NationStates Jolt Archive

500! posts on this subject

Evolution doesn't hold water. The theory is entirley bogus. It has no supporting evidence, and the facts contradict it.

On the other hand, Christianity's message is supported by the facts and has plenty of supporting evidence.

Anyone who disagrees state why. I guarantee you've fallen prey to atheist propoganda.

Two words for you hon, RADIOCARBON DATING. Can't argue with the facts, sorry.

OK let me drop a bomb on these stupid creationist mumbling. Christian Creationism is wrong. It's based on bad translations from the Hebrew original. Creationism in Judaism is a lot more like Unified Field theory than a morality play with fruit. Genesis is not suppose to be so much a story as a map of the universe.

I imagine you'd get the same result if you dropped Einstein's "Relativity" in a bunch of fundamentalists, told them it was holy, and then asked them to try and make sense out of it.

Christians crack me up.

Hi, I'm pretty much lost and all about this but the school systems are somewhat messed up. Like the No Child Left Behind Act is holding back the more advanced students. Anyway, if you want to know all the side about evolution, you can do that in you own time. I'm guessing that you must think I'm kind of stupid in this place but I've never really been on a forum before.

Originally posted by Kudoland:
scientists calculate that there is .00001 in a 10x1000 quadrillion chance that it exists.

The usual number creationsits use is 1 in 2.04 * 10^309 (and it should be 1 in 4.29 * 10^40, even using their invalid statistical method). The people who make this claim are doing so from a basic misunderstanding of abiogenesis or statistics. Abiogenesis does not state that life came together all at once. It states that life formed slowly from the combining of smaller carbon-based compounds that naturally form in an environment like the early earth's and naturally combine in ways to make the complex polymers that are basic to life. Furthermore, this claim is based on invalid statistical methods because it measures the chance that life would form given only one attempt to do so, or given only one attempt at a time; and it only measures the chance that the currently existing proteins would form, not that any set of protiens conducive to life would form. In fact, scientists give a half-billion years and a billion billion simultanious chances for the formation of the first self-replicating molecules.
Source: talkorigins.org (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html#Search)

Yes but look the reason new species are created was because there is another variation of a species and then one is better than another at its niche causing it thrive.
With humans variations arent as important there is no real advantage to physical mutations thats why we have endomorphs, exomorphs, etc. And why we have smart people and dumb people and such

Found it, are you going to deny me now dick?

Here it is:
Verse 1 Chapter 5- Verse 4 Chapter 5
"This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him; 2 Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created. 3 And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth: 4 And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters..."

HOWS THAT!!!!!!! YOU STILL THINK IT WAS MY PASTORS LOGIC???
DIDNT THINK SO!

keep in mind there was more radiation back then
Regardless, baring a dead-on strike by a massive solar flare (which would ionize a fledging atmosphere), not much radiation would penetrate several miles of water.

How is evolution wrong? I'm currently feeling very stupid, and I know I could read some posts, but I'm not in the mood to read all the posts.

Here's my drive-by post of the day!

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200412/s1270907.htm

Snakes evolving to eat cane toads in Australia. More proof of evolution.

Evolving isn't hocus pocus. Extinction isn't only caused by us because we're careless, lol, it also causes because of evolution. Anyway, there's constant phases of evoltuion that we see. Horses didn't always have hooves, but now they do and they depend on it in order to escape their predators.

okay some scientists say this besides the first life didnt come to play until maybe a billion years ago leaving the rest of the 3 billion years to create life i mean thats such a small amount of time

thank you baby kangaroo and i dont mean to sound sarcastic but ironically i said that exact same thing except i used more accurate termanology like the names of the ancestors of horses the same happened with elephants they elvolved to cope to conditions

Here's my drive-by post of the day!

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200412/s1270907.htm

Snakes evolving to eat cane toads in Australia. More proof of evolution.

Actually, its evolving to -not- eat Cane Toads, really. They have to eat smaller ones, otherwise they can get poisoned. Natural selection.

okay some scientists say this besides the first life didnt come to play until maybe a billion years ago leaving the rest of the 3 billion years to create life i mean thats such a small amount of time

billion? or million?

In fact whats interesting is both elephants and horses and camels originated in the americas yet due to other factors they were wiped out yet they survived in Europe, Asia, and Africa

I have no freaking idea what anyone is saying here and currently I'm feeling like I have a fifth grade education. I currently have a dictionary on my screen, aren't I smart. I have strong opinions and a direct wya of saying it and that's me, and I may sound stupid but I really don't care. If I'm sounding mean I'm sorry, but that's my direct way of saying it.

billion
the earth is 4.5 billion years old

[QUOTE=Kudoland]They teach evolution, yet they do not teach creationism, its not an equal opportunity to hear both sides and make a decision for yourself. We are not robots, we make decisions, people don't just cram information into us, we think, we are linear!
QUOTE]

One - its a science class, drop out if you dont want to learn the truth. As well, why not listen to the pope, who supports evolution? And if we tought your 'theory' *cough*LSD trip*cough* we would have to teach everyone, including the one that Amon Ra was materbating and the leavings are the earth/

In fact whats interesting is both elephants and horses and camels originated in the americas yet due to other factors they were wiped out yet they survived in Europe, Asia, and Africa

Yeah why are Eurpoeans white when they are closer to africa(orgin point supposedly by evolutions standards)?

Its okay baby kangaroo most dont know there facts you just got to act smart saying it there are always gonna be things you dont know
and if i sounded like an after school special tell me

They teach evolution, yet they do not teach creationism, its not an equal opportunity to hear both sides and make a decision for yourself. We are not robots, we make decisions, people don't just cram information into us, we think, we are linear!


One - its a science class, drop out if you dont want to learn the truth. As well, why not listen to the pope, who supports evolution? And if we tought your 'theory' *cough*LSD trip*cough* we would have to teach everyone, including the one that Amon Ra was materbating and the leavings are the earth/

I hate people who automatically think they are right and openly mock others. People like you deserve a punch in the nose.

About not having a whole lot of time to create life. Everything happens eventually. You'll die eventually. But when you do, it happens in an instant. You can say you're dying, but there's a fine line between dying and dead. Life can be created in an instant, all it needs is a spark. Stick a firecarcker down your throat and then when it blows, suddenly you're dead in an instant. If I'm not being clear just say so.

I know I'm never going to know weverything. That's what serperates me from my brother. HAHAHA I'd say lol but according to my bro its not "cool" anymore. Just goes to show how much brains he has.

About not having a whole lot of time to create life. Everything happens eventually. You'll die eventually. But when you do, it happens in an instant. You can say you're dying, but there's a fine line between dying and dead. Life can be created in an instant, all it needs is a spark. Stick a firecarcker down your throat and then when it blows, suddenly you're dead in an instant. If I'm not being clear just say so.

Yes, thats why evolution without outside help is impossible, there is a difference between life forming and it being formed, there are too many factors in the forming stage, it would be highyly unlikely, and if elements combine to come one step closer to creating life, that doesnt do bull, because the compound will probably be eliminated by various other factors.

The reason is people from Africa are black because there is more solar radiation so they develop the black skin which is harder to get sunburnt and this might sound racist but deal
Europeans lived up North so little radiation got to them and so they delveloped pale skin because it didnt black skin and if theres somethign you can learn from nature its that it doesnt keep what it doesnt need

I believe in Evolution. You could have a baby who has a mutation kind of thing. For the better or for the worst is an entirely different thing though. But the ones with disadvantages die off because of competition, while the ones with advantages are more likely to survive and have babies with its mutations, and eventually it can spread through the whole species because the babies with the advantage will unconsciously kill of the normal ones.

The reason is people from Africa are black because there is more solar radiation so they develop the black skin which is harder to get sunburnt and this might sound racist but deal
Europeans lived up North so little radiation got to them and so they delveloped pale skin because it didnt black skin and if theres somethign you can learn from nature its that it doesnt keep what it doesnt need

No, I disagree, if that was true you would have much more distinct vareity of humans in nature. Why are Native Americans red? They arent in a hot spot or a cold spot, why are Eskimos tan? They are in a cold area.

Baby kangaroo i like your ideas, kinda, dont make yourself feel stupid
Again if i sound like an afterschool special somebody tell me

I believe in Evolution. You could have a baby who has a mutation kind of thing. For the better or for the worst is an entirely different thing though. But the ones with disadvantages die off because of competition, while the ones with advantages are more likely to survive and have babies with its mutations, and eventually it can spread through the whole species because the babies with the advantage will unconsciously kill of the normal ones.

Um, I think you mean breed with the normal ones. But ok.

The spark in evolution is the will to survive in my opinion. Not to sound all wisdomy and all but that is what I think it is. Sometimes things just happen, maybe there is something that we didn't ever put on the periodic table that causes it. The thing with science and stuff is that it's always changing. We use to think that atoms were the smallest things, but now we discover quarks or quacks or something starting with q. There are so many things that we think we know for sure, but can anyone ever REALLy be sure?

I think i over simplified
People come from different genetics it is possible that as humans migrated out of Africa they could have changed keep in mind that Native Americans didnt evolve there they migrated so did eskimos so they might have been black and then as time went by changed

The spark in evolution is the will to survive in my opinion. Not to sound all wisdomy and all but that is what I think it is. Sometimes things just happen, maybe there is something that we didn't ever put on the periodic table that causes it. The thing with science and stuff is that it's always changing. We use to think that atoms were the smallest things, but now we discover quarks or quacks or something starting with q. There are so many things that we think we know for sure, but can anyone ever REALLy be sure?

No, thats why I hate evolutionists that think they know everything and have absolute proof against god. And I also hate evolutionists who consider evolution a fact, its a theory.

I am a lost egg. Hardly anything I say makes sense but I am lost and I use to be something like an egg so I guess I can use the metaphor I ama lost egg. Evolution has to exist or I'm going to feel sorry for all those scientists in taxonomy because if it doesn't they're going to have some work to do, just a few million species to name all over again.

I'm an atheist, because i think it's my character because i want to be in control of my life, but I don't rally against it although I don't say the under god in the pledge of allegiance. I think that saying that I'm encouraging the president to stick his religion.

What do you mean science is on you're side? Microbiology has completely disproven the theory of evolution.
Irreducible Complexity- does that mean anything?
Ultimately, what it comes down to, is a cell cannot evolve. It would have to spontaneously generate, and science already spent a century proving life cannot spontaneously generate. So ultimately, evolution has no starting point, and if it didn't start, it didn't happen period.


No, microbiology has done nothing of the sort. Irreducible Complexity? Who are you to decide what is and what is not too complex to develop naturally? Furthermore, your comment on cells not being able to evolve is not only irrelevant, but also completely incorrect. Mitochondria, which are the "power generators" of cells, are almost definitely the evolved version of a primitive external organism that learned to form a symbiotic bond with another, primitive animal that possessed cells. Over time, the mitochondria became so firmly entwined with the function of the cells that they effective became a single living cell. Obviously, by the very existence of mitochondria, your statement on the inability of cells to evolve is wrong.

Second, the problem is not that evolution has no starting point; the problem is that you are unwilling to believe that spontaneous generation is possible at any level. Unfortunately for your flawed line of thinking, scientist have already proven that complex proteins and amino acids "spontaneously generate" when a broth of nitrogen-rich chemicals (much similar to the environment of a young earth) are exposed to electric current. These generated organic molecules then combine with each other to form very complex molecules. These molecules have been observed exhibiting several "life-like" properties, such as cell division. Once reproducing complex molecules were formed, it wouldn't take much time for these to evolve over time into small, primitive microbes. This, right here, is your "starting point" for evolution. You are just dead wrong when you say science has spent a century proving spontaneous generation wrong. They merely disproved the widespread belief that animals such as mice could could spring from inanimate objects. You really should research such topics before you make such a ridiculous claim.

I find it interesting that you are quick to prove that there is no way life can spontaneously generate, and yet you think that creationism is the truth. What is God's creation of humanity but spontaneous generation. You choose to believe something that has no basis in fact, no matter what you say, rather than something that has been observed. What is the mutation of the influenza virus every flu season but constant evolution? Every year we see direct proof of evolution, and yet you are too blind or stubborn to believe it. Obviously, nothing I say could ever prove to you that evolution is based in science, but I couldn't care less. At least this way, everyone else on this board sees how ludicrous you beliefs are.

See so it all started in Africa and then as they migrated they changed. Eskimos probably are more asian where as europeans were probably isolated by the ice age so they interbreed giving you there whiteness

I know it's a theory, but so many things have encouraged it that it pretty much makes it real. What about all those skeletons that we found that could have eventually changed into us, homo sapiens.

I'm an atheist, because i think it's my character because i want to be in control of my life, but I don't rally against it although I don't say the under god in the pledge of allegiance. I think that saying that I'm encouraging the president to stick his religion.

It really has nothing to do with God, it means we are a humble country and we are being blessed by a higher power. Which is just a nice thing to say, like God Bless America.

P.S. The president didnt put the 'Under God' part in the pledge.

No, microbiology has done nothing of the sort. Irreducible Complexity? Who are you to decide what is and what is not too complex to develop naturally? Furthermore, your comment on cells not being able to evolve is not only irrelevant, but also completely incorrect. Mitochondria, which are the "power generators" of cells, are almost definitely the evolved version of a primitive external organism that learned to form a symbiotic bond with another, primitive animal that possessed cells. Over time, the mitochondria became so firmly entwined with the function of the cells that they effective became a single living cell. Obviously, by the very existence of mitochondria, your statement on the inability of cells to evolve is wrong.

Second, the problem is not that evolution has no starting point; the problem is that you are unwilling to believe that spontaneous generation is possible at any level. Unfortunately for your flawed line of thinking, scientist have already proven that complex proteins and amino acids "spontaneously generate" when a broth of nitrogen-rich chemicals (much similar to the environment of a young earth) are exposed to electric current. These generated organic molecules then combine with each other to form very complex molecules. These molecules have been observed exhibiting several "life-like" properties, such as cell division. Once reproducing complex molecules were formed, it wouldn't take much time for these to evolve over time into small, primitive microbes. This, right here, is your "starting point" for evolution. You are just dead wrong when you say science has spent a century proving spontaneous generation wrong. They merely disproved the widespread belief that animals such as mice could could spring from inanimate objects. You really should research such topics before you make such a ridiculous claim.

