivations in my ‘soul’. Listen to what I say and not what you think I mean. I say, I can't read your mind I can only assume you are like every other human that has ever walked the earth. Humans don't follow the data wherever it leads if that means giving up all that they hold dear. This has been repeatedly demonstrated both anecdotally and in scientific studies. Perhaps you are the lone exception but I have seen no evidence to that effect. Until I see that evidence if you don't mind I will follow your advice from back in 105 Quote: I’ll just stick with good old fashioned measurable, replicable data. end quote: peacefifthmonarchyman_{December 6, 2014
December
12
Dec
6
06
2014
08:11 AM
8
08
11
AM
PDT}

Everything is cited in the articles I referenced is to 'respectable' (read 'they conform to neo-Darwinian orthodoxy') journals. I'm not going to dig the specific cites out for you. You have to do some work on your own! Evolutionary theory, no matter what evidence may contradict it, can never be 'on its way out' because neo-Darwinism is, in reality, a non-falsifiable pseudo-science instead of a real science that is open to falsification: Since you are clearly seem not interested in questioning your basic assumption that 'evolution is true', no matter what evidence is presented against your belief, Good day sir! fifth, they are all yours, I'm out of here,,,bornagain77_{December 6, 2014
December
12
Dec
6
06
2014
08:04 AM
8
08
04
AM
PDT}

ba77 #121 MOST of what you site are NOT peer-reviewed papers published in reputable journals. There are a few that were reputable but, while they cast some aspersions on 'the tree of life' analogy (which is a sign that biologists do respond to new data) they most certainly DO NOT cast aspersions on universal common descent via modifications. Evolutionary theory is not on the way out. fifthmonarchyman #122
Dinos existed physically for a time just as we exist physically for a time but the physical is not all there is to existence not even close. If the designer exists outside the universe then Dinos exist physically right now from his perspective You’ve got stop assuming that the shadows in the cave are the reality
I'm not really sure what you're getting at or what it has to do with the conversation.
Are you saying that I can’t make general observations about humanity? You might be the only person that ever existed that will follow the truth even when it means giving up everything they love. But I’ve seen no evidence of that and until I do I will continue to believe that you are like the rest of us in that regard.
Just don't put words in my mouth or motivations in my 'soul'. Listen to what I say and not what you think I mean.Jerad_{December 6, 2014
December
12
Dec
6
06
2014
07:51 AM
7
07
51
AM
PDT}

The term 'dinosaur' was invented to categorize fossils which actually could be considered entirely independent beings, or as with the case of ancestors of birds - they were just birds.Silver Asiatic_{December 6, 2014
December
12
Dec
6
06
2014
07:45 AM
7
07
45
AM
PDT}

Zac, Do you think that the question of whether dinosaurs existed is a scientific question? If so you have a very broad definition of science IMHO The existence of dinos can be inferred by observation and logic alone no hypotheses no experiment no theory nothing but a man and a fossil. If you are claiming that observation plus logic equals science then my observations about Jerad's willingness to follow the evidence is equally scientific. I'm not sure he would like to hear that ;-) peacefifthmonarchyman_{December 6, 2014
December
12
Dec
6
06
2014
07:42 AM
7
07
42
AM
PDT}

bornagain77: playing semantics with ‘hard fossils’ as opposed to ‘hard science’, does not alleviate the fact that you have NO hard ‘observational’ science supporting your claim that unguided material processes can produce functional complexity/information. That's not the question or the claim you made. You had claimed that historical science is a soft science, a colloquial distinction implying less certainty, reiterated in several of your statements above. So again, do we have a great deal of certainty about whether non-avian dinosaurs once roamed the Earth?Zachriel_{December 6, 2014
December
12
Dec
6
06
2014
07:28 AM
7
07
28
AM
PDT}

Zach, playing semantics with 'hard fossils' as opposed to 'hard science', does not alleviate the fact that you have NO hard 'observational' science supporting your claim that unguided material processes can produce functional complexity/information. For you to try to play semantics with the word 'hard' in the context that I had used it shows how intellectually dishonest you are willing to be in regards to dealing forthrightly with the evidence at hand. Good day Sir, I have much better things to do today than waste my time playing your stupid games!bornagain77_{December 6, 2014
December
12
Dec
6
06
2014
07:15 AM
7
07
15
AM
PDT}

