Sorry your browser is not supported!

You are using an outdated browser that does not support modern web technologies, in order to use this site please update to a new browser.

Browsers supported include Chrome, FireFox, Safari, Opera, Internet Explorer 10+ or Microsoft Edge.

Geek Culture / A poem I wrote, comments appreciated.

Author
Message
Ian T
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 12th Sep 2002
Location: Around
Posted: 13th Feb 2004 18:50
Link
Nah-ah-ah! Evolution has not been observed. They think they've found new species-- in other words located things they haven't seen before.

In fact, I believe these findings promote many theories, but not evolution. They've never seen a species actually modify, but they've found new ones out of nowhere. In fact, there have been examples in history of animals put into hostile enviorments where, over thousands of years, one would expect them to evolve at least slightly... and they have not.

Furthermore the page 'debunking' Behe only brings a few theories against his solid evidence, as far as I've read.

Furthermore, even if every shred of evidence Behe brought up was debunked-- which is far from happening-- I still find it far more likely life was created than that it sprung from nothing by some freakish unparraleled one-in-a-trillion quantum reaction (which can happen, granted, but nobody knows why where or when). All the theories regarding the origins of the first single-cell organism are far-flung at very best, and to those who believe them, I would bring up the question of where the universe came from in the first place. Creationism is, in this theoretical primeval time, so much more likely than nothing I'm not sure how to put it into words.

--Mouse: Famous (Avatarless) Fighting Furball

I am the chainsaw paladin.
Back to top
Profile PM
Lord Ozzum
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 29th Oct 2003
Location: Beyond the Realms of Death
Posted: 13th Feb 2004 18:53
Link
plus, you guys are all making assumptions

Take a look to the sky just before you die

---For Whom The Bell Tolls, Metallica
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Jeku
Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Jul 2003
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Posted: 13th Feb 2004 20:41
Link
Quote: "Evolution has been proved though. Its even been observed. "


Yeah, evolution happens every day. My car rusts. People grow old. We evolve. The theory of evolution, however, has NEVER been witnessed!

Sure we have these different creatures, but we've never seen anything that is in the middle of changing! And why do we have all these creatures that do things for no apparent reason other than to display some creativeness from a creator? Why do people laugh? What sort of Darwinian reason do people smile when they're happy?

I also think it's crazy when evolutionists say things like "50 billion years ago there was this 'n' that, and then 10 billion years later this happened, then 500 million years ago there was this, and blah blah blah." They just pull numbers out of their cracks if you ask me.

I believe this world couldn't be more than 10,000 years old tops. The sun is shrinking every year, did you know that? The diameter of the sun has been proved that it's shrinking at a rate that can't be measured properly--- but they know that it's happening. I mean, think about it, the sun is a huge ball of fire and gas :p By this account, 50 billion years ago, the earth would have been consumed by the sun. There would be no life on earth or any other planet in the solar system.

I think people who believe that life started from nothing--- it's like they have blinders on. Some people would rather believe that ALIENS started life on earth, than believe in some creator that has an interest in us. That just dumbfounds me. I mean, really, what's so bad about believing in a superior being? To me that makes it all the better reason to live every day and try to find out more about him.

My $0.02


http://www.jeku.com/audio/
Ancient Chinese proverb: Man who runs behind car gets exhausted.
Back to top
Profile PM Website
Ian T
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 12th Sep 2002
Location: Around
Posted: 13th Feb 2004 20:47
Link
Well said.

Though I think "the creator", whatever it is, might be an alien .

--Mouse: Famous (Avatarless) Fighting Furball

I am the chainsaw paladin.
Back to top
Profile PM
Lord Ozzum
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 29th Oct 2003
Location: Beyond the Realms of Death
Posted: 13th Feb 2004 21:13
Link
Jeku, your $.02 is valued, but I still think it's older than 10000 years.

Darwin/Evolutionists: The closest thing to evolution is a butterfly and a moth. First off, you see, odds are, if there was ever anything in between, we would've seen it. don't give me any of that bullshhit about "Well, the odds are we wouldn't have ever found the remains of it." We've found dinosaur bones, we have built submarines to go to te bottom of the ocean...I'm sure with all of our technolodgy, we'd've seen something.

Take a look to the sky just before you die

---For Whom The Bell Tolls, Metallica
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Ian T
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 12th Sep 2002
Location: Around
Posted: 14th Feb 2004 06:02 Edited at: 14th Feb 2004 06:02
Link
It's interesting noting how now evolutionists are trying to cover up by often citing that modern drugs and medical technology have slowed down the evolutionary process... though absolutely nothing in the evolutionary theory lends itself to that idea. It's just out of the blue.

--Mouse: Famous (Avatarless) Fighting Furball

I am the chainsaw paladin.
Back to top
Profile PM
nuclear glory
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 2nd Oct 2003
Location:
Posted: 14th Feb 2004 07:56 Edited at: 14th Feb 2004 08:04
Link
Quote: "Yeah, evolution happens every day. My car rusts. People grow old. We evolve."


That's entropy.

Evolution says that your car would become more advanced and more complex with time: always moving towards a state of having better tires to handle the road | better paint that won't peel off with time | stronger frame that won't dent | stronger engine to handle everything you put it through | etc...

There's a serious problem with evolution. If things slowly change/improve with time, why don't we have fossils of anything 'between' transformations? (from say a fish to an insect)

We've got fossilized forms of both, but never in-between transformations.

I do, however, believe in God-based change. He transformed my life. I was a pretty scary looking creature before He did. (These last 3 sentences are speaking spiritually, however it has profound effects physically as well)

Lead Programmer/Director
Powerful Collision DLL for DBPro and DBC: http://www.nuclearglory.com
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Lord Ozzum
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 29th Oct 2003
Location: Beyond the Realms of Death
Posted: 14th Feb 2004 08:08
Link
same here. Nuclear Glory, my respect to you

Take a look to the sky just before you die

---For Whom The Bell Tolls, Metallica
Back to top
Profile PM Email
nuclear glory
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 2nd Oct 2003
Location:
Posted: 14th Feb 2004 08:17 Edited at: 14th Feb 2004 08:18
Link
And mine to you Mr X

@HZence
Warm regards to you as well.

