Prove Evolution...win money

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



sithsaber408
Hey all, thought this would be fun.


$250,000 Reward

Offered by Dr. Kent Howard to:


Anyone who can give any empirical evidence (scientific proof) for evolution.

(see h**p://www.drdino.com/Articles/Article1.htm.)


He gives 15 questions for an evolutionist to answer with proof(not theory/guesses) :

1.) WHERE did the universe come from?


2.) WHERE did matter come from?

3.) WHERE did the LAWS of the universe come from (gravity,inertia, etc.)?

4.) HOW did matter get so perfectly organized?

5.) WHERE did the ENERGY come from to do all the organizing?

6.) WHEN, WHERE, WHY, and HOW did life come from dead matter?

7.) WHEN, WHERE, WHY, and HOW did life learn to reproduce itself?

8.) With WHAT did the FIRST cell capable of reproduction reproduce?

sithsaber408
(cont.)

9). WHY would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kind since this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of its survival? (Does the INDIVIDUAL have a drive to survive, or the SPECIES? How do you explain this?)


10). HOW can MUTATIONS (recombing of the genetic code) create any NEW, IMPROVED varieties? (Recombing English letters, no matter how many times, will never produce Chinese books.)

11). Is it possible that similarities in design prove a common Creator instead of a common ancestor?

12.) Natural selection only works with the genetic information available and tends to keep a species stable. HOW would you explain the Increasing complexity in the genetic code that must have occured if evolution were true?

sithsaber408
(cont.)

13.) WHEN, WHERE, WHY, and HOW did:

a) Single-celled plants become multi-celled? (Where are the two- and three- celled intermediates?)

b) Single-celled animals evolve?

c) Fish change to amphibians?

d) Amphibians change to reptiles?

e) Reptiles change to birds? (The lungs, bones, eyes, reproductive organs, heart, method of locomotion, body covering, etc., are all very different!) HOW did the intermediate forms live?

14.) WHEN, WHERE, WHY, HOW, and from WHAT did:

a) Whales evolve?

b) Sea horses evolve?

c) Bats evolve?

d) Eyes evolve?

e) Ears evolve?

f) Hair, skin, feathers, scales, nails, claws, etc., evolve?

sithsaber408
(cont.)

15.) Which evolved first (HOW, and HOW LONG, did it work without the others)?

a) The digestive system, the food to be digested, the ability to find and eat the food, the digestive juices, or the bodies RESISTANCE to its own digestive juice (stomach, intestines, etc.)?

b) The drive ot reproduce, or the ability to reproduce?

c) The lungs, the mucus linning to protect them, the throat, or the perfect mixture of gasses to be breathed into the lungs?

d) DNA or RNA to carry the DNA message to cell parts?

e) The termite or the flagea in its intestines that actually digest the cellulose?

f) The plants, or the insects that live on and POLLINATE the plants?

g) The bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, or muscles to move the bones?

h) The nervous system, repair system, or hormone system?

i) The immune system or the need for it?

GCG
I see a lot of KMC members running in this thread to answer the questions. Thats just Wow !

Atlantis001
Its not exactly evolution, some questions are about physics not evolution.

And the reward is extremely low relatively to the difficulty of those questions, it is not even possible to prove some of them with our technology.

Shakyamunison
sithsaber408 why, if the limit on text size is 10000, did you post this in 4 post?

Do you thing that if you brake up your thread post into 4 parts, it will look like people give a dam about this?

Gregory
Kent Hovind is highly dishonest, and the challange is set up to be impossible. Among other things, Hovind reserves the right to throw out evidence he doens't like before the judges even see it. Some of his questions are nonsense (how did matter get to be so well organized? "Well-organized" in what sense?) Others relate to cosmology, not evoltution. And some are just plain stupid (a few hours ago, I resolved to try to be nicer to creationists, but I'm making an exception for Hovind)..

"WHY would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kind since this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of its survival? (Does the INDIVIDUAL have a drive to survive, or the SPECIES? How do you explain this?)" Someone doesn't understand how natural selection works.

Ushgarak
Indeed, the question is not scientific. This is a famous peice of film-flam.

Capt_Fantastic
Flim Flam!

HA!

I will give anyone who can difinitively prove to me the existence of Jehova...let's see...I have two dollars and 48 cents in my pocket...okay

So, I'll give anyone who can prove the existence of the Christian god $2.48 and a tuft of my pubic hair.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
Flim Flam!

HA!

I will give anyone who can difinitively prove to me the existence of Jehova...let's see...I have two dollars and 48 cents in my pocket...okay

So, I'll give anyone who can prove the existence of the Christian god $2.48 and a tuft of my pubic hair.

And I'll add $5 to that. cool laughing

BackFire
The trees are pretty. Therefor, god exists.

Give me pubes now!

Capt_Fantastic
Originally posted by BackFire
The trees are pretty. Therefor, god exists.

Give me pubes now!

Capt_Fantastic
Oh, I almost forgot...

sithsaber408
Whew... I need a drink. That was alot of typing. beer

The book that I got this from was printed in 2003, (I haven't checked the web page) so nobody has gotten this guys money yet.

He included a few interesting quotes:

"I could prove God statistically; take the human body alone, the chance that all the functions of the individual would just happen is a statistical monstrosity"- George Gallup, Statician

"To suppose that the eye could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."- Charles Darwin big grin

Capt_Fantastic
.

Capt_Fantastic
,

sithsaber408
Hmmm... based on comments, I see nobody has the answers.

(I was hoping to split the purse with someone) wink

Capt_Fantastic
`

Capt_Fantastic
they're a little squished. they've been in my pocket for a while. But they still spend the same.

Capt_Fantastic
Originally posted by sithsaber408
Hmmm... based on comments, I see nobody has the answers.

(I was hoping to split the purse with someone) wink

Umm, there are two tufts of pubic hair, ya know.

sithsaber408
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
sithsaber408 why, if the limit on text size is 10000, did you post this in 4 post?

Do you thing that if you brake up your thread post into 4 parts, it will look like people give a dam about this?

My bad. I thought it was a 1000 post limit. embarrasment embarrasment embarrasment

As for your other question.... I just thought this would be fun. I have no "agenda".

Just as you probably have no "answers" to these questions.

Why....? Evolution, (like Christianity) is a theory, an unprovable one.

Both take faith to believe in, due to enough evidence for belief, but not enough for proof.

(Personally I think apes would be offended to think that we descended from them) big grin

BackFire
Perhaps no one is participating because people have discussed this to a ridiculous degree over the past few months in several other threads, and we're sick of making the same points over and over.

Also, Christianity isn't a theory, Christ.

sithsaber408
Originally posted by BackFire
Perhaps no one is participating because people have discussed this to a ridiculous degree over the past few months in several other threads, and we're sick of making the same points over and over.


Your points are.....


You prove the Dr. wrong by.....


"God scares me. He cant be real."

"It just evolved, so there."

"It was a cosmical mix of.....damn. I don't know WHO, HOW, WHY, WHERE, or WHAT could have caused the big bang."

"Evolution/the big bang feels better than God. At least I can live my sh*tty life the way I want to."

Or did I miss a genuine scientific explanation. wink



I agree with the doctor. Convert me to evolutionism if its true.

I've seen people healed of disease (my father-in-law, mother), drug addiction(myself), and physical disablility (in my church), by the power of God, given to them through faith in Jesus Christ. smile

I'll take what I can see over the BS reasons of evolution that Darwin himself says is folly....(as I posted earlier)

"To suppose that the human eye could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."-CD cool

sithsaber408
Close this if you want, but I take solace in the fact that you at least read it, and hopefully, it made you think.


God loves you.

(This is a religion forum right?)

BackFire
Originally posted by sithsaber408
Your points are.....


You prove the Dr. wrong by.....


"God scares me. He cant be real."

"It just evolved, so there."

"It was a cosmical mix of.....damn. I don't know WHO, HOW, WHY, WHERE, or WHAT could have caused the big bang."

"Evolution/the big bang feels better than God. At least I can live my sh*tty life the way I want to."

Or did I miss a genuine scientific explanation. wink



I agree with the doctor. Convert me to evolutionism if its true.

I've seen people healed of disease (my father-in-law, mother), drug addiction(myself), and physical disablility (in my church), by the power of God, given to them through faith in Jesus Christ. smile

I'll take what I can see over the BS reasons of evolution that Darwin himself says is folly....(as I posted earlier)

"To suppose that the human eye could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."-CD cool

You've just attempted, in an incredibly sloppy, lazy, idiotic, and flawed manner, to put several statements into my mouth which I've never said, insinuated or thought.

You've made some statements that can't be proven, or even argued in any logical way, to be true. Can you prove that belief in god healed these people and it wasn't simply coinicidence? Can you even argue it based on more then "It's just what I believe"?

I can't convert you to evolution because it's not a religion. It's a scientific theory, nothing more, nothing less. Believing it or not doesn't change the fact that it holds more scientific validity than creationism.

What can you see about the things you've described. You can't see god, you can't see Jesus, you can't see angels and you don't know that the belief in god is responsible for curing these people. It's probably simply what you want to believe, and as such you're going to simply accept "god did it" as a reason without any evidence.

Also, I'm skeptical that Darwin even said that. It's just a blind statement you've posted in quotations, without any source, and if he did say that, it's probably been taken out of context by people who have the agenda of demonizing the evolutionary theory in a logically flawed attempt at giving their religious beliefs validity, which is obviously what you are trying to do with this thread, which is funny since you claim to have no agenda. I don't think God appreciates your lies.

sithsaber408
Dictionary Definitions:

Fact- n. "Something that actually exists or has occurred."

Evolution-n. "The theory that all forms of life originated by descent from earlier forms."

Creation-n "God's bringing the world into existence"



So clean up my sloppy counterpoints with your tight-knit ones.

Can you prove the theory of evolution(can anyone?) or is it easier for you to take that on faith, than think that there really is a God out there.



Oh, Darwin did say that, as did Gallup, the statician said" that the human body, with all it's functions, would just happen is a statistical monstrosity."


Google it. big grin

finti
prove god and win money.
Prove god beyond that of just belief and faith, bring him a long and i set up the second sitting for the last supper

BackFire
Holy Hell, this is the worst argument against evolution I've ever read on this site.

I never said Evolution was fact. I said it was a theory, a scientific one. That doesn't detract from it's scientific validity though. Science is based on theories that can't be proven. Gravity, is a theory. Evolution can't be proven factually. That doesn't mean that it's the same as creationism. There is scientific evidence to support evolution while there is none to support creationism.

God creating the world is not fact, as you well know. Again, just a lazy attempt at giving your beliefs validity.

"Google it." Yeah, because google is the ultimate authority on all things. If I google it it will just take me to some biased website trying to invalidate evolution by some "quote" from Darwin that again, was probably taken out of context.

sithsaber408
Oh one more for you, Steven Hawking, considered by many to be the best-known scientist since Albert Einstein, said:

"The Universe and the laws of physics seem to have been specifically designed for us. If any one of about 40 physical qualities had more than slightly different values, life as we know it would not exist: Either atoms would not be stable, or they wouldn't combine into molecules, or the stars wouldn't form the heavier elements, or the universe would collapse before life could develop, and so on..."


Sounds like the Lord intelligently designed the earth for us in a very specific way doesn't it.....

sithsaber408
Originally posted by BackFire
Holy Hell, this is the worst argument against evolution I've ever read on this site.

I never said Evolution was fact. I said it was a theory, a scientific one. That doesn't detract from it's scientific validity though. Science is based on theories that can't be proven. Gravity, is a theory. Evolution can't be proven factually. That doesn't mean that it's the same as creationism. There is scientific evidence to support evolution while there is none to support creationism.

God creating the world is not fact, as you well know. Again, just a lazy attempt at giving your beliefs validity.

"Google it." Yeah, because google is the ultimate authority on all things. If I google it it will just take me to some biased website trying to invalidate evolution by some "quote" from Darwin that again, was probably taken out of context.

Evolution invalidates itself.

I hope for your sake that I'm wrong.

sad

BackFire
Only if that's what you want to take away from the statement. Just because something seems to be that way to us doesn't mean it is.

BackFire
Originally posted by sithsaber408
Evolution invalidates itself.

I hope for your sake that I'm wrong.

sad


Don't worry, you are.

finti
ehh to be the most intelligent not best known

no it just sounds like the universe was intelligent designed for us, doesnt say anything about a creator in form of a lord/god/supreme being.
If the earth was so bloody right for us so called creation of this god why did this god need to create this wast space filled with a lot of nothingness, why not just settle for our solar system

Gregory
If I ever find the first person who decided that quoting a bunch of random people qualified as a valid argument, I'm going to beat him up. Unless he's bigger than me. Or dead; it would be sort of redundant if he's already dead.

Ohh, a statistician doesn't support evolution! Well ****, if being able to run chi-square tests doesn't qualify one to comment on biological theories, I don't know what does!

As for Steven Hawkings, that's just the anthropic principle; nothing to do with evolution. Not that an astrophysicics is significantly more qualified to talk about evolution than a statistician.

xmarksthespot
Originally posted by BackFire
Don't worry, you are. Indeed.

If you actually think that one quote inaccurately quoted and taken out of context proves that Darwin thought the work he devoted most of his life to was folly than you're a moron. If you think creationism is a scientific theory, then you have no idea what a scientific theory actually is, and you're a moron. If you state that "God created the universe" is fact, then you have no place in any sort of factual debate, and you're a moron.