I find it interesting that you are quick to prove that there is no way life can spontaneously generate, and yet you think that creationism is the truth. What is God's creation of humanity but spontaneous generation. You choose to believe something that has no basis in fact, no matter what you say, rather than something that has been observed. What is the mutation of the influenza virus every flu season but constant evolution? Every year we see direct proof of evolution, and yet you are too blind or stubborn to believe it. Obviously, nothing I say could ever prove to you that evolution is based in science, but I couldn't care less. At least this way, everyone else on this board sees how ludicrous you beliefs are.

Im pretty sure you were refering to the miller expierment, that expierment has been debunked, we did not have an amonia rich atmostphere back than. But good try. So therefore it is impossible to make amonia acids and proteins, otherwise we would have 'primordal soup' all over the place in nature.

Bush supports the insertion of under god into it. I think it was first put in to discover traitors, I think we should stop it because that war was over. I'd name the war except i have enough trouble telling the difference betweent he Relovutionary and Civil except I knew which president's were alive at that time. I'm not saying I'm a Kerry supporter or Nader, happily. He's very religious and I remember I was watching the TV and he said the dumbest thing. That we would be inserting our opinions if we took it away. I laughed the rest of the night.

Rolthifolda thank you!
that was amazing i must complement and i dont know who you shot down but he was pwned!

No dude under god was put in by Eisenhaur because he was religious and believed it was right too

The thing with religion is that many christians and them who believe in adam and eve and all think that God made all animals and things perfect, and that he wouldn't change them. They are more lkely to believe that evolution doesn't exist.

Also, organic molecules include formaldehyde, which is a very toxic chemical. Not something you want in an enviorment trying to make life. Also, I dont appreciate you comments that ones beliefs are ludacrious, you have no right to place your ideas and theorys above anothers. You can try and disprove/prove with evidence, but dont bash peoples beliefs. It just makes you look like an arrogant asshole.

What EXACTLY is evolution? Isit the mutations, or the fact that they make things become more successful, or that they pass themselves on when they're bred? Or a combination of all three?

The first and third are hard scientific facts, and the second is common sense.

Therefore evolution exists, quod erat demonstrandum, let's all go home.

No plants live in the deepest parts of the Earths oceans. There is no sunlight to use in the creation of sugars. The life that does exist are closer to animals and colonial bacteria.

Will you guys stop it with th plants already.

http://studentwebs.coloradocollege.edu/~e_gruen/

How atmosphere formed. Answer there.

Rolthifolda thank you!
that was amazing i must complement and i dont know who you shot down but he was pwned!

No, he refered to the Miller Expierment, which is debunked now adays, even though text books present it like truth.

No, I disagree, if that was true you would have much more distinct vareity of humans in nature. Why are Native Americans red? They arent in a hot spot or a cold spot, why are Eskimos tan? They are in a cold area.

Africans are black because they, as an genetic group, have spent more time in a very sunny environment. Therefore, as a group, they have developed very dark skin. Groups of people who broke from the main group after the initial evolution of humans in Africa and traveled to other areas were not in Africa for all this time, getting darker skin. Therefore, those who moved to Europe for all this time have lighter skin because they did not ever need the UV protection that other groups did.
To understand skin color, you need to understand racial groups. Eskimos, Native Americans, and South Americans all migrated over the land bridge into North America as the same ethnic group. As a result, since they were a darker-skinned ethnic group to begin with, they are all darker than average. Evolution is not an instantaneous thing. The Americas were only inhabited about 20000 years ago, and that is the blink of an eye when it comes to evolution.
Furthermore, cold does not equal a lack of sun. Antarctica is the coldest place on the planet, and it also has the most solar radiation hit it. If there was ever a human population that lived for hundreds of thousands of years on Antarctica, they would be the darkest-skinned on the planet. The Arctic Circle is also an area of widespread UV radiation, and that is one factor that contributes to Eskimos' darker skin.

If there's three types, then they can be three different types of evolution. If I'm sounding incredibly stupid, please tell me expeditiously. I'm feeling stupid since even though I'm the top of my class, I'm still in the middle of middle school.

What EXACTLY is evolution? Isit the mutations, or the fact that they make things become more successful, or that they pass themselves on when they're bred? Or a combination of all three?

The first and third are hard scientific facts, and the second is common sense.

Therefore evolution exists, quod erat demonstrandum, let's all go home.

I found a problem with your statement, Scientific facts dont exist. Please go right on home.

If there's three types, then they can be three different types of evolution. If I'm sounding incredibly stupid, please tell me expeditiously. I'm feeling stupid since even though I'm the top of my class, I'm still in the middle of middle school.

Same here, hehe.

It really has nothing to do with God, it means we are a humble country and we are being blessed by a higher power. Which is just a nice thing to say, like God Bless America.

P.S. The president didnt put the 'Under God' part in the pledge.


And the whole world laughs at the mentioning of the US as a 'humble' country.

Belligerent mebbe.

According to the Bible, we all exist because of incest.

I'm sorry but we all don't exist because of incest. That is the complete opposite. When Adam and Eve ate the apple there were other people on the earth to, read the bible. It says when they ate the apple they were forced out of the garden of Eden, later on it talks about how Adam goes into town, now how whould he go into town, did he build it himself, no, there were other people on this earth at the time. If you want to say otherwords, talk to me. :)

Africans are black because they, as an genetic group, have spent more time in a very sunny environment. Therefore, as a group, they have developed very dark skin. Groups of people who broke from the main group after the initial evolution of humans in Africa and traveled to other areas were not in Africa for all this time, getting darker skin. Therefore, those who moved to Europe for all this time have lighter skin because they did not ever need the UV protection that other groups did.
To understand skin color, you need to understand racial groups. Eskimos, Native Americans, and South Americans all migrated over the land bridge into North America as the same ethnic group. As a result, since they were a darker-skinned ethnic group to begin with, they are all darker than average. Evolution is not an instantaneous thing. The Americas were only inhabited about 20000 years ago, and that is the blink of an eye when it comes to evolution.
Furthermore, cold does not equal a lack of sun. Antarctica is the coldest place on the planet, and it also has the most solar radiation hit it. If there was ever a human population that lived for hundreds of thousands of years on Antarctica, they would be the darkest-skinned on the planet. The Arctic Circle is also an area of widespread UV radiation, and that is one factor that contributes to Eskimos' darker skin.

Not nesicarly, they would first have to deveolp the skin so that it could stand out in the cold without any thick protection from the extreme cold, therefore making it eaiser for them to be exposed to the sun. Which makes you have to increase the time to reach black skin.

And the whole world laughs at the mentioning of the US as a 'humble' country.

Belligerent mebbe.

I didnt say it was the truth. hehehe.

Alright i was wrong on the plants but you other guys were wrong too so neither of us were right but we were correct on some parts such as plants or bacteria i should say assisted the building of the atmosphere

I don't see how people can care so much about what has happened. We have enough problems from learning from what we already know for what we believe as sure. I think we should concentrate on environmental issues, although I'm not an environmentalist. I mean, I cut the can things and recycle but I still collect those AOL disks. We have over-population, diseases, discrimination, there's enough to worry about already. It's not going to matter where we come from is it? What's more important is that we solve the future porblems so that we can have the time to find our who we are and who our ancestors were.

I have enough problems of my own like keeping fill in ze blank_____ from mutating my name, getting to the lunch line, acne, killing evil people in my school, getting good grades, and saying Merry Christmas joyfully to lunch ladies that don't care.

I don't see how people can care so much about what has happened. We have enough problems from learning from what we already know for what we believe as sure. I think we should concentrate on environmental issues, although I'm not an environmentalist. I mean, I cut the can things and recycle but I still collect those AOL disks. We have over-population, diseases, discrimination, there's enough to worry about already. It's not going to matter where we come from is it? What's more important is that we solve the future porblems so that we can have the time to find our who we are and who our ancestors were.

No. Why? If we all focus on helping the world, in 20 years people will take it as a normal thing and everyone will do it alot more often. Then another 20 years later, a new generation will rise and disagree with what we had been doing for the past 40 years and it will stop pretty much all together, Questions? "But why would anyone want to stop doing good?" It wouldnt be good anymore, it would lose all meaning because it would have become a 'regular occuance.'

knowing the past prepares you for the future why do you think generals study old battles and old generals like Alexander the Great and Napoleon
Or why do police officers study old serial killers so they can learn about what makes one think

knowing the past prepares you for the future why do you think generals study old battles and old generals like Alexander the Great and Napoleon
Or why do police officers study old serial killers so they can learn about what makes one think

I know, thats where my assumption came from. War was a glorious and honorable thing, know people are starting to be against it all together, and it will keep growing and growing.

The history we already know causes us enough problems. I have to go eat now so Feliz Navidad, Merry X-mas, Happy NewYear, beat up the kid next door party, Joyful Kwanzaa, Happy holidays, and a Christmassy Kwanzaa is one exists. If you want to talk to me just telegram. Bye !

Not to say war is a good thing, it is somthing that is neccesary at times. But some people are against it in any form what so ever.

Also the people in Europe didnt evolve there!
They migrated for the umpteenth time so maybe the group that was there had a skin variation, kind of like panthers being black leopards, and then being isolated by the ice age interbreed forming what is now the white Europe although medittereaneans are darker skined maybe because they werent isolated as much
we may never know

Ultimately, what it comes down to, is a cell cannot evolve. It would have to spontaneously generate, and science already spent a century proving life cannot spontaneously generate.

What the hell are you talking about? Viruses mutate all the time, why do you think there is no cure for the common cold? :gundge:

Well uh all these people talking about how thw bible "proves" that we all exist of incest and how evolution is "real" need to do a little more studying before they start running there suck on here. If you don't like it, talk to me.;)

What the hell are you talking about? Viruses mutate all the time, why do you think there is no cure for the common cold? :gundge:

Cause people are lazy.

alright ive been in this forum for over two hours and im feeling kind of nerdy besides its not as heated as it was any way i liked the arguements a lot of good things said so ill see you later
Also klington or what ever it was nice talkin i like your moves dont necasarily agree with them but whatever

alright ive been in this forum for over two hours and im feeling kind of nerdy besides its not as heated as it was any way i liked the arguements a lot of good things said so ill see you later
Also klington or what ever it was nice talkin i like your moves dont necasarily agree with them but whatever

Its cool man, lets debate some more later. Good To Have ya!

Oh by the way viruses technically arent cells well they are cells that lack a substanial nucleas so thats why they invade cells and take them over and use them to procreate their species

Oh by the way viruses technically arent cells well they are cells that lack a substanial nucleas so thats why they invade cells and take them over and use them to procreate their species

Yes, scientists are debating wether a virus is a plant or an animal, so it could be something new and therefore evolution shouldnt apply to it at the moment.

Originally posted by Klington:
if elements combine to come one step closer to creating life, that doesnt do bull, because the compound will probably be eliminated by various other factors.

From cam.ac.uk (http://www.ast.cam.ac.uk/AAO/local/www/jab/astrobiology/murchison.html):
The meteorite was found to contain a wide variety of organic compounds, including many of biological relevance such as amino acids

If organic compounds could remain stable (not be destroyed) in space, where they are more exposed to the UV rays of the sun, why do you think they would be eliminated quickly with protection from early earth's atmosphere.

Im pretty sure you were refering to the miller expierment, that expierment has been debunked, we did not have an amonia rich atmostphere back than. But good try. So therefore it is impossible to make amonia acids and proteins, otherwise we would have 'primordal soup' all over the place in nature.

No. Just because you decree an experiment is debunked does not make it true. Contrary to your belief, you are not God. You are a misguided ultra-conservative Creationist. I guess it is debunked, in the sense that every respectable biologist in the world accepts it as a valid experiment.

Also, organic molecules include formaldehyde, which is a very toxic chemical. Not something you want in an enviorment trying to make life. Also, I dont appreciate you comments that ones beliefs are ludacrious, you have no right to place your ideas and theorys above anothers. You can try and disprove/prove with evidence, but dont bash peoples beliefs. It just makes you look like an arrogant asshole.

Very good, I can see that you've studied your ninth-grade chemistry. Organic molecules also include alcohol and DNA. This does not mean that there were rivers of DNA flowing through ancient Earth. I said that complex organic molecules were formed, not that every existing organic substance was created in the process. You continue to miss the point when it comes to what I'm trying to say, and I think that you are doing it intentionally. Just because you take random pieces of information and insert them into your post doesn't mean it disproves me.

Furthermore, there is a thin line between belief and stupidity. Anglo-Saxon not only stepped across that very line, but he tripped and fell on his face soon afterward. This fact gives me the right to bash these statements. I will call them ludicrous and whatever other adjectives come to mind, and I couldn't care less about what you say about it. The problem with you people is that you take some insignificant fact and use it to argue with a single, small point of the grand theory of evolution, and believe that you disproving this small point is equal to you disproven the entire basis of evolution.

If organic compounds could remain stable (not be destroyed) in space, where they are more exposed to the UV rays of the sun, why do you think they would be eliminated quickly with protection from early earth's atmosphere.

All of you guys are such fucking idiots. OPEN YOUR EYES! use them the way God intended to.

God damnt i cant leave!
Viruses next to prions which are just proteins are the simplist forms of life
Prions are actually just proteins that attack cells an example would be mad cow disese so in viruses are actually not cells they are simpler than cells
okay i swear im done im going to turn off the computer screen

I'm sorry but we all don't exist because of incest. That is the complete opposite. When Adam and Eve ate the apple there were other people on the earth to, read the bible. It says when they ate the apple they were forced out of the garden of Eden, later on it talks about how Adam goes into town, now how whould he go into town, did he build it himself, no, there were other people on this earth at the time. If you want to say otherwords, talk to me. :)

Well jeez guys, that sounds like scientific fact to me....Two immortal people in a garden, becoming mortal when they eat an apple. But it must be true, cause I read it in a book.

Im pretty sure you were refering to the miller expierment, that expierment has been debunked, we did not have an amonia rich atmostphere back than. But good try. So therefore it is impossible to make amonia acids and proteins, otherwise we would have 'primordal soup' all over the place in nature.

About 3.5 billion years ago, the surface of the earth had cooled enough to form a crust, still heavily populated with volcanoes which released steam, carbon dioxide, and ammonia. A planet wide ammonia rich atmosphere is not necessary to the formation of organic molecules. The atmosphere/hydrosphere near actively volcanic regions contain high levels of the necessary chemicals.

It is not impossible to reproduce the Miller-Urey experiment with lower levels of ammonia, it just reduces the frequency of amino acid production. It does not eliminate it.

Well jeez guys, that sounds like scientific fact to me....Two immortal people in a garden, becoming mortal when they eat an apple. But it must be true, cause I read it in a book.

I'm talking about the incest subject dip shit.