Lead Programmer/Director
Powerful Collision DLL for DBPro and DBC: http://www.nuclearglory.com
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Lord Ozzum
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 29th Oct 2003
Location: Beyond the Realms of Death
Posted: 14th Feb 2004 08:18
Link
thanks

Take a look to the sky just before you die

---For Whom The Bell Tolls, Metallica
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Neophyte
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 23rd Feb 2003
Location: United States
Posted: 14th Feb 2004 09:28
Link
@Flashingblade

" I don't see it as possible that both of these things developed simutanesly(spelling?)"

They don't need to. Ears and hearing are not mutually exclusive. Whales anyone?

The ability to detect nearby objects with sound isn't all that difficult either. Any human being with normal hearing can be trained to detect large objects that are nearby using a special "clicker". Blind people do it all the time(Oh, and that whole your senses being enhanced because you're blind thing is a myth. You simply pay more attention to them because you aren't being distracted by visuals.)

Now granted, this can only be done with large objects because our ears aren't that good. Bats have had a long time to evolve into their present role though, so it isn't inconceivable that a development like that could have occured.

@Mouse

"Nah-ah-ah! Evolution has not been observed."

You didn't read the link thoughly did you?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html
Quote: ""Evolution has never been observed."

Biologists define evolution as a change in the gene pool of a population over time. One example is insects developing a resistance to pesticides over the period of a few years. Even most Creationists recognize that evolution at this level is a fact. What they don't appreciate is that this rate of evolution is all that is required to produce the diversity of all living things from a common ancestor.

The origin of new species by evolution has also been observed, both in the laboratory and in the wild. See, for example, (Weinberg, J.R., V.R. Starczak, and D. Jorg, 1992, "Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event in the laboratory." Evolution 46: 1214-1220). The "Observed Instances of Speciation" FAQ in the talk.origins archives gives several additional examples.
"

And the link to the "Observed Instances of Speciation" FAQ:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

Now just because you don't see something with your own eyes doesn't mean that it didn't happened(I find if hard to fathom why I should have to explain this to a believer. You believe in God yet you can't see him,right?).

Lets say that you see a man walk into a room with a gun and you hear a gunshot. Now, you can't see this man fire the gun, but don't you think that it is reasonable to assume that he fired it?

The same applies to evolution. We have a HUGE fossil record with many transitional fossils that simply can't be explained without evolution. The whole field of biology doesn't make sense without evolution. Have a look at this and try explaining to how evolution couldn't have occured:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

"In fact, I believe these findings promote many theories, but not evolution."



What? How?

"In fact, there have been examples in history of animals put into hostile enviorments where, over thousands of years, one would expect them to evolve at least slightly... and they have not."

I'm not sure what animals you are talking about, but evolution doesn't gaurentee that something will modify itself regardless of enviroment. If those animals were well adapted to their enviroment there would be no reason for natural selection to change them as they are already thriving. Only a change in their enviroment is going to shift the balance in favor of a change winning out(I'd like to point out that changes, i.e. mutation, does occur regardless of environment, its just that a better mutation has to occur for natural selection to win out and it become the dominant form.).

"Furthermore the page 'debunking' Behe only brings a few theories against his solid evidence, as far as I've read."

You haven't read very far then. If one of Behe's theories is left untouched in that link than by all means post it and I'll debunk it myself.

"Furthermore, even if every shred of evidence Behe brought up was debunked-- which is far from happening-- I still find it far more likely life was created than that it sprung from nothing by some freakish unparraleled one-in-a-trillion quantum reaction (which can happen, granted, but nobody knows why where or when)."

ARGHHHHH! ::tears hair out::

Repeat after me:
EVOLUTION IS NOT ABOUT THE ORIGIN OF LIFE!
EVOLUTION IS NOT ABOUT THE ORIGIN OF LIFE!
EVOLUTION IS NOT ABOUT THE ORIGIN OF LIFE!
EVOLUTION IS NOT ABOUT THE ORIGIN OF LIFE!
EVOLUTION IS NOT ABOUT THE ORIGIN OF LIFE!
EVOLUTION IS NOT ABOUT THE ORIGIN OF LIFE!

Now try this:
Evolution is a change in a population that occurs over time.

Now try this as well:
Abiogensis is the study of how life might have originated on earth.
Read this while you are at it:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/

"I would bring up the question of where the universe came from in the first place."

Although this is getting a little too close to a religous argument, I think Theodore Schick's rebuttal that the big bang is evidence of a creator would counter your theory.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theodore_schick/bigbang.html

@Jeku

"Yeah, evolution happens every day. My car rusts. People grow old."

My jaw hit the floor when I read this. No offense Jeku, but this has to be one of the worst cases of scientific illeratacy that I've encountered in my life. None of those things has ANYTHING to do with evolution. They are due to chemical reactions that happen over a period of time. This is not evolution. Not even a little bit. Read my above defination to mouse.

"The theory of evolution, however, has NEVER been witnessed!"

Yes it has. For fun, here is yet another link of observed instances of speciation:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

" And why do we have all these creatures that do things for no apparent reason other than to display some creativeness from a creator?"

There is a reason. If you did a little research you'd probably find answers. However, even if evolution didn't explain all of these things that doesn't automatically mean that there was or is a creator. There could just as easily be another mechanism at work that determines why these things happen. There is no evidence that a creator gave us the ability to laugh or simile. There is ample evidence, however, of evolution.

"I also think it's crazy when evolutionists say things like "50 billion years ago there was this 'n' that, and then 10 billion years later this happened, then 500 million years ago there was this, and blah blah blah." They just pull numbers out of their cracks if you ask me."

At the start of this I thought you were a reasonably well educated guy, but I'm sorry to say, the more you say stuff like this the more that impression of you fades and the one of a guy who is utterly scientificly illiterate. They don't just "pull numbers out of their cracks", they use carbon dating and other radiological methods. This isn't even high school physics Jeku. This is like middle school physics.(for you non-Americans out there, when I say high school, thats the level of schooling you get around age of 15/16 and up. Middle school, would be 12/13 and up. I know that other countries have different names for them and what not so I'd thought I'd clear this up here.) Not knowing this stuff is pretty bad Jeku and there is simply no excuse.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html

"I believe this world couldn't be more than 10,000 years old tops. "

You are a young earth creationist?! That certainly explains a lot.

"The sun is shrinking every year, did you know that?"

No it isn't. There is no evidence to suggest this. Cite some to back up your claim if you can.