Stephen Hawkings is an agnostic.

xmarksthespot
Seems a trend that "Creationists" always resort to distorting quotes out of context to try and prove some kind of point.
Your quote.
Originally posted by sithsaber408
To suppose that the eye could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.
The actual quote.

Darwin goes on to further elaborate. His studies were undertaken at the end of the 19th Century. It is 2006.

Capt_Fantastic
Originally posted by BackFire
Also, I'm skeptical that Darwin even said that.

Indeed. Darwin has often been said to have recanted his findings and conclusions on his death bed. This is not, I REPEAT, NOT the case. Darwin never turned coat in the final moments of his life. This is a blatant lie that has been propogated by the fanatically religious in our society.

Furthermore, I don't understand a person who, in one post, proclaims to have no "agenda" to turn around in his/her next post to argue the point. Maybe you are playing Devil's Advocate, but that will only get you in more trouble than you can handle.

If you want some of my pubic hair, you can just ask.

Imperial_Samura
Tch tch tch. Charles Darwin would be spinning in his grave if he knew how some of his words were so taken out of context. Or maybe not, he seemed to know full well that many would object to his theories, no matter how much evidence he found to support them.



And I mean, really, these questions don't even deal with the same scientific field as evolution.

Still, go to any university or place of significant research that deals with this, and you'd discover any one of these questions have huge amounts of scientific study around them that has produced in some cases perfectly sound answers, or at the very least perfectly plausible theories with enough evidence to be able to say "this is a plausible theory."

Then if you like change the questions around and ask people where did God come from? (etc) - um, ah, nowhere. He kind of always existed. Always. And he just willed everything into being. Yeah, sure there's no proof, but it seems far more believable then all that scientific evidence yes? (Hahahahahahahahaha)



Don't know about others, personally I'd only ask for them if they were made from spun gold or something.

Atlantis001
Originally posted by Gregory
Ohh, a statistician doesn't support evolution! Well ****, if being able to run chi-square tests doesn't qualify one to comment on biological theories, I don't know what does!

As for Steven Hawkings, that's just the anthropic principle; nothing to do with evolution. Not that an astrophysicics is significantly more qualified to talk about evolution than a statistician.

Those arguments are not about evolution itself, their arguments are valid since they concern their area of study. The statistician said in other words that something so complex as the human body with all its functions is extremely improbable, which is statistics, and Stephen Hawking is not even talking about evolution. There are many ways to view evolution, a biologist argument is only relevant if it concerns evolution in a biological standpoint, and not all of it involves just biology.

But I think that the fact of all the complexity of the human body being a "statistical monstruosity" does only mean that there is some order like in in the genes, and molecules of DNA that governs evolution, its not a ramdom thing, and there is no need to discard it. In fact other statistical studies show that evolution is highly probable.

Atlantis001
Originally posted by sithsaber408
Your points are.....


You prove the Dr. wrong by.....


"God scares me. He cant be real."

"It just evolved, so there."

"It was a cosmical mix of.....damn. I don't know WHO, HOW, WHY, WHERE, or WHAT could have caused the big bang."

"Evolution/the big bang feels better than God. At least I can live my sh*tty life the way I want to."

Or did I miss a genuine scientific explanation. wink



I agree with the doctor. Convert me to evolutionism if its true.

I've seen people healed of disease (my father-in-law, mother), drug addiction(myself), and physical disablility (in my church), by the power of God, given to them through faith in Jesus Christ. smile

I'll take what I can see over the BS reasons of evolution that Darwin himself says is folly....(as I posted earlier)

"To suppose that the human eye could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."-CD cool

This conflict between God vs evolution is not real. The concept of God does not conflict with any scientific theory like the evolution or the Big Bang. Sincerely this is more a conflict between bible vs science, not even religion vs science. This is a matter of forcing christian beliefs into people, it does not concern God, it only concerns the acceptance of evolution that so many people have today, and which violates the dogmas of the church. Perhaps the church just feel offended with so many people believing in things which are not in the bible, like evolution.

debbiejo
Originally posted by Atlantis001
Perhaps the church just feel offended with so many people believing in things which are not in the bible, like evolution. I think you hit it right on the nose.

Gregory
I don't think so. It would be helpful if we had something other than a single quotation, but just because a statistician makes a comment that involves probability, it doesn't necessarilly make it a valid authority. If you're going to talk about probability theory as it relates to biology, you need to understand biology as well as probability--and George Gallup, a fundamentalst Christian who's specialty was in polling procedures, didn't. (Gallup was so fundamentalist, in fact, that he was once caught falsifying survey that showed a decline in Christianity's popularity; a nice objective source for Creationists to quote!)

As for Hawkings, I did mention that he was talking about the anthropic principle.

Darth Jello
if i prove that the majority of his questions are opinion based and not purely factual (what defines "perfect"wink, will he give me head in addition to the money?

FeceMan
I'm only commenting here to wonder how big a can of worms the original poster just opened.

MC Mike
Prove god...

Actually, no reward. It can't be proven.

Imperial_Samura
Originally posted by Darth Jello
if i prove that the majority of his questions are opinion based and not purely factual (what defines "perfect"wink, will he give me head in addition to the money?

Head in addition to money? I'm pretty sure that would violate his religion in some way.

Darth Jello
hey, "cradle the balls, work the shaft" sounds like a holy ritual.

finti
and for some it is

debbiejo
laughing out loud

It must be coffee time alllll ready!......I need more coffee...

Hit_and_Miss
My personal view is that God created all the rules in the universe.. Atoms and the space in which they confided.. Then left it all up to chance...

On a side note I couldn't help noticing the tital.... and thought...
"Make up a religion.... Earn money" - scientology

debbiejo
Originally posted by Hit_and_Miss
My personal view is that God created all the rules in the universe.. Atoms and the space in which they confided.. Then left it all up to chance... I don't believe it's really chance though...Things can be manipulated... yes

Atlantis001
There still the question "Does life begun with the first cell or it already existed before ?"

debbiejo
Well before the cells would be the essence or thought of life which could be said to be alive. Things invisible to us...Just as you can cut a part of a leaf off and photograph it with special equipment and it would still show the leaf as whole. Though we see the leaf as cut. There is still something there to be photographed.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Atlantis001
There still the question "Does life begun with the first cell or it already existed before ?"

The string of life does not work if at any point death occurs.

Arachnoidfreak
The answer to every question is in this 125 page thread. Feel free to search it.

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=27866&highlight=evolution

Mindship
What's this--a game show??

Prove something already proven? And win money?
What's the catch?

Hit_and_Miss
Originally posted by debbiejo
I don't believe it's really chance though...Things can be manipulated... yes

Well... with the current set of rules theres only soo many events that could happen... think of it this way... God creates a coin... He then flips it.. knowing that its going to be heads or tails.. (the coin has a rounded edge so it can never land on its edge..) with that he knows that either way the results are ok for him...

Unless you mean that God actually has an influence on us today... In which case I would like to ask for examples... (Not people getting incredibly lucky...)

debbiejo
Originally posted by Hit_and_Miss
Well... with the current set of rules theres only soo many events that could happen... think of it this way... God creates a coin... He then flips it.. knowing that its going to be heads or tails.. (the coin has a rounded edge so it can never land on its edge..) with that he knows that either way the results are ok for him...

Unless you mean that God actually has an influence on us today... In which case I would like to ask for examples... (Not people getting incredibly lucky...) It's like with science, ie quantum physics....things we don't really understand as a people can't be seen, studies grouped with other older sciences such as metaphysics....There are ties with in the groups...It's an older view but maybe they are on to something. I only say that because of interments that have determined and that there is something different from what is preconceived. And why not?.....The purpose of science is to see and prove and document....Which is being done.

Mindship
Regarding chance, let's try this...

There is another thread which basically involves the question: Is there something God can't do? In other words, does God have limits? The obvious answer is: of course! If "God" did not include limits, then "limits" would be something outside of God. And since "God" (or whatever word you wanna use) is All There Is, by definition there can be nothing "outside of God."

Same thing with "chance." God includes chance, otherwise "chance" would be "outside of God," and Nothing is outside of God.

Naturally, you can define God as something smaller, less than infinite, in which case things can exist outside of God/Infinity. To each his own. Personally, I like my God rather ultimate and absolute...but hey, that's me. Many colors make a rainbow.
big grin

Hit_and_Miss
By chance I'm not saying its out of his powers... But rather a minor thing and already has a rule to it... such as "If a baby was born tommorrow... Which sex will it be???" God would leave it to chance...

Not God Creates a blank universe with no rules and lets it roll....

Shakyamunison
We can never understand God, and sense evolution is part of God, we can never prove it.

debbiejo
Originally posted by Hit_and_Miss
By chance I'm not saying its out of his powers... But rather a minor thing and already has a rule to it... such as "If a baby was born tommorrow... Which sex will it be???" God would leave it to chance...

Not God Creates a blank universe with no rules and lets it roll....



You can find out what sex it can be by what you eat.....certain chromosomes are attracted to certain proteins..that's all....If you want a boy eat more beef, if you want a girl don't. Studies have been done on it.

And don't know no one come back with "zzzzzzzzzz" either..

=Mysta=-kILL
ok let me just say that if God didnt exist then whats the point of anything? Without God there would be know reason, and reason is God, therefor God exists(I think I heard that somewhere). anyway my point is that if God did not exist then life would be pointless, order would be pointless, everything would be pointless. I could go out and kill someone and think nothing of it because life doesnt matter, we are just created from evolution. The thing is that isnt true. God does exist because there is a reason in the world, thats why the world hasnt already destroyed itself.

Hit_and_Miss
*sign*.... I know that... But there was a point in the example..
God creates boundaries and lets chance dictate the outcome... so if he created a bag with only blue or red beads in it.. God lets lady luck pic out your bead... The rules have already told us its gonner be blue or red....

Unless studies have shown that if you eat more fish you get a blue bead..roll eyes (sarcastic)

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by =Mysta=-kILL
ok let me just say that if God didnt exist then whats the point of anything? Without God there would be know reason, and reason is God, therefor God exists(I think I heard that somewhere). anyway my point is that if God did not exist then life would be pointless, order would be pointless, everything would be pointless. I could go out and kill someone and think nothing of it because life doesnt matter, we are just created from evolution. The thing is that isnt true. God does exist because there is a reason in the world, thats why the world hasnt already destroyed itself.


Why would there be no point if there was no god? There is still cause and effect. The world would work just fine without a god. The fact that there is or is not a god has nothing to do with rather you will kill someone. People get murdered all the time in this world. I think if there was a god, like the one in the bible, people would not be aloud to kill each other.

Hit_and_Miss
Originally posted by =Mysta=-kILL
Without God there would be know reason, and reason is God, therefor God exists(I think I heard that somewhere). anyway my point is that if God did not exist then life would be pointless

Animals live out there lives without praying... Do they go to hell???
No they naturaly survive so that they can live.... If they kill, they don't seem to broken up about it.... and no, animals don't just kill for food!

Without proof your theory holds little credability... While I myself believe that there is a god for kinda the same reason.... I don't think of it as proof... Just my natural instinct to want to live, as I know I'm going to die one day, its just a longing not to sink into a black oblivion (sorry god)

=Mysta=-kILL
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Why would there be no point if there was no god? There is still cause and effect. The world would work just fine without a god. The fact that there is or is not a god has nothing to do with rather you will kill someone. People get murdered all the time in this world. I think if there was a god, like the one in the bible, people would not be aloud to kill each other.
God gave people free will, but also rules. People that kill others are not obeying the rules and, if they do not repent, will go to hell.
Well, when you think of killing someone, thats assuming that you have, dont you get this feeling like it would be wrong, against your rights or something? You dont just kill people because you know it would be wrong to do so.

sithsaber408
Back on topic:

"Did dinos soar? Imaginations certainly took flight over "Archaeoraptor Liaoningesis", a birdlike fossil with a meat-eater's tail that was spirited out of northeastern China, 'discovered' at a Tucson, Arizona, gem and mineral show in '99, and displayed at the National Geographic Society in Washington, D.C. Some 110,000 visitors saw the exhibit, which closed January 17th; millions more read about the find in November's National Geographic. Now, paleontologists are eating crow. Instead of 'a true missing link' connecting dinosaurs to birds, the specimen appears to be a composite, its unnusual appendage likely tacked on by a Chinese farmer, not evolution.
"Archaeoraptor is hardly the first 'missing link' to snap under scrutiny. In 1912, fossil remains of an ancient hominid were found in England's Piltdown quarries and quickly dubbed man's ape-like ancestor. It took decades to reveal the hoax."

-U.S. News & World Report, February 14,2000


"Scientists concede that their most cherished theories are based on embarrassingly few fossil fragments and that huge gaps exist in the fossil record."

-Time magazine, Nov. 7,1977

"Charles Dawson, a British lawyer and amateur geologist, announced in 1912 his discovery of pieces of a human skull, and an apelike jaw in a gravel pit near the town of Piltdown, England...Dawson's announcement stopped the scorn cold. Experts instantly declared Piltdown Man (estimated to be 300,000 to one million years old) the evolutionary find of the century. Darwin's missing link had been found.
"Or so it seemed for the next 40 or so years. Then, in the early fifties...scientists began to suspect misattribution. In 1953, that suspcicion gave way to a full-blown scandal: Piltdown Man was a hoax. Radiocarbon tests proved that its skull belonged to a 600-year old woman, and its jaw to a 500-year old orangutan from the West Indies."