Im pretty sure you were refering to the miller expierment, that expierment has been debunked, we did not have an amonia rich atmostphere back than. But good try. So therefore it is impossible to make amonia acids and proteins, otherwise we would have 'primordal soup' all over the place in nature.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB035.html

And here is a rational explanation why life could still happen.

Originally posted by North Daset:
All of you guys are such fucking idiots. OPEN YOUR EYES! use them the way God intended to.

Was this aimed at me. If it was and I said something stupid or misinformed, I apologize, but could you please explain why my quote was so mistaken. If it wasn't aimed at me, sorry; but you might still want to explain people's mistakes more directly to them.

If organic compounds could remain stable (not be destroyed) in space, where they are more exposed to the UV rays of the sun, why do you think they would be eliminated quickly with protection from early earth's atmosphere.

Different factors, I.E. Ice Ages(trapped in ice, cant do crap), Wind, lot of rain. You can super-saturate/saturate the compounds to cause non-compatability with the other elements. ETC.

Was this aimed at me. If it was and I said something stupid or misinformed, I apologize, but could you please explain why my quote was so mistaken. If it wasn't aimed at me, sorry; but you might still want to explain people's mistakes more directly to them.

hmmm, well let me think, your name was there wasn't it? duh obviosly, got a problem?

So, my first visit to a new discussion board and what do I find? A 39-page thick pile of doodah about creationism v. evolution. Is there a single BB in the world where this isn't being discussed?

Why do people insist on arguing with people who are beyond reason?

Well then explain what was so obviously stupid to you.

So, my first visit to a new discussion board and what do I find? A 39-page thick pile of doodah about creationism v. evolution. Is there a single BB in the world where this isn't being discussed?

Why do people insist on arguing with people who are beyond reason?

well, let me think the world is about to end, jesus is about to come back. If you read in revolations, it says that it will be time for jesus to come back when there is war in the holy lands. Wasn't Jesus born around that area. The bible mostly took place there. Us cristians are trying to save other people so they don't go to HELL soon. >:(

No. Just because you decree an experiment is debunked does not make it true. Contrary to your belief, you are not God. You are a misguided ultra-conservative Creationist. I guess it is debunked, in the sense that every respectable biologist in the world accepts it as a valid experiment.



Very good, I can see that you've studied your ninth-grade chemistry. Organic molecules also include alcohol and DNA. This does not mean that there were rivers of DNA flowing through ancient Earth. I said that complex organic molecules were formed, not that every existing organic substance was created in the process. You continue to miss the point when it comes to what I'm trying to say, and I think that you are doing it intentionally. Just because you take random pieces of information and insert them into your post doesn't mean it disproves me.

Furthermore, there is a thin line between belief and stupidity. Anglo-Saxon not only stepped across that very line, but he tripped and fell on his face soon afterward. This fact gives me the right to bash these statements. I will call them ludicrous and whatever other adjectives come to mind, and I couldn't care less about what you say about it. The problem with you people is that you take some insignificant fact and use it to argue with a single, small point of the grand theory of evolution, and believe that you disproving this small point is equal to you disproven the entire basis of evolution.

THE EARLY ATMOSTPHERE WAS NOT MADE OF AMIONIA! YOU FIND 10 VALID SOURCES SIGHTING THIS FACT AND I WILL STAND BACK AND ACAKNOWLEGDE YOUR EXPIERMENT!

Also, you know what one gets when you make 'complex' organic molecules? Embalming Fluid! Thats quite funny if you ask me. Also, if you want to be an arrogant bastard who assumes everyone is an idiot and cant see how stupid Anglos ideas where, well we can, we dont need you being an asshole to him about and tell him off. Thank you.

About 3.5 billion years ago, the surface of the earth had cooled enough to form a crust, still heavily populated with volcanoes which released steam, carbon dioxide, and ammonia. A planet wide ammonia rich atmosphere is not necessary to the formation of organic molecules. The atmosphere/hydrosphere near actively volcanic regions contain high levels of the necessary chemicals.

It is not impossible to reproduce the Miller-Urey experiment with lower levels of ammonia, it just reduces the frequency of amino acid production. It does not eliminate it.

Thanks for clarifying that, in the right way, could you give me a few examples of this though as well, scientific websites, quotes? Because I just want to double check it, and then see if I can find a rebuttal.

Well uh all these people talking about how thw bible "proves" that we all exist of incest and how evolution is "real" need to do a little more studying before they start running there suck on here. If you don't like it, talk to me.;)
If the book of Genesis is to be taken literally, then God created man and woman, and we are their decendents, limited options mean that incest is a very likely occurrence. Noah's flood pretty much guarantees it.

Gen: Chapter 7 v 21 And all flesh died that moved on the earth, birds, domestic animals, wild animals, all swarming creatures that swarm on the earth, and all human beings; 22 everything on dry land in whose nostrils was the breath of life died. 23 He blotted out every living thing that was on the face of the ground, human beings and animals and creeping things and birds of the air; they were blotted out from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those that were with him in the ark.

If you're not taking Genesis literally then how can you argue that Creationism is valid and proven??

Yes, scientists are debating wether a virus is a plant or an animal, so it could be something new and therefore evolution shouldnt apply to it at the moment.

No, you idiot (see, this is another one of those times where your utter stupidity gives me the right to call you an idiot), they are not debating whether to classify them as a plant or an animal; they are debating whether or not to call it a living organism. It does not transform sunlight into energy, therefore it is not a plant. It is not made from cells with semipermeous membranes with soft walls. Therefore, it is not an animal. An educated opinion on this topic requires a very basic understanding of virus structure. A virus is nothing but a tightly packed bundle of protein that protects a small core of RNA inside. The true debate is whether or not the presence of RNA in the virus is enough to deem it a living creature. If they are indeed living creatures, they would be placed in their own classification of organism, not in that of plants or animals.

If the book of Genesis is to be taken literally, then God created man and woman, and we are their decendents, limited options mean that incest is a very likely occurrence. Noah's flood pretty much guarantees it.

Gen: Chapter 7 v 21 And all flesh died that moved on the earth, birds, domestic animals, wild animals, all swarming creatures that swarm on the earth, and all human beings; 22 everything on dry land in whose nostrils was the breath of life died. 23 He blotted out every living thing that was on the face of the ground, human beings and animals and creeping things and birds of the air; they were blotted out from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those that were with him in the ark.

If you're not taking Genesis literally then how can you argue that Creationism is valid and proven??

not everyone on the ark was related.

If the book of Genesis is to be taken literally, then God created man and woman, and we are their decendents, limited options mean that incest is a very likely occurrence. Noah's flood pretty much guarantees it.

Gen: Chapter 7 v 21 And all flesh died that moved on the earth, birds, domestic animals, wild animals, all swarming creatures that swarm on the earth, and all human beings; 22 everything on dry land in whose nostrils was the breath of life died. 23 He blotted out every living thing that was on the face of the ground, human beings and animals and creeping things and birds of the air; they were blotted out from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those that were with him in the ark.

If you're not taking Genesis literally then how can you argue that Creationism is valid and proven??

well then how can you prove that the big bang was valid and proven.???

Well this debate sure took a nose dive from intelligible arguments with proof behind them to a couple of loudmouth teens (presumably) with nothing but opinions and attitudes. I guess I'll add some of my own!

"Where the trail of evidence ends, God begins." -Me, Dec 2004
Whenever something can't be explained (yet), someone comes up and says it was God. That, or say that the research that led to this point is false (with no supporting evidence, naturally).

Also, some people seem to be quick to remind that evolutionists must prove their point. I don't know if it's ignorance or what, but they're forgetting God itself lacks evidence. The only thing that makes it dominating is that it was there first. Well, earth being flat was the dominating, first theory that people believed, and look what happened to that one.
These people are forgetting that God too is only a theory, but never fail to remind evolutionists that it's just a theory.

THE EARLY ATMOSTPHERE WAS NOT MADE OF AMIONIA! YOU FIND 10 VALID SOURCES SIGHTING THIS FACT AND I WILL STAND BACK AND ACAKNOWLEGDE YOUR EXPIERMENT!

The Earths early atmosphere was not made up entirely of ammonia. No one is disputing that. What you cannot seem to grasp is the fact that it did, and does, contain ammonia in small amounts. During a time when the planet was volcanically active the levels were much higher. You get similar levels near active and smouldering volcanos and geysers.

With so much volcanism accross the planet, the levels of ambient ammonia in the atmosphere, though less than the levels used in the Miller-Urey experiment, were still sufficient to produce amino-acids. The areas near active volcanism can have levels equal those used in the experiment.

Well this debate sure took a nose dive from intelligible arguments with proof behind them to a couple of loudmouth teens (presumably) with nothing but opinions and attitudes. I guess I'll add some of my own!

"Where the trail of evidence ends, God begins." -Me, Dec 2004
Whenever something can't be explained (yet), someone comes up and says it was God. That, or say that the research that led to this point is false (with no supporting evidence, naturally).

Also, some people seem to be quick to remind that evolutionists must prove their point. I don't know if it's ignorance or what, but they're forgetting God itself lacks evidence. The only thing that makes it dominating is that it was there first. Well, earth being flat was the dominating, first theory that people believed, and look what happened to that one.
These people are forgetting that God too is only a theory, but never fail to remind evolutionists that it's just a theory.

I'm sorry but I have plenty of proof behind what I believe, and there not opinions there FACTS!

No, you idiot (see, this is another one of those times where your utter stupidity gives me the right to call you an idiot), they are not debating whether to classify them as a plant or an animal; they are debating whether or not to call it a living organism. It does not transform sunlight into energy, therefore it is not a plant. It is not made from cells with semipermeous membranes with soft walls. Therefore, it is not an animal. An educated opinion on this topic requires a very basic understanding of virus structure. A virus is nothing but a tightly packed bundle of protein that protects a small core of RNA inside. The true debate is whether or not the presence of RNA in the virus is enough to deem it a living creature. If they are indeed living creatures, they would be placed in their own classification of organism, not in that of plants or animals.

Yes that was my mistake, I had trouble remembering it thank you for correcting me, in the mean time, Im just going to ignore the rest of your posts. Not because your right, but because your an asshole and you need to lose your fucking ego.

Originally posted by Klington:
Different factors, I.E. Ice Ages(trapped in ice, cant do crap), Wind, lot of rain. You can super-saturate/saturate the compounds to cause non-compatability with the other elements. ETC.

But some place and time on earth where these factors are absent or not as effective (like the "primordial soup" or Cairns-Smith's clay) would be more conducive to life than this. That is why abiogenesis scientists give only a half billion years and a billion billion simultaneous chances. (There was much more time and many more compounds on earth with which this could have happened.) And saturated compounds were never included in the 2% (or whatever amount for each individual experiment) of carbon molecules in organic compounds from the Miller-Urey experiment and those that followed it.

Well this debate sure took a nose dive from intelligible arguments with proof behind them to a couple of loudmouth teens (presumably) with nothing but opinions and attitudes. I guess I'll add some of my own!

"Where the trail of evidence ends, God begins." -Me, Dec 2004
Whenever something can't be explained (yet), someone comes up and says it was God. That, or say that the research that led to this point is false (with no supporting evidence, naturally).

Also, some people seem to be quick to remind that evolutionists must prove their point. I don't know if it's ignorance or what, but they're forgetting God itself lacks evidence. The only thing that makes it dominating is that it was there first. Well, earth being flat was the dominating, first theory that people believed, and look what happened to that one.
These people are forgetting that God too is only a theory, but never fail to remind evolutionists that it's just a theory.

Um no, the theory the earth was round first dominated, then te dark ages, then the flat theory, than the round theory again.

The Earths early atmosphere was not made up entirely of ammonia. No one is disputing that. What you cannot seem to grasp is the fact that it did, and does, contain ammonia in small amounts. During a time when the planet was volcanically active the levels were much higher. You get similar levels near active and smouldering volcanos and geysers.

With so much volcanism accross the planet, the levels of ambient ammonia in the atmosphere, though less than the levels used in the Miller-Urey experiment, were still sufficient to produce amino-acids. The areas near active volcanism can have levels equal those used in the experiment.

I know, I read your other post and now I realize you had some truth, but allow me to read up on it and I will get back at you with a rebuttal.

THE EARLY ATMOSTPHERE WAS NOT MADE OF AMIONIA! YOU FIND 10 VALID SOURCES SIGHTING THIS FACT AND I WILL STAND BACK AND ACAKNOWLEGDE YOUR EXPIERMENT!

Also, you know what one gets when you make 'complex' organic molecules? Embalming Fluid! Thats quite funny if you ask me. Also, if you want to be an arrogant bastard who assumes everyone is an idiot and cant see how stupid Anglos ideas where, well we can, we dont need you being an asshole to him about and tell him off. Thank you.

Once again, just because you say that is does not exist does not mean that it didn't exist. I am not going to go out and find 10 different sources that state that ammonia existed on earth. I shouldn't have to, it's common sense. Nitrogen and Hydrogen, two of the most common elements present in the forming solar system, and all over the universe, react vigorously to form ammonia in the presence of heat. An ideal location for ammonia formation would be, say, a volcano. But there weren't any of those during this time period, so I don't know where it came from....Idiot.


P.S. Sorry, I guess I didn't read your whole post thoroughly enough. You are indeed correct, there is no "amionia" anywhere. I guess you'll never have to "ACAKNOWLEGDE YOUR EXPIERMENT!".
On second thought, WTF are you talking about?





Idiot

Free Soviets, I read this in a magazine entitled Current Science & Technology. Plus, evolution has nothing to back it up, Christianity does.

no you didn't. the chance that evolution exists is 1. i have personally observed a change in allele frequencies in a population over time. you could do so too. it is quite easy. there is no question about the factual existence of evolution. all there is left is explaining precisely how it happens in any particular case.

Yes that was my mistake, I had trouble remembering it thank you for correcting me, in the mean time, Im just going to ignore the rest of your posts. Not because your right, but because your an asshole and you need to lose your fucking ego.

No problem.

Guess I better start reading up on this stuff. *Shakes Head* "You cant learn crap in Middle School."

Why would we all want to question how the earth was created when our every day lives are based so much on God. A.D. after death of Christ B.C. Before Christ. 12 months in a year, 12 deciples. 7 days in a week, it took 7 days to create earth.Plus the bible itself, what do you all think somone just said one day, hmm I think I'll write the bible, don't think so. Under God being in our pledge. Think about it will you!