"The diameter of the sun has been proved that it's shrinking at a rate that can't be measured properly--- but they know that it's happening."

How conveinent.

" I mean, think about it, the sun is a huge ball of fire and gas :p By this account, 50 billion years ago, the earth would have been consumed by the sun. There would be no life on earth or any other planet in the solar system."

That made absolutely no sense whatsoever. First you say that the sun is shrinking at an immearsurable rate, then you say that at this rate we would have been burned to crisp 50 million years ago. Ignoring for a moment the fact that the sun-is-shrinking claim is utter bollocks, how do you know that we would have burned to a crisp 50 million years ago if it is shrinking my an immeasuriable rate?

" think people who believe that life started from nothing--- it's like they have blinders on."

Irony. Its a beautiful thing.

"Some people would rather believe that ALIENS started life on earth, than believe in some creator that has an interest in us. That just dumbfounds me."

You're not alone on this one. That dumbfounds me as well. But then again how someone could believe that the earth is only 10,000 years old dumbfounds me as well.

P.S. I'm typing this while a foul pain in my leg is harrassing me so my apologies in advance if I sound rude. I'm in foul mood at the moment.

@Mr X

"I'm sure with all of our technolodgy, we'd've seen something."

I'm not sure if you are still interested, but we have in fact seen something. Read my above links about observed speciation and you'll find many examples of evolution seen in action.

@Mouse

"It's interesting noting how now evolutionists are trying to cover up by often citing that modern drugs and medical technology have slowed down the evolutionary process... though absolutely nothing in the evolutionary theory lends itself to that idea. It's just out of the blue."

Bollocks. Cite me a single credible "evolutionist" that makes such a claim.

@nuclear glory

"There's a serious problem with evolution. If things slowly change/improve with time, why don't we have fossils of anything 'between' transformations? (from say a fish to an insect)

We've got fossilized forms of both, but never in-between transformations."

I can't describe the joy I feel right now. That is the most intelligent argument I've seen in this thread yet. My hats off to you NG.

That being said, we do have several transitional fossils. Here are two links that go into detail about them:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
This one for humans specifically:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/

@All

I'd just like to say again that my apologies go out for anyone I offended. I'm in a real foul mood at the moment because of the pain, so I have this sinking feeling then my choice of words is not the most...shall we say, tact?
Back to top
Profile PM
Lord Ozzum
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 29th Oct 2003
Location: Beyond the Realms of Death
Posted: 14th Feb 2004 10:25
Link
DAMN! Now that's a Neophytean post
But, this science thing is stupid for the part that I read:
Quote: "One example is insects developing a resistance to pesticides over the period of a few years"

That's called 'adaption'. That's not evolution. Even I knew that.

Quote: "Now just because you don't see something with your own eyes doesn't mean that it didn't happened(I find if hard to fathom why I should have to explain this to a believer. You believe in God yet you can't see him,right?)."


Can't argue with you there. I admit it.

Quote: "EVOLUTION IS NOT ABOUT THE ORIGIN OF LIFE!"


That's not what so many of them say...

Quote: "There is a reason. If you did a little research you'd probably find answers. However, even if evolution didn't explain all of these things that doesn't automatically mean that there was or is a creator. There could just as easily be another mechanism at work that determines why these things happen. There is no evidence that a creator gave us the ability to laugh or simile. There is ample evidence, however, of evolution."


Nope. There isn't. Sorry Neophyte.

Quote: "That made absolutely no sense whatsoever. First you say that the sun is shrinking at an immearsurable rate, then you say that at this rate we would have been burned to crisp 50 million years ago. Ignoring for a moment the fact that the sun-is-shrinking claim is utter bollocks, how do you know that we would have burned to a crisp 50 million years ago if it is shrinking my an immeasuriable rate?"


Agreed

Quote: "You're not alone on this one. That dumbfounds me as well. But then again how someone could believe that the earth is only 10,000 years old dumbfounds me as well.
"


That made me laugh

Quote: "I can't describe the joy I feel right now. That is the most intelligent argument I've seen in this thread yet. My hats off to you NG."

It was a good arguement. Good old Nuclear Glory to come in and save us all

Quote: "P.S. I'm typing this while a foul pain in my leg is harrassing me so my apologies in advance if I sound rude. I'm in foul mood at the moment."


Understood and my apoligies.

Take a look to the sky just before you die

---For Whom The Bell Tolls, Metallica
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Flashing Blade
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 19th Oct 2002
Location: United Kingdom
Posted: 14th Feb 2004 11:25
Link
@ Neophyte

I was tring to point out that the bats ears are like radar dishes to recieve back the high pitched sound. Both the radar ears and the high pitched sound are required at the same. I can't see that, through Natural Selection, an animal could develop two very complicated functions that rely on each other to be useful.
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Teh Go0rfmeister
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 17th Aug 2003
Location:
Posted: 14th Feb 2004 12:16
Link
Quote: "evolving into something better: me with wings to fly, a horn to shove up someone @$$, a tail to wrap around someone's neck and hang them with, and a flamethrower to burn LinuxUser"
we're not gonna evolve/adapt whatever anymore, ie, grow wings, because, ie, we invented aeroplanes to do the job for us, so we wont ever need to grow wings... i kno planes hav only been around for a while, but it ws an example.

A friend of my mum is some ferenzic (spelling?) scientist or summit and has dated a body to be 2 million years older than the date that scientists say first men we evolving from monkeys... if that suggests anything.

also: religeus as i am, i find it hard to believe that throughout the whole of the universe's history, or just the earth's history, it wasn't until after the dinosaurs etc that God finally decides to make an Adam n Eve. I dunno if that means God was pissin about wid a race starting elsewhere in the galaxy or whatever.

there, a balanced arguement.

www.tinnedhead.tk watch this space for the first ever calculator to show the working out. also look out for our first game- ww.exor-mk1.tk
Back to top
Profile PM Website
Neophyte
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 23rd Feb 2003
Location: United States
Posted: 14th Feb 2004 12:49
Link
@Mr X

"DAMN! Now that's a Neophytean post "

Yeah, it was pretty big. I don't think that it was my biggest but it racks up there with the top 5.

"That's called 'adaption'. That's not evolution. Even I knew that."

Nope. Its evolution. A change in a population over a strech of time.

"That's not what so many of them say..."

Who's "them"? Evolutionists? I'm sure some lay person might have gotten them mixed up but biologists certainly don't.