-Our Times: The Illustrated History of the 20th Century



These are not isolated incedents.

The famed Nebraska Man was derived from a single tooth, which was later found to be from an extinct pig. Java Man, found in the early 20th century, was nothing more than a piece of skull, a fragment of a thigh bone, and three molar teeth. The rest came from the deeply fertile imaginations of plaster of Paris workers. Java Man is now regarded as fully human. Heidelberg Man came from a jawbone, a large chin section, and a few teeth. Most scientists reject the jawbone because its similar to modern man. Still, many evolutionists believe that he's 250,000 years old. No doubt they pinpointed his birthday with carbon dating. However, TIME magazine (June 11, 1990) published a science article subtitled "Geologists show that carbon dating can be way off", in which it is implied that carbon dating is only 100% accurate up to 7,000-10,000 years(the exact amount of time that the earth would be around if the Bible is correct), and even more interestingly, :

"Shells from LIVING snails were carbon dated as being 27,000 years old" - SCIENCE magazine, vol.224, 1984 (emphasis added wink )

The Neanderthal man is no evidence for evolution either. He died of exposure. His skull was exposed as being fully human, not ape. Not only was his stuped posture found to be caused by disease, but he spoke and was artistic and religious.

cool

Hit_and_Miss
If you actualy looked up the creators of those hoaxes you would find out why evolutionist still strive... Those people didn't create the evidence to prove evolution as no evidence exists.. They created it cause they wanted the fame and fortune that came with finding the missing link!

also carbon dating isn't the only form of Radiometric dating... Other tech can date far greater ranges depending on the half-life of the radiation source used...
I.e Carbon 14 has a HL of 5730 years...
But Potassium-argon dating has a HL 1.3x109 years....
Optically stimulated luminescence dating which they can measure soil samples with can measure upto 200,000 years...

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by =Mysta=-kILL
God gave people free will, but also rules. People that kill others are not obeying the rules and, if they do not repent, will go to hell.
Well, when you think of killing someone, thats assuming that you have, dont you get this feeling like it would be wrong, against your rights or something? You dont just kill people because you know it would be wrong to do so.

Man made rules.

=Mysta=-kILL
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Man made rules.
no, the ten commandments.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by =Mysta=-kILL
no, the ten commandments.

Written by man.

=Mysta=-kILL
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Written by man.
written by God and given to Moses.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by =Mysta=-kILL
written by God and given to Moses.

That is a myth. Now, there is nothing wrong with believing in a myth, belief is a strong tool in life and a myth can hold a profound truth, but never take the bible literally, it is not that kind of book.

Gregory
Originally posted by =Mysta=-kILL
written by God and given to Moses.

The same Moses who threw a hissy fit because after invading a city, his people didn't butcher all of the children. So he sent them back to the city to do that. And then he told everyone, "Though shalt not kill."

I used to try to explain evolution to Creationists until I came to a realization; Creationists don't want to understand evolution; they just want to whine about it. Talk about a time-saver! Still, if anyone cares, the carbon dating of the snail shells is quite correct; you do know how snail shells form, right? Here's a hint; it involves carbon from the water. Carbon that does not magically become younger when it becomes part of a snail shell. It took maybe ten seconds for me to find this out, and that's how I know that creationists aren't interested in learning about evolution; if they were, they'd research their claims before spouting them at people.

Imperial_Samura
Hmmm. Yes. And the Ten Commandments weren't so revolutionary, various civilisations that predated Moses had laws - though shall not kill, though shall not steal etc. Not new. Not unique. In fact the only real unique one on the list was the "no worshipping others" one.



Crimney!!! What tosh. What unbelievable tosh. For one, the Neanderthal was neither ape nor homo sapian. Stupid posture? Not stupid, simply his skeletal structure. Artistic, religious and spoke? One of the reasons anthropologists and the like believe Neanderthal failed where the homo line flourished was the fact the skull/jaw structure wasn't suited for complex language - the ability to speak is very important in terms of human dominance when it was at that point. That, and it was never exposed as a fake.

Tptmanno1
Originally posted by Gregory
The same Moses who threw a hissy fit because after invading a city, his people didn't butcher all of the children. So he sent them back to the city to do that. And then he told everyone, "Though shalt not kill."

I used to try to explain evolution to Creationists until I came to a realization; Creationists don't want to understand evolution; they just want to whine about it. Talk about a time-saver! Still, if anyone cares, the carbon dating of the snail shells is quite correct; you do know how snail shells form, right? Here's a hint; it involves carbon from the water. Carbon that does not magically become younger when it becomes part of a snail shell. It took maybe ten seconds for me to find this out, and that's how I know that creationists aren't interested in learning about evolution; if they were, they'd research their claims before spouting them at people.
(as much I hate to barge right in...)
Exactly, They will nit-pick and zoom right in on all the very little, nearly irrevalent details, and completly miss the big picture, which is evolution is so obvious, so blatently true, that no-one even bothers to study it anymore, (In schools) its simly accepted and used like a formula, its applied to certian situations.

Also a bit of clarification, in science, there are no facts.
In case you missed it, I'll say it again.
THERE. ARE. NO. FACTS.
There are only theroys.
The THEROY of gravity. Does this mean that there is no gravity and is some flimsy sham to try to discredit christianity?
Try it for your self. Pick up the nearest object. It can be anything. Drop it.
Does it fall to the ground?
Yes? Thought so.
Now repeated 1000 times.
Can you expect that the 1001th time it will fall to the ground like all other times?
BOOM! You just proved the "theroy" of Gravity.

Lana
But people don't like the idea that there are no cold hard facts in science! They'd rather believe something that is utterly preposterous and without ANY evidence!

And Hit or Miss, your whole reason = God exists reasoning is beyond ridiculous. Morals and such existed FAR longer than Christianity - or any religion for that matter. They did not come from religion. Rather, man made them themselves and religion stole them. Christianity in particular is known for stealing things from other cultures and religions and claiming it as their own.

Hit_and_Miss
Originally posted by Lana
And Hit or Miss, your whole reason = God exists reasoning is beyond ridiculous. Morals and such existed FAR longer than Christianity - or any religion for that matter. They did not come from religion. Rather, man made them themselves and religion stole them. Christianity in particular is known for stealing things from other cultures and religions and claiming it as their own.

I'm not going to disagree but I will elaborate, I was brought up in a strong christian family and went to all religious schools. I never really had much of a choice in my faith and as so, I only really know about 1 well... (Shame really) I wouldn't concider myself to be a strong christian anymore, But I do believe there to be a god. Which God is the correct one??? Who has the best religion? to me the base concepts in mainly are the same (try not to kill, Be a good person....) so I don't think It's really worth changing my religion. If science could prove tomorrow that there was no god (of any kind) and the universe is just 1 science theory away from being explained I would try to accept it over disproving it.

For me it feels natural, While I don't expect others to believe on that basis, Its nice to have some faith...

leonheartmm
hmmm. people say that god exists because otherwise there would be no reason for anythin, but have u ever thought that if we believe that theres a reason for everythin than there must be a reason for god and he must have a creator too.

xmarksthespot
Originally posted by sithsaber408
Back on topic:

"Did dinos soar? Imaginations certainly took flight over "Archaeoraptor Liaoningesis", a birdlike fossil with a meat-eater's tail that was spirited out of northeastern China, 'discovered' at a Tucson, Arizona, gem and mineral show in '99, and displayed at the National Geographic Society in Washington, D.C. Some 110,000 visitors saw the exhibit, which closed January 17th; millions more read about the find in November's National Geographic. Now, paleontologists are eating crow. Instead of 'a true missing link' connecting dinosaurs to birds, the specimen appears to be a composite, its unnusual appendage likely tacked on by a Chinese farmer, not evolution.
"Archaeoraptor is hardly the first 'missing link' to snap under scrutiny. In 1912, fossil remains of an ancient hominid were found in England's Piltdown quarries and quickly dubbed man's ape-like ancestor. It took decades to reveal the hoax."

-U.S. News & World Report, February 14,2000


"Scientists concede that their most cherished theories are based on embarrassingly few fossil fragments and that huge gaps exist in the fossil record."

-Time magazine, Nov. 7,1977

"Charles Dawson, a British lawyer and amateur geologist, announced in 1912 his discovery of pieces of a human skull, and an apelike jaw in a gravel pit near the town of Piltdown, England...Dawson's announcement stopped the scorn cold. Experts instantly declared Piltdown Man (estimated to be 300,000 to one million years old) the evolutionary find of the century. Darwin's missing link had been found.
"Or so it seemed for the next 40 or so years. Then, in the early fifties...scientists began to suspect misattribution. In 1953, that suspcicion gave way to a full-blown scandal: Piltdown Man was a hoax. Radiocarbon tests proved that its skull belonged to a 600-year old woman, and its jaw to a 500-year old orangutan from the West Indies."

-Our Times: The Illustrated History of the 20th Century



These are not isolated incedents.

The famed Nebraska Man was derived from a single tooth, which was later found to be from an extinct pig. Java Man, found in the early 20th century, was nothing more than a piece of skull, a fragment of a thigh bone, and three molar teeth. The rest came from the deeply fertile imaginations of plaster of Paris workers. Java Man is now regarded as fully human. Heidelberg Man came from a jawbone, a large chin section, and a few teeth. Most scientists reject the jawbone because its similar to modern man. Still, many evolutionists believe that he's 250,000 years old. No doubt they pinpointed his birthday with carbon dating. However, TIME magazine (June 11, 1990) published a science article subtitled "Geologists show that carbon dating can be way off", in which it is implied that carbon dating is only 100% accurate up to 7,000-10,000 years(the exact amount of time that the earth would be around if the Bible is correct), and even more interestingly, :

"Shells from LIVING snails were carbon dated as being 27,000 years old" - SCIENCE magazine, vol.224, 1984 (emphasis added wink )

The Neanderthal man is no evidence for evolution either. He died of exposure. His skull was exposed as being fully human, not ape. Not only was his stuped posture found to be caused by disease, but he spoke and was artistic and religious.

cool Good grief. Why do so many religious people on this forum seem like they were homeschooled by retards. Were they actually all homeschooled by retards?

Hit_and_Miss
then your stuck in a loop... For there to be a god, He must "be all powerful and ever living", For else he wouldn't be, he would just be a powerful lifeform, who will die/has to reproduce for another "god" to exist.... This couldn't happen without there being a God to that lifeform, who created it.

Hit_and_Miss
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Good grief. Why do so many religious people on this forum seem like they were homeschooled by retards. Were they actually all homeschooled by retards?

They just use google and copy paste the first argument they can find on a website, Then add some comment like how right that argument is.. Or in this case.. A dude with glasses....

they can't prove it themselves so they count on some flawed webpage to do the work for them...

Imperial_Samura
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Good grief. Why do so many religious people on this forum seem like they were homeschooled by retards. Were they actually all homeschooled by retards?

Homeschooled by people with such resources as the "Our Times: The Illustrated History of the 20th Century." Now that's scary. Evolutionists better be scared. Snort. Snicker.

And our Christian friends should be careful about loudly proclaiming the falsity of evolution based upon things like the Piltdown man. People might do it back.

Maybe we could mention all those things meant to prove God and Jesus. Shroud of Turin anybody? The box said to contain the bones of Jesus's "brother"? All the pieces of the "True Cross", which if put together would create something hundreds of meters high? The fact back in the 1200's there was something like three, count 'em three, heads all apparently belonging to to John the Baptist? Rusty old spear tips said to be the fabled "spear of destiny" that turn out to be many, many hundreds of years too late? The list goes on, and is far, far larger then any list that could be created from studies of evolution.