I'm sorry but I have plenty of proof behind what I believe, and there not opinions there FACTS!
I suppose these proof are something along the lines of "I almost tripped on a pair of pliers once but God took my hand and kept me standing. That is why I believe God exists and everything else anyone else says is propaganda. Jesus saves because believing in the stories of a bastard child's* miracles back in the year Jesus is so much more intelligent than believing in something you can see with your own damn eyes!"

Um no, the theory the earth was round first dominated, then te dark ages, then the flat theory, than the round theory again.
Fair enough, my bad. I could start looking up other theories that got bashed by modern science though, but I don't think it'd do any good anyway.

(* Seriously, if your wife came to you and said an angel made her pregnant, would you buy the story?)

plus they found chariot wheels were mosas crossed through the parted waters, if you don't believe me look it up.

I'm sorry but I have plenty of proof behind what I believe, and there not opinions there FACTS!

Oh, goody!
I love facts!
So, pray tell, what are the facts that support your belief system? You seem to have neglected to mention them anywhere eslse.
Not opinions? You certainly do have opinions about them. Even if they are facts, there is an opinion there.

No I'm very sorry God takes us out of this world when its our time, he doesn't save us. We all have our own path ass hole.

plus they found chariot wheels were mosas crossed through the parted waters, if you don't believe me look it up.
"Link".

well, let me think the world is about to end, jesus is about to come back. If you read in revolations, it says that it will be time for jesus to come back when there is war in the holy lands. Wasn't Jesus born around that area. The bible mostly took place there. Us cristians are trying to save other people so they don't go to HELL soon. >:(
When hasn't there been war in the Holy Lands?
The battle of Armageddon has already happened.
Revelations is an allegory of the political environment in which it was written, not a propehcy. It's a metaphor.

Don't bother trying to save me. I'm happy just where I am.

Do you think anyone would recognise Jesus if he came back?
Imagine a short, dark, Jewish guy, claiming to be Jesus Christ. You'd lock him up in a loony bin with all the others.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=33168

theres your link, have fun!!!

well then how can you prove that the big bang was valid and proven.???

There is no way that one can totally prove the Big Bang ever occured because, for one, there was obviously no one there to see it. But we can use the tools around us like, say, Ah! This handy-dandy Spitzer Space Telescope in orbit over the Earth. This telescope detects far-away radio transmissions from 14 billion light-years away. These bits of information together allow scientists to make an educated theory based on the facts.
Noah's Ark, however, was talked about in a book. This is not, in any way, shape, or form, scientific proof. There, I just got done writing a book that said it was wrong. That doesn't make either one of us right about Noah's Ark, but it sure doesn't provide any semblence of truth on the topic. Scientific facts, however, do allow for the formation of a probable theory of universe formation.

Thanks for clarifying that, in the right way, could you give me a few examples of this though as well, scientific websites, quotes? Because I just want to double check it, and then see if I can find a rebuttal.

Miller-Urey experiment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_experiment)
Earths Atmosphere (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_atmosphere)
Evolution of Amino Acid Frequencies in Proteins Over Deep Time: Inferred Order of Introduction of Amino Acids into the Genetic Code (http://mbe.oupjournals.org/cgi/content/full/19/10/1645)

Listen damnation and hellfire, war is going on right now, don't you watch the news dumbass?/? and when jesus comes back horns are going to blow loud enough the whole earth will hear it, trust me.

Originally posted by North Daset:
Why would we all want to question how the earth was created when our every day lives are based so much on God.
The fact that we name some units of time in a Judeo-Christian based way does not mean that Christianity is correct anymore than the fact that the days of the week are named after pagan gods means that these religions are correct. And we should worry about the question of how earth formed because it will help us to understand earth now. Modern Earth is a result of the way it formed, and a greater scientific understanding our origins leads to a greater understanding of our current condition.

No I'm very sorry God takes us out of this world when its our time, he doesn't save us. We all have our own path ass hole.

Was that directed at me?
If so, you entirely ignored everything I said, and went on a tangent.

Fallacy of the Straw Man.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=33168

theres your link, have fun!!!
"All kinds of people are finding coral and calling it chariot parts," says Richard Rives, president of Wyatt Archaeological Research in Tennessee. "It's most likely coral covered with coral. ... Opportunists are combining false things with the true things that are found. These people are making it up as they go to be TV stars."

He's more likely to be right than you are. Why? Because he's actually doing stuff, not just claiming it on an internet board.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=33168

theres your link, have fun!!!

Well there you go, I give up. Scientific proof right here, proving that the Red Sea split before Moses and then drowned the Pharoah and his men when they tried to cross. Chariots at the bottom of Sea must prove the truth of the entire Bible and disprove evolution. How could I have been so stupid?

What do you mean science is on you're side? Microbiology has completely disproven the theory of evolution.
Irreducible Complexity- does that mean anything?
Ultimately, what it comes down to, is a cell cannot evolve. It would have to spontaneously generate, and science already spent a century proving life cannot spontaneously generate. So ultimately, evolution has no starting point, and if it didn't start, it didn't happen period.
it doesn't take a century to evolve noticably. It takes millions of years. It took 100,000 years for our smallest toe to shrink 2 mm. it's not alot, but it's progress.

You people have no faith YOUR ALL FACT HUNGRY! I wish I could get through to you...................:``( I fell really bad because of it,.

"Irrelevant to evolution."


*laughs outrageously and falls of couch**ow*


You must be able to prove everything in the earth and about it with your "Theory" to prove Evoluotion.
Now if you will excuse me I must go wash my hands after writing that foul word.*shudders*

Well there you go, I give up. Scientific proof right here, proving that the Red Sea split before Moses and then drowned the Pharoah and his men when they tried to cross. Chariots at the bottom of Sea must prove the truth of the entire Bible and disprove evolution. How could I have been so stupid?

well, I'm not the one that wanted a link on a specific ITEM!

You people have no faith YOUR ALL FACT HUNGRY! I wish I could get through to you...................:``( I fell really bad because of it,.
That's kind of the point. Faith doesn't get you any closer to the truth, when it's placed in something that doesn't want to know it in the first place. It's claiming to be it, after all.
I have plenty of faith. I can't afford to waste it on silly things, like religion, though. I'll rather invest in myself, thankyouverymuch.

Why would we all want to question how the earth was created when our every day lives are based so much on God. A.D. after death of Christ B.C. Before Christ. 12 months in a year, 12 deciples. 7 days in a week, it took 7 days to create earth.Plus the bible itself, what do you all think somone just said one day, hmm I think I'll write the bible, don't think so. Under God being in our pledge. Think about it will you!

I realize going into this post that you most likely have an extra 21st chromosome, so I feel really bad about criticizing your posts.

12 months in a year, 12 disciples, 12 in a dozen, I have 12 toes plus thumbs, theres five times 12 minutes in an hour.....You're right!!!! There is a connection between us and God. You tying random numbers between the Bible and our everyday lives does not prove anything but your own stupidity.

Plus the bible itself, what do you all think somone just said one day, hmm I think I'll write the bible?

Yes.

"Irrelevant to evolution."


*laughs outrageously and falls of couch**ow*


You must be able to prove everything in the earth and about it with your "Theory" to prove Evoluotion.
Now if you will excuse me I must go wash my hands after writing that foul word.*shudders*

Prove the "theory" that God did it all. God is handy in the fact that you can use it on anything and everything. Evolution doesn't explain everything happening on the earth, it tries to explain the progress of bilogical life. It has nothing to do with the life of the planet(s) and stars.

okay some scientists say this besides the first life didnt come to play until maybe a billion years ago leaving the rest of the 3 billion years to create life i mean thats such a small amount of time

nah, we actually have fossils of bacteria dating back to 3.5 billion years ago. and good chemical evidence for the existence of abundant life at 3.85 bya. life appears to have gotten started quite early on after the earth cooled enough for it to be possible (though that still gives it hundreds of millions of years).

I liken this argument to when people try to convince me that I shouldn't be a vegetarian. No matter how much they try to tell me that it's god's will for me to eat meat (I'm not really sure whether I believe in god by the way) or even that it is human nature to eat meat I still won't believe them because my mindset is so firmly cemented. I don't go around preaching to other people that eating meat is horrible and condemning all those who do eat it because I know that I can't change their beliefs. They need to come to their own conclusions about it over time.
So all you religious fanatics who are trying to convince those who believe in evolution that they're wrong should just stop it. You can go on with your lives just fine without converting some non-believer. We are all individuals entitled to our own opinions, and that is what makes the world such an interesting place culturally.
Just stop this madness of trying to prove everyone else but yourself wrong! :(

You people have no faith YOUR ALL FACT HUNGRY! I wish I could get through to you...................:``( I fell really bad because of it,.

Yes yes, heaven forbid we would want the facts. Not me, thank you very much. I would rather read an ancient book and treat it as the fact without anything resembling truth.

OH AND IN CASE YOUR NOT ALL HAPPY HERES A COUPLE OTHER LINKS TO GET YOUR MOTOR RUNNING.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/kids/2004/05/noahark.html

http://www.biblemysteries.com/lectures/babel.htm

http://www.dallas.net/~dchancey/tomb.html

Yes yes, heaven forbid we would want the facts. Not me, thank you very much. I would rather read an ancient book and treat it as the fact without anything resembling truth.

I have plenty of supprt.

not everyone on the ark was related.
On the boat were: Gen 7:13

(labelled for genetic differencing)
Noah Z
Noah's wife Y
Noah's three sons - Shem ZY, Ham ZY, Japheth ZY
Shem's wife X
Ham's wife W
Japheth's wife V

All of the males on the boat are related to each other.

Shem's children will all be ZYX
Ham's ZYW
Japheth's ZYV

The only options after that for f-king are cousin, sibling, parent or grandparent.

Incest, incest, incest!

Isn't anyone going to say anything?

OH AND IN CASE YOUR NOT ALL HAPPY HERES A COUPLE OTHER LINKS TO GET YOUR MOTOR RUNNING.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/kids/2004/05/noahark.html

http://www.biblemysteries.com/lectures/babel.htm

http://www.dallas.net/~dchancey/tomb.html
All retarded.
Noah's Ark-thing: "OH LOOK A BLACK SPOT MAYBE IT'S NOAHS ARK HAHA OMG LOOK LINES IT MUST BE A SHIP OHNOES WTF IS GOING ON LETS CALL THE NEWS AND GET SOME MONEY"

Babel thing: "There's a chance this thing might have been there but I don't know, nor does anyone else." I don't know about you, but I never heard of any Babel expeditions in 1999. Ones that actually found anything, atleast.

Tomb thing: Jesus lived. Jesus died. Jesus was locked up. Jesus was graverobbed. Someone wrote a placate (in english?) saying he rose up. His deciples eat mushrooms and see him do the Fonzie on them.

I have plenty of supprt.

You haven't presented a single iota of proof for anything you've said was true. This alone makes you a rambling idiot.

Thank you, come again.

"Irrelevant to evolution."


*laughs outrageously and falls of couch**ow*


You must be able to prove everything in the earth and about it with your "Theory" to prove Evoluotion.
Now if you will excuse me I must go wash my hands after writing that foul word.*shudders*

And it seems you have to prove just as much to prove *your* theory, in all logic.

"Evoluotion"? Foul word? So, other viewpoints are evil, now, are they?

You haven't presented a single iota of proof for anything you've said was true. This alone makes you a rambling idiot.

Thank you, come again.

I'm sorry I just did, let me get you some more

Because Creationism is simply a belief it can be neither proven nor proven wrong for many of the reasons previously stated such as the fact that none of us were there and so we don't know what happened.

Similarily, Evolution cannot be proven because of the same reasons. However, it can be proven wrong. There is a little thing called the flagella motor on many cells. This motor is what most evolutionists don't want to admit, irreducibly complex. Because the theory of evolution states that in order for something to evolve, it must serve some purpose and aid in the survival of the entity. However, for the flagella this is impossible because of the fact that by putting itself together over time, it serves no purpose at all and thus would be impossible to evolve.

When evolutionists first heard of this theory they immediately changed their theory to include "The parts needed for this flagella are located in other parts of the cell, so it could've happened by chance and ended up benifiting the cell thus, evolving."

True, the evolutionists were correct on this matter, there are SOME components of the flagella located in other parts of the cell. But this ignores the origins of the other 30 or so key elements of the flagella motor.

What do evolutionists have to say about this, nothing. They cannot accept the fact that the flagella motor is irreducibly complex and so they either say the idea is stupid and wrong, or ignore it all together. It is only a matter of time before they change their theory again to include this obvious case of irreducible complexity.


Now, the non-scientific part. The part that most of you will attack ignoring the proven facts above.

What hope does evolution give you? The theory of evolution states, "Yeah...you see, you're just an accident of Nature, no one cares about you except for the other freaks you call humans. So, go ahead and get your life over with, it doesn't really matter anyhow."

I can't understand why anyone would WANT to believe this lunacy. Creationism says that there is a god who cares about you. That you matter to him and your life is not a complete waste. When it comes down to it, it seems like anyone would want to believe that they are cared for. Creationism gives life meaning. I guess Evolutionists just can't accept that. They'd rather just go through life saying, "There's no reason for us to live. We may as well die now."

Ever heard of hedonism?

http://www.g4techtv.com/techtvvault/features/38665/Noahs_Ark_Found.html

Is that better

Surprise surprise, no visual proof.
No, not good enough.

http://www.g4techtv.com/techtvvault/features/38665/Noahs_Ark_Found.html

Is that better


Hear that? Its the common sense train, last stop is you. The title of the article you just gave me as proof is "Noah's Ark Found?" Note the question mark you idiot. Normally, a question is, well, a question, meaning the answer is not known. Giving me an article that asks me a question is not proof in my eyes, but evidently it's enough for some of you Creationists. Stop giving me these meaningless links and find something of value. Until then, shut your mouth.


P is for pwned.

I find that I must agree with Lzrd on Daset's links.

Also, I try to avoid using sites that play music.

I'm getting really tired of talking to you guys, hopefully somone can come along and help you be saved, or go to hell, oh and read the bible portion on hell and when you die, and stand before god, tell him I said hi;)

If we go to hell, your seat will be right next to ours.

Oh judgemental one.

I'm getting really tired of talking to you guys, hopefully somone can come along and help you be saved, or go to hell, oh and read the bible portion on hell and when you die, and stand before god, tell him I said hi;)

Yeah, I hate getting proven wrong too, so don't worry about it. In the meantime, try to gather facts. When you're on this board, in the presence of people who actually received their high school diplomas, you sound like an idiot, spouting random facts. Nothing we could ever say would be able to persuade you to change your beliefs. Therefore, you have a clouded perception of reality, and you have no place being here on a serious forum.