Jared says, But, you don’t really know me at all. I say, Are you saying that I can't make general observations about humanity? You might be the only person that ever existed that will follow the truth even when it means giving up everything they love. But I've seen no evidence of that and until I do I will continue to believe that you are like the rest of us in that regard. peacefifthmonarchyman_{December 6, 2014
December
12
Dec
6
06
2014
07:11 AM
7
07
11
AM
PDT}

bornagain77: Fish & Dinosaur Evolution vs. The Actual Evidence You didn't answer the question. Are you saying we don’t have "hard" evidence that Tyrannosaurus Rex once roamed the Earth?Zachriel_{December 6, 2014
December
12
Dec
6
06
2014
07:10 AM
7
07
10
AM
PDT}

Zach, Fish & Dinosaur Evolution vs. The Actual Evidence - video and notes http://vimeo.com/30932397 The Unknown Origin of Pterosaurs - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XP6htc371fM Bird Evolution vs. The Actual Evidence - video and notes http://vimeo.com/30926629bornagain77_{December 6, 2014
December
12
Dec
6
06
2014
07:07 AM
7
07
07
AM
PDT}

"Too bad most of your references are not from peer-reviewed academic papers which have been checked and rechecked for accuracy and properly drawn conclusions." Too bad you are wrong in your claim: Logged Out - Scientists Can't Find Darwin's "Tree of Life" Anywhere in Nature by Casey Luskin - Winter 2013 Excerpt: the (fossil) record shows that major groups of animals appeared abruptly, without direct evolutionary precursors. Because biogeography and fossils have failed to bolster common descent, many evolutionary scientists have turned to molecules—the nucleotide and amino acid sequences of genes and proteins—to establish a phylogenetic tree of life showing the evolutionary relationships between all living organisms.,,, Many papers have noted the prevalence of contradictory molecule-based phylogenetic trees. For instance: • A 1998 paper in Genome Research observed that "different proteins generate different phylogenetic tree[s]."6 • A 2009 paper in Trends in Ecology and Evolution acknowledged that "evolutionary trees from different genes often have conflicting branching patterns."7 • A 2013 paper in Trends in Genetics reported that "the more we learn about genomes the less tree-like we find their evolutionary history to be."8 Perhaps the most candid discussion of the problem came in a 2009 review article in New Scientist titled "Why Darwin Was Wrong about the Tree of Life."9 The author quoted researcher Eric Bapteste explaining that "the holy grail was to build a tree of life," but "today that project lies in tatters, torn to pieces by an onslaught of negative evidence." According to the article, "many biologists now argue that the tree concept is obsolete and needs to be discarded.",,, Syvanen succinctly summarized the problem: "We've just annihilated the tree of life. It's not a tree any more, it's a different topology entirely. What would Darwin have made of that?" ,,, "battles between molecules and morphology are being fought across the entire tree of life," leaving readers with a stark assessment: "Evolutionary trees constructed by studying biological molecules often don't resemble those drawn up from morphology."10,,, A 2012 paper noted that "phylogenetic conflict is common, and [is] frequently the norm rather than the exception," since "incongruence between phylogenies derived from morphological versus molecular analyses, and between trees based on different subsets of molecular sequences has become pervasive as datasets have expanded rapidly in both characters and species."12,,, http://www.salvomag.com/new/articles/salvo27/logged-out.php podcast - Molecular Data Wreak Havoc on (Darwin's) Tree of Life - Casey Luskin - March 2014 http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2014-03-14T16_17_31-07_00 More Fossil-Molecule Contradictions: Now Even the Errors Have Errors - Cornelius Hunter - June 2014 Excerpt: a new massive (phylogenetic) study shows that not only is the problem (for Darwinists) worse than previously thought, but the errors increase with those species that are supposed to have evolved more recently.,,, "Our results suggest that, for Aves (Birds), discord between molecular divergence estimates and the fossil record is pervasive across clades and of consistently higher magnitude for younger clades." http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2014/06/more-fossil-molecule-contradictions-now.html Shark Proteins Contradict the Standard Phylogeny of Vertebrates - Casey Luskin - January 6, 2014 Excerpt: there's almost no dataset that can contradict (falsify) common descent. Every time you find that one trait predicts one phylogeny, and another trait predicts a conflicting phylogeny, you can effect a reconciliation by invoking at will more evolutionary steps of convergent loss or gain of traits, or invoking a host of other ad hoc explanations. In a worst case scenario, if genes were distributed in the most un-treelike manner imaginable, I suppose you could take all the known genes present in the most recent presumed common ancestor of that group, and then simply invoke losses (and gains) of genes to reconcile the observed distribution with a tree. - http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/01/shark_proteins_080781.html Molecular Data Wreak Havoc on the Tree of Life - Casey Luskin - February 7, 2014 Excerpt: Douglas Theobald claims in his "29+ Evidences for Macroevolution" that "well-determined phylogenetic trees inferred from the independent evidence of morphology and molecular sequences match with an extremely high degree of statistical significance." In reality, however, the technical literature tells a different story. Studies of molecular homologies often fail to confirm evolutionary trees depicting the history of the animal phyla derived from studies of comparative anatomy. Instead, during the 1990s, early into the revolution in molecular genetics, many studies began to show that phylogenetic trees derived from anatomy and those derived from molecules often contradicted each other. Stephen Meyer - Darwin's Doubt - (pp. 122-123) ,,,Moreover, when complex parts that are shared by different animals aren't distributed in a treelike pattern, that wreaks havoc on the assumption of homology that's used to build phylogenetic trees. In other words, this kind of extreme convergent evolution refutes the standard assumption that shared biological similarity (especially complex biological similarity like a brain and nervous system) implies inheritance from a common ancestor. If brains and nervous systems evolved multiple times, this undermines the main assumptions used in constructing phylogenetic trees, calling into question the very basis for inferring common ancestry.,,, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/02/the_ghost_of_te081981.html Richard Dawkins: How Could Anyone “Possibly Doubt the Fact of Evolution” - Cornelius Hunter - February 27, 2014 Excerpt: there is “no known mechanism or function that would account for this level of conservation at the observed evolutionary distances.”,,, the many examples of nearly identical molecular sequences of totally unrelated animals are “astonishing.”,,, “data are routinely filtered in order to satisfy stringent criteria so as to eliminate the possibility of incongruence.”,,, he has not found “a single example that would support the traditional tree.” It is, another evolutionist admitted, “a very serious incongruence.” “the more molecular data is analysed, the more difficult it is to interpret straightforwardly the evolutionary histories of those molecules.” And yet in public presentations of their theory, evolutionists present a very different story. As Dawkins explained, gene comparisons “fall in a perfect hierarchy, a perfect family tree.” This statement is so false it isn’t even wrong—it is absurd. And then Dawkins chastises anyone who “could possibly doubt the fact of evolution.” Unfortunately this sentiment is typical. Evolutionists have no credibility. http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2014/02/richard-dawkins-how-could-anyone.html etc.. etc.. etc..bornagain77_{December 6, 2014
December
12
Dec
6
06
2014
07:02 AM
7
07
02
AM
PDT}