Hit_and_Miss
not to mention all the sightings of god in potato chips, Flowers, clouds....

leonheartmm
there are many problems with the very CONCEPTS of omnipotence/omniscience. if god is omnipotent than he is self sustaining, he neither needs nor wants. but then why would an omnipotent god need OR want to create the world/satan/angels or anythin let alone want people to pray to him. all will is in one way or another related to desire, if u will sumthing to happen or make it happen, its because u either WANT or NEED that thing to happen for whatever reason, but if god was all that there was omnipotent, he would not desire anything else and there would be no reason to create anythin else, even if sum1 does sumthin just for the heck of it, theres still desire behond it n and omnipotent god SHOULD be beyond any desire because there is nuthin MORE than himself, he is all. also the concept of omnipotence is flawed, if a god is all powerful that means that he can do ANYTHING, but anything also includes him being able to create another omnipotent god{for he can do ANYTHING} but if another omnipotent god exists, the very concept of all powerful omnipotence goes down the drain as it is only for ONE not two, secondly an omnipotent god COULD create an even more powerful being than himself{as he is omnipotent} and that also destroyes the concept. another thing an omnipotent god cud also kill himself if he wanted {as he is all powerful} but that too would destroy the concept and above all if he CANT or wont do these things than THAT TOO denies the concept of omnipotence as he would then not be ALL POWERFUL.
theres also a problem with omniscience{the ability to see and know all, past/present/future ad anythin and everythin else, material/spiritual and beyond. an omniscient god would KNOW what lied in his future n what actions he WOULD take but if that was true than the omniscient god would be RESTRICTED to doing only those things which would deny the concept of omnipotence of god. also people say that god has a choice to do whatever he wants n he is not limited{to say that his omniscince is like the thoughts of a human who knows what he is gonna do in the future ashe KNOWS himself, this argument is given to truy n validate god's omnipotence with his omniscience} but if that were true than the prospect of god NOT being SURE about the future would come up as he COULD do anything he wanted, but THAT defies his other aspect OMNISCIENCE, god WOULD know what decisions he was going to make if he truly was omniscient and therefore put limits upon himself which would destroy his omnipotence in any way.

lastly if god is omniscient than man does not have a free will as god knows the path he will choose even IF any choice to the human is given, god KNOWS what the human will do and the human wont do anything other than what god knows, this means that the human is not in control of himself even if he thinks he is and his every single actions is predestined, why ten would god punish any1 n why then is it in almost every relegion that free will exists? lastly if god is all powerful than the world is ALSO a part of god with everythin in it, because nuthing OTHER than god can exist because even though it might be much weaker, anythin OTHER than god would nullify his omnipotence.

these {yea i know they are borin n sumwhat cumbersome to go through} are some of the main reasons i dont believe in ANY relegion with an omnipotent god in it n im 100% sure that no OMNIPOTENT/OMNISCIENT god exists. just hope it opens the eyes of others. the other issues dont even matter when the basic concept behind god is 100% false.


yup ive gone on for too long, hope sum1 goes to the trouble of readin this. n NO i havent gotten these ideas from any1 on anywhere, its just what i have thought up off in the past few years n have been the reason im no longer relegious.

Hit_and_Miss
Perhaps god wondered as to what his purpose was? and came to the conclusion that his powers were to create... and a universe was born...

leonheartmm
Originally posted by Hit_and_Miss
Perhaps god wondered as to what his purpose was? and came to the conclusion that his powers were to create... and a universe was born...

if he wondered, he wouldnt be omniscient, if his powers were only to create than hes not omnipotent big grin {get my point, such a god CAN NOT exist}

Hit_and_Miss
I'm not saying thats the limit of his power... But knew that his purpose was to create and generaly do what he wanted...

God doesn't have to have a reason... hes all powerful...

Constantly asking why over and over again is dull... Give your solution to the problem then...

leonheartmm
Originally posted by Hit_and_Miss
I'm not saying thats the limit of his power... But knew that his purpose was to create and generaly do what he wanted...

God doesn't have to have a reason... hes all powerful...

Constantly asking why over and over again is dull... Give your solution to the problem then...


sigh, TRY n understand what im sayin. anythin that has a purpose is ALWAYS ULTIMATELY CREATED {its true if u think about it} purpose is decided by a higher power, wheather that be ur firm boss or god. sumthin that has a purpose is confined and has things ASSOCIATED with it sumthin that has a purpose has to have sum1 ELSE or sumthine ELSE outside of it to define that purpose n thus can NOT be omnipotent, sum1 omnipotent has complete freedom, no limitation, motivations, advantages, disadvantages or pressure, nor a purpose, it is complete in itself n nuthin other than it IS{exists} and even if it does, it has to be part of it, IF god has a purpose, than he is not omnipotent. {oh n btw, WITHOUT a reason he wudnt have a purpose n u said urself that he has a purpose n then later went on to say that he doesnt have to have a reason u cant have it both ways} i do have a solution to a problem, it is this, PEOPLE SHOULD UNDERSTAND THAT AN OMNIPOTENT GOD NEITHER "DOES" NOR "CAN" EXIST.

Shakyamunison
I got your proof, a Chiwawa. Humans have been playing with the basic building blocks of evolution for centuries. A Chiwawa could never have lived in the wild; we humans have made this animal by selective breading. The dog had the genetic potential to make all the strange dogs we have today. Evolution is nature doing the selective breading instead of humans.

Hit_and_Miss
Originally posted by leonheartmm
sigh, TRY n understand what im sayin. anythin that has a purpose is ALWAYS ULTIMATELY CREATED {its true if u think about it} purpose is decided by a higher power, wheather that be ur firm boss or god. sumthin that has a purpose is confined and has things ASSOCIATED with it sumthin that has a purpose has to have sum1 ELSE or sumthine ELSE outside of it to define that purpose n thus can NOT be omnipotent, sum1 omnipotent has complete freedom, no limitation, motivations, advantages, disadvantages or pressure, nor a purpose, it is complete in itself n nuthin other than it IS{exists} and even if it does, it has to be part of it, IF god has a purpose, than he is not omnipotent. {oh n btw, WITHOUT a reason he wudnt have a purpose n u said urself that he has a purpose n then later went on to say that he doesnt have to have a reason u cant have it both ways} i do have a solution to a problem, it is this, PEOPLE SHOULD UNDERSTAND THAT AN OMNIPOTENT GOD NEITHER "DOES" NOR "CAN" EXIST.

*Sigh* So by your own definition things Must have purpose in order to be... If a thing has no purpose then its purpose is not to have a purpose...

Your whole argument comes from 1 word I used... That gods purpose was to create us... What if god just felt like creating us, Then went back to living his life in the clouds happily doing nothing living without a purpose... Theres many things that get created that don't have a purpose... Such as people... Our purpose is to reproduce to ensure the survival of our species... But why??? We don't get points for it.. Nor do we get any benefit out of in once we die?? and just like that... Your whole argument that we must have a purpose crumbles...
If theres no god then why bother living to get into heaven?? You might as well do what ever you want as there is no purpose??? (while I'm not saying the meaning of life is to get into heaven,I used this as an example...)

leonheartmm
Originally posted by Hit_and_Miss
*Sigh* So by your own definition things Must have purpose in order to be... If a thing has no purpose then its purpose is not to have a purpose...

Your whole argument comes from 1 word I used... That gods purpose was to create us... What if god just felt like creating us, Then went back to living his life in the clouds happily doing nothing living without a purpose... Theres many things that get created that don't have a purpose... Such as people... Our purpose is to reproduce to ensure the survival of our species... But why??? We don't get points for it.. Nor do we get any benefit out of in once we die?? and just like that... Your whole argument that we must have a purpose crumbles...
If theres no god then why bother living to get into heaven?? You might as well do what ever you want as there is no purpose??? (while I'm not saying the meaning of life is to get into heaven,I used this as an example...)


im tired, but ill explain again. im not saying there are things that are without a purpose{however nuthing was CREATED that way} thye only lost their purpose later on. i NEVER said that thing MUST have purpose, just that anything that has purpose was created not the other way around. i was merely making the point that IF god has a purpose then he can NOT be omnipotent.

as far as the "he created us because he felt like it" argument goes, i have a good answer for that. by the very definition of omnipotent, he is self sustaining, he neither NEEDS nor WANTS/DESIRES anything if he does than he is a slave to an emotion, be that NEED{n sum1 who is omnipotent does NOT need anythings} , or be that WANT/DESIRE {sum1 who is omnipotent does not WANT nor desire anything} it is because he is complete into himself and is all powerful, h neither wants nor desires anything other than that therefore he would never FEAL like creating any1 because that would either be out of NEED or DESIRE, NUTHING would be CREATED without those emotions n since those emotions can not be part of sum1 omnipotent, god can NOT have created the world. an omnipotent god atleast.


as for the last part
"If theres no god then why bother living to get into heaven?? You might as well do what ever you want as there is no purpose???"

i wud like u to be VERY clear what ur purpose is in stating that sentence. it looks to me like u cant handle life without a god given purpose and are afraid to "do watever u want as there is no purpose" also is god the only reason why YOU bother to live, i know its certainly not the reason i live, but if u feal that way be my guest and throw urself off a skyscrapper.{although id tell u to not do that big grin stick out tongue }

Hit_and_Miss
Originally posted by leonheartmm
"If theres no god then why bother living to get into heaven?? You might as well do what ever you want as there is no purpose???"

i wud like u to be VERY clear what ur purpose is in stating that sentence. it looks to me like u cant handle life without a god given purpose and are afraid to "do watever u want as there is no purpose" also is god the only reason why YOU bother to live, i know its certainly not the reason i live,

The point was that if we god doesn't exist and we won't go to heaven ever. Then we are not bound by any laws other then to do what we want... The choice to act in accordance with the law is so that we can exist in a society. This still doesn't equate as to why we live if we can't do anything other then live for the few short years we have... We might as well do what we want until we die?? After all it won't affect us once we have gone!

I can handle life just fine.. I have no intentions of doing anything crazy I want to have a happy standard life... My question is why don't you do what you want?


Check out the term omnipotent... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotent
God doesn't have to have no power of choice to be omnipotent... He doesn't have to have no free will either... In terms of religion it (literally, "all power"wink its power with no limits or ever inexhaustible, in other words, unlimited power. He doesn't have to forfeit the right to never use this power as he sees fit... Or the choice of having a purpose... your arguing on the basis of Rejection of omnipotence as a paradoxes of omnipotence is that he can't have the power to "create a stone so heavy that he couldn't lift it himself..." (to that extent...)

Which is a catch 22 situation... I'm not interested in debating round in circles...

Lana
Originally posted by Hit_and_Miss
I'm not going to disagree but I will elaborate, I was brought up in a strong christian family and went to all religious schools. I never really had much of a choice in my faith and as so, I only really know about 1 well... (Shame really) I wouldn't concider myself to be a strong christian anymore, But I do believe there to be a god. Which God is the correct one??? Who has the best religion? to me the base concepts in mainly are the same (try not to kill, Be a good person....) so I don't think It's really worth changing my religion. If science could prove tomorrow that there was no god (of any kind) and the universe is just 1 science theory away from being explained I would try to accept it over disproving it.

For me it feels natural, While I don't expect others to believe on that basis, Its nice to have some faith...

Actually, I meant to address that part to =Mysta=-kILL, my apologies.

Hit_and_Miss
Hmmmm Not sure if I should forgive you...stick out tongue

leonheartmm
Originally posted by Hit_and_Miss
The point was that if we god doesn't exist and we won't go to heaven ever. Then we are not bound by any laws other then to do what we want... The choice to act in accordance with the law is so that we can exist in a society. This still doesn't equate as to why we live if we can't do anything other then live for the few short years we have... We might as well do what we want until we die?? After all it won't affect us once we have gone!

I can handle life just fine.. I have no intentions of doing anything crazy I want to have a happy standard life... My question is why don't you do what you want?


Check out the term omnipotent... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotent
God doesn't have to have no power of choice to be omnipotent... He doesn't have to have no free will either... In terms of religion it (literally, "all power"wink its power with no limits or ever inexhaustible, in other words, unlimited power. He doesn't have to forfeit the right to never use this power as he sees fit... Or the choice of having a purpose... your arguing on the basis of Rejection of omnipotence as a paradoxes of omnipotence is that he can't have the power to "create a stone so heavy that he couldn't lift it himself..." (to that extent...)

Which is a catch 22 situation... I'm not interested in debating round in circles...

ill answer this in stages{not in order mind u}




"God doesn't have to have no power of choice to be omnipotent... He doesn't have to have no free will either... In terms of religion it (literally, "all power"wink its power with no limits or ever inexhaustible, in other words, unlimited power. He doesn't have to forfeit the right to never use this power as he sees fit... Or the choice of having a purpose... your arguing on the basis of Rejection of omnipotence as a paradoxes of omnipotence is that he can't have the power to "create a stone so heavy that he couldn't lift it himself..." (to that extent...)

Which is a catch 22 situation... I'm not interested in debating round in circles..."

the definition of omnipotent in a dictionary is at the very best limited, but IF sumthing is omnipotent MANY things and rules AUTOMATICALLY apply, for example, the dictionary just says omnipotent=sum1 with infinite power, or endless power or ALLPOWERFUL. NOW, if that sum1 IS all powerful than that ALSO means that there is only ONE of him, this is because IF there is another one who is ALLPOWERFUL than NEITHER will be ALL powerful, because to be ALL powerful u have to HAVE "ALL" and if even one little thing exist other than those under your power u do not have power over ALL. now that wouldnt be stated in the dictionary but it would impose itself on the definition instantly just like the other things i have said. just because ur not interested in in the CATCH22 situation{as u put it} doesnt mean it doesnt exist. if god has a purpose than that purpose is either dictated by sumthing beyond god or is in itself a concept beyond god both of which deny the conept of omnipotence{all powerful} of god. and also if god really was omnipotent he WOULD be able to create sum1 even more powerful than himself but since that wud deny his omnipotence he wont be ALL powerful, thus the very concept of omnipotence is paradoxical and denies itself. {i hope this clears that up}



now as far as this goes

"The point was that if we god doesn't exist and we won't go to heaven ever. Then we are not bound by any laws other then to do what we want... The choice to act in accordance with the law is so that we can exist in a society. This still doesn't equate as to why we live if we can't do anything other then live for the few short years we have... We might as well do what we want until we die?? After all it won't affect us once we have gone!

I can handle life just fine.. I have no intentions of doing anything crazy I want to have a happy standard life... My question is why don't you do what you want?"

i can explain this easily. the first paragraph isnt really a question{if u read it carefully urself} it is just u sayin in a way that its impossible to handle the concept of there being no god. it seems that life without a god given purpose, rules and reward is impossible to imagine.