Applying the scientific method to history (which is what real historians do, not Bible-Documentary movie producers) means that you don't just find some artifact and claim that it might be something that some ancient book mentions; you have written proof (as witnessed by non-biased observers -- followers of a particular religion are not non-biased in reporting "miracles" of that religion) in multiple ancient sources that this was what happened.

Ok. some things that have evolved and support evolution. Apes, dinosaurs, birds, reptiles, the flu virus, AIDS, bio-organic proteins, microbes, music, religion, culture, martial arts, painting, and so on. You, my very politically incorrect christian bastard, are wrong. My take on religion has more support then yours and I follow one of the smallest ones ever.

http://www.g4techtv.com/techtvvault/features/38665/Noahs_Ark_Found.html

Is that better

Daset, so many satellite photos have shown 'proof' of the Ark over the years and not a single one has made the headlines of an actual DISCOVERY which would be what you are really looking for. Notice the link is from an article that is 2 YEARS OLD. If it has been discovered, we would have heard about it. It would have been HUGE news would you not agree?

Not a peep on an actual discovery.

As for your previous posts:

Jesus in fact existed and died and was sealed in some tomb. THAT is just a series of photos of what appears to be a tomb with a wooden plaque in english saying Jesus was there. If I wore a T-Shirt saying "I am the President of the United States of America" is doesn't make me the president. Don't take it as 'prrof' that Jesus rose again. It is not proof.

Whether or not this was the source of all races and languages though is next to impossible to prove.

Babel: It would not surprise me if someone way back then tried to build a huge tower and had it come crashing down. Look at the Pyramids, some of them crumbed soon after being made as well. It's a feat of engineering and materials that the skyscrapers and other structures we build today are able to stay up. Although I will say when big buildings fall, people tend to get divided (9/11 reference).

Isn't it amusing that people who think they're intelligent, think that AD stands for After Death (of Christ).

Anno Domini

Why would we all want to question how the earth was created when our every day lives are based so much on God. A.D. after death of Christ B.C. Before Christ. 12 months in a year, 12 deciples. 7 days in a week, it took 7 days to create earth.Plus the bible itself, what do you all think somone just said one day, hmm I think I'll write the bible, don't think so. Under God being in our pledge. Think about it will you!

So by your reckoning, what where the years between Before Christ and After his Death called?


AD is an abreviation of the Latin "Anno Dominus" meaning "Year of Our Lord"...

As for BC... Christ was born sometime before the end of October in about 4 "BC"

12 months = 12 lunar cycles a year
7 days between each phase of the moon

Listen damnation and hellfire, war is going on right now, don't you watch the news dumbass?/? and when jesus comes back horns are going to blow loud enough the whole earth will hear it, trust me.
Yes, war is going on in the Holy Land. I never denied that. My point is that war has _always_ been going on in the Holy Land. If that's the signal for his return, he's bloody late...

Evolution doesn't hold water. The theory is entirley bogus. It has no supporting evidence, and the facts contradict it.

On the other hand, Christianity's message is supported by the facts and has plenty of supporting evidence.

Anyone who disagrees state why. I guarantee you've fallen prey to atheist propoganda.

I assume this is a joke of some kind? Unfortunately views just as dumb as these are frequently aired here so it's actually hard to tell the difference.

Apparently Dinosaur bones were all planted by God to test our faith.

Apparently millions of years of Geological strata which show definitively that the Earth is substantially older than "Genesis" and Christian fundamentalists insist, were not actually formed by millions of years of sedimentary deposits, but put there like that by God, I dunno, because the stripes look pretty, or something.

and more to the point...

Apparently successive generations of bacteria who become immune to antibiotics, and successive generations of rats that become immune to poisons AREN'T the result of the process of those who are most resistant surviving long enough to reproduce and pass on their genetic advantage, they're just REALLY LUCKY!

Apparently all humans are direct descendants of Adam and Eve, which means we are the product of the offspring of two people all having sex with members of their immediate family, even though incest is forbidden in Leviticus, I guess before Leviticus came along incest was just fine with God.

Evolution versus Creationism is this simple :- Do you want to be a monkey, or have sex with your sister?

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=33168

theres your link, have fun!!!
"Worldnetdaily"

How about a real news site?

North Daset, you still haven't told me what your specific problem was with that quote of mine for which you called me stupid.

Evolution of bird flu: Science vs. religion
By Robert L. Moore | Special to the Orlando Sentinel
December 22, 2004

"Bird flu, an Asian-based virus, has killed 23 people so far, about two of every three of the humans it has infected. And its deadliness is increasing because of its capacity to evolve.

As of now, the virus seems able only to jump from poultry to humans; it lacks the capacity to move from human to human. But the scientists who are tracking it believe it will eventually evolve into a form that can make the human-human jump. When this happens, we may be faced with a catastrophe worse than the Spanish flu of 1918-19 that killed more than 40 million people worldwide.

An international conference of scientists is assembling in Geneva this month to find a way to stop the worst effects of the virus as it mutates into a human-adapted form. Now here's the irony: At the very time when scientists are struggling to counter the indisputably real effects of viral evolution, half a world away, the opponents of science are trying to undermine our ability to understand the process of evolution, the very process that makes bird flu such a threat...."

(rest of the article)

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/opinion/orl-edpmoore22122204dec22,1,132305.story?coll=orl-opinion-headlines

North Daset seems to have left. We can move on to other things now. I think that poster didn't quite understand the fact that I (and others) simply don't accept the Bible as empirical evidence for either historical or scientific data. The poster who started this thread is commendable, though, even if he is mis-informed. For non-scientists (by non-scientists, I mean all those unfamiliar with science, not all people who don't have science degrees) to be skeptical about science is exactly what we should want. Through this skepticism, we can explain to non-scientists how rational science is, and we get to sharpen our scientific minds on some really tough questions, like irreducible complexity and the state of earth's early atmosphere in comparison with the Miller-Urey experiment. Although scientists (this time I do mean those with science degrees) already have the answers to most of these, I'm sure most of us had to look up those answers on google; and in the process we learned how far human beings have come in the persuit of knowledge.

Ya. We do. It's wrong, but oh well. That's what Makes us flawed, at least that's what I believe.

Questions For People Who Believe In The Theory Of Evolution

The test of any theory is: does it provide answers to basic questions? Some well-meaning but misguided people think evolution is a reasonable theory to explain man's questions about the universe. Evolution is not a good theory, it is just a pagan religion masquerading as science. Below are a few of the questions that should be answered.

1. Where did the space for 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 whom did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?
9. Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of it's kind since this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival?
10. How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new improved varieties? (Recombining English letters will never produce Chinese books.)
11. Is it possible that similarities in design between different animals prove a common creator instead of a common ancestor?
12. Since natural selection only works with the genetic information available and tends only to keep a species stable, how do you explain increasing complexity in the genetic code?
13. When, where, why and how did:
1. Single-celled plants become multicelled? (Where are the two-celled and three-celled intermediates?)
2. Single-celled animals evolve?
3. Fish change to amphibians?
4. Amphibians change to reptiles?
5. Reptiles change to birds? (Lungs, bones, eyes, reproductive organs, heart, method of locomotion, body covering, etc., are all very different!)
6. How did the intermediate forms live?
14. When, where, why, how and from what did:
1. Whales evolve?
2. Sea horses evolve?
3. Bats evolve?
4. Ears evolve?
5. Eyes evolve?
6. Hair, skin, feathers, scales, nails, claws, etc., evolve?
15. Which evolved first (How, and how long, did it work without the others):
1. The digestive system, the food to be digested, the appetite, the ability to find and eat the food, the digestive juices, or the body's resistance to it's own digestive juices.
2. The drive to reproduce or the ability to reproduce?
3. The lungs, the mucus lining to protect them, the throat or the perfect mixture of gasses to be breathed into the lungs?
4. DNA or RNA to carry the DNA message to cell parts?
5. The termite or the flagella in his intestines that actually digest the cellulose?
6. The plants or the insects that live on and pollinate the plants?
7. The bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, muscles to move the bones, nervous system, repair system, or hormone system?
8. The immune system or the need for it?
16. There are many thousands of examples of symbiosis that defy an evolutionary explanation. Why must we teach students that evolution is the only explanation for these relationships?
17. How would evolution explain mimicry? Did the plants and animals develop mimicry by chance, their intelligent choice, or design?
18. When, where, why and how did man evolve feelings? Love, mercy, guilt, etc., would never evolve in the theory of evolution.

Source:http://www.douknow.net/ev_UnmaskingTheFalseReligionofEvolution.htm

I'm sure other people will have furnished answers to these questions, so I'll simply point out that standing there and answering all of these questions with "God did it!" is taking willful pleasure in the the state of being utterly ignorant.

If people still accepted this state of voluntary stupidity we would all still be happy to think the world is flat, the planets and stars and the Universe all circle the Earth and people like the ones who made that website would still happily burn anyone who dared to say different at the stake.

I'm sure other people will have furnished answers to these questions, so I'll simply point out that standing there and answering all of these questions with "God did it!" is taking willful pleasure in the the state of being utterly ignorant.

If people still accepted this state of voluntary stupidity we would all still be happy to think the world is flat, the planets and stars and the Universe all circle the Earth and people like the ones who made that website would still happily burn anyone who dared to say different at the stake.

In this case, I believe the answer to some of those would be "It didn't", by somebody who was against evolution. I haven't yet heard anybody state that they believe their god was involved in evolution.

Originally posted by Hedex:
I'm sure other people will have furnished answers to these questions

I wish you would have posted your answers to those questions. It would have got us back to talking about the specifics of evolution instead of arguing whether satellite images of Mount Ararat constitute historical proof of the Bible. Evolution is a much more fun topic than the Bible.

North Daset seems to have left. We can move on to other things now. I think that poster didn't quite understand the fact that I (and others) simply don't accept the Bible as empirical evidence for either historical or scientific data. The poster who started this thread is commendable, though, even if he is mis-informed. For non-scientists (by non-scientists, I mean all those unfamiliar with science, not all people who don't have science degrees) to be skeptical about science is exactly what we should want. Through this skepticism, we can explain to non-scientists how rational science is, and we get to sharpen our scientific minds on some really tough questions, like irreducible complexity and the state of earth's early atmosphere in comparison with the Miller-Urey experiment. Although scientists (this time I do mean those with science degrees) already have the answers to most of these, I'm sure most of us had to look up those answers on google; and in the process we learned how far human beings have come in the persuit of knowledge.

Oh, definitely. I'm having to dig pretty deep sometimes to find what evolution tells us about some topic or another. Lots of fascinating stuff that comes up.

That nylon bacterium... wonderful stuff.

chances of life happening
0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000001%

Space
infinit

chances of life happening now
infinit

I wish you would have posted your answers to those questions. It would have got us back to talking about the specifics of evolution instead of arguing whether satellite images of Mount Ararat constitute historical proof of the Bible. Evolution is a much more fun topic than the Bible.

Well, the first question was "Where did the space for the Universe come from?" and it's a bit late in the evening for me to be trying to get my head around infinity. The Universe is an all or nothing deal, it either exists and is therefore without end, or it doesn't exist, in which case I'm not really typing this.

I need more notice and a stiff drink before getting into discussing stuff like that. Whereas simply pointing out that saying "God did it!" is about as useful a way of approaching understanding the Universe as crashing your car into a tree and spending the rest of your life trying to work out why trees hate cars, took a lot less effort.

or as the hitch hikers guide to galxy
no one exists seeing as there is no end to space

originally posted by The Bloody Reaper:
chances of life happening
0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000001%

Space
infinit

chances of life happening now
infinit

This wouldn't necessarily make the chances of life infinite, because sometimes infinities cancel out to leave a finite (Such as
lim x->infinity [(3x^2-4)/(x^2+9x-6)]=3). An infinite amount of design required to make life could canel out the infinite space. Plus, space isn't infinite. These are the arguments a creationist would use. I'm not a creationist. I would argue the point that an infinite amount of design is required and the very nature of the statistics being used to come up with that percentage in the first place.

Yea, those questions really are unfairly waited to make people think that they have to be creationists just because they don't know everything. Your approach is much more solid science, especially since you admit that humans don't necessarilly know the answers about the origin of matter. Saying "God did it, and don't use science to question God" is really closed minded toward what human beings are capable of knowing.

i hate religion
this is some thing my mind made w2hen i was hyperactive :)

post number 666 :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :sniper: :sniper: :sniper: :gundge: :gundge: :gundge:

In this case, I believe the answer to some of those would be "It didn't", by somebody who was against evolution. I haven't yet heard anybody state that they believe their god was involved in evolution.

If I were into religion I think I'd be pretty impressed that the God I believed in had come up with something as diverse and amazing as evolution.

Creationists are wrapped up in doctrine to the point where it blinds them. When Galileo saw that Jupiter had moons orbiting it, it didn't conflict with anything in the bible, just with how the Catholic Church chose to look at the Universe. Still, it only took 337 years after his death for them to look into it again and decide they were wrong and that he wasn't a heretic after all.

If it takes a similar amount of time for the Creationists to give up hating Darwin they should finally shut up around the year 2219.

If I were into religion I think I'd be pretty impressed that the God I believed in had come up with something as diverse and amazing as evolution.

Creationists are wrapped up in doctrine to the point where it blinds them. When Galileo saw that Jupiter had moons orbiting it, it didn't conflict with anything in the bible, just with how the Catholic Church chose to look at the Universe. Still, it only took 337 after his death for them to look into it again and decide they were wrong and that he wasn't a heretic after all.

If it takes a similar amount of time for the Creationists to give up hating Darwin they should finally shut up around the year 2219.

Yeah, if I were into a religion stating there was an omnipowerful being, or a god, or what-have-you, I wouldn't see it at all contradictory. Except in cases like the "World was made in 7 days" thing, which makes it mutually exclusive. I would too be proud that something that interesting and powerful as evolution was created.

2219...
Well, time to wait.
:p

chances of life happening
0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000001%

Space
infinit

chances of life happening now
infinit

Well, I'm glad to see we're all starting to play a fun game of "Let's pick random numbers and post them as some sort of proof." Seriously, how do you think that your "chances of life happening" are evidence of anything?


Chances of the Bloody Reaper being a complete idiot with Down's Syndrome
95.0%

Cerebral Palsy
5.0%

I posted this earlier but I think it should be informative about the Galileo situation. And the Church council that meet in the early 1990s to discuss the Galileo situation weren't meeting to determine whether they finally agreed with him, they had already done that more than 200 years earlier. They were meeting to determine what caused the misunderstanding in the first place.
The Catholic Church wasn't the only Church at that time that actively sought to supress other religions. To quote Martin Luther: "In truth, the Jews, being foreigners, should possess nothing, and what they do possess should be ours."