"Nope. There isn't. Sorry Neophyte."

Isn't a reason we simile and laugh or isn't any evidence that evolution occurs? I'm not sure which your talking about here.

@Flashing blade

"I was tring to point out that the bats ears are like radar dishes to recieve back the high pitched sound. Both the radar ears and the high pitched sound are required at the same."

And I believe that I pointed out that radar ears are not required to recieve the high pitched sound. I gave an example of a whale and a blind man, but I think a better one would be that of a dolphin. Dolphins use echo-location, but they don't have ears.

The ability to determine ones surrondings based on sound doesn't require radar like ears, though radar like ears enhance the ability significantly. Its perfectly plausible that the ability to detect sound was evolved first and then later ears came along and allowed the predecessor of bats to take advantage of this feature and become a seperate species.

@Froogle

"A friend of my mum is some ferenzic (spelling?) scientist or summit and has dated a body to be 2 million years older than the date that scientists say first men we evolving from monkeys... "

Men never evolved from monkeys. Its a common myth. We hold a common ancestor with apes and are more closely related to them then we are with monkeys.
Back to top
Profile PM
Lord Ozzum
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 29th Oct 2003
Location: Beyond the Realms of Death
Posted: 14th Feb 2004 18:50
Link
Adaption: 2: adjustment to environmental conditions
That's not what Webster says...

Take a look to the sky just before you die

---For Whom The Bell Tolls, Metallica
Back to top
Profile PM Email
nuclear glory
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 2nd Oct 2003
Location:
Posted: 14th Feb 2004 20:20 Edited at: 14th Feb 2004 20:27
Link
Very in-depth material.

I noticed it talks about a "punctuated equilibrium" model of evolution to explain some of the gaps between species. (It is basically the idea that living creatures have sudden 'bursts' of change and then undergo a long period of stasis without changing significantly, repeat...)

I do not see in-depth material about the "punctuated equilibrium" model specifically on that page. I think it would be a good subject to investigate. (to know if it's coming from anything substantial opposed to just an idea) That will probably be something I look at in my spare time.

On a new note, they seem to be finding new archeological evidence that suggests man and dinosaur co-existed. I do not know how "iron clad" it is, but it is very important to at least look into.

The people suggesting this "co-existence" theory are suggesting that the T-Rex, in particular, was more of scavenger. (IE: Much like a vulture, eats dead things) And they drew that conclusion from the teeth of the T-Rex.

From a creationist standpoint, this suggests that (after the fall of man) that dinosaurs became too violent from the sin ridden planet and died in the flood, OR, that the dinosaurs were even brought onto the ark and died out sometime later. (from a change in atmosphere, too little food, and/or the like)

There is one thing (I try not to let it bother me significantly but it is kind of a peeve of mine) is the way things are dated. See, carbon-14 dating has a consistent rate of falloff (or at least close) but there's no carbon left to date after 10,000 to 50,000 years. Is there a different method of dating that I'm unaware of? (I don't mean that sarcastically either, btw, just so it doesn't come off that way)


I'm going to talk about a demonstration I watched:

-----

A man was showing pictures of a large wall of rock that had been cracked open (on Mt. St. Helens). He was showing close up pictures of the rock and you could see tiny layers inside the rock.

He then went on to explain that, according to standard thinking, each of the layers of that rock were formed over the course of 10,000 years. (With sediments slowly building up, etc...)

The rock had hundreds and hundreds of these layers.

Then he explained that when Mt. St. Helens erupted/exploded, that the entire rock formation in the picture was laid within 6 hours. (from heat, debris, ashes, etc...)

-----

That partially fits into what I was saying before about accurate dating.

-----

Okay, I went looking for picture of the Mountain blowing up and I just located an interesting article. It can be slightly opinionated in its speaking.

http://www.otherside.net/sthelen.html

And here are some pics of St. Helens not acting much like a Saint:

http://www.geo.arizona.edu/~/westdyke/mtsthelens/
(this one has a lot of pics)

Lead Programmer/Director
Powerful Collision DLL for DBPro and DBC: http://www.nuclearglory.com
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Jeku
Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Jul 2003
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Posted: 14th Feb 2004 20:26 Edited at: 14th Feb 2004 20:28
Link
Quote: "We've got fossilized forms of both, but never in-between transformations."

I can't describe the joy I feel right now. That is the most intelligent argument I've seen in this thread yet. My hats off to you NG."


That's basically what I meant when I said:

Quote: "The theory of evolution, however, has NEVER been witnessed"


Fine, fossilized.

Quote: "At the start of this I thought you were a reasonably well educated guy, but I'm sorry to say, the more you say stuff like this the more that impression of you fades and the one of a guy who is utterly scientificly illiterate. They don't just "pull numbers out of their cracks", they use carbon dating and other radiological methods. This isn't even high school physics Jeku. "


Harsh I know that it's called carbon dating, but anybody who has half a brain can understand the problems with dating something to 50 billion years ago.

There's no reason to debate this anymore. Here's a good quote that I read from a great book called "How to Win Friends and Influence People":

A man forced against his will is of the same opinion still.

I've given my reasons, but I'm not the kind of guy that can pull facts and figures from the top of my head to use in debates, I need carefully written down notes and a ton of research--- both of which I have no time for at the moment.

EDIT: Neophyte - I suggest you read that book. Like I said, $8 on amazon, you have nothing to lose.


http://www.jeku.com/audio/
Ancient Chinese proverb: Man who runs behind car gets exhausted.
Back to top
Profile PM Website
nuclear glory
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 2nd Oct 2003
Location:
Posted: 14th Feb 2004 20:29 Edited at: 14th Feb 2004 20:32
Link
Regards Jeku

Quote: "I'm not the kind of guy that can pull facts and figures from the top of my head to use in debates, I need carefully written down notes and a ton of research."


Sounds great and I totally agree

EDIT:
It's not a debate until someone throws something!

<throws a glass across the room>

Okay. Now it's a debate!

Lead Programmer/Director
Powerful Collision DLL for DBPro and DBC: http://www.nuclearglory.com
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Lord Ozzum
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 29th Oct 2003
Location: Beyond the Realms of Death
Posted: 14th Feb 2004 20:31
Link
Nuclear Glory: what's carbon 14's halflife?

Also, I have been hearing this scavenger theory about tyranosauruses for awhile, it's nothing new. when i was little i assumed it was probably a preditior because i liked that idea the best. i assumed the albertasaurus was a scavenger because it didn't look like a hunter. my favorite dinosaur was the ankylosaurus, but now i favor the Stenonykeasaurus (spelling is probably wrong)

Take a look to the sky just before you die

---For Whom The Bell Tolls, Metallica
Back to top
Profile PM Email
nuclear glory
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 2nd Oct 2003
Location:
Posted: 14th Feb 2004 20:33 Edited at: 14th Feb 2004 20:41
Link
Let me go look it up. I'll post it back in this spot.

---

The half-life of carbon-14 is 5,700 years.

Okay, here's a page describing it:

http://www.howstuffworks.com/carbon-14.htm

Lead Programmer/Director
Powerful Collision DLL for DBPro and DBC: http://www.nuclearglory.com
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Lord Ozzum
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 29th Oct 2003
Location: Beyond the Realms of Death
Posted: 14th Feb 2004 20:38
Link
k thanks

Take a look to the sky just before you die

---For Whom The Bell Tolls, Metallica
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Teh Go0rfmeister
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 17th Aug 2003
Location:
Posted: 14th Feb 2004 21:01
Link
Quote: "Its a common myth. We hold a common ancestor with apes and are more closely related to them then we are with monkeys"
tch u got the braincells to kno what i meant

www.tinnedhead.tk watch this space for the first ever calculator to show the working out. also look out for our first game- ww.exor-mk1.tk
Back to top
Profile PM Website
Lord Ozzum
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 29th Oct 2003
Location: Beyond the Realms of Death
Posted: 14th Feb 2004 21:03
Link
Google: you're supposed to be the smart one here....

Take a look to the sky just before you die

---For Whom The Bell Tolls, Metallica
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Teh Go0rfmeister
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 17th Aug 2003
Location:
Posted: 14th Feb 2004 21:27
Link


www.tinnedhead.tk watch this space for the first ever calculator to show the working out. also look out for our first game- ww.exor-mk1.tk
Back to top
Profile PM Website
HZence
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 9th Mar 2003
Location:
Posted: 14th Feb 2004 21:30
Link
Oh my, look what my poem has done to this forum.

Next time I'll keep my mouth shut




Team EOD :: Programmer/Storyboard Assistant
Back to top
Profile PM
Lord Ozzum
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 29th Oct 2003
Location: Beyond the Realms of Death
Posted: 14th Feb 2004 21:46
Link
I was thinking about that too

Take a look to the sky just before you die

---For Whom The Bell Tolls, Metallica
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Neophyte
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 23rd Feb 2003
Location: United States
Posted: 14th Feb 2004 23:09
Link
@Mr X

"Adaption: 2: adjustment to environmental conditions
That's not what Webster says..."

Webster's Ninth New Colligate Dictionary.

Evolution n 5. a. The historical development of a biological group(as a race or species)

The original context in which these quotes refer:
Quote: "
One example is insects developing a resistance to pesticides over the period of a few years""


I'd say we are both right on this one. Evolution is about adaption, but adaption isn't solely about Evolution.

@nuclear glory

" I do not see in-depth material about the "punctuated equilibrium" model specifically on that page. "

Here is a link that discusses it in detail.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/punc-eq.html

"On a new note, they seem to be finding new archeological evidence that suggests man and dinosaur co-existed. I do not know how "iron clad" it is, but it is very important to at least look into. "

The "they" you are refering to are young earth creationist who are probably falisifing evidence. If you heard of any man co-existing with dinosaurs story it probably stems from this:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy.html

"And they drew that conclusion from the teeth of the T-Rex."

No, they drew that conclusion from their desire to come up with "evidence" to support the bible. In their mind, the bible is right regardless of what evidence is found. They only selectively pick and choose what they find in order to try to prop up the bible.

"From a creationist standpoint, this suggests that (after the fall of man) that dinosaurs became too violent from the sin ridden planet and died in the flood, OR, that the dinosaurs were even brought onto the ark and died out sometime later. (from a change in atmosphere, too little food, and/or the like)"

If dinosaurs were created along side man, why is there no mention of them in the bible?

As for the flood explaining the fossils I'm afraid that doesn't match up with reality:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html

"There is one thing (I try not to let it bother me significantly but it is kind of a peeve of mine) is the way things are dated. See, carbon-14 dating has a consistent rate of falloff (or at least close) but there's no carbon left to date after 10,000 to 50,000 years. Is there a different method of dating that I'm unaware of? (I don't mean that sarcastically either, btw, just so it doesn't come off that way)"

I didn't think you came off sarcastic at all. In fact I think you came off as open minded and reasonable. As to your concerns about carbon dating:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/isochron-dating.html

Its a long read, but worth it. It details other methods used to accurately date things from millions of years ago.

"That partially fits into what I was saying before about accurate dating."

That still wouldn't fool the dating methods used in the above link and not too mention astrological methods that aren't affected by those circumstances as well.

"Okay, I went looking for picture of the Mountain blowing up and I just located an interesting article. It can be slightly opinionated in its speaking."

I gave it a brief look and I was unimpressed. It just seems like the usual creationist junk science, but I'll get to it later in more depth if you want me too. I should probably finish this length post first.

@Jeku

"Harsh I know that it's called carbon dating, but anybody who has half a brain can understand the problems with dating something to 50 billion years ago."

Sorry for being harsh, but there isn't any problems with the dating methods used for things longer than 50,000. Read my above link to nuclear glory addressing just this question. Even with carbon dating, you have 40,000 years more than the 10,000 you think the earth was created in. I'm sorry, but its a bit ridiculous to claim that the earth is only 10,000 years old. How you can reach that conclusion is beyond my ken.

"A man forced against his will is of the same opinion still."

I'm well aware of that. That's why I stoped discussing this issue with Mr X when he made it clear I couldn't change his mind. But perhaps I'm approaching this the wrong way. What would I have to do to convince you that evolution is a fact? Or even that the world is older than 10,000 years?

"I've given my reasons,"

Where? All I saw were unsupported opinions.

"but I'm not the kind of guy that can pull facts and figures from the top of my head to use in debates,"

Neither am I. Thats why I really only argue when I'm on-line. You can take your time and research a well thought out answer, like I've been doing, instead of having to come up with a rebuttal on the spot. If you want to take the time to come up with a rebuttal be my guest.

"EDIT: Neophyte - I suggest you read that book. Like I said, $8 on amazon, you have nothing to lose."

Yes, I do have something to lose. $8. And frankly, I don't see that junk being worth even half of that. Behe has been debunked numerous times again, and again. It is just a waste to even bother with his old discredited arguments at this point. Oh, and I suggest you read the links that I posted especially this one: http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/icdmyst/ICDmyst.html and the original one:http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html
After all, you've got nothing to lose.

@Froogle

"tch u got the braincells to kno what i meant"

Insults aside, you weren't clear at all what you were trying to say. I think you said that your mom's friend had some sort of stunning ferensic evidence of a man that is 2 million years older than when man was suppose to be evolving form monkeys and thus disproving that man was a desendent from monkeys. My point was your mom's friend is either joking or a liar as man was never descended from monkeys and thus it is impossible to find a speciman older than when man was suppose to evolve from monkeys because he didn't evolve form them in the first place! So I don't see how my rebuttal wasn't enough to disprove her "claim".
Back to top
Profile PM
Lord Ozzum
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 29th Oct 2003
Location: Beyond the Realms of Death
Posted: 14th Feb 2004 23:34
Link
Neophyte: Creationists are all idiots. They have no true understanding of the bible. They have an understanding of how to rationalize the bible, but they don't know what they're saying means. In fact, you could just as well have beliefe in a pre-Adamite world, that's basically what I believe in. Or you could just believe that when the hypercubes overlapped that all of the dinosaurs went with it. It overlapped again, which the parralel universe seemed to create them to be scavengers, which when spat back to this universe, they somewhat returned to their original state. Or you could just ask: "What're you on and hwere can I get some?"

Take a look to the sky just before you die

---For Whom The Bell Tolls, Metallica
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Lord Ozzum
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 29th Oct 2003
Location: Beyond the Realms of Death
Posted: 14th Feb 2004 23:35
Link
@All but Neophyte: I don't think you'll change his mind

Take a look to the sky just before you die

---For Whom The Bell Tolls, Metallica
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Jeku
Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Jul 2003
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Posted: 16th Feb 2004 01:21
Link
Quote: "Yes, I do have something to lose. $8. And frankly, I don't see that junk being worth even half of that. Behe has been debunked numerous times again, and again. It is just a waste to even bother with his old discredited arguments at this point."


I just had to laugh at that one. Hmmm 418 customer reviews with an average 4-star rating--- doesn't sound like the author "has been debunked numerous times again, and again" to me. Then again, I am "a guy who is utterly scientificly illiterate", according to you

And yes, a car rusting is called EVOLUTION. I don't know where you learned english, but that's what it's called. I'm not talking THE THEORY, but THE WORD. Forget the theory already. Evolution's synonym is change. Things change over time.


http://www.jeku.com/audio/
Ancient Chinese proverb: Man who runs behind car gets exhausted.
Back to top
Profile PM Website
Lord Ozzum
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 29th Oct 2003
Location: Beyond the Realms of Death
Posted: 16th Feb 2004 04:30
Link
Jeku, you can't always describe one thing by its synonyms. Blue is a color, but it's also Russian for gay. So, in Russia, a syn for fag. so, the lines on a paper aren't gay. I sill like your arguements though

Take a look to the sky just before you die

---For Whom The Bell Tolls, Metallica
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Neophyte
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 23rd Feb 2003
Location: United States
Posted: 16th Feb 2004 08:27
Link
@Jeku

"Hmmm 418 customer reviews with an average 4-star rating--- doesn't sound like the author "has been debunked numerous times again, and again" to me."

::sigh::

The only thing this proves is that there is a sucker born every minute and there are people who just don't pay attention.

Since you obviously didn't read my links I'll show you again that Behe has been debunked thoroughly.

http://www.btinternet.com/~clare.stevens/behenot.htm

http://biomed.brown.edu/Faculty/M/Miller/Behe.html
This should be of paticular interest to you. From the above link:
Quote: "Perhaps the single most stunning thing about Darwin's Black Box, Michael Behe's "Biochemical Challenge to Evolution," is the amount of territory that its author concedes to Darwinism. As tempted as they might be to pick up this book in their own defense, "scientific creationists" should think twice about enlisting an ally who has concluded that the Earth is several billion years old, that evolutionary biology has had "much success in accounting for the patterns of life we see around us (1)," that evolution accounts for the appearance of new organisms including antibiotic-resistant bacteria, and who is convinced that all organisms share a "common ancestor." "


http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~lindsay/creation/behe.html
Quote: "To categorize him: Dr. Behe believes in "intelligent design", a recent flavor of creationism. He accepts an old age for the earth, and "has no particular reason to doubt" common descent. However, he argues that science's insistence on naturalistic explanations must be abandoned. "


http://my.erinet.com/~jwoolf/behe.html

http://biocrs.biomed.brown.edu/Darwin/DI/Design.html

http://home.wxs.nl/~gkorthof/korthof8.htm

Even Creationist don't agree with Behe.
http://www.asa3.org/evolution/irred_compl.html

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1997/PSCF6-97Alfred.html

http://ase.tufts.edu/cogstud/papers/behe.htm

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/peter_atkins/behe.html
Quote: ""The danger of this book -- and why it receives so much attention -- is partly that it is so well written (or so some find; I among them, I must confess). I learned a huge amount from it (I think), and it was only my wary eye that held me back from slipping along with the argument. Moreover, here we have a real, and very competent (but deeply misguided) scientist purveying some very good science and pointing up some very important omissions in our current understanding. Dr. Behe and his book must be as gold-dust among the dross of the general run of creationists and their so-called literature. The general reader will not know the limitations of his argument, or be aware of his misrepresentations of the facts, and will easily be seduced by his arguments. After all, it seems so very much easier, and certainly avoids a lot of intellectual effort, to accept that God did it all, even though we have to interpret the carefully coded allusions to this incompetent figment of impoverished imaginations.""


http://www.cbs.dtu.dk/staff/dave/Behe1.html

And a whole collection of links:
http://www.world-of-dawkins.com/Catalano/box/behe.shtml

Note: I left out the links I posted before as, obviously, you didn't bother to read them and it seems you aren't going to if I posted them again.

I would also have you note that most of those criticisms date to about the 1996 to 97 era, when Behe published his book. That's 6 to 7 years ago. Behe and his arguments are old news, but it seems that the gullible or ill-informed keep getting sucked into his arguments dispite the coupious evidence against them.

"And yes, a car rusting is called EVOLUTION. I don't know where you learned english, but that's what it's called. I'm not talking THE THEORY, but THE WORD. Forget the theory already. Evolution's synonym is change. Things change over time."

Bit late to be back peddling on that blunder of yours isn't it? I'm not sure where you learned your english from, but rust isn't called evolution its called oxidation. I mean, seriously, how many people do you hear in everyday life that use the word evolution to describe people aging and their car rusting? Who are you trying to fool here?

@Mr X

"@All but Neophyte: I don't think you'll change his mind"

They can change my mind if they can forward an argument I can't beat. Of coarse, I'm not holding my breath on this one. All that has been offered so far is a debunked book and a lot of scientific illiteracy.

I'd love to see some actual effort on their part, but it appears that mouse flew the coup and Jeku won't post anything to back up what he says other than a link to a book I've shown to be thoroughly debunked(and if the above links aren't thorough enough for you then there really isn't any hope for this argument).
Back to top
Profile PM
Jeku
Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Jul 2003
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Posted: 16th Feb 2004 09:36
Link
Ah, there's no point in arguing with you, you always need the last word. Anytime I offer anything you call it either "scientific illiteracy" or "high school level" just because you don't agree.

And I know you'll just post a reply to this with something like, "Well at least I posted LINKS, and you've shown no evidence, etc. etc.", but really I could dig up debunkings on *any* scientific book and to me it doesn't prove one iota just to post links to other people's websites and their opinions. Hell, I could find websites debunking the Bible and websites debunking the Origin of Species (Darwin) all the same.

What really matters is when one does their OWN research to come to their conclusions. My conclusion thus far on this subject, having read numerous books as a requirement in high school and university, hasn't changed a smidgeon given your links and judgemental attitude. Actually I lied, it has changed. I've realized that even non-Bible thumpers like you try to slam their opinions down others' throats--- that's a universal thing.

Ciao, and good luck with your own research.


http://www.jeku.com/audio/
Ancient Chinese proverb: Man who runs behind car gets exhausted.
Back to top
Profile PM Website
Neophyte
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 23rd Feb 2003
Location: United States
Posted: 16th Feb 2004 11:02
Link
@Jeku

"Ah, there's no point in arguing with you, you always need the last word."

As if you are any different.

"Anytime I offer anything you call it either "scientific illiteracy" or "high school level" just because you don't agree. "

I don't call it "high school level" or "scientific illiteracy" just because I don't agree. I call it that because that is what it is. Basic knowledge of even rudimentary science. If you disagree with me, please, point out where I was wrong in my assesment of what is basic and rudimentary.

"And I know you'll just post a reply to this with something like, "Well at least I posted LINKS, and you've shown no evidence, etc. etc.", but really I could dig up debunkings on *any* scientific book and to me it doesn't prove one iota just to post links to other people's websites and their opinions."

These aren't just people's websites and opinions. They are facts. And in order to debunk something you need to present a logicaly sound argument that uses facts. I seriously doubt you could present such a thing to prove the world is 10,000 years old or that evolution is a lie but be my guest.

"Hell, I could find websites debunking the Bible and websites debunking the Origin of Species (Darwin) all the same. "

Again, I'd like to reiterate that in order to debunk something you need a logically sound argument supported with facts. Just linking to someone's opinion or incoherent ramblings doens't count as "debunking".

"What really matters is when one does their OWN research to come to their conclusions."

I have. What do you think that all of those links and articles represent? They are my research. And they point conclusively to the reality of evolution. Now where's your research?

"My conclusion thus far on this subject, having read numerous books as a requirement in high school and university, hasn't changed a smidgeon given your links and judgemental attitude."

If you want to be closed minded thats your problem.

" Actually I lied, it has changed. I've realized that even non-Bible thumpers like you try to slam their opinions down others' throats--- that's a universal thing."

Oh, pleassse! Spare me your tortured grief. Just because I presented evidence that conflicts with your little fantasies doesn't mean I'm "slaming" my "opinion" down other people's throats. You need to learn the difference between what is opinion and what is fact.

Oh, wait here. I'll do it for you since you don't like venturing into territory where you might be proven wrong.

Opinion n 1. a. a view, judgment or apprisal formed in the mind about a paticular matter. b. APPROVAL, ESTEEM 2. a. belief stronger than impression and less strong than positive knowledge b: a generally held view 3 a: a formal expression of judgment or advice by an expert

Fact n 1: a thing done as a: CRIME b: obs: FEAT c archacic: ACTION 2 arachaic : PERFORMANCE, DOING 3 the quality of being actual : ACTUALITY 4 a: something that has actual exsistence b: an actual occurrence : EVENT 5 : a piece of information presented as having objective reality --in fact : truth

Now, look at 1 a and 2 a for Opinion and 4 and 5 for Fact and reflect on what that means in relation to every thing that I've posted so far in this thread. I'll give you a hint. Posting links that detail how evolution works is presenting something that has actual existence and is presented with positive knowledge.
Back to top
Profile PM
Flashing Blade
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 19th Oct 2002
Location: United Kingdom
Posted: 16th Feb 2004 12:18
Link
How evolution realy works:

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Neophyte
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 23rd Feb 2003
Location: United States
Posted: 16th Feb 2004 13:07
Link
@Flashingblade

"How evolution realy works:"

Back to top
Profile PM
Lord Ozzum
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 29th Oct 2003
Location: Beyond the Realms of Death
Posted: 16th Feb 2004 18:40
Link
I want the last word: LOCKED!!!!

Joking. But still, flashingblade, the image isn't working!!!

Take a look to the sky just before you die

---For Whom The Bell Tolls, Metallica
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Neophyte
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 23rd Feb 2003
Location: United States
Posted: 16th Feb 2004 21:22
Link
@Mr X

" But still, flashingblade, the image isn't working!!!"

It takes a little while to load. I didn't even see it the first time till I checked back on the thread a quick second time later.
Back to top
Profile PM
Chris K
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 7th Oct 2003
Location: Lake Hylia
Posted: 16th Feb 2004 23:26 Edited at: 16th Feb 2004 23:26
Link
I actually find it hard to see how evolution can't work.

I am aware of the gaps in it, but it seems totally logical to me.

There is no doubt that selective breeding works. Surely this is the same as evolution.

Even if you believe that God created and sustains the world, you cannot say that he is responsible for all divertisy of life.

God did not create the sausage dog or dalmation - end of story.

Back to top
Profile PM
Teh Go0rfmeister
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 17th Aug 2003
Location:
Posted: 17th Feb 2004 12:22
Link
@ Neo...dude

by that remark i meant, surely u have the braincells to know what i meant, to me, monkeys and apes are the same thing

www.tinnedhead.tk watch this space for the first ever calculator to show the working out. also look out for our first game- ww.exor-mk1.tk
Back to top
Profile PM Website
jrowe
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 12th Oct 2002
Location: Here
Posted: 17th Feb 2004 12:54
Link
I have to agree with Neophyte in that a number of the people talking on this thread (not meaning to cause offence) are totally scientificly illiterate.

I don't want to mock anyone but I don't see how people can still believe in creationism when there is such an overwhelming amount of evidence against it.

I will post examples later, but I've got to go now as my sister needs the computer.

For Fathers and Sons who enjoy wholy spirits.
http://www.tinnedhead.tk
http://www.exor-mk1.tk
Back to top
Profile PM
Neophyte
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 23rd Feb 2003
Location: United States
Posted: 17th Feb 2004 15:14
Link
@Chris Knott

"I actually find it hard to see how evolution can't work."

Me too, that's what has me mystified as to why anyone could believe otherwise.

@Froogle

"by that remark i meant, surely u have the braincells to know what i meant, to me, monkeys and apes are the same thing"

How am I suppose to know what species you consider the same? Monkeys and apes are rather far apart in both appearance and ancestry. They are anything but the same.

@jrowe

"I will post examples later, but I've got to go now as my sister needs the computer."

I don't think it'll do any good. Jeku appears to have bowed out of this debate and mouse left it earlier. Mr X, by his own words, can't really be convinced otherwise regardless of evidence. I'm not entirely sure where nuclear glory stands on this issue, but he hasn't posted here in a while. That leaves flashingblade but he hasn't really contributed to the debate at all for a while, with the only recent post he's made a joke picture.

So to sum up, I don't think there are any creationists left browsing this thread to present your evidence to. Your kind of late my friend. I scared them all away.
Back to top
Profile PM
Flashing Blade
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 19th Oct 2002
Location: United Kingdom
Posted: 17th Feb 2004 15:48
Link
@ Neophyte: my picture was aimed at lightening the mood.

@ Jrowe: insulting people is not a good way to conduct a adult debate.

To clarify my position:

I am a lost soul.
The theory of evolution is very very convincing but I see lots of little holes.
The idea of God is full of lots of holes, but religion is based on faith.
The idea that we were created by a higher intelligence is plausible.

What do I believe?
None of the above, but I am leaning more towards the higher inteligence theory.
Or even life was put here by a higher inteligence and that life has been evolving.
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
AnDrEy
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 11th Jan 2004
Location: In Da Club
Posted: 17th Feb 2004 16:20
Link
@-Flashingblade The Bible is not full of holes, i mean the new testement (sp-I read the russian Othrodox Bible so dont know how to spell this) If anyone sees illogical happenings or inconcictensies (sp?) or stiupid things please enlighten me. Personally I believe that God created everything and could crush the univerce like a paper ball, also I believe that things evolve because He sees them fit to. Also carbon radioactive decay is not the most accurate or the one with the most longest dating period. but the easiest one overall
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Neophyte
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 23rd Feb 2003
Location: United States
Posted: 17th Feb 2004 18:00
Link
@Flashingblade

"@ Neophyte: my picture was aimed at lightening the mood."

I figuared as much.

@AnDrEy

" If anyone sees illogical happenings or inconcictensies (sp?) or stiupid things please enlighten me. "

This is vearing a little too close to religous debate for me(I have a little rule about staying out of those), but if you want inconsistencies then try building a coherent story of the ressurection and accension of Christ from all of the Gospels without leaving out a single fact stated in them.

These Gospels include Matthew 28, Mark 16, Luke 24, and John 20-21 specifically. Also, don't forget Acts 1:3-12 and I Corinthians 15:3-8. What I'm after is a coherent story of what happened on Easter morning and if you don't think there are any inconsistences try doing this story without leaving out any facts like who said what, where, and when. You'll find it is more difficult than you imagined.

"Also carbon radioactive decay is not the most accurate or the one with the most longest dating period. but the easiest one overall "

This has already been addressed in my 7th post counting from the bottom up(including this one if I counted right).

Here is the link to more reliable dating methods that are used.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/isochron-dating.html
Back to top
Profile PM
Lord Ozzum
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 29th Oct 2003
Location: Beyond the Realms of Death
Posted: 17th Feb 2004 18:16
Link
First off, to all: the bible has been changed so many times by different denominations enough for me to say that Catholacism and Latter Day saints don't know what it's supposed to mean. Catholics believe that praying to Mary and your dead relatives will actually do anything and they practically worship her, which is against the ten commandments. Mormens believe in having multiple wives which is also against the ten commandments.

Take a look to the sky just before you die

---For Whom The Bell Tolls, Metallica
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Lord Ozzum
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 29th Oct 2003
Location: Beyond the Realms of Death
Posted: 17th Feb 2004 18:17
Link
Oh, yeah, Neophyte: I enjoy reading your arguments

I see the picture, it's funny/scary

Take a look to the sky just before you die

---For Whom The Bell Tolls, Metallica
Back to top
Profile PM Email
AnDrEy
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 11th Jan 2004
Location: In Da Club
Posted: 17th Feb 2004 18:25
Link
The inconsistencies are there because each diciple wrote the events from his own point of view and each part is from what each saw/remembered
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Lord Ozzum
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 29th Oct 2003
Location: Beyond the Realms of Death
Posted: 17th Feb 2004 18:28
Link
AnDrEy is correct, no two people remember something the exact same way. IF THERE ARE ANY CREATIONIST LEFT, YOU GUYS ARE MORONS!!!!!!!!!!

A bit off topic, but I enjoyed watching Bowling for Columbine.

Take a look to the sky just before you die

---For Whom The Bell Tolls, Metallica
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Back to top

Login to post a reply

Server time is: 2024-11-24 21:45:43
Your offset time is: 2024-11-24 21:45:43