"This still doesn't equate as to why we live if we can't do anything other then live for the few short years we have... We might as well do what we want until we die?? After all it won't affect us once we have gone!"

sadly this is probably the case, no matter how hard to accept.{again see as that statement was expressing more fear if my version of events is true, than giving me a question to answer and debate over.

Hit_and_Miss
Originally posted by leonheartmm
if god has a purpose than that purpose is either dictated by sumthing beyond god or is in itself a concept beyond god both of which deny the conept of omnipotence{all powerful} of god. and also if god really was omnipotent he WOULD be able to create sum1 even more powerful than himself but since that wud deny his omnipotence he wont be ALL powerful, thus the very concept of omnipotence is paradoxical and denies itself. {i hope this clears that up}
now as far as this goes

i can explain this easily. the first paragraph isnt really a question{if u read it carefully urself} it is just u sayin in a way that its impossible to handle the concept of there being no god. it seems that life without a god given purpose, rules and reward is impossible to imagine.

sadly this is probably the case, no matter how hard to accept.{again see as that statement was expressing more fear if my version of events is true, than giving me a question to answer and debate over.

Your trying to put god in a box... Now by "our" definition that is impossible for the paradoxes that occur... Just like a mouse can't comprehend us... We can not comprehend god or his powers... We assign the term omnipotent to the fact that he could do anything... And is not bound by the laws of logic (like us) or reasoning (like our debate) the fact is that if god wanted to create a square circle he could.. But by definition to us, He couldn't... That is the true power of god... He is beyond reasoning and logic... There is no point in trying to engage in paradox debates....

While It would be nice to have an after life, This affects me very little... My point was concering your view... If people have a purpose then they will act within reason to achieve that purpose.. if they have no purpose then they can do whatever they want...

Have we assigned ourselfs our own purpose? (survive and have kids) or are we trying to achieve someone elses purpose...

leonheartmm
Originally posted by Hit_and_Miss
Your trying to put god in a box... Now by "our" definition that is impossible for the paradoxes that occur... Just like a mouse can't comprehend us... We can not comprehend god or his powers... We assign the term omnipotent to the fact that he could do anything... And is not bound by the laws of logic (like us) or reasoning (like our debate) the fact is that if god wanted to create a square circle he could.. But by definition to us, He couldn't... That is the true power of god... He is beyond reasoning and logic... There is no point in trying to engage in paradox debates....

While It would be nice to have an after life, This affects me very little... My point was concering your view... If people have a purpose then they will act within reason to achieve that purpose.. if they have no purpose then they can do whatever they want...

Have we assigned ourselfs our own purpose? (survive and have kids) or are we trying to achieve someone elses purpose...

so ur counterargument is that my argument{a concept which is BASED on logic} is wrong simply because god is beyond logic and nuthin can be said or proven or given to make it otherwise? no matter how logical/reasonable/believeable?

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I got your proof, a Chiwawa. Humans have been playing with the basic building blocks of evolution for centuries. A Chiwawa could never have lived in the wild; we humans have made this animal by selective breading. The dog had the genetic potential to make all the strange dogs we have today. Evolution is nature doing the selective breading instead of humans.

Hey! were is my money? roll eyes (sarcastic)

sithsaber408
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Hey! were is my money? roll eyes (sarcastic)

Submit your claim to Dr. Hovind, make the hack pay up! stick out tongue

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by sithsaber408
Submit your claim to Dr. Hovind, make the hack pay up! stick out tongue

Don't you wish it was that simple. It most likely is a scam, anyway, I don't have time for that. stick out tongue

Life is like a cafeteria. Each belief structure has it's our line of food. There's one for Christians, there's one for Buddhists, there's even one for atheists. Some people only eat food from one line, even if it makes them sick. I like to pick for more then one line. I am a Buddhist but there are some things in the Christian line I like, and some from the atheists. This is what I suggest, look at all the lines, and be moderate in what you pick.

Hit_and_Miss
Originally posted by leonheartmm
so ur counterargument is that my argument{a concept which is BASED on logic} is wrong simply because god is beyond logic and nuthin can be said or proven or given to make it otherwise? no matter how logical/reasonable/believeable?

yup... One of the benifits of being "omnipotent" and having all power is you don't have to play by the rules...

If you had read the definition I gave you, you would understand...

whobdamandog
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Good grief. Why do so many religious people on this forum seem like they were homeschooled by retards. Were they actually all homeschooled by retards?

X..from what I can gather..you're a scientist, or at least attempting to be one. I'm quite certain that you have an exstensive knowledge of biology, genetics, etc, and I'm sure you went to or are going to an accredited university.

The irony of all this, is the fact that despite your exstensive educational/professional experience..you've stated the following in various Evolution threads:

1. The Neandrathal Man is a "different species of human."

2. Mutations found in nature are generally progressive and beneficial.

3. In a society ruled by a secular government, those whom have non-secular beliefs are able to classify what their belief systems represent.

4. Even though human beings themselves are "Intelligent Designers", it would make more sense to assume that no one designed them, and that life just randomly formed from nothing..

confused..wink

Seriously Bud..

Just think about this for a minute. All of the knowledge you've acquired through studies..and some of life's simplest lessons have alluded you. I think you need to do some serious soul searching my friend.

Fin

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by whobdamandog
...Just think about this for a minute. All of the knowledge you've acquired through studies..and some of life's simplest lessons have alluded you. I think you need to do some serious soul searching my friend.

Fin

That is the most hypocritical thing I have ever read from you, wait, I maybe wrong about that laughing .

Whob, there are a lot of things you should learn.

whobdamandog
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
That is the most hypocritical thing I have ever read from you, wait, I maybe wrong about that laughing .


Wasn't it a wise man(or perhaps a foolish one...I can't remember) who once said...





roll eyes (sarcastic) wink

Hit_and_Miss
whob why do you believe in ID over Ev??? what convinced you??

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by whobdamandog
Wasn't it a wise man(or perhaps a foolish one...I can't remember) who once said...





roll eyes (sarcastic) wink

Not a bad point, but not the one I was getting at. When a person says something like "I think you need to do some serious soul searching my friend." that person sounds like they are being judgmental. So, I thought I would point it out with a joke. Everyone could stand to learn, but we can only learn within our capability. Wouldn't it make your arguments better, if you knew more about science?

whobdamandog
Originally posted by Hit_and_Miss
whob why do you believe in ID over Ev??? what convinced you??

Well to be quite honest with you, I have been a Christian all of my life. I can't imagine how my life would be if I had no such belief in "God", nor can I understand how anyone can live life without believing that their life has no true purpose.

But aside from my religious roots, from a scientific perspective, I find it too difficult to believe that life could have formed from mere chance. The evidence out there does not support this hypothesis, and its wishful thinking for one to assume that it does.

As ironic as it may be, I actually grew up in a school system that taught evolutionary theory, and am a bit more learned on said subjects than many assume me to be. I'm actually taking a courses in Chemistry and Biology right now.

Capt_Fantastic
Originally posted by sithsaber408
Back on topic:

"Did dinos soar? Imaginations certainly took flight over "Archaeoraptor Liaoningesis", a birdlike fossil with a meat-eater's tail that was spirited out of northeastern China, 'discovered' at a Tucson, Arizona, gem and mineral show in '99, and displayed at the National Geographic Society in Washington, D.C. Some 110,000 visitors saw the exhibit, which closed January 17th; millions more read about the find in November's National Geographic. Now, paleontologists are eating crow. Instead of 'a true missing link' connecting dinosaurs to birds, the specimen appears to be a composite, its unnusual appendage likely tacked on by a Chinese farmer, not evolution.
"Archaeoraptor is hardly the first 'missing link' to snap under scrutiny. In 1912, fossil remains of an ancient hominid were found in England's Piltdown quarries and quickly dubbed man's ape-like ancestor. It took decades to reveal the hoax."

-U.S. News & World Report, February 14,2000


"Scientists concede that their most cherished theories are based on embarrassingly few fossil fragments and that huge gaps exist in the fossil record."

-Time magazine, Nov. 7,1977

"Charles Dawson, a British lawyer and amateur geologist, announced in 1912 his discovery of pieces of a human skull, and an apelike jaw in a gravel pit near the town of Piltdown, England...Dawson's announcement stopped the scorn cold. Experts instantly declared Piltdown Man (estimated to be 300,000 to one million years old) the evolutionary find of the century. Darwin's missing link had been found.
"Or so it seemed for the next 40 or so years. Then, in the early fifties...scientists began to suspect misattribution. In 1953, that suspcicion gave way to a full-blown scandal: Piltdown Man was a hoax. Radiocarbon tests proved that its skull belonged to a 600-year old woman, and its jaw to a 500-year old orangutan from the West Indies."

-Our Times: The Illustrated History of the 20th Century



These are not isolated incedents.

The famed Nebraska Man was derived from a single tooth, which was later found to be from an extinct pig. Java Man, found in the early 20th century, was nothing more than a piece of skull, a fragment of a thigh bone, and three molar teeth. The rest came from the deeply fertile imaginations of plaster of Paris workers. Java Man is now regarded as fully human. Heidelberg Man came from a jawbone, a large chin section, and a few teeth. Most scientists reject the jawbone because its similar to modern man. Still, many evolutionists believe that he's 250,000 years old. No doubt they pinpointed his birthday with carbon dating. However, TIME magazine (June 11, 1990) published a science article subtitled "Geologists show that carbon dating can be way off", in which it is implied that carbon dating is only 100% accurate up to 7,000-10,000 years(the exact amount of time that the earth would be around if the Bible is correct), and even more interestingly, :

"Shells from LIVING snails were carbon dated as being 27,000 years old" - SCIENCE magazine, vol.224, 1984 (emphasis added wink )

The Neanderthal man is no evidence for evolution either. He died of exposure. His skull was exposed as being fully human, not ape. Not only was his stuped posture found to be caused by disease, but he spoke and was artistic and religious.

cool

Oh my GOD! oh my god! I feel so bad for you! What bible thumping, Bush supporting site did you get this pile of shit off of?

Your disproving of facts are disporoving of facts that aren't even accurate. It's name isn't even Archaeoraptor! My god, I feel so bad for you and your people! Oh my god!...well, oh your god!

Capt_Fantastic
Originally posted by whobdamandog
X..from what I can gather..you're a scientist, or at least attempting to be one. I'm quite certain that you have an exstensive knowledge of biology, genetics, etc, and I'm sure you went to or are going to an accredited university.

The irony of all this, is the fact that despite your exstensive educational/professional experience..you've stated the following in various Evolution threads:

1. The Neandrathal Man is a "different species of human."

2. Mutations found in nature are generally progressive and beneficial.

3. In a society ruled by a secular government, those whom have non-secular beliefs are able to classify what their belief systems represent.

4. Even though human beings themselves are "Intelligent Designers", it would make more sense to assume that no one designed them, and that life just randomly formed from nothing..

confused..wink

Seriously Bud..

Just think about this for a minute. All of the knowledge you've acquired through studies..and some of life's simplest lessons have alluded you. I think you need to do some serious soul searching my friend.

Fin

So, you're ready for round 2?

xmarksthespot
Originally posted by whobdamandog
X..from what I can gather..you're a scientist, or at least attempting to be one. I'm quite certain that you have an exstensive knowledge of biology, genetics, etc, and I'm sure you went to or are going to an accredited university.

The irony of all this, is the fact that despite your exstensive educational/professional experience..you've stated the following in various Evolution threads:

1. The Neandrathal Man is a "different species of human."

2. Mutations found in nature are generally progressive and beneficial.

3. In a society ruled by a secular government, those whom have non-secular beliefs are able to classify what their belief systems represent.

4. Even though human beings themselves are "Intelligent Designers", it would make more sense to assume that no one designed them, and that life just randomly formed from nothing..

confused..wink

Seriously Bud..

Just think about this for a minute. All of the knowledge you've acquired through studies..and some of life's simplest lessons have alluded you. I think you need to do some serious soul searching my friend.

Fin Number one is a deliberate misinterpretation, I've stated Homo neanderthalensis is a different species from Homo sapiens but still a member of the family Hominidae. I've never stated that Homo neanderthalensis is a different species of Homo sapiens. Number two is an outright lie on your part. I wasn't even part of your stupid argument in number 3, but having authority does not equate to being an authority on an issue - Hitler was not an authority on Judaism - it's not my problem if you don't understand this. Number 4 I've never stated, and besides things do not have to "make sense" to you in order for the universe to continue.

I'm sure your god doesn't appreciate your lies, halfwit.

sithsaber408
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Good grief. Why do so many religious people on this forum seem like they were homeschooled by retards. Were they actually all homeschooled by retards?

No, my friend. I actually was a rather bright student.


I did quite well on my S.A.T.'s .... back in 6th grade. My lowest score was 9th grade math level, with a 10th grade science level, and four P.H.S. (Post High School) scores for English, Reasoning, Vocabulary, History.

I'm no genius, hey, I freely admit to not finishing high school,(due to my own stupid choices) but you don't need to post stuff like that.

I don't attack you. I may not agree with you, or you with me, but we don't need to name call.

(It makes your point-of-view seem less valid wink Originally posted by Hit_and_Miss
They just use google and copy paste the first argument they can find on a website, Then add some comment like how right that argument is.. Or in this case.. A dude with glasses....

they can't prove it themselves so they count on some flawed webpage to do the work for them...

Give me a little credit... I didn't go "web surfing for anti evolution" drivel..... stick out tongue


Point of fact,... those are REAL articles, written in REAL magazines, and a real history book. Perhaps rather than make fun of the source,(since you don't like the info.) you ought to try to "cut and paste" your counter points. Or at least show what I posted to be false/contradicted.

On a side note.... I'm a registered member of the boards who has been here longer than you, and I'm also a few years older. Don't be disrespectfull. Please be civil and show the same courtesy that I have afforded to you.Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Homeschooled by people with such resources as the "Our Times: The Illustrated History of the 20th Century." Now that's scary. Evolutionists better be scared. Snort. Snicker.

And our Christian friends should be careful about loudly proclaiming the falsity of evolution based upon things like the Piltdown man. People might do it back.

Maybe we could mention all those things meant to prove God and Jesus. Shroud of Turin anybody? The box said to contain the bones of Jesus's "brother"? All the pieces of the "True Cross", which if put together would create something hundreds of meters high? The fact back in the 1200's there was something like three, count 'em three, heads all apparently belonging to to John the Baptist? Rusty old spear tips said to be the fabled "spear of destiny" that turn out to be many, many hundreds of years too late? The list goes on, and is far, far larger then any list that could be created from studies of evolution.

Same applies to you, good sir. Please dispute my source with something of SUBSTANCE, rather than a crack about a book that you've never cracked.

Piltdown Man was a fraud. I don't see your reason for saying that I should'nt include him in an argument about the validity of Evolutionism.

You have a point about some of the things throughout history that have wrongly been used to validate Christianity, and I applaud your knowleged of that subject. smile

Please use your knowledge to stay on topic, and provide points/counterpoints to the discussion that is currently underway.

(Rather than respond out of emotionalism and say, "but Christ has had false evidence too."wink Its not the focus of the thread.



Something else to ponder:

"Platelets" play an important role in preventing the loss of blood by beginning a chain reaction that results in blood clotting. As blood begins to flow from a cut or scratch, platelets respond to help the blood clot and to stop the bleeding after a short time.

Platelets promote the clotting process by clumping together and forming a plug at the site of a wound and then releasing protiens called "clotting factors". These protiens start a series of chemical reactions that are extremely complicated. Every step of the clotting must go smoothly if a clot is to form. If one of the clotting factors is missing or defective, the clotting process does not work. A serious genetic disorder known as "hemophilia" results from a defect in one of the clotting factor genes. Because they lack one of the clotting factors, hemophilia sufferers may bleed uncontrollably from even small cuts or scrapes.

To form a blood clot there must be twelve specific individual chemical reactions in our blood. If evolution is true, and if this 12-step process didn't happen in the first generation (i.e., if any one of these specific reactions failed to operate in their exact reaction and order), no creatures would have survived. They all would have bled to death!

So... did they skip the natural selection/adaption through mutation process,....

Or did God give them the full 12-step process to have platelets when he created them?

shifty

sithsaber408
Oh, and does anybody have a comment on this:


" One morning I woke up and it struck me that I had been working on this stuff for twenty years and there was not one thing that I knew about it. That's quite a shock to learn that one can be misled for so long...I've tried putting a simple question to various people: 'Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing, any one thing that is true?' I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the only asnwer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time. Eventually one person said, 'I do know one thing-it ought not to be taught in high school.' "


Dr. Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist, British Museum of Natural History, in a keynote address at the American Museum of Natural History, New York City, in 1981. In it, he explained his sudden "anti-evolutionary" view.

xmarksthespot
Originally posted by sithsaber408
No, my friend. I actually was a rather bright student.

I did quite well on my S.A.T.'s .... back in 6th grade. My lowest score was 9th grade math level, with a 10th grade science level, and four P.H.S. (Post High School) scores for English, Reasoning, Vocabulary, History.

I'm no genius, hey, I freely admit to not finishing high school,(due to my own stupid choices) but you don't need to post stuff like that.

I don't attack you. I may not agree with you, or you with me, but we don't need to name call.

(It makes your point-of-view seem less valid wink

Give me a little credit... I didn't go "web surfing for anti evolution" drivel..... stick out tongue

Point of fact,... those are REAL articles, written in REAL magazines, and a real history book. Perhaps rather than make fun of the source,(since you don't like the info.) you ought to try to "cut and paste" your counter points. Or at least show what I posted to be false/contradicted.

On a side note.... I'm a registered member of the boards who has been here longer than you, and I'm also a few years older. Don't be disrespectfull. Please be civil and show the same courtesy that I have afforded to you.

Same applies to you, good sir. Please dispute my source with something of SUBSTANCE, rather than a crack about a book that you've never cracked.

Piltdown Man was a fraud. I don't see your reason for saying that I should'nt include him in an argument about the validity of Evolutionism.

You have a point about some of the things throughout history that have wrongly been used to validate Christianity, and I applaud your knowleged of that subject. smile

Please use your knowledge to stay on topic, and provide points/counterpoints to the discussion that is currently underway.

(Rather than respond out of emotionalism and say, "but Christ has had false evidence too."wink Its not the focus of the thread.Your excerpts from articles are predominantly 20 to 30 years old. Mostly they detail irrelevancy. They are not from scientific journals they are from populist newstand magazines.
Originally posted by sithsaber408
Something else to ponder:

"Platelets" play an important role in preventing the loss of blood by beginning a chain reaction that results in blood clotting. As blood begins to flow from a cut or scratch, platelets respond to help the blood clot and to stop the bleeding after a short time.

Platelets promote the clotting process by clumping together and forming a plug at the site of a wound and then releasing protiens called "clotting factors". These protiens start a series of chemical reactions that are extremely complicated. Every step of the clotting must go smoothly if a clot is to form. If one of the clotting factors is missing or defective, the clotting process does not work. A serious genetic disorder known as "hemophilia" results from a defect in one of the clotting factor genes. Because they lack one of the clotting factors, hemophilia sufferers may bleed uncontrollably from even small cuts or scrapes.

To form a blood clot there must be twelve specific individual chemical reactions in our blood. If evolution is true, and if this 12-step process didn't happen in the first generation (i.e., if any one of these specific reactions failed to operate in their exact reaction and order), no creatures would have survived. They all would have bled to death!

So... did they skip the natural selection/adaption through mutation process,....

Or did God give them the full 12-step process to have platelets when he created them?

shifty You have poor understanding of the processes of evolution.

xmarksthespot
Originally posted by sithsaber408
Oh, and does anybody have a comment on this:


" One morning I woke up and it struck me that I had been working on this stuff for twenty years and there was not one thing that I knew about it. That's quite a shock to learn that one can be misled for so long...I've tried putting a simple question to various people: 'Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing, any one thing that is true?' I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the only asnwer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time. Eventually one person said, 'I do know one thing-it ought not to be taught in high school.' "


Dr. Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist, British Museum of Natural History, in a keynote address at the American Museum of Natural History, New York City, in 1981. In it, he explained his sudden "anti-evolutionary" view. Colin Patterson has a comment on it.

"Dear Mr. Binkley,

Obviously I have not helped you fight your local creationists - sorry. The
story behind the "Impact" article is that last November I gave a talk to the
systematics discussion group in the American Museum of Natural History. I was
asked to talk on 'evolutionism and creationism', and knowing the meetings of
the group as informal sessions where ideas could be kicked around among
specialists, I put the case for difficulties and problems with evolution,
specifically in the field of systematics. I was too naive and foolish to guess
what might happen: the talk was taped by a creationist who passed the tape to
Luther Sunderland. Sunderland made a transcript, which I refused to edit since
it was pretty garbled, and since I had no exact record of what I did say.
Since, in my view, the tape was obtained unethically, I asked Sunderland to
stop circulating the transcript, but of course to no effect.

There is not much point in going through the article point by point. I was
putting a case for discussion, as I thought off the record, and was speaking
about systematics, a specialised field. I do not support the creationist
movement in any way, and in particular I am opposed to their efforts to modify
school curricula. In short, the article does not fairly represent my views.
But even if it did, so what? The issue should be resolved by rational
discussion, not be quoting 'authorities' which seems to be the creationists'
principal mode of argument.

Sincerely, Colin Patterson"

Letter to Steven Binkley, 17th June 1982.

Darwin. Now Patterson. Quote manipulation trend. They're both rolling in their graves.

BackFire
"Evolution makes more sense then creationism because no one knows if I exist" - God.

If they can make shit up, so can I.

sithsaber408
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Your excerpts from articles are predominantly 20 to 30 years old. Mostly they detail irrelevancy. They are not from scientific journals they are from populist newstand magazines.
You have poor understanding of the processes of evolution.

You did not get me here.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Colin Patterson has a comment on it.

"Dear Mr. Binkley,

Obviously I have not helped you fight your local creationists - sorry. The
story behind the "Impact" article is that last November I gave a talk to the
systematics discussion group in the American Museum of Natural History. I was
asked to talk on 'evolutionism and creationism', and knowing the meetings of
the group as informal sessions where ideas could be kicked around among
specialists, I put the case for difficulties and problems with evolution,
specifically in the field of systematics. I was too naive and foolish to guess
what might happen: the talk was taped by a creationist who passed the tape to
Luther Sunderland. Sunderland made a transcript, which I refused to edit since
it was pretty garbled, and since I had no exact record of what I did say.
Since, in my view, the tape was obtained unethically, I asked Sunderland to
stop circulating the transcript, but of course to no effect.

There is not much point in going through the article point by point. I was
putting a case for discussion, as I thought off the record, and was speaking
about systematics, a specialised field. I do not support the creationist
movement in any way, and in particular I am opposed to their efforts to modify
school curricula. In short, the article does not fairly represent my views.
But even if it did, so what? The issue should be resolved by rational
discussion, not be quoting 'authorities' which seems to be the creationists'
principal mode of argument.

Sincerely, Colin Patterson"

Letter to Steven Binkley, 17th June 1982.

Darwin. Now Patterson. Quote manipulation trend. They're both rolling in their graves.

You did get me here, however.

Bravo.

I honestly did not know that. I would want to make valid points through valid info. so please disreagard.

Do you have an answer to the platelets question?

Or any others that I posted?


Or just more emotionalist naysaying?

Gregory
Originally posted by sithsaber408
Something else to ponder:

"Platelets" play an important role in preventing the loss of blood by beginning a chain reaction that results in blood clotting. As blood begins to flow from a cut or scratch, platelets respond to help the blood clot and to stop the bleeding after a short time.

Platelets promote the clotting process by clumping together and forming a plug at the site of a wound and then releasing protiens called "clotting factors". These protiens start a series of chemical reactions that are extremely complicated. Every step of the clotting must go smoothly if a clot is to form. If one of the clotting factors is missing or defective, the clotting process does not work. A serious genetic disorder known as "hemophilia" results from a defect in one of the clotting factor genes. Because they lack one of the clotting factors, hemophilia sufferers may bleed uncontrollably from even small cuts or scrapes.

To form a blood clot there must be twelve specific individual chemical reactions in our blood. If evolution is true, and if this 12-step process didn't happen in the first generation (i.e., if any one of these specific reactions failed to operate in their exact reaction and order), no creatures would have survived. They all would have bled to death!

Here is an article on the subject.

(Edited to remove snarkiness, since you seem like a fairly reasonable person)

sithsaber408
Originally posted by Gregory
Here is an article on the subject.

(Edited to remove snarkiness, since you seem like a fairly reasonable person)

An interesting read... very provacative.

It is only a theory however, as he maintains at the end. :


"Now, it would not be fair, just because we have presented a realistic evolutionary scheme, supported by gene sequences from modern organisms, to suggest that we now know exactly how the clotting system has evolved. That would be making far too much of our limited ability to reconstruct the details of the past. But nonetheless, there is little doubt that we do know enough to develop a plausible and scientifically valid scenario for how it might have evolved. And that scenario makes specific predictions that can be tested and verified against the evidence."

I notice in particular that he says " plausible scenario for hou it MIGHT have evolved."

I guess that's where this thread should end. Because its all theory's.

Evolution cannot be proved 100% true, and there is not much "proof" that a scientist will accept proving the existence of God/Creation.

I still enjoy the debate, but the thread was started to:

"Prove evolution... win money."


I'm not being a jerk, really, but I haven't heard anybody do so.

Gregory
You haven't heard evolution proven true because you can't prove a scientific theory; it doesn't make sense to talk like that. A theory isn't proven, its just supported until it seems silly to continue doubting it, and that's more or less what's happened with evolution.

Do you know that wolves and dogs are the same species? Biologically, at least; they can interbreed and produce fertile offspring. And yet, a poodle doesn't have much in common with a wolf. Why? Because an outside force--human breeders--selected against certain traits--by not breeding animals who displayed them--while selecting for certain traits--by breeding animals that did select them--and therefore created new ... somethings. Not species, but varieties that are fundamentally different from each other. So you know that what evolution describes--a change in a population based on outside pressures--does, in fact, happen; even Creationists admit this; they just like to call it microevolution, because it helps them pretend that they're not seeing evolution happen before their very eyes.

But can you support a difference between -micro and -macro evolution? Is there any quantatative difference between dogs being selected for intelligence (Dobermen for example) and apes being selected for intelligence, except that the latter makes Creationists squirm while the former doesn't? I don't think there is. We know that natural pressure can result in huge differences over time; we know that humans are genetically very similar to apes; when you come right down to it, evolution is almost obvious, in my opinion.

xmarksthespot
Originally posted by sithsaber408
You did not get me here.

You did get me here, however.

Bravo.

I honestly did not know that. I would want to make valid points through valid info. so please disreagard.

Do you have an answer to the platelets question?

Or any others that I posted?

Or just more emotionalist naysaying? If you actually genuinely seek information then there are better avenues to explore than a forum. Take a course in human molecular genetics. Take a course in evolutionary biology. Read an article from a recognised journal published by faculty from distinguished educational institutions.

If you're not genuinely interested in seeking information and learning something then frankly I have no time for you. Educating people who intend to deliberately misinterpret, misrepresent or manipulate things I've said isn't a hobby of mine.

Smoking has a causative role in lung cancer. Obesity and diabetes are linked. I state these as facts and they've been proven scientifically. It still isn't 100% proven that a fat smoker will develop lung cancer and diabetes.

Capt_Fantastic
Originally posted by sithsaber408
I honestly did not know that.

Perhaps you should get this put on a tee shirt?

finti
laughing out loud

Hit_and_Miss
still while you were quick to google up a faux quote you didn't even try to google your own question? when I bet Gregory found one....

sorry if you think i'm being "disrespectful" But once I read your profile It all became clear...

These sort of faux promises of winning money for proving the near impossible are just a cry off attention... trying to get creationist support.. while there own theory has just as many wholes but they don't offer money for solutions for those, Why?

finti
they have to pay up thats why

jaden101
Originally posted by Gregory
You haven't heard evolution proven true because you can't prove a scientific theory; it doesn't make sense to talk like that. A theory isn't proven, its just supported until it seems silly to continue doubting it, and that's more or less what's happened with evolution.

Do you know that wolves and dogs are the same species? Biologically, at least; they can interbreed and produce fertile offspring. And yet, a poodle doesn't have much in common with a wolf. Why? Because an outside force--human breeders--selected against certain traits--by not breeding animals who displayed them--while selecting for certain traits--by breeding animals that did select them--and therefore created new ... somethings. Not species, but varieties that are fundamentally different from each other. So you know that what evolution describes--a change in a population based on outside pressures--does, in fact, happen; even Creationists admit this; they just like to call it microevolution, because it helps them pretend that they're not seeing evolution happen before their very eyes.

But can you support a difference between -micro and -macro evolution? Is there any quantatative difference between dogs being selected for intelligence (Dobermen for example) and apes being selected for intelligence, except that the latter makes Creationists squirm while the former doesn't? I don't think there is. We know that natural pressure can result in huge differences over time; we know that humans are genetically very similar to apes; when you come right down to it, evolution is almost obvious, in my opinion.

good post...although the genetic compatibility isn't always the case

there us a species of north american frog which was genetically traced through its eventual spreading south across america...there are now several distinct variations on the initial species...and while each can breed with the type from its naeighbouring locale...the 2 types of frog at either end of the chain cannot interbreed and are thus 2 distinct species

the same is the case with north atlantic gulls although in that case they are genetically compatible but natural eye ring colour prevents breeding between them

its difficult to PROVE macro evolution as in whales to tigers or a change as vast, simply because of the observational timescales needed

but i cant say i've ever heard good arguments from creationists that explain vestigial organs, the massive similarities between ancient bacteria and modern Eukaryotic and prokaryotic cells with relation to ribosomes and thus Endosymbiotic explanations for early life

creationists always rely on the argument of "evolution has a missing link here, here and here...therfor god exists"

whereas the evidence for god is absolutely non existant anywhere except when jesus' face appears in vegetables stick out tongue

http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm

whobdamandog
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Number one is a deliberate misinterpretation, I've stated Homo neanderthalensis is a different species from Homo sapiens but still a member of the family Hominidae. I've never stated that Homo neanderthalensis is a different species of Homo sapiens.


Just like Homo-Asianis is a different species, as is Homo-Negroidis, and Homo-Mongloidis, and Homo Honkeyish..blah..blah..blah...roll eyes (sarcastic) laughing laughing

You're babbling..using excessively over-complicated terminology to confuse people from the obvious truth. That truth being that the Neandrathal man is a duh..duh..duh..duh..human!!

To state that he is of a different "species" is a ridiculous assumption. It would be like if I were to classify an African, Asian, or a Caucasian as a different "species." Utterly Ridiculous bud. But you are indeed entitled to believe what you wish.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Number two is an outright lie on your part.


Nope. You just never answered the question.wink

lol..you knew what the answer was, unfortunately like many Evolutionists, you understand that directly answering such a question completely decimates the foundations of your faith.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
I wasn't even part of your stupid argument in number 3, but having authority does not equate to being an authority on an issue - Hitler was not an authority on Judaism


Guess what would happen if Hitler said you were a "Jew" during the Natzi era?

answer: you'd be dead.

What if you told Hitler you weren't a "Jew"..and he still said that you were a "Jew"?

answer: You'd be dead.

lol..who do you believe has the "valid" authority on determining who is a "Jew" in Natzi Germany or any other secularistic government X?

Would it be the Government/Hitler..or the alleged "Jew"? Come on now my friend..surely you can see that this is a foolish argument to even debate.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
- it's not my problem if you don't understand this. Number 4 I've never stated, and besides things do not have to "make sense" to you in order for the universe to continue.

I'm sure your god doesn't appreciate your lies, halfwit.


Not lies my friend. You just can't except the truth. Wasn't "spontaneous generation" proven be a false theory over a century ago?

yes

Does the TOE essentially support the idea of "spontaneous generation"?

yes


The problem is that you and many others like you over complicate things. You study various fields for years on end, and sad to say...any dink can pick up a book relatiing to chemistry/ molecular biology and easily refute your non sensical claims. Hell..one really doesn't have to study these fields to know that you can't get "something" from "nothing"..lol..this is just common sense knowledge my friend.

But I wish you good luck to you with your studies, just make sure can ascertain the obvious evidence which supports such studies before you conduct them.winklaughing

Fin

sithsaber408
Originally posted by Hit_and_Miss
still while you were quick to google up a faux quote you didn't even try to google your own question? when I bet Gregory found one....

sorry if you think i'm being "disrespectful" But once I read your profile It all became clear...

These sort of faux promises of winning money for proving the near impossible are just a cry off attention... trying to get creationist support.. while there own theory has just as many wholes but they don't offer money for solutions for those, Why?

What became clear after reading my profile?

Make yourself understood, son.

I didn't "google" this question, Dr. Kent Hovind is a legitamite person, whose offer has been out since 2003, and I provided the link to his website.

Did you bother to visit it before bashing me?

I didn't post it to "drum up creationist support".

Point of fact, most people know that evolution is just a theory, and that there have been many false starts/ mistakes in the 150+ years that it has been debated.

As you say its " proving the near impossible". That is the faux.

The offer and the money are not.

If you're so sure, and this issue is settled, proved, and Creationists are fools,..... then why is it impossible?

Reading your profile suggests that you enjoy fantasy/anime. Right on.

(It's off topic, but since you felt the need to include it in your post, I'll return the favor, in a positive way.)

Hit_and_Miss
Originally posted by sithsaber408
What became clear after reading my profile?
I didn't "google" this question, Dr. Kent Hovind is a legitamite person, whose offer has been out since 2003, and I provided the link to his website.

Point of fact, most people know that evolution is just a theory, and that there have been many false starts/ mistakes in the 150+ years that it has been debated.

If you're so sure, and this issue is settled, proved, and Creationists are fools,..... then why is it impossible?

Reading your profile suggests that you enjoy fantasy/anime. Right on.

(It's off topic, but since you felt the need to include it in your post, I'll return the favor, in a positive way.)

Would you say this is a fairly accurate picture of you life...
Generally shit... Found god... everything turned around life is better now...

I'm not talking about the initial post.. But the post from the "dr know it all who asked if they could prove 1 thing about evolution..." which later got debunked by Gregory...

Creationists don't show anything... They got a book... and only the doubt they can scrape together... Evolution theory solves 90% of the problems out there... it just misses a few areas due to evidence and science not having a time machine... The only half solution creationists have is via intelligent design, and most of that is biased on doubting of science and praising of god....

I like anime.... I like science fiction... But seeing as you have a SW sig... I guess your just as bad... And if your wondering about the other parts... Well keep wondering...

Gregory
Q: If evolution were false--and I talk about this only for the sake of argument, since it clearly isn't--would it support Creationism?

A: Only to the extent that it also supports the Hopi creation myth and the alien seeding hypothesis. So how about it? How about some positive evidence, hm?

ps: Hovind may be a "legitimate person" (as opposed to what? A robot?), but he's not a legitimate doctor--he got his doctrate from unaccredited* degree mill. And even then, he studied education, not biology.

*The American Accrediting Association of Theological Institutions doesn't count, and you know it. They sell accreditation for a hundred dollars.

xmarksthespot
Originally posted by whobdamandog
Just like Homo-Asianis is a different species, as is Homo-Negroidis, and Homo-Mongloidis, and Homo Honkeyish..blah..blah..blah...roll eyes (sarcastic) laughing laughing

You're babbling..using excessively over-complicated terminology to confuse people from the obvious truth. That truth being that the Neandrathal man is a duh..duh..duh..duh..human!!

To state that he is of a different "species" is a ridiculous assumption. It would be like if I were to classify an African, Asian, or a Caucasian as a different "species." Utterly Ridiculous bud. But you are indeed entitled to believe what you wish. Yes, a human with rickets... roll eyes (sarcastic) The fact that you obviously have no idea how a species is defined despite being told several times, the fact that you continue to spout your claptrap as if you have anything at all besides some ultrareligious young earth creationist websites supporting you, the fact that you continually try to manipulate or deliberately misinterpret things people have said, really shows how pointless it is replying to you.
Originally posted by whobdamandog
Nope.Did I say the thing you wrote? No. So you lied. As you have oft-times before.Originally posted by whobdamandog
You just never answered the question.winkAnd he lies again while trying to deny lying. I answered the question. I didn't give you the answer you may have wanted. However I answered your question. For a "moral absolutist" you tend to lie a lot when it suits you.
Originally posted by whobdamandog
lol..you knew what the answer was, unfortunately like many Evolutionists, you understand that directly answering such a question completely decimates the foundations of your faith. Your ignorance proves nothing but your ignorance. You are a joke, nothing more. Attend a symposium. You can be the jester.
Originally posted by whobdamandog
Guess what would happen if Hitler said you were a "Jew" during the Natzi era?

answer: you'd be dead.

What if you told Hitler you weren't a "Jew"..and he still said that you were a "Jew"?

answer: You'd be dead.

lol..who do you believe has the "valid" authority on determining who is a "Jew" in Natzi Germany or any other secularistic government X?

Would it be the Government/Hitler..or the alleged "Jew"? Come on now my friend..surely you can see that this is a foolish argument to even debate. Hitler does not dictate what a person is. Hitler does not say, you are a medical doctor, and suddenly you are capable of surgery and general practice.
Originally posted by whobdamandog
Not lies my friend. You just can't except the truth. Wasn't "spontaneous generation" proven be a false theory over a century ago?

yes

Does the TOE essentially support the idea of "spontaneous generation"?

yes


The problem is that you and many others like you over complicate things. You study various fields for years on end, and sad to say...any dink can pick up a book relatiing to chemistry/ molecular biology and easily refute your non sensical claims. Hell..one really doesn't have to study these fields to know that you can't get "something" from "nothing"..lol..this is just common sense knowledge my friend.

But I wish you good luck to you with your studies, just make sure can ascertain the obvious evidence which supports such studies before you conduct them.winklaughing

Fin The only reason I reply to you is that utter bullshit should be called to account, you smug dishonest religious nut. Oh yes, ignorance is bliss. You must be a very happy person then.

Ladyluck
Evolution is still just a theory. You can't prove it 100%. Hence The Theory of Evolution.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Ladyluck
Evolution is still just a theory. You can't prove it 100%. Hence The Theory of Evolution.


And Creationism is just a myth. You can't prove it even 1%.

Ladyluck
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
And Creationism is just a myth. You can't prove it even 1%.

Very true.

Imperial_Samura
Originally posted by sithsaber408
Same applies to you, good sir. Please dispute my source with something of SUBSTANCE, rather than a crack about a book that you've never cracked.

Piltdown Man was a fraud. I don't see your reason for saying that I should'nt include him in an argument about the validity of Evolutionism.

You have a point about some of the things throughout history that have wrongly been used to validate Christianity, and I applaud your knowleged of that subject. smile

Please use your knowledge to stay on topic, and provide points/counterpoints to the discussion that is currently underway.

(Rather than respond out of emotionalism and say, "but Christ has had false evidence too."wink Its not the focus of the thread.

Oh, I know the book, and others like it. The problem basing arguments on encyclopedias and other sources intended to offer summaries of an event, time, issue etc is they aren't analytical in sense. They other a snapshot. "Piltdown man was a falsity created by so and so believed to be true by scientists for x amount of years till it was defunct" - All completely true, and it's perfectly ok to mention Piltdown man, but without that analysis we loose what effect he had in the long term, and that was that he in no way effected the validity of the evolutionary theory, in fact he strengthened it.

Firstly, it's often portrayed as a bunch of scientists cooking up a crazy scheme to make people believe evolution - it's not, it's was the work of a con artist looking for a quick buck and some fame (which he got.) Now, in that sense it's not like the entire field of evolution is built upon fakes, and Piltdown man is an exception, not the rule - just like when a conman offers a two headed cow to a freak show it doesn't impact on biology and zoology, or a fake set of Hitler diaries don't bring the entire study of history crashing down. Forgeries and fakes are part of the humanities, and science has it's fair share to. The thing has been to identify them and remove them from the strata of real evidence.

And it must be noted that it wasn't a thoughtful old bishop that revealed the hoax, it was the scientists themselves who thought there was something wrong - they tested, and proved it was false. And as I said, it helped the evolutionary theory. People who study this area are remarkably stringent now in their research and asserting the validity of claims and of making sure the fossils are genuine, so the artifacts, fossil evidence and the like that deal with with evolution aren't taken at face value any more. They are tested, analysed - to make sure it's not a hoax. Piltdown man helped develop that cautionary culture that works to insure that only the facts, not the hoax's, get through. And as a result the list of successful hoaxes is far, far shorter for evolution then it is for the Catholic Church where, incidental, NEARLY everything they have put forward over the last 100 year from the Shroud onwards, has failed to stand up to scientific enquiry.



Ouch. I just think I felt some of my well being towards my fellow man wither and die.... There is so much wrong with this... I think I need to lie down.

But first, using a slightly flawed example, you do know that your house cat (a particular species) is also a member of the same family as the lion, tiger etc? And there are different breeds of cat, but they are still genetically the same species - cat (say, modern humans, Asians, Africans etc), but in family terms they have cousins and ancestors - lions, sabre tooth tigers etc (say, our hominid forefathers, the great apes, evolutionary dead ends, alternatives and the like?) Now, homo sapiens are a single species, but we the latest in the large family homo which includes our dear Neanderthal - he is not human, but he is part of the family that eventually produced humans - simple enough yes?

sithsaber408
"As by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth? The number of intermediate links between all living and extinct species must have been inconcievably great."-Charles Darwin.


"Darwin admitted that millions of 'missing links', transitional life forms, would have to be discovered in the fossil record to prove the accuracy of his theory that all species had gradually evolved by chance mutation into new species. Unfortunately for his theory, despite hundreds of millions spent on searching for fossils worldwide for more than a century, the scientists have failed to locate A SINGLE MISSING LINK out of the millions that must exist if their theory of evolution is to be vindicated"- Grant R. Jeffery, "The Signature of God."

I know full well that the first quote is not the full text of what Darwin said, but think about the implications.

This is a theory that even he knew was hard to prove. He had reasons why things COULD have happened, but no more.

It's more of an option for disproving God, if you ask me.

A way to say "He might not exist. This MIGHT be what happened. This MIGHT be how the life on earth ended up in the present state that it is in".

The theory is logical, sound, and possible.

Explained as it is,.... it COULD have happened.

The British COULD have defeated the Colonists, but we don't teach that as fact.

I don't mind a theory, but when I hear that it is certain, undeniable fact that we evloved from primates, and were not created in our present state.... I can only shake my head in disbelief.

Some of you may one day kill yourselves. It's a logical, sound, and possible event.

But I won't consider you dead just yet. stick out tongue

Hit_and_Miss
Originally posted by sithsaber408
I don't mind a theory, but when I hear that it is certain, undeniable fact that we evloved from primates, and were not created in our present state.... I can only shake my head in disbelief.

And the uncanny resemblance of our DNA???
Or the fact that Mitocondria has its own cell wall???
Or why we don't use all our brain???

perhaps even.. Why do we have soo much Junk DNA in the form of introns???

Please take the time to read though this page.. It answers Alot of your points... including "missing links".... there have been several found.. Even ones from ape to man...
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html

Here are some Transistion fossils...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils
(some of the articals aren't complete but you can use the names to search though..

Just think though... if the entire human race droped dead tommorrow,(only the humans) how many remains would you except to find after 1000 years???? 25000 years????
perhaps less then 5 if your very...very lucky...

whobdamandog
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Yes, a human with rickets... roll eyes (sarcastic)


Yup either rickets, rheumatoid arthritis, or some other degenerative bone disease. I'm glad you are finally beginning to accept this.wink

In fact many of these people suffered from hereditary bone conditions. Hereditary conditions are common among people who are of a particular race/ethnic group. Sometimes these conditions can be attributed to a culture's diet, sometimes they're attributed to the environment in which they live, and sometimes the condition is simply a genetic one.

Damn. They must have lowered the standard as to what one has to do to get a PHD nowadays..laughing Anyway, one doesn't need a PHD in molecular biology to comprehend these simple concepts bud...wink

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
The fact that you obviously have no idea how a species is defined despite being told several times,

the fact that you continue to spout your claptrap as if you have anything at all besides some ultrareligious young earth creationist websites supporting you, the fact that you continually try to manipulate or deliberately misinterpret things people have said, really shows how pointless it is replying to you.

Did I say the thing you wrote? No. So you lied. As you have oft-times before.And he lies again while trying to deny lying. I answered the question. I didn't give you the answer you may have wanted. However I answered your question. For a "moral absolutist" you tend to lie a lot when it suits you.

Your ignorance proves nothing but your ignorance. You are a joke, nothing more. Attend a symposium. You can be the jester.


If a tree falls in the woods and no one is around..does it make a sound?

If a person spouts bullsh*t unrelated to topic at hand in an obvious attempt to damage credibility and to cover up the fact that their argument has been severly beaten down, does it make it any less bullsh*t..no

I scanned through the paragraphs a few times..and I didn't see anything that related to the arguments. Wasn't it a wise man who once said..those who cry the loudest..usually have the least to say?

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Hitler does not dictate what a person is. Hitler does not say, you are a medical doctor, and suddenly you are capable of surgery and general practice.


In a secular society, the government is the highest authority my friend.

You are either misunderstanding this simple concept or being stubborn. My guess is that it's both. In this particular case, "Hitler" and the Natzi party represent the Government, and they do indeed determine what qualifications one must have in order for them to qualify as a "doctor."



Translated: Nice debating with you whob. I've lost this debate, and have nothing else to say other than throw insults and ridicule. You win I loose.

Nice debating with you too X..good luck with your studies.. big grin

whobdamandog
Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Ouch. I just think I felt some of my well being towards my fellow man wither and die.... There is so much wrong with this... I think I need to lie down.

But first, using a slightly flawed example, you do know that your house cat (a particular species) is also a member of the same family as the lion, tiger etc? And there are different breeds of cat, but they are still genetically the same species - cat (say, modern humans, Asians, Africans etc), but in family terms they have cousins and ancestors - lions, sabre tooth tigers etc (say, our hominid forefathers, the great apes, evolutionary dead ends, alternatives and the like?) Now, homo sapiens are a single species, but we the latest in the large family homo which includes our dear Neanderthal - he is not human, but he is part of the family that eventually produced humans - simple enough yes?

So basically what you mean is that myself, and others of similar minded views..have to ascribe to your foolish and biased belief systems, in order to validate our arguments..roll eyes (sarcastic)

Okay..I'll play your game...I'll jump through your hoop..if you first jump through mine.

Tell me my friend..is spontaneous generation currently considered a valid scientific theory?

whobdamandog
I'll save you some time and research..the answer is "no."

From a scientific perspective, "something" can't come from "nothing"..Lavoisier proved this ages ago.

You've lost this debate fellas. Evolution will never be proven. Spontaneous generation does not exist. Drop the fantasy and come join the rest of us in reality, it ain't so bad, pariticularly when you have something noble/kind/loving to place your faith in.

Fin

BackFire
Hey look, more accidentally self condemning rhetoric!

Uh oh, spaghetti-o!

Imperial_Samura
Originally posted by whobdamandog
So basically what you mean is that myself, and others of similar minded views..have to ascribe to your foolish and biased belief systems, in order to validate our arguments..roll eyes (sarcastic)

Okay..I'll play your game...I'll jump through your hoop..if you first jump through mine.

Tell me my friend..is spontaneous generation currently considered a valid scientific theory?

Well, I wasn't talking about spontaneous generation, I was trying to show how Neanderthal and Homo Sapiens are part of the same family, but not the same species and show how interspecies differences (Asian, African etc) aren't the same as family differences.

But no, no, no. Spontaneous generation is not a viable scientific theory. It was disproved long ago. And the theory of evolution no longer uses it, and hasn't for a long, long time. Now, I'm a bit fuzzy on what is used now (feel free to jump in and correct me if I am wrong. Anybody.) but I believe the current theory deals with chemical life, chemical evolution up to the point where it becomes biological evolution. We all know that the human body, every living thing, and everything that doesn't live is made up are made up of particles, atoms and all that jazz correct?

And that elements, the most basic level, the chemical building blocks combine to form more complex things? Now, the human body and any life forms aren't special, we are made up of these elements as well - calcium, hydrogen, oxygen etc. Now elements have a tendency to react in the right situation, with the right elements, so elements got together, forming increasingly complex compounds, in the chaotically chemical rich early earth until a time when they got to a point of complexity they could be considered "alive" - now, there is a missing link here I will admit, the question is what was the point when elements went from purely reactive compounds to the simplest live forms?

xmarksthespot
Originally posted by whobdamandog
Yup either rickets, rheumatoid arthritis, or some other degenerative bone disease. I'm glad you are finally beginning to accept this.wink

In fact many of these people suffered from hereditary bone conditions. Hereditary conditions are common among people who are of a particular race/ethnic group. Sometimes these conditions can be attributed to a culture's diet, sometimes they're attributed to the environment in which they live, and sometimes the condition is simply a genetic one.

Damn. They must have lowered the standard as to what one has to do to get a PHD nowadays..laughing Anyway, one doesn't need a PHD in molecular biology to comprehend these simple concepts bud...wink

If a tree falls in the woods and no one is around..does it make a sound?

If a person spouts bullsh*t unrelated to topic at hand in an obvious attempt to damage credibility and to cover up the fact that their argument has been severly beaten down, does it make it any less bullsh*t..no

I scanned through the paragraphs a few times..and I didn't see anything that related to the arguments. Wasn't it a wise man who once said..those who cry the loudest..usually have the least to say?

In a secular society, the government is the highest authority my friend.

You are either misunderstanding this simple concept or being stubborn. My guess is that it's both. In this particular case, "Hitler" and the Natzi party represent the Government, and they do indeed determine what qualifications one must have in order for them to qualify as a "doctor."

Translated: Nice debating with you whob. I've lost this debate, and have nothing else to say other than throw insults and ridicule. You win I loose.

Nice debating with you too X..good luck with your studies.. big grin Someone who clearly has no science background is going to incorrectly tell me about pathology and nutrigenomics? It's somehow funny that I have academic credentials and you most probably do not? The fact that you're prone to lying and lied is relevant considering you quoted me and said I had said things I hadn't. There is a difference between having authority over something and being an authority on something. You're a waste of space and time.

leonheartmm
Originally posted by whobdamandog
I'll save you some time and research..the answer is "no."

From a scientific perspective, "something" can't come from "nothing"..Lavoisier proved this ages ago.

You've lost this debate fellas. Evolution will never be proven. Spontaneous generation does not exist. Drop the fantasy and come join the rest of us in reality, it ain't so bad, pariticularly when you have something noble/kind/loving to place your faith in.

Fin


hmmm, if u mean prove to a significant doubt, than it can be proven. if u mean prove to 100% with not even a chance of mistake, than im afraid thats not possible. heck even if it cud be done ud just say that since human reasoning is inherently flawed, none of the evidence was plausible. thas the way most mislead relegious people are. let me ask u this can u prove even to a REASONABLE doubt that god exists? NO u cant, ive given my own evidence in the past pages and on other threads{which is really just a drop in the bucket as there are many MANY other proofs for ur faith bein wrong}. now what is more believable, sumthing that can be proven to a reasonable doutb or sumthing which has been proven 100% WRONG.

Gregory
I'm going to chalk this quote up to "Creationist fiction." And do you know why I'm going to do that? Because this is what he actually said:

"As by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth? It will be more convenient to discuss this question in the chapter on the Imperfection of the Geological Record; and I will here only state that I believe the answer mainly lies in the record being incomparably less perfect than is generally supposed. The crust of the earth is a vast museum; but the natural collections have been imperfectly made, and only at long intervals of time." (Origin of the Species, Chapter Six).

sithsaber408
So the full quote says that the geolocial record is imperfect, and......


What?

It still comes back to the earth's crust not having the amount of missing link fossils that should exist if it was true.

The longer version of the quote does nothing other than restate that point.

sithsaber408
Since the people's "natural collections" are imperfect, it hasn't been found.

This is what he says, yes?

Then if the "crust of the earth is a vast museum" then why, 100 years later, with much more effecient, accurate means of search,..... have we not found a GENUINE missing link?


Again, not being a jerk, ...I just want to know. smile

Pandemoniac
Last week I bought a set of socks, but unpacking it I discovered it contained 3 socks instead of 2...
The next morning I woke up with a third foot on my back, as my body evolved to fit it's surrounding conditions. Proof enough I say, hand over the cash!

<< THERE IS MORE FROM THIS THREAD HERE >>