Also, someone else quoted Martin Luther as an example that even protestants at that time thought heliocentrism was heresy. In fact, the Catholic Church was more willing to support it than the protestant churches. The Pope requested that Galileo make his book about the theory also include the argument for geocentrism, even saying Galileo could state that his theory was a simpler and better explanation. Instead Galileo wrote a book that was a discussion between a heliocentrist and a geocentrist, in which the geocentrist ended up looking like an idiot. In fact, heliocentrism still had one major flaw that gave scientists a reason to question it. (Religious scholars weren't the only ones to have doubt.) If the earth moves around the sun, there would be parallax shifts in the stars' positions. At the time, scientists did not have the instruments to measure this shift. So heliocentrism seemed to have a noticeable flaw.
Because protestant churches reacted so negatively on the literal biblical arguments against Galileo's theories, Galileo decided to interpret for himself the passages that disagree with him when understood literally. (The Church didn't have a problem with science challenging literal statements of the Bible. Augustine's statement " 'One does not read in the Gospel that the Lord said: '"I will send you the Paraclete who will teach you about the course of the sun and moon."' For he willed to make them Christians, not mathematicians' " exemplifies the Church's position at that time.) However, the Church was against Galileo's individual interpretation of these Bible passages. It has always been against individual interpretation of the Bible.
In conclusion, the Church was not trying to destroy science when it punished Galileo. It was calling him a heretic when he did something that could theologically be considered heresy.

Note: I am not a Catholic, but I believe that a historical attack on the Church is invalid. I doubt that many people of any church have been so blatantly anti-progress as people blame the Church for being.

Well, I'm glad to see we're all starting to play a fun game of "Let's pick random numbers and post them as some sort of proof." Seriously, how do you think that your "chances of life happening" are evidence of anything?


Chances of the Bloody Reaper being a complete idiot with Down's Syndrome
95.0%

Cerebral Palsy
5.0%
Interesting you mention trisomy 21, considering that is a way that evolution can occur...

useing random nubers is fun
AND I HAVE A D D

I have Asperger's Syndrome.
Let's all name our various learning/developmental disorders.

or as the hitch hikers guide to galxy
no one exists seeing as there is no end to space

First, I'd just like to say that I have absolutely no idea what you are rambling on about here.

Second, I'd like to educate you on something called "modern physics". Space does indeed go on forever, and it is impossible for you, or any other human, to comprehend the infinite nature of existence. This is because we are three-dimensional beings, in a three-dimensional universe, traveling along a linear, fourth dimension of time. We are in a 12-dimensional existence. Our universe is comprised of the three dimensions that we can experience, and then a six-dimensional Yau-Calabi Manifold at each point in space. At each of these manifolds, six dimensions are squeezed together, like a ball of yarn, into an infinitely small space.
Just as a two-dimensional square would be unable to comprehend the third-dimension of depth that we experience, we are unable to comprehend the other dimensions that are present in our universe. However, through math, we can prove the existence of these dimensions. Just because you, as a human, can not see the limits of universe does not mean that they do not exist.

I have Asperger's Syndrome.
Let's all name our various learning/developmental disorders.

Yaaay!

I have bipolar disorder, and I'm gender dysphoric.

EDIT: They aren't learning or developmental disorders, but I'll put them up anyway. Because I'm wierd that way.

useing random nubers is fun
AND I HAVE A D D

Well then go take your Ritalin, and leave the discussion to those above the age of 5.

Evolution doesn't hold water. The theory is entirley bogus. It has no supporting evidence, and the facts contradict it.

On the other hand, Christianity's message is supported by the facts and has plenty of supporting evidence.

Anyone who disagrees state why. I guarantee you've fallen prey to atheist propoganda.
While I agree that Evolution is a theory comparable to Swiss Cheese, I disagree with you on your interpretation of Christianity. While a devout Christian myself, I must say you are misinterpreting the whole Christian message. Christianity is based of faith, not science. One must have faith to believe in God, not facts.

I posted this earlier but I think it should be informative about the Galileo situation. And the Church council that meet in the early 1990s to discuss the Galileo situation weren't meeting to determine whether they finally agreed with him, they had already done that more than 200 years earlier. They were meeting to determine what caused the misunderstanding in the first place.

Thanks for reposting that, I can't seem to bring myself to read all 600 odd posts so I would have missed it. Interesting information.

i no more about politics than science

WOW! YOU ARE STUPID! (if you think evolution has no evidential support).

Uhm, hello! Do you seriously think there's a man in the sky who made magical creatures of mud? DOUBT IT!!! Why do you expect that there are fossils CLEARLY showing the growth and change of species?

Why do you think that scientists HAVE proven the age of the earth AND the big bang threory.

Yah. Who called it?

Well, I'm glad to see we're all starting to play a fun game of "Let's pick random numbers and post them as some sort of proof." Seriously, how do you think that your "chances of life happening" are evidence of anything?


Chances of the Bloody Reaper being a complete idiot with Down's Syndrome
95.0%

Cerebral Palsy
5.0%
so there's a chance he's perfectly normal... about a 4.75% chance

"World was made in 7 days"
your quote is bad
the world was made in six days
Space does indeed go on forever
well, in the sense you wont get to an end, but not that it is infinitely large

your quote is bad
the world was made in six days

Oh damn.
Oops.

Originally posted by _Susa_:
Evolution is a theory comparable to Swiss Cheese

I disagree. Evolutionary biologists have answered pretty much all of the "tough questions" that creationists have asked. The idea that species change over time, and sometimes change into new species is a theory (defined as a model that accurately predicts facts) because it is a model that accurately predicts facts. Just because all the exact mechanisms (the "why?'s) of the theory are not yet understood does not make it any less accurate. Here is a link (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html) explaining why evolutionists are so confident in this theory.

perhaps she meant by the simile that they are both good on sandwiches or that they both come from europe or something

looks at the bible
"weres the chain saw?"
starts cutting into the worst book in extistance

I HATE GOD HE IS SUCH A F**K WIT WHAT HSS HE EVER DONE FOR ME?

Don't tear up the Bible :confused:
All books are valuable. Even books of mythology.

i hate religion

It's funny how people that are against evolution spend all their time attacking science and trying to show that science is wrong -- nobody seems able to prove that they're right, only that the other guy is wrong.


Sounds like politics. Yuck.

Oh yeah? Well, I haven't put on deodorant in FOUR DAYS!


Thats gross

What's wrong with Formula One racing...
Or politics for that matter.

The funny thing about this whole topic conversation is that the poster of the thread believes that there is proof that Jesus or any portion of events which occured in the bible are true. If you feel so strongly about this explain why there is a 13 year gap in the bible for no apparent reason, or why the version of the bible currently accepted was re-written by a king to allow his divorce from his wife. Nothing and I mean nothing has ever been found to support the bible or the Christian religion as a whole, the fact that anyone can find themselves believing this tripe is amazing. The best part of my entire argument is the fact that there has been more proof to support an incredibly advanced civilization in South and nuclear (the archaelogical term for central america) america than has been found to support this religion. All religions are are cults that have recieved a tax exempt status. Now don't go off thinking that I don't have faith or any sort of spirituality I do it's just was beyond the comprehension of people who have been affected so by a simple book, might as well believe that the events in "Many Waters" actually occured.

The funny thing about this whole topic conversation is that the poster of the thread believes that there is proof that Jesus or any portion of events which occured in the bible are true. If you feel so strongly about this explain why there is a 13 year gap in the bible for no apparent reason, or why the version of the bible currently accepted was re-written by a king to allow his divorce from his wife. Nothing and I mean nothing has ever been found to support the bible or the Christian religion as a whole, the fact that anyone can find themselves believing this tripe is amazing. The best part of my entire argument is the fact that there has been more proof to support an incredibly advanced civilization in South and nuclear (the archaelogical term for central america) america than has been found to support this religion. All religions are are cults that have recieved a tax exempt status. Now don't go off thinking that I don't have faith or any sort of spirituality I do it's just was beyond the comprehension of people who have been affected so by a simple book, might as well believe that the events in "Many Waters" actually occured.

What, you mean "Many Waters" wasn't true?
Damn.
It seemed so real!
:p

First, I'd just like to say that I have absolutely no idea what you are rambling on about here.

Second, I'd like to educate you on something called "modern physics". Space does indeed go on forever, and it is impossible for you, or any other human, to comprehend the infinite nature of existence. This is because we are three-dimensional beings, in a three-dimensional universe, traveling along a linear, fourth dimension of time. We are in a 12-dimensional existence. Our universe is comprised of the three dimensions that we can experience, and then a six-dimensional Yau-Calabi Manifold at each point in space. At each of these manifolds, six dimensions are squeezed together, like a ball of yarn, into an infinitely small space.
Just as a two-dimensional square would be unable to comprehend the third-dimension of depth that we experience, we are unable to comprehend the other dimensions that are present in our universe. However, through math, we can prove the existence of these dimensions. Just because you, as a human, can not see the limits of universe does not mean that they do not exist.

Heyhey. Not so fast there.

Unlike evolution, string theory along with its 12 dimensions hasn't been proven yet, in the scientific sense of the word.

As in, though it's pretty darn brilliant at explaining current observations, and explains the universe in a mathematically elegant way, it has yet to make predictions that we have tested.

As far as I know, its predictions are beyond the sensitivity of our current instruments.

It's a very strong possibility, but not yet validated. As far as I know. I'd love to be proven wrong, it's a very elegant theory, but I don't think there's experimental evidence for it yet.

i hate religion
Don't go overboard on the faith itself, it's the fools who corrupt religions that give the bad image and all that's going shit going on.

Actually, for such a universally accepted theory (though largely by people who have done no searching for their own information on it at all and have blindly accepted information given in high school textbooks), there is extremely little evidence to back it up. We have only two species alive, or in fossil record that can truly be considered transitional species (archeopteryx and the ceolocanth). Evolution would require that most species would be transitional and many many fossils would be unlike any living species (a failed adaptation). Neandertal, as a species is extremely suspect, because several skeletons hailed as neandertal have been conclusively discovered to be human skeletons with injuries or scoliosis. Understanding the manner in which such a skeleton is gathered also puts further doubt to it, since almost all of these skeletons were assembled from bones found many square miles apart. I certainly agree with microevolution, but I think macroevolution is a theory based on an inadequate definition of what constitutes a species.

The funny thing about this whole topic conversation is that the poster of the thread believes that there is proof that Jesus or any portion of events which occured in the bible are true. If you feel so strongly about this explain why there is a 13 year gap in the bible for no apparent reason, or why the version of the bible currently accepted was re-written by a king to allow his divorce from his wife. Nothing and I mean nothing has ever been found to support the bible or the Christian religion as a whole, the fact that anyone can find themselves believing this tripe is amazing. The best part of my entire argument is the fact that there has been more proof to support an incredibly advanced civilization in South and nuclear (the archaelogical term for central america) america than has been found to support this religion. All religions are are cults that have recieved a tax exempt status. Now don't go off thinking that I don't have faith or any sort of spirituality I do it's just was beyond the comprehension of people who have been affected so by a simple book, might as well believe that the events in "Many Waters" actually occured.
what 13 year gap?
there's like a 500 year gap between the old and the new testaments
or do you mean between jesus's childhood and the beginning of his ministry?
i presume you're talking about henry the eighth
the "currently accepted version" (whatever the hell you mean by that) may be the kjv, nkjv, niv, rev, among many others
Nothing and I mean nothing has ever been found to support the bible or the Christian religion as a whole, the fact that anyone can find themselves believing this tripe is amazing.
the hittites have not received any significant historical mention outside of the bible, so many people thought they actually never existed, until excavations in asia minor proved their existence quite recently
it's just was beyond the comprehension of people who have been affected so by a simple book
sombody has a bloated ego...

God damnt i cant leave!
Viruses next to prions which are just proteins are the simplist forms of life
Prions are actually just proteins that attack cells an example would be mad cow disese so in viruses are actually not cells they are simpler than cells
okay i swear im done im going to turn off the computer screen

Actually - BSE might just be the equivalent of a 'cancer' for prions... since the latest evidence suggests that prion-type 'organisms' might be the building equipment for long term memory... which would make KJD, BSE, etc... just a natural process gone wrong... not an invading organism.

It wasn't written by a King to divorce his wife (Henry VIII), it was written by Puritans in Anglican England who wanted to seperate their church from Rome, and didn't want to use the Latin Vulgate anymore. So they convinced King James I (who was Calvinist/Presbyterian but as king was the head of the Anglican Church) to allow them to make an official English translation of the Bible. In other words, it was written Puritans in an Anglican country who convinced a Calvinist king that they should be less Catholic. Whenever religion gets that mixed up with politics, you're bound to have something as ugly as the King James Version of the Bible (it really is a terrible translation).

Whenever religion gets that mixed up with politics, you're bound to have something as ugly as the King James Version of the Bible (it really is a terrible translation).
explains why the mormons use it

I myself support the Evolution theory with a hint of creationism., Frankly becuase some one had to start it. How ever evolution itself holds plenty of water. takea look at darwins studies of the Gollopogos(sp?) finches. Along with fossil records. Every study biology and about genetic drift? What about those organs we no longer use? We have evolved to the point of not needing them. So is theorized. The creationism theory trying to replace darwins theory is only a hypothosis its not even a theory yet.

Heyhey. Not so fast there.

Unlike evolution, string theory along with its 12 dimensions hasn't been proven yet, in the scientific sense of the word.

As in, though it's pretty darn brilliant at explaining current observations, and explains the universe in a mathematically elegant way, it has yet to make predictions that we have tested.

As far as I know, its predictions are beyond the sensitivity of our current instruments.

It's a very strong possibility, but not yet validated. As far as I know. I'd love to be proven wrong, it's a very elegant theory, but I don't think there's experimental evidence for it yet.


True, it is a theory, just as evolution is. However, at the current time, string theory is the best that our most advanced physicians can come up now. Just like certain aspects of evolution have been altered over the years, so will string theory be refined until it reaches its final, complete form.
You are correct, however, when you say that some of string theory can not possibly be proven using today's technology. These aspects of the theory will doubtlessly change over time to reflect future discoveries.

well, let me think the world is about to end, jesus is about to come back. If you read in revolations, it says that it will be time for jesus to come back when there is war in the holy lands. Wasn't Jesus born around that area. The bible mostly took place there. Us cristians are trying to save other people so they don't go to HELL soon. >:(

Sorry, friend... you're wasting your time.

ALL OF THE REQUIREMENTS of Revelation were met in 1979.

The end of days has been and gone, you are now living in the 1000 year reign of satan.

As someone who is very we versed in science as well as biblical text let me just tell you that
a) the bible backs up "evolution"
b)the reason why there is not a complete fossil record is due to many fossils being destroyed out of the very few that were created at all, palentolgists estimate that they have discovered less than 1% of all the species that have occured on earth
c)Evolution is FACT-microbacteria evolve everyday, which is how "super germs" were created in the first place
d) the real conflict occurs over SPECIAN, which is one organism evolving into another organism over time.
e) Darwin never said that "man came from monkeys" or any such non-sense
f) as far as being taught in schools many other scientific theories that we now know may not be true, such as the way universial gravitation works, and the formation and replication of DNA.
The REAL conflict is that religion has no scienctific basis or historical basis PERIOD. At best its a mix of anicent pagan traditions and teachings of Christ, at worst based on a badly over translated document, its filled with centuries of corruption, lies, and perverson of the word of the savior himself, and used as a true oppression force. True believer rely not on "proof" but on blind faith, and therefore do not ned sceince to prove or disprove their true belief.

Actually, for such a universally accepted theory (though largely by people who have done no searching for their own information on it at all and have blindly accepted information given in high school textbooks), there is extremely little evidence to back it up. We have only two species alive, or in fossil record that can truly be considered transitional species (archeopteryx and the ceolocanth). Evolution would require that most species would be transitional and many many fossils would be unlike any living species (a failed adaptation). Neandertal, as a species is extremely suspect, because several skeletons hailed as neandertal have been conclusively discovered to be human skeletons with injuries or scoliosis. Understanding the manner in which such a skeleton is gathered also puts further doubt to it, since almost all of these skeletons were assembled from bones found many square miles apart. I certainly agree with microevolution, but I think macroevolution is a theory based on an inadequate definition of what constitutes a species.

Contrary to what you say, there is a plethora of available evidence supporting evolution, but you must choose not to accept it. Archeopteryx and the coelocanth are not transitional species. Archeopteryx was one branch of an evolutionary tree that, in the end, failed. The successful evolutionary tree that led to birds was one that included the late cretaceous carnivores; small, quick, and light-boned, these dinosaurs eventually evolved into dinosaurs. As for a lack of transitional species in between the two, you're just wrong. There have a been a considerable number of raptors who not only had feathers during adulthood, but also began evolving bird-like beaks. The young of a majority of dinorsaurs at the time had feathers, so in a sense these were all "transitional species."
The Coelocanth, on the other hand, is not a transitional species in any sense. It is simply a fish that scientists though went extinct millions of years ago. That it was recently rediscovered alive does not mean it was a transitional species, it just means that it survived.

No, according to evolution, not every fossil would be unlike any other living creaure (a failed adaptation, as you put it). The changes that are caused by evolution are so small that nobody could possibly detect it. The reason that there are many members of the same species at any one time is that when a single mutation takes hold of a species, then that mutation becomes present throughout the entire species.

Sorry, friend... you're wasting your time.

ALL OF THE REQUIREMENTS of Revelation were met in 1979.

The end of days has been and gone, you are now living in the 1000 year reign of satan.
what about the people disappearing?

Originally posted by Lith Beraid:
We have only two species alive, or in fossil record that can truly be considered transitional species (archeopteryx and the ceolocanth).

There are definitely more than 2 transitional species. The entire class of amphibians (which still exists today because they fit their niche) is considered a transition between fish and reptiles. The fossil record indicates many transitional species leading up to human beings. Here are some links (all from the same site) to pages about the best examples of transitional species.
Hominids (http://www.origins.tv/darwin/hominid.htm#Transitionals)
Horses (http://www.origins.tv/darwin/horses.htm#Horses)
Birds (http://www.origins.tv/darwin/dinobirds.htm#Birds)
Whales (http://www.origins.tv/darwin/landtosea.htm#whales)
Tetrapods (http://www.origins.tv/darwin/tetrapods.htm#Tetrapods)

If I were into religion I think I'd be pretty impressed that the God I believed in had come up with something as diverse and amazing as evolution.

Creationists are wrapped up in doctrine to the point where it blinds them. When Galileo saw that Jupiter had moons orbiting it, it didn't conflict with anything in the bible, just with how the Catholic Church chose to look at the Universe. Still, it only took 337 years after his death for them to look into it again and decide they were wrong and that he wasn't a heretic after all.

If it takes a similar amount of time for the Creationists to give up hating Darwin they should finally shut up around the year 2219.

See... that made me think of the thing that really bugs me...

The Christian Creationist details how god must have been the prime originator... how he is infinite, how he is ineffible in his working, etc.

If he is infinite, why is it more convincing that ha banged the world together in 6 days, than that he let it gradually form over millions of years? Me, for an infinite god... I'd be believing the BIG numbers.

Also - if he's so ineffible.. why do Creationist always come up with this Lego-world assumption? Wouldn't his construction be beyong human comprehension? You know, some convoluted indirect method... like evolution, for example?

what about the people disappearing?

All the people that were going to be called WERE called.

It just wasn't many...

Which shouldn't surprise anyone...

All the people that were going to be called WERE called.

It just wasn't many...

Which shouldn't surprise anyone...

Wrong.
Don't you find it odd that the pope didn't suddenly disappear as he was "called"? If there was one single person on this Earth who would be considered worthy of ascending to Heaven, it would be the leader of the Catholic Church. In addition, neither the Patriarch of the Eastern Orthodox Church nor the Bishop of Canterbury were "called" either, so it's not a matter of certain creeds of religion getting access. This sort of shoots holes through your entire argument, does it not?

k whoever posted that transisional bullcrap about how there are only two is so ignorant i cant even say describe it
Let me ask you this is a brontosaurus different from an apatasaurus?
Is brontosaurus correct termonology?
You really need to read up on your fossil record. Have you ever heard of a bambiraptor?
Its a turkey-sized creature discovered in kansas it existed in the cretatious(spelling) and was one of the few creatures to be found with presevered feathers. The bambiraptor itself contains all the charateristics of a therapod, like a velociraptor, but some components are offkey. The bones in its arms are fusing together as are other bones in its body and its proportions for bone size to body is more resembling a bird than a dinosaur. How is that when one of the only two transitional species is the archyopterx? Riddle me this?
Also does platypus ring a bell?
A platypus is one of the most primitive mammals in the world. It and the echninda are the only two mammals to lay eggs. The only thing that classifies them as a mammal is that they produce milk and have fur. Also the platypus is the only mammal to be venomous. It contains vemonous spurs on its back legs. However a large portion of the reptilian kingdom is venomous. catch my drift. Snakes and two reptiles and a few fish are the only other vertabrates to be venomous. So there you have it a living transitional species in the land down under.
Also there are several existing animals in the fossil record around the Triassic? Which are transitions from reptile to mammal

Wrong.
Don't you find it odd that the pope didn't suddenly disappear as he was "called"? If there was one single person on this Earth who would be considered worthy of ascending to Heaven, it would be the leader of the Catholic Church. In addition, neither the Patriarch of the Eastern Orthodox Church nor the Bishop of Canterbury were "called" either, so it's not a matter of certain creeds of religion getting access. This sort of shoots holes through your entire argument, does it not?

Prove it wrong?

You say the Pope would have been called... I say... why?

He isn't Saint Pope... he's just a pope, voted for by his lackeys... kind of like the President of being Catholic.

If Jesus teaches us anything, it is that the so called wisemen aren't the ones who will enter heaven... in fact, I believe it says that truly the 'childlike' in faith are preferred.

So - why would ANY of the big names have been translated?

True, it is a theory, just as evolution is.

Of course. I wasn't holding that against it.


However, at the current time, string theory is the best that our most advanced physicians can come up now. Just like certain aspects of evolution have been altered over the years, so will string theory be refined until it reaches its final, complete form.
You are correct, however, when you say that some of string theory can not possibly be proven using today's technology. These aspects of the theory will doubtlessly change over time to reflect future discoveries.

But as of yet, string theory doesn't have experimental predictions. It does a wonderfully brilliant job of explaining current information - but a theory stands or falls not when it only explains current data, but when it predicts the existence of new observations that would not have been predicted otherwise.

String theory DOES make some predictions that differ from what we'd otherwise expect - but we can't test them yet.

I'll call it "proven" when these predictions are tested.

(Oh, and BTW - physicians are doctors. Physicists are people that study physics. Slight little typo there)

Prove it wrong?

You say the Pope would have been called... I say... why?

He isn't Saint Pope... he's just a pope, voted for by his lackeys... kind of like the President of being Catholic.

If Jesus teaches us anything, it is that the so called wisemen aren't the ones who will enter heaven... in fact, I believe it says that truly the 'childlike' in faith are preferred.

So - why would ANY of the big names have been translated?

His "lackeys" are none other than the Cardinals of the Catholic Church. He embodies the entirety of the church itself. Any teachings that are accepted by the church are the teachings of the Pope. Any person who is seen as a good Christian person is seen as such because they embrace the current teachings of the Pope. If the Pope is just a meaningless elected official, then the Cardinals must also be meaningless, as are the Archbishops and Bishops under them. To call the Pope meaningless is to call the entire church meaningless, and if the end of the world has indeed come and gone, as you mistakenly claim, then there is no doubt in my mind why you were not chosen either. It is because you do not understand your own church and refuse to embrace their beliefs while claiming to be some sort of religious expert. I am not very religious, but I can still amuse myself with your abundant hypocrisies.

Yeah the person who said that you should read the bible before you have an opinion have you ever read The origin of species by Darwin?
How could you form an opinion without reading the book?

Luckily enough its on line:

http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species/

His "lackeys" are none other than the Cardinals of the Catholic Church. He embodies the entirety of the church itself. Any teachings that are accepted by the church are the teachings of the Pope. Any person who is seen as a good Christian person is seen as such because they embrace the current teachings of the Pope. If the Pope is just a meaningless elected official, then the Cardinals must also be meaningless, as are the Archbishops and Bishops under them. To call the Pope meaningless is to call the entire church meaningless, and if the end of the world has indeed come and gone, as you mistakenly claim, then there is no doubt in my mind why you were not chosen either. It is because you do not understand your own church and refuse to embrace their beliefs while claiming to be some sort of religious expert. I am not very religious, but I can still amuse myself with your abundant hypocrisies.

This is wholy false among itself.. you do not understand the nature of the postion of the pulpit. The pope is not himself considered a more holy man then any other person.. nor is he considered closer to god.. we are all gods children and all are close to him in our own ways.. you are not considrered a good christian simply because you belive in all the pope says.. Teachings of the church are not teachings of the pope.. but teachings of god.. the Pope is only meant to be a unifying figure for the catholic community, to better help give us direction..(also to give the catholic faith a unifying voice in political/international issues) Just because the pope says stem cell research is wrong dosn't mean every catholic belives this way.. and this is not to say that those who disagree are not good catholics.. i dont' belive in every position the pope takes, and this does not make me a poor catholic.. the catholic church is far more inclusive then that..

Prove it wrong?

You say the Pope would have been called... I say... why?

He isn't Saint Pope... he's just a pope, voted for by his lackeys... kind of like the President of being Catholic.

If Jesus teaches us anything, it is that the so called wisemen aren't the ones who will enter heaven... in fact, I believe it says that truly the 'childlike' in faith are preferred.

So - why would ANY of the big names have been translated?

You know shit about being Catholic if you think the Pope is only "voted by his lackeys"

The Pope is The VICAR OF CHRIST!

The successor of St. Peter, The chief pastor of the whole Church!

The Pope has the supreme authority to define all questions of faith and morals.

Why shouldn't he be called??

Besides, current physics show the universe is still expanding, if god finished the universe however many years ago, why is it still growing??

what about the people disappearing?

that is symbolism for disappearence of mental capacity

You know shit about being Catholic if you think the Pope is only "voted by his lackeys"

The Pope is The VICAR OF CHRIST!

The successor of St. Peter, The chief pastor of the whole Church!

The Pope has the supreme authority to define all questions of faith and morals.

Why shouldn't he be called??

Besides, current physics show the universe is still expanding, if god finished the universe however many years ago, why is it still growing??

vicar of christ... -.- what are u talking about.. are u even catholic i wonder.. please go back to religion class.. you make it seem as though the pope is above us all.. a more "holy" man.. no man is more holy then another.. all are just MEN... weak and imprefect.. and he is just elected.. there have been many corrupt popes thorughout the churches history.. and whoever said god finished his work ? you can build a house and still expand on it can't u ?

Vicar of Christ

A title of the pope implying his supreme and universal primacy, both of honour and of jurisdiction, over the Church of Christ. It is founded on the words of the Divine Shepherd to St. Peter: "Feed my lambs. . . . Feed my sheep" (John 21:16-17), by which He constituted the Prince of the Apostles guardian of His entire flock in His own place, thus making him His Vicar and fulfilling the promise made in Matthew 16:18-19

Yes, I'm catholic, I went to a private catholic grade school for eight years and was an alter server for four.

I lost my faith when I went to college and found science.

Universe- God shouldn't have to expand what he made perfectly in the first place, unless God made a mistake? Making him not a God.

Vicar of Christ



Yes, I'm catholic, I went to a private catholic grade school for eight years and was an alter server for four.

I lost my faith when I went to college and found science.

Universe- God shouldn't have to expand what he made perfectly in the first place, unless God made a mistake? Making him not a God.

Bravo! I was Christian too- until I stopped to think about it ;)

Listen damnation and hellfire, war is going on right now, don't you watch the news dumbass?/? and when jesus comes back horns are going to blow loud enough the whole earth will hear it, trust me.

This would probably be more apprpriate for a Biblical Errancy forum and I realize that certain types of christian CANNOT accept what the bible CLEARLY states:

Matthew 16:27-28.

For the Son of Man will come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and then He will reward each according to his works. Assuredly, I say to you, there are some standing here who shall not taste death till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.

Jesus clearly thought the end was at hand 2000 years ago.

Quote:

Evolution doesn't hold water...

Maybe your head is filled with warter :) Ever thought about that ?

Harry "the Bastard" (English is not my native language)

Universe- God shouldn't have to expand what he made perfectly in the first place, unless God made a mistake? Making him not a God.

Unless god the universe not as a static thing, but as something constantly changing and creating new things within itself.

I'm an atheist, but I do not think evolution to be proof against the existance of god(s). I do think it to be proof against the doctrine of many religions.

Unlike evolution, string theory along with its 12 dimensions hasn't been proven yet, in the scientific sense of the word.Going off at a tangent, looks like I'm out of date. Last I heard it was still 11 dimensions (on the 'metaverse', a 'surface' composed of 10 of them being involved in the world we know, with six 'rolled up' a lot, the remainging four being the space-time we experience...)

Still, I fully agree in that the proof for this is purely theoretical... :)

a) the bible backs up "evolution"That's probably by accident... While I know you aren't saying "evolution is backed up by the Bible, therefore it is true", I personally wouldn't shout too much about the connection... :)

Going off at a tangent, looks like I'm out of date. Last I heard it was still 11 dimensions (on the 'metaverse', a 'surface' composed of 10 of them being involved in the world we know, with six 'rolled up' a lot, the remainging four being the space-time we experience...)

Still, I fully agree in that the proof for this is purely theoretical... :)
The major problem with this physics being - how the hell would you go about showing its existance in a form other than mathematics?

The major problem with this physics being - how the hell would you go about showing its existance in a form other than mathematics?

What I want to know is how Stephen Hawking does all that math in his head. Or does he just say he does it in his head, and no one else can figure it out, so they assume he's really thinking about all that math, when really he's trying to figure out how to get his wheelchair into the other room.

What I want to know is how Stephen Hawking does all that math in his head. Or does he just say he does it in his head, and no one else can figure it out, so they assume he's really thinking about all that math, when really he's trying to figure out how to get his wheelchair into the other room.
Nah, he does all his maths on that voice simulator. What we don't know is that its got the worlds most sophisticated pocket calculator mixed in with the voice-box, and he just controls it using his mind :eek:

I am, of course, joking. Don't shoot me

The major problem with this physics being - how the hell would you go about showing its existance in a form other than mathematics?
After the boffins have worked out a theory and iron out the mathematics as much as they can, they look for effects that can be observed to tell them whether they are on the right path or not.

Of course, it can be years before there is equipment that can observe such effects and to set up experiments and all that, which can also show unexpected results and they will have to work on another theory. Sometimes an observation is made that contradicts the theory they were working on and then have to get started on another one or see if the new observations can be fitted in somehow.

What I want to know is how Stephen Hawking does all that math in his head. Or does he just say he does it in his head, and no one else can figure it out, so they assume he's really thinking about all that math, when really he's trying to figure out how to get his wheelchair into the other room.
He has assistants that write the stuff down for him. He still does a big part in his head, but it has to make sense to other mathematicians.

Originally posted by The melancholy Lizards:
there are some standing here who shall not taste death till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.

Maybe he was talking about his mother. According to the Catholic tradition, Mary never died, she was "assumed" into heaven; and maybe the translation should be "coming into his kingdom." This isn't a big change because most ancient languages only have one word for these; but when we make this change we can say that some of the apostles did see Jesus "coming into his kingdom" when they saw him ascend to heaven. I'm not a Catholic anymore, but I still believe the whole thing is non-falsifiable both historically and scientifically.

Originally posted by The Tribes of Longton:
The major problem with this physics being - how the hell would you go about showing its existance in a form other than mathematics?

I'll use the example of black holes, because it best fits this situation. How could you see a black hole if it is completely black (no light escapes, which isn't completely true)? Scientists were pretty sure that black holes existed before they "saw" any because large enough numbers applied to Eintsien's relativity theory in its application to stars leads to the conclusion that stars will collapse onto themselves eventually. Stars the size of our sun won't collapse completely. They will become "white dwarfs," according to relativity. We have seen white dwarfs, so this prediction of relativity theory was verified by the observable facts. From here, scientists had no reason to believe that the other conclusions from relativity wouldn't also exist somewhere in the universe. Then in the 1960's scientists concluded that a certain star is actually in a binary system with a black hole. Here is how they concluded it, according to nasa.gov (http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/science/know_l2/black_holes.html)
Cygnus X-1 is the longest known of the black hole candidates. It is a highly variable and irregular source with X-ray emission that flickers in hundredths of a second. An object cannot flicker faster than the time required for light to travel across the object. In a hundredth of a second, light travels 3000 kilometers. This is one fourth of Earth's diameter! So the region emitting the x-rays around Cygnus X-1 is rather small. Its companion star, HDE 226868 is a B0 supergiant with a surface temperature of about 31,000 K. Spectroscopic observations show that the spectral lines of HDE 226868 shift back and forth with a period of 5.6 days. From the mass-luminosity relation, the mass of this supergiant is calculated as 30 times the mass of the Sun. Cyg X-1 must have a mass of about 7 solar masses or else it would not exert enough gravitational pull to cause the wobble in the spectral lines of HDE 226868. Since 7 solar masses is too large to be a white dwarf or neutron star, it must be a black hole.

This is about two-thirds down the page. The site also mentions some other binary systems which are even better candidates for being black holes.

Originally posted by Grave n idle:
You say the Pope would have been called... I say... why?

I say the Pope was called. Pope John Paul 1 died in 1979. :D
For clarification, Catholics believe that the pope is the "Vicar of Christ." That is, they believe that his official decisions on matters of faith and morals reflect the decisions that Christ would make if He were here. Thus, they believe that the pope is infallible when declaring new dogma. They do not believe, however, that the pope is necessarilly any more holy than anyone else. Being infallible in matters of faith and morals does not extend into the pope's personal life (where he can make just as many mistakes as anyone else). It merely means that the doctrine of the Catholic Church will always be consistent with the will of Christ.

I'm also a former Catholic. I didn't leave the Church because I thought the leaders were evil liars, but because I now think that science is a better answer to finding knowledge about the origin of the universe. I will, however, defend the Church and any other religion from those who believe that religious leaders are power-hungry hypocrites who intentionally mislead the people. I think the religious are doing the best they can to come up with answers in a field of study that cannot lead to real answers (because it is non-scientific and all of the beliefs of these religions are non-falsifiable.)

His "lackeys" are none other than the Cardinals of the Catholic Church. He embodies the entirety of the church itself. Any teachings that are accepted by the church are the teachings of the Pope. Any person who is seen as a good Christian person is seen as such because they embrace the current teachings of the Pope. If the Pope is just a meaningless elected official, then the Cardinals must also be meaningless, as are the Archbishops and Bishops under them. To call the Pope meaningless is to call the entire church meaningless, and if the end of the world has indeed come and gone, as you mistakenly claim, then there is no doubt in my mind why you were not chosen either. It is because you do not understand your own church and refuse to embrace their beliefs while claiming to be some sort of religious expert. I am not very religious, but I can still amuse myself with your abundant hypocrisies.

As someone else pointed out already - the pope is just a man - elected to a position. Our popes are not handpicked by Messiah... in fact, only one ever was, right?

You seem to think that church is a job where you 'progress'... like a bishop is somehow a 'better' believer than the layperson, that the cardinals are 'really good' believers, and that the pope is some kind of 'uber-believer'.

Re-read your scripture, friend, those that claim wisdom are going to be last to enter the kingdom of heaven.

Matthew 18:4 "Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little CHILD, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven".

You might also look at Luke 9:48.

You know shit about being Catholic if you think the Pope is only "voted by his lackeys"
The Pope is The VICAR OF CHRIST!
The successor of St. Peter, The chief pastor of the whole Church!
The Pope has the supreme authority to define all questions of faith and morals.
Why shouldn't he be called??
Besides, current physics show the universe is still expanding, if god finished the universe however many years ago, why is it still growing??

Heretic!

The Pope is not an 'arbiter' of morals, and has NO authority.

The Pope is the speaker for god, not god himself.

Why shouldn't he be called? Why should he? You think all Popes have been good men? I suggest you re-read your papal histories... which are filled with all kinds of perversions of the flesh and spirit.

This is wholy false among itself.. you do not understand the nature of the postion of the pulpit. The pope is not himself considered a more holy man then any other person.. nor is he considered closer to god.. we are all gods children and all are close to him in our own ways.. you are not considrered a good christian simply because you belive in all the pope says.. Teachings of the church are not teachings of the pope.. but teachings of god.. the Pope is only meant to be a unifying figure for the catholic community, to better help give us direction..(also to give the catholic faith a unifying voice in political/international issues) Just because the pope says stem cell research is wrong dosn't mean every catholic belives this way.. and this is not to say that those who disagree are not good catholics.. i dont' belive in every position the pope takes, and this does not make me a poor catholic.. the catholic church is far more inclusive then that..

No, you're wrong. The Pope alone has the power to determine the teachings of the church. If he says that stem cell research and abortion are wrong, and you believe otherwise, it doesn't matter. He has already said that those who support embryonic stem cell research and/or abortion are to be denied Communion, as well as the other sacraments. It is completely irrelevant to the church what you believe, as the church has a single set of beliefs, organized according to the Pope's wishes.

The major problem with this physics being - how the hell would you go about showing its existance in a form other than mathematics?

That's the whole point, you can't show it to a three-dimensional being such as a human. The only way that any person can comprehend a 12-dimensional existence is through math and physics. Although we can't experience these extra dimensions, we can utilize them to better understand and control our own three-dimensional universe.

Catholics only must agree with the pope on issues in which a pope has declared something dogma. The pope has not declared that it is dogma that politically supporting the right to an abortion is a sin. He has declared that it is dogma that abortion itself is a sin. However, the pope also has the power to direct Church activities without declaring dogma. The pope can tell bishops to make their priests deny communion to politicians who support abortion rights. However, he cannot back this up with anything other than words. He cannot declare that bishops who reject this order are heretics and therefore excommunicate them from the Church, because a heretic disagrees with the church on issues of dogma, and it is not dogma that supporting the political right to any sin is itself a sin.

God works in ways we can't even beign to understand, my friend.

Dinosaurs existed -over 65million years ago. Humans have only been around for a million at a long-shot.

Science has kinda said yea and kinda said nay on evolution. Evidence exists in favour of evolution, though.

I'm a Christian and creation works for me 100% - but so does evolution. In my OPINION God uses evolution to create things. What's the big deal, anywho?

Universe- God shouldn't have to expand what he made perfectly in the first place, unless God made a mistake? Making him not a God.

1: Logic Check!

Fallacy 1: False premise
What does expansion have to do with imperfection? Maybe an expanding universe was included as the design?

Fallacy 2: The WTF fallacy
WTF are you thinking?
What would having to change something have to do with making a god not a god?

I'm a Christian and creation works for me 100% - but so does evolution. In my OPINION God uses evolution to create things. What's the big deal, anywho?
I don't know. Actually it's just a handful of fundamentalists who believe that the Bible is the absolute literal word of God and won't have it any other way.

To think that God is incapable of thinking in other but absolute literal terms is an insult to both God and Humanity, if you ask me, but what's one gonna' do?

All the people that were going to be called WERE called.

It just wasn't many...

Which shouldn't surprise anyone...

So I should believe that in 1979 so few people were called unto heaven that nobody ever noticed? Something tells me that even if a few thousand people were taken at the exact same moment, there would be a little surprise. Plus, what about the horns? I don't recall ever reading about the entire world hearing horns blowing. Riddle me that, batman.

So I should believe that in 1979 so few people were called unto heaven that nobody ever noticed? Something tells me that even if a few thousand people were taken at the exact same moment, there would be a little surprise. Plus, what about the horns? I don't recall ever reading about the entire world hearing horns blowing. Riddle me that, batman.

Which horns?

The 'trump'?

Of course it wouldn't be remembered... those who heard have left already.

Also - think about it seriously... in a world of approximately 6 billion souls, if a million vanished from all over the globe, even if they did it at the same time... how many people would even NOTICE?

At first I thought you were joking, Grave n idle. Now I see the sad truth. This belief is as non-falsifiable as anything else in religion. Your only way of defending the fact that some of the stuff from Revelation hasn't happened is that we just didn't notice it happening. You might as well believe that the world actually does rest on the back of a giant turtle, and pictures from space that show otherwise are false propaganda from the mind-controlling government.
(However, if you are just joking, I sincerely apologize.)

At first I thought you were joking, Grave n idle. Now I see the sad truth. This belief is as non-falsifiable as anything else in religion. Your only way of defending the fact that some of the stuff from Revelation hasn't happened is that we just didn't notice it happening. You might as well believe that the world actually does rest on the back of a giant turtle, and pictures from space that show otherwise are false propaganda from the mind-controlling government.
(However, if you are just joking, I sincerely apologize.)

(Apology accepted... but don't tell the fundamentalists, I'm having too much fun with them... they are SO easy).

Regarding giant turtles... the Holy Books of "Discworld" quite clearly describe such a beast, The Great A'Tuin.

Which horns?

The 'trump'?

Of course it wouldn't be remembered... those who heard have left already.

Also - think about it seriously... in a world of approximately 6 billion souls, if a million vanished from all over the globe, even if they did it at the same time... how many people would even NOTICE?

No no no no no, I believe that whoever said they would blare so loud the whole world would hear them. Oh, and by the way, if a million people vanished from the world at the same time, everyone would notice. You seem to not understand the magnitude of a million people. People are horrified by the 9/11 disaster, but that would be nothing like a few hundred million or even a billion people disappearing. And if we're in the "1000 year reign of Satan", how come the world isn't much worse than it was then?

And besides, there were more than a million christians on the earth back then, genius.

Are you saying all the christians would be taken?
There are plenty of hypocritical christians, as in any other religion. Judging by their standards, I'd bet a great many self-proclaimed christians wouldn't get anywhere. Then again, I'm no expert.

Are you saying all the christians would be taken?
There are plenty of hypocritical christians, as in any other religion. Judging by their standards, I'd bet a great many self-proclaimed christians wouldn't get anywhere. Then again, I'm no expert.

Well you didn't need to tell me that. Let's say, worst case scenario, that oh.....half the Christians were "hypocritical". That would still be about half a billion people. If you're saying that there are only 6 billion people in the world, that would be approximately a twelfth of the ENTIRE WORLD'S population! I'm gonna go out on a limb here, and say someone may wonder why all those people just vanished. But then again, I'm no expert

Well you didn't need to tell me that. Let's say, worst case scenario, that oh.....half the Christians were "hypocritical". That would still be about half a billion people. If you're saying that there are only 6 billion people in the world, that would be approximately a twelfth of the ENTIRE WORLD'S population! I'm gonna go out on a limb here, and say someone may wonder why all those people just vanished. But then again, I'm no expert

Yeah, I got that. I was just trying to figure out what it was that you thought about christianity.
Sorry about that.