Jerad asked, I’d like to know why the designer(s) bothered making all those dinosaurs if the, finely tuned universe was just going to wipe them all out? I respond, I going to assume that was actually a real question as apposed to a rhetorical one nothing ever really dies as long as as it exists in our hearts and minds. Dinos (the Big ones) still exist in the minds of inquisitive 7 year olds ,scientists and the Designer. Dinos existed physically for a time just as we exist physically for a time but the physical is not all there is to existence not even close. If the designer exists outside the universe then Dinos exist physically right now from his perspective You've got stop assuming that the shadows in the cave are the reality Peacefifthmonarchyman_{December 6, 2014
December
12
Dec
6
06
2014
07:02 AM
7
07
02
AM
PDT}

bornagain77: the question not if dinosaurs existed Actually, that was the question. It's an historical question relating to your claim about historical evidence. Are you saying there is no "hard" evidence of their existence?Zachriel_{December 6, 2014
December
12
Dec
6
06
2014
07:01 AM
7
07
01
AM
PDT}

Zach, the question is not if dinosaurs existed, (and I certainly never claimed they did not exist), the question is how did they get there. Darwinists insist, without one shred of empirical support, that the massive amounts of functional complexity/information originated through unguided Darwinian processes. That is not science!bornagain77_{December 6, 2014
December
12
Dec
6
06
2014
06:58 AM
6
06
58
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 … 9 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply