# Creation vs Evolution vs Whatever Else



## TheHighClub (Apr 28, 2009)

lets be mature here just explain how you believe the world came to be and well....weed where did it come from and why is it here? was it created, evolved, planted by space aliens, really what do you think?


----------



## keico (Apr 28, 2009)

TheHighClub said:


> lets be mature here just explain how you believe the world came to be and well....weed where did it come from and why is it here? was it created, evolved, planted by space aliens, really what do you think?


My personal belief is that God Created through evolution.

I believe he said let there be light earth etc, and it happened through evolution

As far as weed, I believe like most plants they evolved from other plants adapting to their environment.

I think there is some confusion in which people think that as god said "let there be", that it was instantaneous.

Just my thoughts

Trying to get this thread started


----------



## HiScores (Apr 28, 2009)

First of all "God" is only a word, a sound, or vocal vibration. 

Personally I believe the Universe has always existed in some form or another. The problem human minds run into when thinking about "creation" and our origins is the concepts of time! Time is very tricky...as it is subjective in nature...AND it is well known that time is relative to our own personal experience when we smoke cannabis. So, an eternal universe is rather hard to fathom from our perspective. We cannot know at this moment in the game _exactly_ how or why the universe created us (abiogenesis) but we know that homo sapiens and all life are most definitely a product of evolution.


----------



## old pothead (Apr 28, 2009)

I will not try to use my words because i will fail,but if you have some time and a open mind,here are a couple articles that will speak for me.
http://www.garnertedarmstrong.org/pubs/Migration.htm

http://www.garnertedarmstrong.org/pubs/CreateEvol-Life.htm

http://www.garnertedarmstrong.org/pubs/CreateAdam.htm

OPH


----------



## old pothead (Apr 30, 2009)

Man is everyone still reading,or do i know how to kill a thread.Sorry Highclub,did not mean for that to happen.OPH


----------



## HiScores (Apr 30, 2009)

old pothead said:


> Man is everyone still reading,or do i know how to kill a thread.Sorry Highclub,did not mean for that to happen.OPH


yeah....they're really long. what are the basics of the philosophy?


----------



## old pothead (Apr 30, 2009)

HiScores said:


> yeah....they're really long. what are the basics of the philosophy?


Hiscore,if i tried to give you the basics it would be longer than the links.I would end up butchering what the peice is trying to say.I do not expect anyone to read them all,just pick one and have a gPH


----------



## hom36rown (Apr 30, 2009)

To answer the title, I believe in evolution, I dont believe in creation. As for how the world came to be, well, I dont know off hand, but I'm sure I would accept whatever the common scientific concensus is at the moment.

As for weed, it came about like every other living I suppose. Initially from some primitive form of life, which evolved over the course of millions of years. There is no why.


----------



## GreatwhiteNorth (Apr 30, 2009)

The chance that higher life forms might have emerged through evolution is comparable with the chance that a 'tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a flyable Boeing 747 from the materials therein, or that an explosion in a print shop created the entire unabridged encyclopedia britannica".
I simply cannot accept that life appeared in a void of lifelessness and that the complexities of this world are the result of random chance.
My opinion only.
Peace,
GWN


----------



## KaliKitsune (Apr 30, 2009)

We are the universe made manifest, separate pieces of a whole that is struggling to figure itself out. 

Marijuana is just one of the keys to self-exploration.


----------



## dahamma (Apr 30, 2009)

GreatwhiteNorth said:


> The chance that higher life forms might have emerged through evolution is comparable with the chance that a 'tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a flyable Boeing 747 from the materials therein, or that an explosion in a print shop created the entire unabridged encyclopedia britannica".
> I simply cannot accept that life appeared in a void of lifelessness and that the complexities of this world are the result of random chance.
> My opinion only.
> Peace,
> GWN


well said. All bullshit aside .....WELL SAID!!!


----------



## hom36rown (Apr 30, 2009)

Life is just a collection of lifeless particles. And in infinite space and time, anything that is possible will happen.


----------



## TheHighClub (May 1, 2009)

does it come down to creation or evolution as the only explanation to how we all got here? The issue is if you believe in creation you also have to believe the world was created, meaning you would have to believe in a higher power aka God. soo that forces everyone who doesnt believe in God to denounce creation and all they are left with is evolution. seems like nobody actually cares if evolution was actually possible they really just want something besides creation to believe in because they dont want to accept the possibility of a higher power.


----------



## hom36rown (May 1, 2009)

Not believing in a creator doesnt force anything. And not believing in a creator is not the motive behind believing in evolution, thats ridiculous. Evolution itself is an undisputed fact, there is no disputing that we are evolving, the mechanism of evolution is what is the theory. And the evidence is overwhelming. 

If anything people are forced to believe in a creator because they dont have a basic grasp of science.


----------



## old pothead (May 1, 2009)

hom36rown said:


> Evolution itself is an undisputed fact,
> 
> If anything people are forced to believe in a creator because they dont have a basic grasp of science.


Please prove it.Theory's are not fact,no matter how many times you say it.
I like science and understand it,i don't like science when it is based on what someone THINKS and not facts.No one has found half apes and half human,nor half bird and half reptile.No one has found amongst the fossile records any animal in the process of evolving.They have found new species and tried to claim they are evolving,but cannot prove it.
I like the fact that no one will read even one of the links that shows evolution is full of crap.OPH


----------



## RezzinTehSeahorse (May 1, 2009)

evolution is not full of crap. if you feel this way you really oughta be able to back it up yourself, instead of just posting links and letting other people do the work. i've read many anti-evolution articles and they all lack basic logic. please post your argument,


----------



## TheHighClub (May 1, 2009)

Its not wrong to want to see some proof of evolution soo hit me with it, but there are no half monkey half humans or any other half evolved species soo it seems all the physical evidence mysteriously disappeared, also im curious according to evolution if we are always evolving what is the next level of evolution? what will we evolve into now?


----------



## AlBundy (May 1, 2009)

I believe that God created everything through intelligent design. I don't believe in coincidence or it just happened by chance.


----------



## RezzinTehSeahorse (May 1, 2009)

TheHighClub said:


> Its not wrong to want to see some proof of evolution soo hit me with it, but there are no half monkey half humans or any other half evolved species soo it seems all the physical evidence mysteriously disappeared, also im curious according to evolution if we are always evolving what is the next level of evolution? what will we evolve into now?


you say that like you think there should be some creature that has like a human face and hairy monkey parts. we are the links that exist between the past and the future. the world has always been changing so why shouldnt the creatures that inhabit change as well in order to survive. why couldnt we have gotten here by chance, theres no law that says things must make sense and that things must be as they are now.


----------



## x15 (May 1, 2009)

hom36rown said:


> ...Evolution itself is an undisputed fact, there is no disputing that we are evolving, the mechanism of evolution is what is the theory. And the evidence is overwhelming.
> 
> If anything people are forced to believe in a creator because they dont have a basic grasp of science.


using only the fossil records to support your opinion, show us one animal species which evolved, for example, shows the progression of change.

please link to a reputable website to show support.


----------



## hom36rown (May 1, 2009)

old pothead said:


> Please prove it.Theory's are not fact,no matter how many times you say it.
> I like science and understand it,i don't like science when it is based on what someone THINKS and not facts.No one has found half apes and half human,nor half bird and half reptile.No one has found amongst the fossile records any animal in the process of evolving.They have found new species and tried to claim they are evolving,but cannot prove it.
> I like the fact that no one will read even one of the links that shows evolution is full of crap.OPH


Like I said, Evolution is a fact, the mechanism is a theory. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact


----------



## x15 (May 2, 2009)

hom36rown said:


> Like I said, Evolution is a fact, the mechanism is a theory.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact



interesting article from wiki.

unfortunately, the article does not even site one example of data from any fossil records to show evolution as fact. it does attempt to mistakenly sight subjective observations as objectivism.

peace


----------



## Stoney McFried (May 2, 2009)

Whenever someone asks for proof that evolution occurs, I usually point to this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walking_catfishThe walking catfish is a fish which has adapted to its environment by evolving the ability to walk on its fins for short distances to find more water.It tends to live in seasonal puddles and ponds, and sometimes that water will dry up or become devoid of food.It is in the middle of the transition to land animal.
Even if you look at apes, you can see that they are most definitely in the same genus as us.Evolution isn't saying we're descended directly from these apes, just that we share a common ancestor.
Just look at Neanderthal man... not homo sapiens sapiens,but certainly related. Their DNA is slightly different.
Science and religion are at odds because one, science,seeks to question and disprove itself in order to eliminate faulty data and reach the real truth. The other, religion,wants you to believe in what it teaches without question and without proof.It seeks to place all human minds into a mindset which does not deviate,nor even conceive of any other ideology but the one they have been taught. 
If anything, anyone who will not at least admit the possibility that there is evolution is doing themselves a great disservice.Because nature teaches us that change is constant and inevitable.Those who do not change, die.By refusing to question things,by not actively ADAPTING your mind to admit to the possibility there is no benevolent being tending the fire at the end of the universe,you are stagnating.Holding yourself back.And religion has accomplished its goal.To make you afraid,and therefore,controllable.Sorry for the rant.


old pothead said:


> Please prove it.Theory's are not fact,no matter how many times you say it.
> I like science and understand it,i don't like science when it is based on what someone THINKS and not facts.No one has found half apes and half human,nor half bird and half reptile.No one has found amongst the fossile records any animal in the process of evolving.They have found new species and tried to claim they are evolving,but cannot prove it.
> I like the fact that no one will read even one of the links that shows evolution is full of crap.OPH


----------



## Dr. Greenhorn (May 2, 2009)

Stoney McFried said:


> And religion has accomplished its goal.To make you afraid,and therefore,controllable.Sorry for the rant.


 So true stoney....


----------



## Stoney McFried (May 2, 2009)

And hey, I'm willing to admit, I COULD be wrong. But I CHOOSE to believe in science and evolution because it makes sense to me,and it doesn't seek to tell me that it is irrefutably correct.


Dr. Greenhorn said:


> So true stoney....


----------



## x15 (May 2, 2009)

Stoney McFried said:


> Whenever someone asks for proof that evolution occurs, I usually point to this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walking_catfishThe walking catfish is a fish which has adapted to its environment by evolving the ability to walk on its fins for short distances to find more water...


hi, stoney 


the problem with this is that one has to assume it is a "transitional species" as appose to "just a species." 

if one were to use the fossil records and go back in time they would see walking fish then as we see them today, if fish walked walk millions of years ago and they can walk today then it's a species (not transitional)

a good example of this is the Coelacanth fish which was said to be a transitional fish species having limbs, walked... etc. they lived 416 to 359.2 million years ago, until, they found the same exact fish today living having not evolved at all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coelacanth

peace


----------



## x15 (May 2, 2009)

TheHighClub said:


> lets be mature here just explain how you believe the world came to be and well....weed where did it come from and why is it here? was it created, evolved, planted by space aliens, really what do you think?



i don't know, but leaning towards created since fossil records disprove evolution. 

i am certain of this, we as humans are getting more and more stupid, violent & destructive as time goes by, de-evolving to what we should not be. for as long as we have been on earth we still can't get along.


----------



## Stoney McFried (May 2, 2009)

But when you go back in the fossil record, you DO see that humans did NOT live at the same time as Dinosaur.Which is what creationists forcefully assert, the 6000 year theory.Evolution doesn't claim to have all the answers.But Creationism does.All you have to do is suspend disbelief indefinitely. So...even if you don't believe in evolution, you have to admit Science does exist.And science teaches us critical thinking.It teaches us if a theory does not hold up to scrutiny, discard it. Creationism does not hold up to scrutiny.


x15 said:


> hi, stoney
> 
> 
> the problem with this is that one has to assume it is a "transitional species" as appose to "just a species."
> ...


----------



## Stoney McFried (May 2, 2009)

And here's a good read on transitional fossils. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1a.html#tran


----------



## x15 (May 2, 2009)

Stoney McFried said:


> But when you go back in the fossil record, you DO see that humans did NOT live at the same time as Dinosaur...


this is being debated today whether humans lived in that time period. if you search "footprint fossils" you'll see several images of human footprints next to dinosaurs. 

for the record, I AM NOT SAYING I BELIEVE THIS, just pointing something out 

http://www.subversiveelement.com/FossilizedHumanFootprints.html



Stoney McFried said:


> ...Which is what creationists forcefully assert, the 6000 year theory...


many creationist do not believe this because the bible says "1000 years to God is like 1 day, & 1 day is like a 1000 years." meaning, time is not the same time as we think it to be. many creationists believe the 6 day creation story were periods of millions of years.




Stoney McFried said:


> So...even if you don't believe in evolution, you have to admit Science does exist.And science teaches us critical thinking.It teaches us if a theory does not hold up to scrutiny, discard it. Creationism does not hold up to scrutiny.


science is just as much a religion as Christianity is, same type of fanatics, dogmas, spouting incontrovertible truths

i certainly do not have the answers

peace


----------



## Stoney McFried (May 2, 2009)

Not contemporary. And this is what you're referring to.http://www.paleo.cc/paluxy/paluxy.htm


x15 said:


> this is being debated today whether humans lived in that time period. if you search "footprint fossils" you'll see several images of human footprints next to dinosaurs.
> 
> for the record, I AM NOT SAYING I BELIEVE THIS, just pointing something out
> 
> http://www.subversiveelement.com/FossilizedHumanFootprints.html




Pretty cut and dried.A day is a thousand years.So 6 days is 6000 years. And look up the website for creationism,yes, this is what they teach.


x15 said:


> many creationist do not believe this because the bible says "1000 years to God is like 1 day, & 1 day is like a 1000 years." meaning, time is not the same time as we think it to be. many creationists believe the 6 day creation story were periods of millions of years.





Not at all.Because scientists constantly question and attempt to disprove themselves in order to explain the way things are... Religion attempts to explain the way things are,but offers no concrete proof,and vilifies anyone who tries to apply a logical process to prove or disprove the theory presented. 
By scientific process of elimination, Creationism does NOT hold up to scrutiny, therefore it can be excluded from the pool of possibilities.


x15 said:


> science is just as much a religion as Christianity is, same type of fanatics, dogmas, spouting incontrovertible truths
> 
> i certainly do not have the answers
> 
> peace


----------



## old pothead (May 2, 2009)

RezzinTehSeahorse said:


> evolution is not full of crap. if you feel this way you really oughta be able to back it up yourself, instead of just posting links and letting other people do the work. i've read many anti-evolution articles and they all lack basic logic. please post your argument,


I wish i was still able to debate like i used too,but three heart attacks have robbed me of half of what little mind i had left.
I think the reason we were where put on this planet is to learn how to live in peace with each other,and how to live on this planet without destroying it.
The Bible is a blue print that shows us how to do this,honor your father and mother,do not murder,do not commit adultry,do not steal,do not bear false witness against your neighbor,do not covet your neighbors house,wife,male servant,female servant,nor his ox.
Simple things to follow that lead to people getting along and loving one another.
Look around and what do you see,kids killing their parents and not obeying them,hatred,murders,theft of every kind,people lying about everything,greed on a grand scale,everyone wants what the jones have.
I will follow these simple little rules and try to make my world a better place for me and my family.Those who choose not too,can hate your parents and evryone else,kill all you want,screw your neighbors wife and freinds wifes,steal all you want,lie about everything,and let greed rule your life.
You sleep in the bed you make,enjoy it.OPH


----------



## Stoney McFried (May 2, 2009)

I don't personally believe there's a "reason", but I don't disagree that peace is a good thing.


old pothead said:


> I wish i was still able to debate like i used too,but three heart attacks have robbed me of half of what little mind i had left.
> I think the reason we were where put on this planet is to learn how to live in peace with each other,and how to live on this planet without destroying it.


The bible also advocates slavery and misogyny. People don't need a religion to get along and respect one another.They just need empathy.


old pothead said:


> The Bible is a blue print that shows us how to do this,honor your father and mother,do not murder,do not commit adultry,do not steal,do not bear false witness against your neighbor,do not covet your neighbors house,wife,male servant,female servant,nor his ox.
> Simple things to follow that lead to people getting along and loving one another.


That's been happening since the dawn of civilization.you just hear about it more because news can be relayed much quicker and over greater distances.


old pothead said:


> Look around and what do you see,kids killing their parents and not obeying them,hatred,murders,theft of every kind,people lying about everything,greed on a grand scale,everyone wants what the jones have..


Once again, just because one is not religious doesn't mean they will murder, steal,or covet.One doesn't have to believe in the Bible to be a good person.


old pothead said:


> I will follow these simple little rules and try to make my world a better place for me and my family.Those who choose not too,can hate your parents and evryone else,kill all you want,screw your neighbors wife and freinds wifes,steal all you want,lie about everything,and let greed rule your life.
> You sleep in the bed you make,enjoy it.OPH


----------



## old pothead (May 2, 2009)

Here are some reasons why evolution is wrong.
#1 The idea of natural selection sounds great when you consider the deer.Deer can sense danger and run fast and escape danger.One flaw is the bird,why would a bird evolve a wing stub that is useless.They are to small for the bird to fly and will not help it escape predators.Why would it evolve a useless wing,this is backwards of the theory of evolution.Which is they evolve to adapt and change to survive better in their enviroment.Why would the bird continue for millions of generations improving a wing that was useless.A bird with a half sized wing is put at a great disadvantage in its enviroment.
The theory of evolution is based on the most adaptable member of a species,not a bird with a wing stub.
#2 Evolutionist claim that the presence of many individual species proves evolution.Evolutionist line up many pictures of similar looking species and claim they evolved one to another.Humans are a great example.There are hundreds of extinct monkeys and apes with lots of fossil records.Evolutionist line up the most promising choices to present a gradual progression from monkey to man.Then they fill in the gaps with make believe creatures to fit the picture.They can only do this with man,they never do this with elephants or giraffes.All they prove is there are many individual species and does not prove evolution.
#3 Scientists a century ago believed the smallest single living cell was a simple life form.The theory developed that perhaps lightning struck a pond of water causing several molecules to combine in a random way which by chance resulted in a living cell.The cell then divided and evolved into higher life forms.The most modern labs are unable to create a living cell.In fact they are unable to create a single left handed protein molecule found in all animals.
#4 Evolutionist ignore the problem surrounding the human egg and the male sperm in evolutionary theory.The female egg contains the x chromosome and the male sperm contains either an x or y chromosome.The female eggs develop in the ovaries while it is a baby(fetus).Evolutionist claim that enviromental factors cause small changes in the offspring in the evolutionary chain.However,the enviromental experience of the female cannot change the chromosomes within her eggs and connot have any effect on her offspring.Her body cannot go into the eggs contained within her ovaries at her birth to make an intelligent change.Females cannot be a part of the evolutionary theory for these reasons.
#5 The scientific fact that DNA replication includes a built in error checking method and a DNA repair proces proves the evolutionary theory is wrong.The fact is that any attempt by the DNA to change is stopped and reversed.
#6 The second law of thermodynamics proves that organization cannot flow from chaos.Complex live organisms cannot rearrange themselfs into an organism of a higher form as claimed by evolutionist.This is scientifically backwards according to the second law of thermodynamics that has never been proven wrong.Scientists cannot have it both ways.The second law of thermodynamics is proven to be correct.Evolution lacks any scientific proof.Evolution is a empty theory.
#7Ther is no scientific evidence that a species can change the number of chromosomes within the DNA.The chromosomes within each species is fixed.This is the reason a male from one species cannot mate successfully with a female from another slecies.Man could not evolve from a monkey.Each species is locked into its chromosome count that cannot change.If a animal developed an extra chromosome or lost a chromosome because of some deformity,it could not successfully mate.The defect could not be passed along to the next generation.Evolving a new species is scientifically impossible.Evolutionists prove that a college education does not impart wisdom.
#8 Evolutionists throw up their hands at the question of the origin of matter because they know something cannot evolve from nothing.They stick their heads in the sand and ignore the problem.The fact that matter exists in outrageously large quantities simply proves evolution is wrong.The big bang theory doesn't solve the problem either.Matter and energy have to come from somewhere.
#9 Two NASA land rovers named Spirit and Opportunity have explored mars during 2004.They show signs of water being present in the past.They prove that water was once abundant on the surface of mars,but they have not been able to find any signs of life or life in the past.Mars has a proven history of having flowing water at one time and a atmosphere suitable to support life forms.Mars has had all of the conditions necessary to provide the "spark" of life according to the evolutionary theory,yet there is no life on mars.The river beds and banks show no signs of vegetation or trees.The ground has no fossils and no organisms,it is sterile.
#10 Mars is not the only place that shows no signs of life.The entire universe lacks any sign of life.There are no radio signals that can be related to intelligent life forms.None of the billions of galaxies have been found to emit any intelligent radio signals.Scientists have been pointing every type of radio telescope possible into space for several decades in hopes of finding a intelligent signal,no signs of life have been found beyond earth.We are alone.OPH


----------



## bicycle racer (May 2, 2009)

it is very arrogant to assume we are the only living things in the universes it is vast beyond imagination and if you have to learn to be a good person from the bible something is wrong. i know many non religious people who are good people naturally. im neither religious nor an atheists but evolution does take place there are some aspects i disagree with but it is a basically sound theory and much easier to swallow than the crazy talk in the bible. an example of somewhat recent evolution would be the finches and tortoises on the various galapagos islands they have evolved to meet there needs through natural selection. its the same as cannabis cannabis evolved from 1 species humans spread the plant around the world now we have very different cannabis plants because of them adapting to the needs of there location as examples an african sativa is very different from a afghani indica where cannabis was originally from.


----------



## Stoney McFried (May 2, 2009)

Nice copy and paste.


old pothead said:


> Here are some reasons why evolution is wrong.


HUh?Because the bird no longer needs the wing in its environment.Are you trying to tell me that an ostrich cannot escape a predator, or fight back?It loses the wing in order to gain other advantages, seems pretty obvious.


old pothead said:


> #1 The idea of natural selection sounds great when you consider the deer.Deer can sense danger and run fast and escape danger.One flaw is the bird,why would a bird evolve a wing stub that is useless.They are to small for the bird to fly and will not help it escape predators.Why would it evolve a useless wing,this is backwards of the theory of evolution.Which is they evolve to adapt and change to survive better in their enviroment.Why would the bird continue for millions of generations improving a wing that was useless.A bird with a half sized wing is put at a great disadvantage in its enviroment.
> The theory of evolution is based on the most adaptable member of a species,not a bird with a wing stub.


Absolute nonsense.There are no made up creatures being used to fill gaps.That is the sole province of religion. Making up a creature who has never been proven to exist, yet offering no explanation as to where this creature is, what actual evidence we have of it,(other than hearsay,the bible)and why, if it was the author of intelligent design, it didn't get it right in the first place?Being as it's omnipotent and doesn't make mistakes, please explain disease, deformation, and death as evidence of an omnipotent being who cannot make mistakes?Surely he'd be able to design better creatures?


old pothead said:


> #2 Evolutionist claim that the presence of many individual species proves evolution.Evolutionist line up many pictures of similar looking species and claim they evolved one to another.Humans are a great example.There are hundreds of extinct monkeys and apes with lots of fossil records.Evolutionist line up the most promising choices to present a gradual progression from monkey to man.Then they fill in the gaps with make believe creatures to fit the picture.They can only do this with man,they never do this with elephants or giraffes.All they prove is there are many individual species and does not prove evolution.


Because noone knows for sure the exact conditions on earth at the time that life came about.Of course it cannot be replicated.Creationists cannot come up with irrefutable proof of their Creator's existence, and do not even attempt to explain.


old pothead said:


> #3 Scientists a century ago believed the smallest single living cell was a simple life form.The theory developed that perhaps lightning struck a pond of water causing several molecules to combine in a random way which by chance resulted in a living cell.The cell then divided and evolved into higher life forms.The most modern labs are unable to create a living cell.In fact they are unable to create a single left handed protein molecule found in all animals.


It's called mitochondrial DNA.You only get it from your mother. The rest is just nonsense.Environmental factors DO play a part in the development of offspring.To suggest they are unchanged by environmental factors is foolish.An extreme example would be deformities caused by pollution.The placenta is permeable.


old pothead said:


> #4 Evolutionist ignore the problem surrounding the human egg and the male sperm in evolutionary theory.The female egg contains the x chromosome and the male sperm contains either an x or y chromosome.The female eggs develop in the ovaries while it is a baby(fetus).Evolutionist claim that enviromental factors cause small changes in the offspring in the evolutionary chain.However,the enviromental experience of the female cannot change the chromosomes within her eggs and connot have any effect on her offspring.Her body cannot go into the eggs contained within her ovaries at her birth to make an intelligent change.Females cannot be a part of the evolutionary theory for these reasons.


Where did you get this nonsense from?It's called Natural selection.


old pothead said:


> #5 The scientific fact that DNA replication includes a built in error checking method and a DNA repair proces proves the evolutionary theory is wrong.The fact is that any attempt by the DNA to change is stopped and reversed.


Completely shows the author has no idea what the second law of thermodynamics is actually about.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics


old pothead said:


> #6 The second law of thermodynamics proves that organization cannot flow from chaos.Complex live organisms cannot rearrange themselfs into an organism of a higher form as claimed by evolutionist.This is scientifically backwards according to the second law of thermodynamics that has never been proven wrong.Scientists cannot have it both ways.The second law of thermodynamics is proven to be correct.Evolution lacks any scientific proof.Evolution is a empty theory.


Wrong again.Chromosomes change because they are made of DNA, and DNA Constantly changes. Evolutionists don't say we evolved from monkeys.They merely suggest we have a common ancestor.This is proof that just because you string a bunch of words together doesn't mean you have any idea what you're talking about.


old pothead said:


> #7Ther is no scientific evidence that a species can change the number of chromosomes within the DNA.The chromosomes within each species is fixed.This is the reason a male from one species cannot mate successfully with a female from another slecies.Man could not evolve from a monkey.Each species is locked into its chromosome count that cannot change.If a animal developed an extra chromosome or lost a chromosome because of some deformity,it could not successfully mate.The defect could not be passed along to the next generation.Evolving a new species is scientifically impossible.Evolutionists prove that a college education does not impart wisdom.


Right....no, evolutionists merely admit, noone knows for sure, and are unwilling to say something is fact without evidence pointing to that conclusion.Not so creationists.They're happy to tell you what happened, but give you no proof. If matter and energy must come from somewhere, you've defeated yourself.Because you cannot answer:Who created this creator?


old pothead said:


> #8 Evolutionists throw up their hands at the question of the origin of matter because they know something cannot evolve from nothing.They stick their heads in the sand and ignore the problem.The fact that matter exists in outrageously large quantities simply proves evolution is wrong.The big bang theory doesn't solve the problem either.Matter and energy have to come from somewhere.


FACT: Mars has NEVER had the exact conditions on it that earth has in it's past.Because it orbits farther from the sun, and has a weak magnetic field which does not hold a strong atmosphere.You're trying to compare apples and oranges.


old pothead said:


> #9 Two NASA land rovers named Spirit and Opportunity have explored mars during 2004.They show signs of water being present in the past.They prove that water was once abundant on the surface of mars,but they have not been able to find any signs of life or life in the past.Mars has a proven history of having flowing water at one time and a atmosphere suitable to support life forms.Mars has had all of the conditions necessary to provide the "spark" of life according to the evolutionary theory,yet there is no life on mars.The river beds and banks show no signs of vegetation or trees.The ground has no fossils and no organisms,it is sterile.


Now this one really takes the cake.We could probe for thousands of years and not even BEGIN to cover a significant portion of the Galaxy, let alone the universe.DO you realize how massive the Universe is? Just because you looked through a basket of red socks and found no white ones, you conclude, "White socks don't exist." Newsflash! There are 5,000,000,000,000 other baskets to go through!And each one of them contains 5,000,000,000,000,000 socks!


old pothead said:


> #10 Mars is not the only place that shows no signs of life.The entire universe lacks any sign of life.There are no radio signals that can be related to intelligent life forms.None of the billions of galaxies have been found to emit any intelligent radio signals.Scientists have been pointing every type of radio telescope possible into space for several decades in hopes of finding a intelligent signal,no signs of life have been found beyond earth.We are alone.OPH


----------



## Dr. Greenhorn (May 2, 2009)

WoW!!!! I'm really out of my league on this one......I'll just watch from the side LOL


----------



## old pothead (May 2, 2009)

Stoney McFried said:


> The bible also advocates slavery and misogyny.
> 
> Slavery which is not mentioned in the Bible and slave only once.Jer 2:14 Is Israel a servant,is he a homeborn slave,why is he spoiled.
> In Biblical times people SOLD THEMSELFS as servants to keep from starving and for protection.Many people did it because they owed a debt to someone and served as a servant to pay their debt.Everyone was considered a slave to their kings at the time.Even kings refered to themselfs as slaves to their country.When talking to people of higher rank they refered to themselfs as being their slave.Being a servant was not like a slave as seen in the south,where they had no freedoms at all.Do your research before before believing a bunch of bull.
> Show me where in the Bible it teaches us to hate women.Why would the Bible teach us to take a wife,if we are to hate women.OPH


----------



## Stoney McFried (May 2, 2009)

Pretty easy.Since I don't have the Bible memorized, I'll just grab some verses real quick.
Misogyny:
_"No wickedness comes anywhere near the wickedness of a woman.....Sin began with a woman and thanks to her we all must die" (Ecclesiasticus 25:19,24).

__"A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I don't permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner"
(I Timothy 2:11-14).
__"
The birth of a daughter is a loss" (Ecclesiasticus 22:3)._
_
Keep a headstrong daughter under firm control, or she will abuse any indulgence she receives. Keep a strict watch on her shameless eye, do not be surprised if she disgraces you" (Ecclesiasticus 26:10-11)._

_
"As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission as the law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church." (I Corinthians 14:34-35)
__
"When a woman has her regular flow of blood, the impurity of her monthly period will last seven days, and anyone who touches her will be unclean till evening. Anything she lies on during her period will be unclean, and anything she sits on will be unclean. Whoever touches her bed must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be unclean till evening. Whoever touches anything she sits on must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be unclean till evening. Whether it is the bed or anything she was sitting on, when anyone touches it, he will be unclean till evening" (Lev. 15:19-23).
__
"A bad wife brings humiliation, downcast looks, and a wounded heart. Slack of hand and weak of knee is the man whose wife fails to make him happy. Woman is the origin of sin, and it is through her that we all die. Do not leave a leaky cistern to drip or allow a bad wife to say what she likes. If she does not accept your control, divorce her and send her away" (Ecclesiasticus 25:25).


__
"Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is GodA man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head" (I Corinthians 11:3-10).

_

*Deuteronomy 22:20-21:* 
*If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the girl's virginity can be found*, she shall be brought to the door of her father's house and there *the men of her town shall stone her to death.* She has done a disgraceful thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father's house. You must purge the evil from among you. 
Slavery!

_However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. _ (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)





_If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the slave may plainly declare, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.' If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master forever._ (Exodus 21:2-6 NLT)




_When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment._ (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)



_When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property._ (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)

*Here's some rape!
Genesis 19:5-8:* 
They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so 
that we can have sex with them." 
Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him and said, "No, my friends. Don't do this wicked thing. *Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you,* *and you can do what you like with them. But don't do anything to these men*, for they have come under the protection of my roof."

(Judges 21:10-24 NLT) 
_ So they sent twelve thousand warriors to Jabesh-gilead with orders to kill everyone there, including women and children. "This is what you are to do," they said. "Completely destroy all the males and every woman who is not a virgin." Among the residents of Jabesh-gilead they found four hundred young virgins who had never slept with a man, and they brought them to the camp at Shiloh in the land of Canaan._

_ The Israelite assembly sent a peace delegation to the little remnant of Benjamin who were living at the rock of Rimmon. Then the men of Benjamin returned to their homes, and the four hundred women of Jabesh-gilead who were spared were given to them as wives. But there were not enough women for all of them. The people felt sorry for Benjamin because the LORD had left this gap in the tribes of Israel. So the Israelite leaders asked, "How can we find wives for the few who remain, since all the women of the tribe of Benjamin are dead? There must be heirs for the survivors so that an entire tribe of Israel will not be lost forever. But we cannot give them our own daughters in marriage because we have sworn with a solemn oath that anyone who does this will fall under God's curse."_

_ Then they thought of the annual festival of the LORD held in Shiloh, between Lebonah and Bethel, along the east side of the road that goes from Bethel to Shechem. They told the men of Benjamin who still needed wives, "Go and hide in the vineyards. When the women of Shiloh come out for their dances, rush out from the vineyards, and each of you can take one of them home to be your wife! And when their fathers and brothers come to us in protest, we will tell them, 'Please be understanding. Let them have your daughters, for we didn't find enough wives for them when we destroyed Jabesh-gilead. And you are not guilty of breaking the vow since you did not give your daughters in marriage to them.'" So the men of Benjamin did as they were told. They kidnapped the women who took part in the celebration and carried them off to the land of their own inheritance. Then they rebuilt their towns and lived in them. So the assembly of Israel departed by tribes and families, and they returned to their own homes._
 (Numbers 31:7-18 NLT) 
_ They attacked Midian just as the LORD had commanded Moses, and they killed all the men. All five of the Midianite kings  Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur, and Reba  died in the battle. They also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword. Then the Israelite army captured the Midianite women and children and seized their cattle and flocks and all their wealth as plunder. They burned all the towns and villages where the Midianites had lived. After they had gathered the plunder and captives, both people and animals, they brought them all to Moses and Eleazar the priest, and to the whole community of Israel, which was camped on the plains of Moab beside the Jordan River, across from Jericho. _

_ Moses, Eleazar the priest, and all the leaders of the people went to meet them outside the camp. But Moses was furious with all the military commanders who had returned from the battle. "Why have you let all the women live?" he demanded. "These are the very ones who followed Balaam's advice and caused the people of Israel to rebel against the LORD at Mount Peor. They are the ones who caused the plague to strike the LORD's people. Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man. Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves._



(Deuteronomy 20:10-14) 
_ As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you._

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT) 
_ If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her._

(Deuteronomy 22:23-24 NAB) 
_ If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, you shall bring them both out of the gate of the city and there stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbors wife._



_And hey! TO add insult to injury, God kills an innocent child!_




2 Samuel 12:11-14 NAB) 
_Thus says the Lord: 'I will bring evil upon you out of your own house. I will take your wives _[plural]_ while you live to see it, and will give them to your neighbor. He shall lie with your wives in broad daylight. You have done this deed in secret, but I will bring it about in the presence of all Israel, and with the sun looking down.'_
_ Then David said to Nathan, "I have sinned against the Lord." Nathan answered David: "The Lord on his part has forgiven your sin: you shall not die. But since you have utterly spurned the Lord by this deed, the child born to you must surely die_." [The child dies seven days later.]





old pothead said:


> Stoney McFried said:
> 
> 
> > The bible also advocates slavery and misogyny.
> ...


----------



## Stoney McFried (May 2, 2009)

And lo and behold...god's gonna get in on the action, too.


(Zechariah 14:1-2 NAB) 
 _Lo, a day shall come for the Lord when the spoils shall be divided in your midst. And I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem for battle: the city shall be taken, houses plundered, *women ravished*; half of the city shall go into exile, but the rest of the people shall not be removed from the city. _ (Zechariah 14:1-2 NAB)


----------



## old pothead (May 2, 2009)

bicycle racer said:


> it is very arrogant to assume we are the only living things in the universes it is vast beyond imagination and if you have to learn to be a good person from the bible something is wrong. i know many non religious people who are good people naturally. im neither religious nor an atheists but evolution does take place there are some aspects i disagree with but it is a basically sound theory and much easier to swallow than the crazy talk in the bible. an example of somewhat recent evolution would be the finches and tortoises on the various galapagos islands they have evolved to meet there needs through natural selection. its the same as cannabis cannabis evolved from 1 species humans spread the plant around the world now we have very different cannabis plants because of them adapting to the needs of there location as examples an african sativa is very different from a afghani indica where cannabis was originally from.


People are not born good or bad,it is something they are taught.It does not come natrually.
PROVE that the finches are not a single species,same with the tortoises.Show all of us the fossil records to PROVE your point.Believing the fairy tale of evolution without FACTS is arrogant.You did not read the scientific proof above to show you are wrong.
Theory:A hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation:an 
UNPROVED assumption,:CONJECTURE.OPH


----------



## Stoney McFried (May 2, 2009)

If you have anything else to say, I'll be back tomorrow.I've proven my point.


----------



## Stoney McFried (May 2, 2009)

Yup.The Bible cannot be proven.Creationism cannot be proven, does not hold up to scrutiny.therefore, it is discarded. And that essay you copied and pasted from that website is in no way scientifically accurate.It's so full of holes I'd have been embarrased to use it, were I fighting on the side of creationism.NOW.Since you attack evolution and expect us to explain ourselves, SHOW us the irrefutable evidence that proves Creationism.ANd you can't use the Bible, it's hearsay. Show us that all the fossils exist in a single layer.You can't.They don't. Show us the Garden of Eden.You can't.It "disappeared." Show us the evidence that proves without a doubt that a sentient being created the universe and everything within it,and show us proof that he exists.


old pothead said:


> People are not born good or bad,it is something they are taught.It does not come natrually.
> PROVE that the finches are not a single species,same with the tortoises.Show all of us the fossil records to PROVE your point.Believing the fairy tale of evolution without FACTS is arrogant.You did not read the scientific proof above to show you are wrong.
> Theory:A hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation:an
> UNPROVED assumption,:CONJECTURE.OPH


----------



## Dr. Greenhorn (May 2, 2009)

you're GOOD stoney,....real good


----------



## Stoney McFried (May 2, 2009)

Lol.Thanks. Like I said, I'll be back later, gonna take a nap.


Dr. Greenhorn said:


> you're GOOD stoney,....real good


----------



## Dr. Greenhorn (May 2, 2009)

I was reading an old post and I thought you were so funny about the wigs hiding the plants LOL still laughing.....then I seen another dude with the same avatar I'm running TIME FOR A CHANGE!! alohas!


----------



## bicycle racer (May 2, 2009)

the finches were originally identical 1 species they have changed physically very quickly(beak shape etc..) to meet there dietary requirements of the island there on thats my point thats an example of an organism evolving. they were originally identical and are now changing over generations to meet there needs based on which island there on in the galapagos chain. that shows a direct example of recent evolution of a species and natural selection this is where darwin did his original research on this subject. same thing with the tortoise population 1 species originally. separated on different islands changing quickly over generations to meet the required needs(longer necks etc...) to survive and reproduce its really very simple and easily observed in nature all over the world. science is not perfect our always right and cant explain all things but at least it involves critical thinking and is based on knowledge learned through trial and error. creationism is based on nothing more than faith and superstition and does not rely on anything more than that.


----------



## Hydrotech364 (May 2, 2009)

Until these recent years i believe man has always searched for a [Creator] like the old Frankenstein.It was a source of comfort and income,churches knock down serious non taxable funds.Here's one for you ,all cultures have a great flood in there history but most of the cultures lived.They found the crater that the meteor left for that one.Just the other day they found a meteorite that had amino acids.I believe in Science not a book written by jews then rewritten by a tyrant.Science is black and white fact.Not a book written by a human with no real evidence.I do believe that the ten commandments were a essential part of the work called the bible because they are a list of do's and dont's.Anyway thats my 2 cents peace.


----------



## TheHighClub (May 2, 2009)

I believe in the creation of this world, I am also open to the creation of other worlds, the universe is endless that is a hard concept to understand but I believe God created this world and would not be obligated to tell us about the fact that he created other worlds. Since the bible does not say that we are alone in the universe it leaves that open as a possibility and knowing how wonderfully complex the God that created this world is I would be surprised if there were other worlds.


----------



## GreatwhiteNorth (May 2, 2009)

TheHighClub said:


> I would be surprised if there were other worlds.


To be honest, I myself would be surprised to find that this world is the only creation of God.
Peace
GWN


----------



## TheHighClub (May 2, 2009)

GreatwhiteNorth said:


> To be honest, I myself would be surprised to find that this world is the only creation of God.
> Peace
> GWN


LOL sorry thats what I meant, I agree totally


----------



## Christafari (May 2, 2009)

i believe in evolution. Any creationists , just go watch the movie Religulous(but i bet you will just find some rationalization for each of the points made in the movie)


----------



## Dr. Greenhorn (May 2, 2009)

like your user name dude!!


----------



## hom36rown (May 2, 2009)

*Transition from primitive jawless fish to sharks, skates, and rays*



Late Silurian -- first little simple shark-like denticles.
Early Devonian -- first recognizable shark teeth, clearly derived from scales.
 GAP: Note that these first, very very old traces of shark-like animals are so fragmentary that we can't get much detailed information. So, we don't know which jawless fish was the actual ancestor of early sharks. 


_Cladoselache_ (late Devonian) -- Magnificent early shark fossils, found in Cleveland roadcuts during the construction of the U.S. interstate highways. Probably _not_ directly ancestral to sharks, but gives a remarkable picture of general early shark anatomy, down to the muscle fibers!
_Tristychius_ & similar hybodonts (early Mississippian) -- Primitive proto-sharks with broad-based but otherwise shark-like fins.
_Ctenacanthus_ & similar ctenacanthids (late Devonian) -- Primitive, slow sharks with broad-based shark-like fins & fin spines. Probably ancestral to all modern sharks, skates, and rays. Fragmentary fin spines (Triassic) -- from more advanced sharks.
_Paleospinax_ (early Jurassic) -- More advanced features such as detached upper jaw, but retains primitive ctenacanthid features such as two dorsal spines, primitive teeth, etc.
_Spathobatis_ (late Jurassic) -- First proto-ray.
_Protospinax_ (late Jurassic) -- A very early shark/skate. After this, first heterodonts, hexanchids, & nurse sharks appear (late Jurassic). Other shark groups date from the Cretaceous or Eocene. First true skates known from Upper Cretaceous.
 A separate lineage leads from the ctenacanthids through _Echinochimaera_ (late Mississippian) and _Similihari_ (late Pennsylvanian) to the modern ratfish. 
*Transition from from primitive jawless fish to bony fish*



Upper Silurian -- first little scales found.
 GAP: Once again, the first traces are so fragmentary that the actual ancestor can't be identified. 


Acanthodians(?) (Silurian) -- A puzzling group of spiny fish with similarities to early bony fish.
Palaeoniscoids (e.g. _Cheirolepis_, _Mimia_; early Devonian) -- Primitive bony ray-finned fishes that gave rise to the vast majority of living fish. Heavy acanthodian-type scales, acanthodian-like skull, and big notochord.
_Canobius_, _Aeduella_ (Carboniferous) -- Later paleoniscoids with smaller, more advanced jaws.
_Parasemionotus_ (early Triassic) -- "Holostean" fish with modified cheeks but still many primitive features. Almost exactly intermediate between the late paleoniscoids & first teleosts. Note: most of these fish lived in seasonal rivers and had lungs. Repeat: lungs first evolved in _fish_.
_Oreochima_ & similar pholidophorids (late Triassic) -- The most primitive teleosts, with lighter scales (almost cycloid), partially ossified vertebrae, more advanced cheeks & jaws.
_Leptolepis_ & similar leptolepids (Jurassic) -- More advanced with fully ossified vertebrae & cycloid scales. The Jurassic leptolepids radiated into the modern teleosts (the massive, successful group of fishes that are almost totally dominant today). Lung transformed into swim bladder.
 Eels & sardines date from the late Jurassic, salmonids from the Paleocene & Eocene, carp from the Cretaceous, and the great group of spiny teleosts from the Eocene. The first members of many of these families are known and are in the leptolepid family (note the inherent classification problem!). 
*Transition from primitive bony fish to amphibians*

Few people realize that the fish-amphibian transition was _not_ a transition from water to land. It was a transition from _fins to feet_ that took place _in the water_. The very first amphibians seem to have developed legs and feet to scud around on the bottom in the water, as some modern fish do, not to walk on land (see Edwards, 1989). This aquatic-feet stage meant the fins didn't have to change very quickly, the weight-bearing limb musculature didn't have to be very well developed, and the axial musculature didn't have to change at all. Recently found fragmented fossils from the middle Upper Devonian, and new discoveries of late Upper Devonian feet (see below), support this idea of an "aquatic feet" stage. Eventually, of course, amphibians _did_ move onto the land. This involved attaching the pelvis more firmly to the spine, and separating the shoulder from the skull. Lungs were not a problem, since lungs are an ancient fish trait and were present already. 


Paleoniscoids again (e.g. _Cheirolepis_) -- These ancient bony fish probably gave rise both to modern ray-finned fish (mentioned above), and also to the lobe-finned fish.
_Osteolepis_ (mid-Devonian) -- One of the earliest crossopterygian lobe-finned fishes, still sharing some characters with the lungfish (the other lobe-finned fishes). Had paired fins with a leg-like arrangement of major limb bones, capable of flexing at the "elbow", and had an early-amphibian-like skull and teeth.
_Eusthenopteron_, _Sterropterygion_ (mid-late Devonian) -- Early rhipidistian lobe-finned fish roughly intermediate between early crossopterygian fish and the earliest amphibians. _Eusthenopteron_ is best known, from an unusually complete fossil first found in 1881. Skull very amphibian-like. Strong amphibian- like backbone. Fins very like early amphibian feet in the overall layout of the major bones, muscle attachments, and bone processes, with tetrapod-like tetrahedral humerus, and tetrapod-like elbow and knee joints. But there are no perceptible "toes", just a set of identical fin rays. Body & skull proportions rather fishlike.
_Panderichthys_, _Elpistostege_ (mid-late Devonian, about 370 Ma) -- These "panderichthyids" are _very_ tetrapod-like lobe-finned fish. Unlike _Eusthenopteron_, these fish actually look like tetrapods in overall proportions (flattened bodies, dorsally placed orbits, frontal bones! in the skull, straight tails, etc.) and have remarkably foot-like fins.
Fragmented limbs and teeth from the middle Late Devonian (about 370 Ma), possibly belonging to _Obruchevichthys_ -- Discovered in 1991 in Scotland, these are the earliest known tetrapod remains. The humerus is mostly tetrapod-like but retains some fish features. The discoverer, Ahlberg (1991), said: "It [the humerus] is more tetrapod-like than any fish humerus, but lacks the characteristic early tetrapod 'L-shape'...this seems to be a primitive, fish-like character....although the tibia clearly belongs to a leg, the humerus differs enough from the early tetrapod pattern to make it uncertain whether the appendage carried digits or a fin. At first sight the combination of two such extremities in the same animal seems highly unlikely on functional grounds. If, however, tetrapod limbs evolved for aquatic rather than terrestrial locomotion, as recently suggested, such a morphology might be perfectly workable."
 GAP: Ideally, of course, we want an _entire_ skeleton from the middle Late Devonian, not just limb fragments. Nobody's found one yet. 


_Hynerpeton_, _Acanthostega_, and _Ichthyostega_ (late Devonian) -- A little later, the fin-to-foot transition was almost complete, and we have a set of early tetrapod fossils that clearly did have feet. The most complete are _Ichthyostega_, _Acanthostega gunnari_, and the newly described _Hynerpeton bassetti_ (Daeschler et al., 1994). (There are also other genera known from more fragmentary fossils.) _Hynerpeton_ is the earliest of these three genera (365 Ma), but is more advanced in some ways; the other two genera retained more fish- like characters longer than the _Hynerpeton_ lineage did.
Labyrinthodonts (eg _Pholidogaster_, _Pteroplax_) (late Dev./early Miss.) -- These larger amphibians still have some icthyostegid fish features, such as skull bone patterns, labyrinthine tooth dentine, presence & pattern of large palatal tusks, the fish skull hinge, pieces of gill structure between cheek & shoulder, and the vertebral structure. But they have lost several other fish features: the fin rays in the tail are gone, the vertebrae are stronger and interlocking, the nasal passage for air intake is well defined, etc.
*Transitions among amphibians*



Temnospondyls, e.g _Pholidogaster_ (Mississippian, about 330 Ma) -- A group of large labrinthodont amphibians, transitional between the early amphibians (the ichthyostegids, described above) and later amphibians such as rhachitomes and anthracosaurs. Probably also gave rise to modern amphibians (the Lissamphibia) via this chain of six temnospondyl genera , showing progressive modification of the palate, dentition, ear, and pectoral girdle, with steady reduction in body size (Milner, in Benton 198. Notice, though, that the times are out of order, though they are all from the Pennsylvanian and early Permian. Either some of the "Permian" genera arose earlier, in the Pennsylvanian (quite likely), and/or some of these genera are "cousins", not direct ancestors (also quite likely).
_Dendrerpeton acadianum_ (early Penn.) -- 4-toed hand, ribs straight, etc.
_Archegosaurus decheni_ (early Permian) -- Intertemporals lost, etc.
_Eryops megacephalus_ (late Penn.) -- Occipital condyle splitting in 2, etc.
_Trematops_ spp. (late Permian) -- Eardrum like modern amphibians, etc.
_Amphibamus lyelli_ (mid-Penn.) -- Double occipital condyles, ribs very small, etc.
_Doleserpeton annectens_ or perhaps _Schoenfelderpeton_ (both early Permian) -- First pedicellate teeth! (a classic trait of modern amphibians) etc.
 From there we jump to the Mesozoic: 


_Triadobatrachus_ (early Triassic) -- a proto-frog, with a longer trunk and much less specialized hipbone, and a tail still present (but very short).
_Vieraella_ (early Jurassic) -- first known true frog.
_Karaurus_ (early Jurassic) -- first known salamander.
 Finally, here's a recently found fossil: 


Unnamed proto-anthracosaur -- described by Bolt et al., 1988. This animal combines primitive features of palaeostegalians (e.g. temnospondyl-like vertebrae) with new anthracosaur-like features. Anthracosaurs were the group of large amphibians that are thought to have led, eventually, to the reptiles. Found in a new Lower Carboniferous site in Iowa, from about 320 Ma.
*Transition from amphibians to amniotes (first reptiles)*

The major functional difference between the ancient, large amphibians and the first little reptiles is the amniotic egg. Additional differences include stronger legs and girdles, different vertebrae, and stronger jaw muscles. For more info, see Carroll (198 and Gauthier et al. (in Benton, 198 


_Proterogyrinus_ or another early anthracosaur (late Mississippian) -- Classic labyrinthodont-amphibian skull and teeth, but with reptilian vertebrae, pelvis, humerus, and digits. Still has fish skull hinge. Amphibian ankle. 5-toed hand and a 2-3-4-5-3 (almost reptilian) phalangeal count.
_Limnoscelis_, _Tseajaia_ (late Carboniferous) -- Amphibians apparently derived from the early anthracosaurs, but with additional reptilian features: structure of braincase, reptilian jaw muscle, expanded neural arches.
_Solenodonsaurus_ (mid-Pennsylvanian) -- An incomplete fossil, apparently between the anthracosaurs and the cotylosaurs. Loss of palatal fangs, loss of lateral line on head, etc. Still just a single sacral vertebra, though.
_Hylonomus_, _Paleothyris_ (early Pennsylvanian) -- These are protorothyrids, very early cotylosaurs (primitive reptiles). They were quite little, lizard-sized animals with amphibian-like skulls (amphibian pineal opening, dermal bone, etc.), shoulder, pelvis, & limbs, and intermediate teeth and vertebrae. Rest of skeleton reptilian, with reptilian jaw muscle, no palatal fangs, and spool-shaped vertebral centra. Probably no eardrum yet. Many of these new "reptilian" features are also seen in _little_ amphibians (which also sometimes have direct-developing eggs laid on land), so perhaps these features just came along with the small body size of the first reptiles.
 The ancestral amphibians had a rather weak skull and paired "aortas" (systemic arches). The first reptiles immediately split into two major lines which modified these traits in different ways. One line developed an aorta on the right side and strengthened the skull by swinging the quadrate bone down and forward, resulting in an enormous otic notch (and allowed the later development of good hearing without much further modification). This group further split into three major groups, easily recognizable by the number of holes or "fenestrae" in the side of the skull: the anapsids (no fenestrae), which produced the turtles; the diapsids (two fenestrae), which produced the dinosaurs and birds; and an offshoot group, the eurapsids (two fenestrae fused into one), which produced the ichthyosaurs. 
The other major line of reptiles developed an aorta on left side only, and strengthened the skull by moving the quadrate bone up and back, obliterating the otic notch (making involvement of the jaw essential in the later development of good hearing). They developed a single fenestra per side. This group was the synapsid reptiles. They took a radically different path than the other reptiles, involving homeothermy, a larger brain, better hearing and more efficient teeth. One group of synapsids called the "therapsids" took these changes particularly far, and apparently produced the mammals.
*Some transitions among reptiles*

I will review just a couple of the reptile phylogenies, since there are so many.... Early reptiles to turtles: (Also see Gaffney & Meylan, in Benton 198 


_Captorhinus_ (early-mid Permain) -- Immediate descendent of the protorothryids.
 Here we come to a controversy; there are two related groups of early anapsids, both descended from the captorhinids, that could have been ancestral to turtles. Reisz & Laurin (1991, 1993) believe the turtles descended from procolophonids, late Permian anapsids that had various turtle-like skull features. Others, particularly Lee (1993) think the turtle ancestors are pareiasaurs: 


_Scutosaurus_ and other pareiasaurs (mid-Permian) -- Large bulky herbivorous reptiles with turtle-like skull features. Several genera had bony plates in the skin, possibly the first signs of a turtle shell.
_Deltavjatia vjatkensis_ (Permian) -- A recently discovered pareiasaur with numerous turtle-like skull features (e.g., a very high palate), limbs, and girdles, and lateral projections flaring out some of the vertebrae in a very shell-like way. (Lee, 1993)
_Proganochelys_ (late Triassic) -- a primitive turtle, with a fully turtle-like skull, beak, and shell, but with some primitive traits such as rows of little palatal teeth, a still-recognizable clavicle, a simple captorhinid-type jaw musculature, a primitive captorhinid- type ear, a non-retractable neck, etc..
Recently discovered turtles from the early Jurassic, not yet described.
 Mid-Jurassic turtles had already divided into the two main groups of modern turtles, the side-necked turtles and the arch-necked turtles. Obviously these two groups developed neck retraction separately, and came up with totally different solutions. In fact the first known arch-necked turtles, from the Late Jurassic, could not retract their necks, and only later did their descendents develop the archable neck. Early reptiles to diapsids: (see Evans, in Benton 1988, for more info) 


_Hylonomus_, _Paleothyris_ (early Penn.) -- The primitive amniotes described above
_Petrolacosaurus_, _Araeoscelis_ (late Pennsylvanian) -- First known diapsids. Both temporal fenestra now present. No significant change in jaw muscles. Have Hylonomus-style teeth, with many small marginal teeth & two slightly larger canines. Still no eardrum.
_Apsisaurus_ (early Permian) -- A more typical diapsid. Lost canines. (Laurin, 1991)
 GAP: no diapsid fossils from the mid-Permian. 


_Claudiosaurus_ (late Permian) -- An early diapsid with several neodiapsid traits, but still had primitive cervical vertebrae & unossified sternum. probably close to the ancestry of all diapsides (the lizards & snakes & crocs & birds).
_Planocephalosaurus_(early Triassic) -- Further along the line that produced the lizards and snakes. Loss of some skull bones, teeth, toe bones.
_Protorosaurus_, _Prolacerta_ (early Triassic) -- Possibly among the very first archosaurs, the line that produced dinos, crocs, and birds. May be "cousins" to the archosaurs, though.
_Proterosuchus_ (early Triassic) -- First known archosaur.
_Hyperodapedon_, _Trilophosaurus_ (late Triassic) -- Early archosaurs.


----------



## bicycle racer (May 2, 2009)

i dont know why i click on these threads i should no better by now. it seems people respond without reading through.


----------



## hom36rown (May 2, 2009)

It goes on but you get the idea...I dont understand how people say there are no transition fossils


----------



## bicycle racer (May 2, 2009)

yeah like i said science is not perfect. but religion and its explanations or more importantly lack there of are a joke and only cause problems amongst people sad.


----------



## old pothead (May 3, 2009)

Stoney McFried said:


> Whenever someone asks for proof that evolution occurs, I usually point to this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walking_catfishThe walking catfish is a fish which has adapted to its environment by evolving the ability to walk on its fins for short distances to find more water.It tends to live in seasonal puddles and ponds, and sometimes that water will dry up or become devoid of food.It is in the middle of the transition to land animal.
> Even if you look at apes, you can see that they are most definitely in the same genus as us.Evolution isn't saying we're descended directly from these apes, just that we share a common ancestor.
> Just look at Neanderthal man... not homo sapiens sapiens,but certainly related. Their DNA is slightly different.
> Science and religion are at odds because one, science,seeks to question and disprove itself in order to eliminate faulty data and reach the real truth. The other, religion,wants you to believe in what it teaches without question and without proof.It seeks to place all human minds into a mindset which does not deviate,nor even conceive of any other ideology but the one they have been taught.
> If anything, anyone who will not at least admit the possibility that there is evolution is doing themselves a great disservice.Because nature teaches us that change is constant and inevitable.Those who do not change, die.By refusing to question things,by not actively ADAPTING your mind to admit to the possibility there is no benevolent being tending the fire at the end of the universe,you are stagnating.Holding yourself back.And religion has accomplished its goal.To make you afraid,and therefore,controllable.Sorry for the rant.


 How can you take one species and call it evolution,it is a seperate species.Not evolution.That is like picking out the pladipus and calling it a evolutionary animal.OPH


----------



## old pothead (May 3, 2009)

Stoney McFried said:


> Pretty easy.Since I don't have the Bible memorized, I'll just grab some verses real quick.
> Misogyny:
> _"No wickedness comes anywhere near the wickedness of a woman.....Sin began with a woman and thanks to her we all must die" (Ecclesiasticus 25:19,24)._
> 
> ...


----------



## bicycle racer (May 3, 2009)

old pothead said:


> Stoney McFried said:
> 
> 
> > Pretty easy.Since I don't have the Bible memorized, I'll just grab some verses real quick.
> ...


----------



## Stoney McFried (May 3, 2009)

The bible is hearsay. However, before 4000 BC, there wasn't any paper.So we have cave paintings.And carbon dating.And ritual tools, weapons,pots,etc....all have been found predating 4000 bc. As to why mankind hasn't advanced further...you can thank religion for holding science back.It used to be an offense punishable by death to suggest the world was round.Because religious leaders knew if man really started to understand how nature really worked,he'd realize the god of the bible was nothing more than a boogeyman.


GreatwhiteNorth said:


> The Bible records the beginning of mankind at about 4,000 B.C., and secular history is eerily silent before 4,000 B.C. If I were an evolutionist, I would be extremely disturbed by this FACT. Please show me any _recorded civilization _before 4,000 B.C. and I don't mean some pottery shards or cave paintings. I would be very interested in any recorded evidence of civilization prior to 4,000 B.C. It can't be done, and in fact it is difficult to find much recorded history before 2,500 B.C.
> 
> I guess the long and short of this dissertation is that Darwin himself contradicted his own theory of natural selection by stating that our own ocular organs could have not occurred through natural selection  thus the entire theory of evolution/natural selection implodes upon itself.
> Peace
> GWN


----------



## Stoney McFried (May 3, 2009)

Uh...there are other examples, pothead.I don't have to list them all.


old pothead said:


> How can you take one species and call it evolution,it is a seperate species.Not evolution.That is like picking out the pladipus and calling it a evolutionary animal.OPH


Oh, bullshit, man.Seriously, you think everybody willingly became slaves?Now who's reading only what they want to?No, the man is not the head of the house in marriage,it should be equal.You're just hopelessly behind the times. If you're talking old testament, oh yes indeed,there was slavery.See, the thing is, you don't even know what version of the Bible to cling to, because it's been revised and heavily edited by so many, the original can never be determined.Your god is a boogeyman.Plain and simple.As children, the boogeyman is real to us..until we learn he's only real as long as we believe it.Your religion has been responsible for murder, rape,and the oppression of women,science and advancement of mankind.It's dying a slow death and I'm glad.


old pothead said:


> Yes Eve sinned,she tempted Adam with the apple,the result of sin(breaking the law)is death.It would have been the same if Adam would have tempted Eve.
> Eve sinned,God could not trust Eve because of it.She brought it on herself.don't sin.
> Back then a son was a extra hand to help work,a daughter was a extra mouth to feed.
> Plese,that verse is about how to raise your daughter and keep her out of trouble.
> ...


Because OPH said there was no misogyny in the bible.


bicycle racer said:


> old pothead said:
> 
> 
> > what was all this posted for?


----------



## jfgordon1 (May 3, 2009)

> Oh, bullshit, man.Seriously, you think everybody willingly became slaves?Now who's reading only what they want to?No, the man is not the head of the house in marriage,it should be equal.You're just hopelessly behind the times. If you're talking old testament, oh yes indeed,there was slavery.See, the thing is, you don't even know what version of the Bible to cling to, because it's been revised and heavily edited by so many, the original can never be determined.Your god is a boogeyman.Plain and simple.As children, the boogeyman is real to us..until we learn he's only real as long as we believe it.Your religion has been responsible for murder, rape,and the oppression of women,science and advancement of mankind.It's dying a slow death and I'm glad.


you go girl


----------



## blind2reason (May 3, 2009)

This has turned from a debate to an attack on God. Your tactics are brute force and they are based in anger. Your signature reveals all too plainly that you have a personal vendetta with God, but that is not a just reason to assault others who do believe. 

Christians rely heavily on the new testament instead of the old and the majority of the bible quotes you have taken off of your feminist websites and posted here are based from the old testament. Why do you think so many Jews were pissed about Jesus' teachings? He went against almost all of the old practices and traditions in the old testament. But that is all they were, traditions. 

We (The United States) used to have the tradition and practice of slavery and only counting women as second class citizens. It took innovation and education to have our views changed. The funny thing is, I do believe in evolution... The evolution of the church. 

As we as a people gain a better understanding of our surroundings we amend our beliefs and change our views accordingly. We are not perfect. We do not have all answers. But the answers we do have to offer, if you choose to accept them have provided me with a peace of mind knowing that there will be an afterlife and has given my life structure.

By no means do I intend to push my views on anyone, but I will defend mine. Change the attacks back to debates and lets make this thread enjoyable again.

PS- Why are we sourcing Wikipedia? You all should really know better, that is not a legitimate resource for quotable information.

I'll probably make enemies with this post, but you'll get over it.

-Blind


----------



## jfgordon1 (May 3, 2009)

blind2reason said:


> PS- Why are we sourcing Wikipedia? You all should really know better, that is not a legitimate resource for quotable information.
> 
> I'll probably make enemies with this post, but you'll get over it.
> 
> -Blind





> *Wikipedia is about as good a source of accurate information as Britannica, the venerable standard-bearer of facts about the world around us, according to a study published this week in the journal Nature. *


*

*Wikipedia isn't a bad source at all. it gets a bad wrap. do some research ...
source: http://news.cnet.com/Study-Wikipedia-as-accurate-as-Britannica/2100-1038_3-5997332.html

and you might want to do some research about the "Bible" too. You might not like what you see. However, i appreciate you not pushing your views on others...


----------



## Stoney McFried (May 3, 2009)

Uh.I'm not attacking anyone.There was no name calling,thank you very much.You have no idea whether I'm angry or not(and I'm not) but I WILL call bullshit when I see it.
I don't care if it's the new or old testament,it's all a farce.And to have a HOLY book which is supposedly the word of "god" revised so heavily,edited, and changed in order to make it more palatable only serves to further discredit it.News flash.The bible was translated from Hebrew to Latin, then to English, etc.So the moment it was translated, mistakes were made.It was further revised by King James, the Gideons, the Mormons, and anyone else who could get their hands on it.Jesus simply didn't exist.Period.There is no evidence of him. None of the people who said they knew him actually lived during his time.The Romans did not record his execution, and Pontius Pilate WAS A ROMAN.Now, please don't bring up Josephus, or the *Testimonium Flavianum,
because they have never been proven, and are in fact suspected of being forgeries.



*And Wikipedia can be a fine source,but I don't believe I used it here.
One more thing.If you're a Christian using the King James version of the bible, that's exactly what you're using. King James' version.


blind2reason said:


> This has turned from a debate to an attack on God. Your tactics are brute force and they are based in anger. Your signature reveals all too plainly that you have a personal vendetta with God, but that is not a just reason to assault others who do believe.





blind2reason said:


> Christians rely heavily on the new testament instead of the old and the majority of the bible quotes you have taken off of your feminist websites and posted here are based from the old testament. Why do you think so many Jews were pissed about Jesus' teachings? He went against almost all of the old practices and traditions in the old testament. But that is all they were, traditions.
> 
> We (The United States) used to have the tradition and practice of slavery and only counting women as second class citizens. It took innovation and education to have our views changed. The funny thing is, I do believe in evolution... The evolution of the church.
> 
> ...


----------



## phreakygoat (May 3, 2009)

I think any organized religion is the result of attempting to apply logic to the animal, instinctual spirituality we all share in different degrees. There are obviously faults with every religious book, and within every religious or non-religious person, so why try to define the undefinable while still allowing these faults to dilute the argument? Even if there is a higher power, attempting to approach it as a peer (by making your own assertions about some ancient text) is totally self-canceling. Understand your innate lack of understanding, and be free of the useless quest for rationalization.


----------



## Stoney McFried (May 3, 2009)

A good post. The thing that gets my goat is that Creationists use the Bible as their source of info.If you ask them to prove it,they loop right back to the Bible.


phreakygoat said:


> I think any organized religion is the result of attempting to apply logic to the animal, instinctual spirituality we all share in different degrees. There are obviously faults with every religious book, and within every religious or non-religious person, so why try to define the undefinable while still allowing these faults to dilute the argument? Even if there is a higher power, attempting to approach it as a peer (by making your own assertions about some ancient text) is totally self-canceling. Understand your innate lack of understanding, and be free of the useless quest for rationalization.


----------



## blind2reason (May 3, 2009)

TheHighClub said:


> lets be mature here just explain how you believe the world came to be and well....weed where did it come from and why is it here? was it created, evolved, planted by space aliens, really what do you think?


That is the topic of this thread, we are here to discuss what it is we believe in regards to how the world came to be, not the credibility of the bible, that has never been the argument. The only reference to the bible I made was to point out that all of your references in regards to the maltreatment of women came from the old testament. Your remarks about the Bible's credibility is irrelevant to this thread.



Stoney McFried said:


> Uh.I'm not attacking anyone.


Hmm...


Stoney McFried said:


> Jesus simply didn't exist.Period.


I think you misinterpreted what I meant by attacking. Call me every name in the book if you want to, that's called flaming not attacking. Your statement is challenging my belief. The whole point of beliefs is that they are what you believe and for you to challenge that is an attack on my faith.

I don't have a problem with people not believing in Jesus Christ, to each their own. I do have a problem with people bashing my faith because they did not reach the same conclusion I did. 

You are more than welcome to your opinion, you can even say you don't believe in Jesus Christ, but you do not have anything substantial enough to discredit his existence so saying that he never was is neither based on faith or fact.

The Wikipedia comment was not directed at you, I was looking at the posts of others and saw a lot of people referencing it. I dunno, information that can be edited and changed by anyone... I was always taught from college on down to never use Wikipedia as a source. 

What it all comes down to in the end is morality and morality is not constrained by religious beliefs (or lack there of)... Now I'm off topic.

So here is what I believe.

I believe in Creation. I believe there is a greater being that is responsible for everything that was and is. I believe he made everything that is both good and bad. I believe that natural selection has played a major role in the development of each species, although not to the extent of evolving from a fish. The way I perceive it is that desired characteristics were kept and strengthened and the non desired characteristics were discarded and weakened. I do believe there could be other life out there in the universe, but I don't think we were put here by aliens. 

Where did weed come from... well let me quote the bible here.

On the seventh day God saw all that he had created and needed to rest, so God invented weed, and it was good weed, like really good weed. God proceeded to eat everything in the Garden of Eden leaving only the forbidden fruit for Adam and Eve.

-The Gospel of Blind


----------



## blind2reason (May 3, 2009)

Sorry for this addtional post. It's the only way I can figure out to subscribe to this thread. I truly am enjoying this discussion and think you all are great people despite our differences.


----------



## rev3la7ion (May 3, 2009)

GreatwhiteNorth said:


> I will not dispute the occurrence of minute changes (aka evolving) that many life forms exhibit, however even the irrefutable proof of natural selection under the glare of modern day science wanes into speculation or an academic guessing game at best. I still have yet to see an alligator with a single feather, or any other proof that one species can "evolve" into another. If there is one out there that Im unaware of please set me straight.



You really need to go to http://www.talkorigins.org/




GreatwhiteNorth said:


> The Bible records the beginning of mankind at about 4,000 B.C., and secular history is eerily silent before 4,000 B.C. If I were an evolutionist, I would be extremely disturbed by this FACT. Please show me any _recorded civilization _before 4,000 B.C. and I don't mean some pottery shards or cave paintings. I would be very interested in any recorded evidence of civilization prior to 4,000 B.C. It can't be done, and in fact it is difficult to find much recorded history before 2,500 B.C.
> These facts absolutely scream discrepancy - I would be floored to find that humans only learned to communicate/write less than 4000 years ago and now we are sending super computers the size of a pack of cigarettes into space? I find that less than a compelling argument. There were NO planes, cars, computers, refrigerators, electricity, lights, gas, powered-equipment, telephones, recording devices, CD players, MP3 players, electric razors, televisions, record players, movie cameras, or a million other modern technological inventions--just a mere 170 years ago. Civilization has advanced from utter primitiveness to incredible mind-boggling achievements in just a little over 100 years. So why didn't mankind discover any of this stuff 100,000,000 years ago, or 100,000 years ago for that matter?




Once again, you show your ignorance on the entire subject. Over 10,000 years ago we have hieroglyphs etched in pyramid walls. When we use radioactive dating we find that the few "dates" we find generally coincide with what we test.

Secondly, did you know that we recently uncovered an ancient battery? It was a clay pot with a core that could store a charge. This was found over in the middle east.



GreatwhiteNorth said:


> In his pivotal opus _Origin of Species_ (1859) Darwin presented various evidences for proof of evolution. Among these he sited domestic breeding, anatomical similarities among species (homology), the sequential order of fossils, the presence of vestigial organs, and the natural phenomenon which he dubbed natural selection.
> 
> In the century-and-a-half since Darwin published his work, advances in science have made some of these various evidences for evolution dubious. For example, in Darwins day it was believed that there were dozens of vestigial organs in the human body. Estimates have ranged from 80 to 200. Scientists at the time did not know what purpose these organs served so they assumed that they were useless vestiges from our evolutionary past. One-hundred fifty years later, only a handful of so-called vestigial organs remain. Scientists have discovered biological functions for the rest. Moreover, critics of Darwins theory point out that if vestigial organs are truly useless, the progression is towards a loss of function, not new function. Darwinian evolution requires biological innovation.



And therein lies the beauty of science. It's always correcting itself when presented with new data. Just because scientists could not explain what certain organs did at the time doesn't mean they didn't have a purpose. Hence the reason they called them vestigial. And just like you said, in light of more information that has been gathered over time, we now know pretty much what everything in our body does now. We can determine what is vestigial and what isn't now that we're that much closer to the complete picture.




GreatwhiteNorth said:


> Advances in genetics have also shown new light upon the dynamics of homology (anatomical similarities among species) and domestic breeding (the ability of breeders to produce dramatic changes in domestic animal populations by selecting individuals to breed, thereby suppressing and emphasizing traits gradually over time). It is now known that structural similarities do not necessary equal genetic relationship and there appear to be genetic limits to the potential for biological change. A bird can adapt to its environment to a certain degree but it is extremely doubtful that it could cross genetic boundaries to evolve into a reptile, for example.



Honestly, this is getting old so I'm going to let you read up on this at talkorigins.org




GreatwhiteNorth said:


> Advocates for Darwinian evolution believe that genetics have provided a new mechanism for biological innovation in the form of genetic mutation. The incorporation of genetics into Darwinian evolution has produced what is now known as the Neo-Darwinian Synthesis. Nevertheless, the debate rages on whether or not mutations simply destroy existing genetic structure or whether they can provide new genetic information, which Darwinian evolution requires. While Darwinian evolution remains the dominant biological paradigm, there is a growing minority of scientists who are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged. (From _A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism,_ signed by over 680 Ph.D. scientists.)



  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ty1Bo6GmPqM





GreatwhiteNorth said:


> *Darwin**'s Theory of Evolution - The Premise
> **Darwin**'s Theory of Evolution is the widely held notion that all life is related and has descended from a common ancestor: the birds and the bananas, the fishes and the flowers -- all related. **Darwin**'s general theory presumes the development of life from non-life and stresses a purely naturalistic (undirected) "descent with modification". That is, complex creatures evolve from more simplistic ancestors naturally over time. In a nutshell, as random genetic mutations occur within an organism's genetic code, the beneficial mutations are preserved because they aid survival -- a process known as "natural selection." These beneficial mutations are passed on to the next generation. Over time, beneficial mutations accumulate and the result is an entirely different organism (not just a variation of the original, but an entirely different creature). *
> *Darwin**'s Theory of Evolution - Natural Selection*
> While Darwin's Theory of Evolution is a relatively young archetype, the evolutionary worldview itself is as old as antiquity. Ancient Greek philosophers such as Anaximander postulated the development of life from non-life and the evolutionary descent of man from animal. Charles Darwin simply brought something new to the old philosophy -- a plausible mechanism called "natural selection." Natural selection acts to preserve and accumulate minor advantageous genetic mutations. Suppose a member of a species developed a functional advantage (it grew wings and learned to fly). Its offspring would inherit that advantage and pass it on to their offspring. The inferior (disadvantaged) members of the same species would gradually die out, leaving only the superior (advantaged) members of the species. Natural selection is the preservation of a functional advantage that enables a species to compete better in the wild. Natural selection is the naturalistic equivalent to domestic breeding. Over the centuries, human breeders have produced dramatic changes in domestic animal populations by selecting individuals to breed. Breeders eliminate undesirable traits gradually over time. Similarly, natural selection eliminates inferior species gradually over time.
> ...



This a VERY over-simplified explanation of evolution.





GreatwhiteNorth said:


> And we don't need a microscope to observe irreducible complexity. The eye, the ear and the heart are all examples of irreducible complexity, though they were not recognized as such in Darwin's day. Nevertheless, *Darwin** confessed, "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."*


Read the rest of the quote. Most people don't think so but it's completely taken out of context. For time's sake, here it is:




Darwin said:


> [FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]*To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree.*[/FONT]
> [FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated; but I may remark that several facts make me suspect that any sensitive nerve may be rendered sensitive to light, and likewise to those coarser vibrations of the air which produce sound. (Darwin 1872, 143-144) [/FONT]







GreatwhiteNorth said:


> I guess the long and short of this dissertation is that Darwin himself contradicted his own theory of natural selection by stating that our own ocular organs could have not occurred through natural selection  thus the entire theory of evolution/natural selection implodes upon itself.
> Peace
> GWN


Way to go.


----------



## Stoney McFried (May 4, 2009)

No, it's not irrelevant, because the whole theory of creationism is pushed by evangelical Christians.The Bible is what they base it all on.You don't see Wiccans and Buddhists yelling for creationism to be taught, do you?


blind2reason said:


> That is the topic of this thread, we are here to discuss what it is we believe in regards to how the world came to be, not the credibility of the bible, that has never been the argument. The only reference to the bible I made was to point out that all of your references in regards to the maltreatment of women came from the old testament. Your remarks about the Bible's credibility is irrelevant to this thread.



Well, if you didn't have a problem, why must it be taught in schools?This thread is for the debate of creationism and evolution.It's gonna get heated.As long as there are no personal attacks, it's within the rules.So put on your debate panties and prepare to be disagreed with. And no, he didn't exist.There is no verifiable historical record of him.I don't need to make anything up,it's all out there.


blind2reason said:


> Hmm...
> 
> 
> I think you misinterpreted what I meant by attacking. Call me every name in the book if you want to, that's called flaming not attacking. Your statement is challenging my belief. The whole point of beliefs is that they are what you believe and for you to challenge that is an attack on my faith.
> ...


It's fine to believe what you believe.It's when people try to tell me something absolutely IS when it's clear to me it ISN'T, that I explain exactly why I think they're wrong.That's what you do in a debate.You nullify the opposition's arguments and present your own.


blind2reason said:


> The Wikipedia comment was not directed at you, I was looking at the posts of others and saw a lot of people referencing it. I dunno, information that can be edited and changed by anyone... I was always taught from college on down to never use Wikipedia as a source.
> 
> What it all comes down to in the end is morality and morality is not constrained by religious beliefs (or lack there of)... Now I'm off topic.
> 
> ...


----------



## phreakygoat (May 4, 2009)

ech, it pains me to see people quoting or referencing Darwin as though we haven't moved way the fuck past his original theories (within the science of evolution). He's old business, the future is now, lol. Stoney, you hit the nail on the head beautifully otherwise, as Knowm would say, iloveyou.


----------



## monstrgonja (May 4, 2009)

look up sumarians and the annunaki on you tube. its pretty interesting.


----------



## bicycle racer (May 4, 2009)

umm what? the eye started as a light sensing organ and improved from there to the state its in. there are many organisms who have 'eyes' to varying degrees of biological development. let me repeat im not an atheist i feel they cant see the forest for the trees. but use your head the bibles explanation are 1000s of years out of date.


----------



## poplars (May 5, 2009)

cannabinoid receptors and cannabis are direct evidence of evolution .


----------



## bicycle racer (May 5, 2009)

evolution has its holes and flaws but its a step towards understanding things in a manner beyond blind faith.


----------



## bicycle racer (May 5, 2009)

i only referenced darwin to point out the studies of the finches and tortoises of the galapagos chain its a good simple example anyone can understand of evolution in action.


----------



## phreakygoat (May 5, 2009)

nah, I didn't really mean it was dumb using him as a reference, moreso that others like to disprove darwin to attempt to disprove evolution. his work is still exhilerating and inspirational. srry for the misclarification


----------



## bicycle racer (May 5, 2009)

i get what your saying any little discrepancy with these theory's and the religious people will launch an uneducated blind attack. its funny though because there whole faith is based on blatant discrepancy's misinformation and lies based on controlling people.


----------



## Stoney McFried (May 5, 2009)

*
*

*Helping Christians Reconcile God With Science*


For many young Christians, the moment they first notice discrepancies in the Biblical tales they've faithfully studied is a rite of passage: e.g., _if Adam and Eve were the first humans, and they had two sons - where did Cain's wife come from?_ The revelation that everything in the Bible may not have happened exactly as written can be startling. And when the discovery comes along with scientific evidence of evolution and the actual age of planet Earth, it can prompt a full-blown spiritual crisis. 
That's where Francis Collins would like to step in. A renowned geneticist and former director of the Human Genome Project, Collins is also an evangelical Christian who was the keynote speaker at the 2007 National Prayer Breakfast, and he has spent years establishing the compatibility between science and religious belief. And this week he unveiled a new initiative to guide Christians through scientific questions while holding firm to their faith. (Finding God on YouTube)
After his best-selling _The Language of God_ came out three years ago, Collins began receiving thousands of e-mails - primarily from other Evangelicals - asking questions about how to reconcile scriptural teachings with scientific evidence. "Many of these Christians have been taught that evolution is wrong," Collins explains. "They go to college and get exposed to data, and then they're thrust into personal crises of great intensity. If the church was wrong about the origins of life, was it wrong about everything? Some of them walk away from science or faith - or both."
Collins, 59, who with his mustache and shock of gray hair looks like former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton's cheerful twin, seems genuinely pained by the idea that science could be viewed as a threat to religion, or religion to science. And so he decided to gather a group of theologians and scientists to create the BioLogos Foundation in order to foster dialogue between the two sides. The name - combining _bios_ (Greek for "life") and _logos_ ("the word") - is also what Collins calls his blended theory of evolution and creation, an approach he hopes can replace intelligent design, which he derides as "not a scientific proposal" and "not good theology either."
Through the Washington-based foundation, Collins says he and his colleagues hope to support scholarship that "takes seriously the claims of both faith and science." Its online component, biologos.org, is designed to be a resource for skeptics and nonbelievers who are interested in religious arguments for God's existence. But the primary audience for BioLogos is Collins' own Evangelical community. 
As he read through the thousands of e-mails he received from readers of his book, the former NIH scientist noticed that there were 25 or so common questions that his mostly Evangelical correspondents raised. How should Christians respond to Darwin? If God created the universe, who or what created God? Does believing in science mean one can't believe in miracles? What is up with Noah's Ark and the flood? The new website offers answers to these vexing questions and, through those responses lays out the BioLogos theory that God chose to create the world by way of evolution. (Collins plans to build on that work by developing a home-schooling curriculum that can serve as an alternative to the literalist creationism materials widely used by many conservative Evangelical parents.)
A large slice of the questions deal with Genesis, the first book in both Christian and Jewish Scriptures, and the text that explains the creation and population of Earth, and well as the relationship between God and man. Some answers are straightforward, as with the mystery of where Cain's wife came from. "The scientific evidence suggests a dramatically larger population at this point in history," conclude Collins and his colleagues. One possible explanation they offer - an idea that was embraced by C.S. Lewis, among others - is that human-like creatures had evolved to the point where they had the mental capacity to reason; God then endowed them to distinguish between good and evil, and in that way they became "in the image of God." 
But on other topics, such as whether Adam and Eve were real people or when humans became creatures with souls, BioLogos offers several possible answers - an approach that is either refreshing or unsatisfying, depending on one's need for certainty. "We cannot say that Adam and Eve were formed as acts of special creation," Collins explains. "That is a troubling conclusion for many people." 
"Science can't be put together with a literalist interpretation of Genesis," he continues. "For one thing, there are two different versions of the creation story" - in Genesis 1 and 2 - "so right from the start, you're already in trouble." Christians should think of Genesis "not as a book about science but about the nature of God and the nature of humans," Collins believes. "Evolution gives us the 'how,' but we need the Bible to understand the 'why' of our creation."


----------



## Brazko (May 5, 2009)

Gawd, Says, Go Get Sum D%@K...... It'll help U 4get About /cHristians 


Jus j/k......


----------



## Stoney McFried (May 5, 2009)

You know, I don't mind Christians, when they keep it to themselves!But creationists want everyone to believe,and that's where i get pissy.And I don't need dick, I have the rabbit, lol.


Brazko said:


> Gawd, Says, Go Get Sum D%@K...... It'll help U 4get About /cHristians
> 
> 
> Jus j/k......


----------



## Brazko (May 5, 2009)

Stoney McFried said:


> You know, I don't mind Christians, when they keep it to themselves!But creationists want everyone to believe,and that's where i get pissy.And I don't need dick, I have the rabbit, lol.


 
, ............,...............


----------



## TheHighClub (May 5, 2009)

the bible tells you the basics you need to know and guidlines for living but if the bible made everything as simple as 1+1=2 there would me no room for whats most important......FAITH


----------



## hom36rown (May 5, 2009)

Why do we need the bible to give us "guidelines", shouldn't we be able to figure out "guidelines" on our own?


----------



## jfgordon1 (May 5, 2009)

TheHighClub said:


> the bible tells you the basics you need to know and guidlines for living but *if the bible made everything as simple as 1+1=2 there would me no room for whats most important......FAITH*


so... your saying it's better that it's vague and contradicts itself ?


----------



## Stoney McFried (May 5, 2009)

Faith is just a way to abdicate yourself of responsibility.


TheHighClub said:


> the bible tells you the basics you need to know and guidlines for living but if the bible made everything as simple as 1+1=2 there would me no room for whats most important......FAITH


----------



## SOorganic (May 6, 2009)

Im pretty convinced that evolution trumps creationism, but im scarred shit-less that there is no higher power and that we are random; which means no after life :O I think creationism is just a way to cope with the fear of death. In all reality, what self respecting scientist will tell you evolution is a hoax???


----------



## x15 (May 6, 2009)

old pothead said:


> I wish i was still able to debate like i used too,but three heart attacks have robbed me of half of what little mind i had left.


sorry to hear this. i hope u get better day by day





old pothead said:


> I think the reason we were where put on this planet is to learn how to live in peace with each other,and how to live on this planet without destroying it.


yup. i think the best we can do is find others of like mind & move forward 






old pothead said:


> The Bible is a blue print that shows us how to do this,honor your father and mother,do not murder,do not commit adultry,do not steal,do not bear false witness against your neighbor,do not covet your neighbors house,wife,male servant,female servant,nor his ox.


yup, the building blocks of society




peace


----------



## x15 (May 6, 2009)

old pothead said:


> ...Yes women have a period,it it telling men not to have sex with them at this time,whats so wrong with that.It's plain nasty.OPH


i agree. it was for health reasons, to help keep the community healthy.





old pothead said:


> The husband was the head of the house,and the wife obeyed her husband.Whether you like it or not it is still that way in a marriage



i agree with you, but, we're trying to talk about spiritual matters with those who do not understand such things.

"A person who isn't spiritual doesn't accept the things of God's Spirit, for they are nonsense to him. He can't understand them because they are spiritually evaluated."
- 1 Corinthians 2:14 ISV

"husbands love your wives, wives love your husbands, the body of the husband belongs to the wife, the body of the wife belongs to the husband," seems equal to me
- paraphrase of Colossians 3:19

god doesn't hate women as stoney thinks

this trumps anything stoney posted about god & women:

"God is not a respecter of personsHe does not show partiality or favoritism..."
james 2-1-13

"...all of you are one in the Messiah Jesus, a person is no longer a Jew or a Greek, a slave or a free person, a male or a female..."
- Galatians 3:28

"...a renewal in which there is no distinction between Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave and freeman, but Christ is all, and in all..."
- Colossians 3:11


but, i better stop before someone calls me love1 


peace


----------



## Stoney McFried (May 6, 2009)

See, that's the problem.If someone doesn't agree, they're spiritually "lacking." If you don't think God showed favoritism,let's look at some of his favorites..Moses, Abraham,Job,Jesus.Didn't they get some preferential treatment?I think so.Your god plays favorites, for those who don't believe in him must perish.
[SIZE=+1][FONT=Times, Times New Roman, Serif][SIZE=+0]_Acts 10:34 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons..._[/SIZE][/SIZE][/FONT]​ [SIZE=+1][FONT=Times, Times New Roman, Serif][SIZE=+0]_Deut. 10:17 For the LORD your God is God of gods, and Lord of lords, a great God, a mighty, and a terrible, which regardeth not persons, nor taketh reward..._[/SIZE][/SIZE][/FONT]​ [SIZE=+1][FONT=Times, Times New Roman, Serif][SIZE=+0]_Romans 2:11 For there is no respect of persons with God._[/SIZE][/SIZE][/FONT]​ [SIZE=+1][FONT=Times, Times New Roman, Serif][SIZE=+0]_Galatians 2:6 But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man's person for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me..._ (cf. Eph. 6:9, Col. 3:25, 1 Peter 1:17)

[/SIZE][/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]Some examples of favoritism.
*Exodus 20:5-6* (also Dt 5:9-10) [/FONT] [FONT=Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments. 
[/FONT]




[FONT=Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]
[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]*Leviticus 26:43b-45* [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]They will pay for their sins because they rejected my laws and abhorred my decrees. Yet in spite of this, when they are in the land of their enemies, I will not reject them or abhor them so as to destroy them completely, breaking my covenant with them. I am the Lord their God. But for their sake I will remember the covenant with their ancestors whom I brought out of Egypt in the sight of the nations to be their God. [/FONT]

[SIZE=+1][FONT=Times, Times New Roman, Serif][SIZE=+0]

Nope, I haven't been trumped yet. And I do think you are welove1.
[/SIZE][/SIZE][/FONT]​


x15 said:


> i agree. it was for health reasons, to help keep the community healthy.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## the420 apprentice (May 6, 2009)

hays anyone ever look in to the sumerian tales of the annunaki and the nebiru, also known as planet x which is approaching for a inner solar system flyby. you tube has alot of stuff, interesting but some is conspiracy theory shit with some of the info. some info i found interesting was a sumerian tablet with the solar system and all its planets and the now approaching planet x. they even new the color of pluto and its make up. how was this possible it raises some good questions.


----------



## the420 apprentice (May 6, 2009)

oh and stoney if read most of your stuff on here and you fucking cool in my book.


----------



## Chase the Bass (May 6, 2009)

I just read all 10 pages and saw some great debating. Especially you Stoney. Here's a link that already disproved the copy pasted "10 Facts that Disprove Evolution" http://www.rationalresponders.com/bible_life_ministries_evolution I actually went through each one comparing your answers to the links and you did a pretty spot on job. The link went pretty in depth and used a couple extra points would be handy the next time this "10 Facts that Disprove Evolution" pops up.

Every time a thread like this pops up I can't help but think that both parties are coming from a different direction. The evolutionist spark comes from his mind, while the creationists from his "heart".

As for me? I believe in the idea of a big bang, although we could know so much more. I believe in the creation of stars and then planets, solar systems, galaxies, and so on. I believe that everything evolved from the simplest of organisms.

I have no problem with religions, just the extremists. I think that people are entailed to their own beliefs. If this person believes that God created Earth then who am I to tell him he's wrong? Does his belief of the creation of the universe effect me in any way? Does it really effect him? He lives and I live, and if he's a good Christian then he is probably a good person. I do want to emphasize *good* Christian. The people that love to go volunteer at homeless shelters and do it out of the goodness of their heart. I'm not saying that atheists are evil bastards. I'm saying that if a religion guides a person to do good things...then is it really that bad?

When I get baked and the topic of my "religious" views comes up I start rambling about the universe, time, reality, the relative perception of each, string theory, quantum theory, and a pinch of New Age babble. I remember when I first learned that time, speed, and gravity, and light were all relative in ways. Like how if you travel at incredibly fast speeds time literally slows down. They (I read this a while ago, maybe NASA?) had two clocks set to the exact same time, and sent one into space to pretty much go as fast as possible for a while. I can't say how fast it went but I assume VERY fast. Eventually the clock came back and less time had elapsed on that clock then the one left on earth. Granted it wasn't anything substantial but different nonetheless. In theory we could travel forward into time with very advanced propulsion technology.

Sorry about that last part getting off topic. I just think it is one of the most awesome things ever.


----------



## Stoney McFried (May 6, 2009)

I've seen it, and I must say I can't believe any of it.I'm no expert, but I know for a fact that a planet of the size they say this Nibiru is would NOT go undetected.Even if it had a low albedo,we would be able to see it with infrared.We would see its effects on the other planets before we saw it.Basically I THINK it would knock some of the planets off course, like billiard balls.Any pone else feel free to elaborate on why it would do that.


the420 apprentice said:


> hays anyone ever look in to the sumerian tales of the annunaki and the nebiru, also known as planet x which is approaching for a inner solar system flyby. you tube has alot of stuff, interesting but some is conspiracy theory shit with some of the info. some info i found interesting was a sumerian tablet with the solar system and all its planets and the now approaching planet x. they even new the color of pluto and its make up. how was this possible it raises some good questions.


Thanks.


the420 apprentice said:


> oh and stoney if read most of your stuff on here and you fucking cool in my book.


Thanks.I wish I'd found that, then I could have saved myself a lot of typing.


Chase the Bass said:


> I just read all 10 pages and saw some great debating. Especially you Stoney. Here's a link that already disproved the copy pasted "10 Facts that Disprove Evolution" http://www.rationalresponders.com/bible_life_ministries_evolution I actually went through each one comparing your answers to the links and you did a pretty spot on job. The link went pretty in depth and used a couple extra points would be handy the next time this "10 Facts that Disprove Evolution" pops up.


I personally am a big bang supporter.SInce humans only experience time in a linear fashion, we can't know for sure what happened.My theory is the big bang was just the rebirth of the universe that exists now from the death of the old.When an explosion occurs,things expand for a time and then collapse.We can observe that when massive stars collapse,in many cases their mass causes them to nova.From the remnants of these stars, new stars are born.We've observed this.I think it happens that way on a larger scale with the whole universe.Do I know for sure?No.Never said I did.


Chase the Bass said:


> Every time a thread like this pops up I can't help but think that both parties are coming from a different direction. The evolutionist spark comes from his mind, while the creationists from his "heart".
> 
> As for me? I believe in the idea of a big bang, although we could know so much more. I believe in the creation of stars and then planets, solar systems, galaxies, and so on. I believe that everything evolved from the simplest of organisms.


It affects me when they expect me to believe what they believe.I don't harm people nor do things like steal, murder, or rape because I have empathy.I don't like to do things to other people that would make me feel bad if it happened to me.I don't need religion.


Chase the Bass said:


> I have no problem with religions, just the extremists. I think that people are entailed to their own beliefs. If this person believes that God created Earth then who am I to tell him he's wrong? Does his belief of the creation of the universe effect me in any way? Does it really effect him? He lives and I live, and if he's a good Christian then he is probably a good person. I do want to emphasize *good* Christian. The people that love to go volunteer at homeless shelters and do it out of the goodness of their heart. I'm not saying that atheists are evil bastards. I'm saying that if a religion guides a person to do good things...then is it really that bad?


Time IS all relative.As humans, we get to experience it in a linear manner.So it's hard for us to comprehend anything that we don't personally experience.Some folks try to figure it out, some make up stories.


Chase the Bass said:


> When I get baked and the topic of my "religious" views comes up I start rambling about the universe, time, reality, the relative perception of each, string theory, quantum theory, and a pinch of New Age babble. I remember when I first learned that time, speed, and gravity, and light were all relative in ways. Like how if you travel at incredibly fast speeds time literally slows down. They (I read this a while ago, maybe NASA?) had two clocks set to the exact same time, and sent one into space to pretty much go as fast as possible for a while. I can't say how fast it went but I assume VERY fast. Eventually the clock came back and less time had elapsed on that clock then the one left on earth. Granted it wasn't anything substantial but different nonetheless. In theory we could travel forward into time with very advanced propulsion technology.
> 
> Sorry about that last part getting off topic. I just think it is one of the most awesome things ever.


----------



## hom36rown (May 6, 2009)

x15 said:


> i agree. it was for health reasons, to help keep the community healthy.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thats the thing about the bible, people use it to justify pretty much anything, as it contradicts itself a million times over. You choose to ignore stoneys quotes, and provide these instead, but they are from the exact same book...


----------



## hom36rown (May 6, 2009)

And x15 is not we love1, we love was completely insane(x15 is only mildly ), and actually thought HE WAS JESUS.


----------



## bicycle racer (May 6, 2009)

thats one of the things thats scary about organized religion especially the 3 that cause the most problems there books are so vague therefore it can be interpreted in any way you want. intelligent but evil people have been capitalizing on this aspect for thousands of years be it jew christian muslim whatever. the most bloody vicious conflicts are always religion based. there are more than a few holy wars going on now. as einstein said 'there are only two things infinite human stupidity and the universe and im not so sure about the latter'. not word for word but you get the idea.


----------



## Stoney McFried (May 6, 2009)

I don't know, we has reinvented himself countless times on here.He certainly doesn't post any more.I'm usually pretty good at these things.Time will tell.


hom36rown said:


> And x15 is not we love1, we love was completely insane(x15 is only mildly ), and actually thought HE WAS JESUS.


----------



## blind2reason (May 6, 2009)

Stoney McFried said:


> See, that's the problem.If someone doesn't agree, they're spiritually "lacking." If you don't think God showed favoritism,let's look at some of his favorites..Moses, Abraham,Job,Jesus.Didn't they get some preferential treatment?I think so.Your god plays favorites, for those who don't believe in him must perish.


Your absolutely right, God sure played favorites when he let Jesus get nailed to that tree.... And when he let Moses sit in a desert for 40 years and then wouldn't let him enter the promised land. I'm so jealous. I wish I was God's favorite.

You can do better Stoney, that was weak. You were doing better when you were challenging the authenticity of the bible, that I was actually interested in, but this... I'm disappointed.


----------



## Stoney McFried (May 6, 2009)

In the Bible,he resurrected Jesus, didn't he?He certainly didn't do that for the rest of his "flock".Are you gonna follow me around threads and harass me now, blind?Take little digs here and there where you can?I could give a rat's ass if you're interested or not.Prove me wrong or get lost.Have a problem with me, take it to pms.


blind2reason said:


> Your absolutely right, God sure played favorites when he let Jesus get nailed to that tree.... And when he let Moses sit in a desert for 40 years and then wouldn't let him enter the promised land. I'm so jealous. I wish I was God's favorite.
> 
> You can do better Stoney, that was weak. You were doing better when you were challenging the authenticity of the bible, that I was actually interested in, but this... I'm disappointed.


----------



## blind2reason (May 6, 2009)

Stoney McFried said:


> In the Bible,he resurrected Jesus, didn't he?He certainly didn't do that for the rest of his "flock".Are you gonna follow me around threads and harass me now, blind?Take little digs here and there where you can?I could give a rat's ass if you're interested or not.Prove me wrong or get lost.Have a problem with me, take it to pms.


I happen to enjoy this section of the forum, and I'm just having fun. You're so defensive that any reply that differs from your opinion will be treated hostile instead of approaching the issue with diplomacy. I could care less about taking my little digs, but when it's that easy... I just think to myself what would Stoney Do? and I look at my bracelet, and here we are. Lighten up, this is in good fun, not a personal attack, read back through my posts, they've all been civil....ish.

Walk it off, 

-Blind


----------



## Stoney McFried (May 6, 2009)

Well, you seem to be attacking me on my character in TWO separate threads at once.I'd have to say that seems pretty hostile to me, taking the time to enter two threads I'm in and debate me on the same thing in both of them.Since you have in this thread said my argument was weak(without even addressing the argument of x15 which preceded it because it agreed with your beliefs),and in another thread said I was a hypocrite,I think it's safe to assume that you are indeed taking a swipe at me.Because you're not arguing against what I'm saying, point by point,and detailing why it's so wrong, you're attacking from two different fronts on one subject:Me personally.If you have a problem with me personally, pm me.If you think I'm wrong, do the legwork that everyone else on here does when they debate and point out which part of my arguments are faulty and detail why you think that is so.I'm not here to cater to you personally.


blind2reason said:


> I happen to enjoy this section of the forum, and I'm just having fun. You're so defensive that any reply that differs from your opinion will be treated hostile instead of approaching the issue with diplomacy. I could care less about taking my little digs, but when it's that easy... I just think to myself what would Stoney Do? and I look at my bracelet, and here we are. Lighten up, this is in good fun, not a personal attack, read back through my posts, they've all been civil....ish.
> 
> Walk it off,
> 
> -Blind


----------



## blind2reason (May 6, 2009)

Okay back to the point you made about not resurrecting the rest of the flock.. Here we go..

Christians believe that their resurrection will happen during the second coming of Christ, so it's end times Armageddon type stuff. Then basically Hell will be unleashed upon the earth and those that are deemed "worthy" will be saved and taken to salvation along with all the other departed souls that have died, that will be the resurrection of the "chosen" people which is really anyone who accepts Jesus and they all live happily ever after. You should look up some stories about end time stuff, particularly the three days of darkness. My step dad told me those stories as a kid because I wasn't originally religious. So if you believe that Jesus rose, which you don't, Then everyone else's resurrection will come once he returns, which you don't believe either. So I hope that put some perspective on the whole favorites thing, there's no such thing.. actually the people God favors usually have a ton of terrible things happen to them according to the Bible.

There are two types of Christians,

Those who believe based on fear and those who believe based on true love of God. I like to think I'm not a believer because of fear, but I'm not going to lie, eternity is a scary concept, if it wasn't God who invented that tormenting reminder then kudos to the bastard who did for scaring a whole world full of people. Those who believe based of love almost make me sick, which is sad in a way. I mean just having a deep respect for God is one thing, but people who... damn just got your reply, gimme time to finish! Moving on, people who sing Christian music at the top of their lungs and what me to hold hands and always saying God Be with You! like they're some kind of Jesus Jedi, come on that's fake.

Anyways, in response to above post about not going with the point by point approach, I was in the process of doing so.. I'll post again once I re-read through some of x15's posts because apparently I missed something.

-Blind


----------



## blind2reason (May 6, 2009)

Why did I need to comment on x15's posts? All he did was comment about your God hating females stance with a bunch of bible verses. I already posted my view on that issue so responding to his posts wouldn't accomplish much.


----------



## Stoney McFried (May 6, 2009)

I know all about the resurrection/Armageddon stuff, I was raised a Jehovah's witness, that's about all my mom talked about. Of course the Christian god has favorites, they're his flock.THEY are the ones supposedly worthy to inherit the earth after the Apocalypse.(As for wandering the desert for 40 years,if I'm not mistaken, Moses did that on his own because his people were whining about returning home).The reason his favorites have bad stuff happen to them is because he's a sadist,IMO.If he's omnipotent, he knows everything, and the outcome of everything.He knew Abraham(It was abe, right) would sacrifice his son for him, but made him go through the motions until just right before the deed.He knew Jesus would allow himself to be sacrificed(remember, this is if I believed he existed),and yet did it anyway.there was no logical reason for this sacrifice;it's a guilt trip that's been placed upon us.


blind2reason said:


> Okay back to the point you made about not resurrecting the rest of the flock.. Here we go..
> 
> Christians believe that their resurrection will happen during the second coming of Christ, so it's end times Armageddon type stuff. Then basically Hell will be unleashed upon the earth and those that are deemed "worthy" will be saved and taken to salvation along with all the other departed souls that have died, that will be the resurrection of the "chosen" people which is really anyone who accepts Jesus and they all live happily ever after. You should look up some stories about end time stuff, particularly the three days of darkness. My step dad told me those stories as a kid because I wasn't originally religious. So if you believe that Jesus rose, which you don't, Then everyone else's resurrection will come once he returns, which you don't believe either. So I hope that put some perspective on the whole favorites thing, there's no such thing.. actually the people God favors usually have a ton of terrible things happen to them according to the Bible.


But this thread is about creationism, which is absolutely based on Christian faith, and does NOT belonmg in schools.Creationists seek to undermine the definition of science itself;just google what's going on in the Kansas school district where this crap is happening.They want to enforce ignorance in order to maintain their belief system, and ultimately, their power over humanity.It must not be allowed to happen.


blind2reason said:


> There are two types of Christians,
> 
> Those who believe based on fear and those who believe based on true love of God. I like to think I'm not a believer because of fear, but I'm not going to lie, eternity is a scary concept, if it wasn't God who invented that tormenting reminder then kudos to the bastard who did for scaring a whole world full of people. Those who believe based of love almost make me sick, which is sad in a way. I mean just having a deep respect for God is one thing, but people who... damn just got your reply, gimme time to finish! Moving on, people who sing Christian music at the top of their lungs and what me to hold hands and always saying God Be with You! like they're some kind of Jesus Jedi, come on that's fake.
> 
> ...


----------



## Stoney McFried (May 6, 2009)

Because the arguments were faulty, like you said mine were.


blind2reason said:


> Why did I need to comment on x15's posts? All he did was comment about your God hating females stance with a bunch of bible verses. I already posted my view on that issue so responding to his posts wouldn't accomplish much.


----------



## blind2reason (May 6, 2009)

I get what you mean about the whole Guilt Trip Scenario, step dad tried playing that game for years, and it worked for awhile too. There is more to religion then guilt trips. Real religion is always strongest amongst the poor, third world countries and such because they need something to believe in. In the states I feel that the religious organizations are just worried about image and money which takes away from the whole thing. 

I still don't agree with your favorites concept. God would let his followers go through all kinds of torments just to prove a point. I think it was Job, correct me if I'm wrong, he had his family, farm, and health all taken away so God could win a bet against the devil to see if Job would still believe. Again, if that's favoritism, I don't want anything to do with it. Where I'm from, creationism is only taught in Private schools not in Public. If they are going to teach how the World began all sides should be represented equally and briefly.

Any Christian with common sense has embraced the fact that not everything in the Bible was without flaw, how can it be, it was written all those years ago before we had the advances in technology and science, what is common knowledge now wasn't back in the day (which was a Wednesday by the way) they took what information they had and interpreted it to the best of their understanding. The message remains the same when it comes down to fundamentals, and that is the message that Christians embrace.

The logical reason for Jesus to be crucified that Christians believe in is, (you're gonna love this ) to rid mankind of Original Sin and unlock the gates of heaven. Here's the catch... in order for original sin to be fully purged one must undergo the sacrament of Baptism.

In regards to God's methods of why he lets bad things happen, you will hear many Christians reply with, "We as humans do not have the capacity to understand God's reasoning." Then you will be told that only he can see the whole picture and that everything happens for a reason. That's the belief/justification for that good ol scenario. That response tends to piss me off (usually only when it comes from my step dad.)

It kind of sounds like I'm thrashing my own religion a bit, well I am. I hate hypocrites, and man my sect of Christianity sure has a bunch of em. They are more worried about everything being verbatim instead of realizing the actual importance of the attitude Jesus was taking towards tradition and rules. If your sheep is drowning on sabbath are you not going to go in after it? He pointed out all the flaws of taking everything verbatim and now we completely ignore that. 

Their faults still do not change what I believe though, and I do believe in his message and do my best to live my life accordingly.. but I'm not perfect, but that's okay. Hey, It was Jesus that was hanging out with the so called Pagans and Tax collectors, so he'd feel more at home chillin with me then with some self righteous establishment anyway. 

I gave you all this background so you know I am not one sided on this issue and despite my name I have thought about all of this a lot. Every question you have asked, every point so far you have brought up, I've fought and argued about for hours on end. You can call bullshit if you like, but you are not putting your stance forward on what you actually believe in. Your trying to discredit Christianity without listing valid alternatives. Where's the benefit in that? I'd rather be lead wrong then lead nowhere.

-blind


----------



## wm2009 (May 6, 2009)

Wow I didn't noticed there was this section on the form, I just don't understand why put philosophy marijuana and religions all toghether 


Well I used to believe so many unimaginable things for many, like:

That anything is a dream
That anything is a fruit of my mind and I could control things just by thinking
That people are being played like in a videogame by a sadistic entity or for no matters
Even that we are part of a movie were I am the main character or that I had just a role and the more good I do the more benefits I would get...
Then I had the suspect that people around me knew it and I was being tested by them for something

and every time I tried to go deeper on my thoughts PUFF everything gets confused and then I forget what I was thinking about.

Now it's all clear to me. God does not exists, it's that infinity thing, there's infinite universes and I believe life is completely senseless if not for the individuals.

But I may be wrong


----------



## Stoney McFried (May 6, 2009)

Religion is the abdication of responsibility.If you believe everything happens for a reason, and that it's god's will,basically you're saying you're not responsible for your own actions;that everything is preordained.You're asking an invisible man to make things better for you because you've lost all hope in yourself, in the one person who truly can change your circumstances.


blind2reason said:


> I get what you mean about the whole Guilt Trip Scenario, step dad tried playing that game for years, and it worked for awhile too. There is more to religion then guilt trips. Real religion is always strongest amongst the poor, third world countries and such because they need something to believe in. In the states I feel that the religious organizations are just worried about image and money which takes away from the whole thing.


Because, as I said,if god allowed these things to happen to prove a point, he's childish and spiteful-a sadist.Would you make a bet on one of your own children against an evil persona which was about to do him harm to prove he could make him angry at you because you didn't step in and help him?I hope not.Does that mean you are more merciful than this god?And if he's omnipotent, he already knew what the outcome would be, so there was no reason for him to make Job go through it.
As for creationism being taught in schools, creationism doesn't hold up to scientific scrutiny.That's why in Kansas they're trying to change the definition of what a scientific theory is.There is a clear separation of church and state, and they are trying to overcome it.They don't want the Egyptian creation beliefs taught;nor Buddhist, Wiccan, Greek...just THEIRS,which is Christian.It's not in the interest of fairness at all.


blind2reason said:


> I still don't agree with your favorites concept. God would let his followers go through all kinds of torments just to prove a point. I think it was Job, correct me if I'm wrong, he had his family, farm, and health all taken away so God could win a bet against the devil to see if Job would still believe. Again, if that's favoritism, I don't want anything to do with it. Where I'm from, creationism is only taught in Private schools not in Public. If they are going to teach how the World began all sides should be represented equally and briefly.


Then it isn't the word of an omnipotent god.It is the word of men, and men of their times.It is contradictory and erroneous.It's like people thousands of years from now unearthing a copy of the wizard of oz and proclaiming that their holy book.


blind2reason said:


> Any Christian with common sense has embraced the fact that not everything in the Bible was without flaw, how can it be, it was written all those years ago before we had the advances in technology and science, what is common knowledge now wasn't back in the day (which was a Wednesday by the way) they took what information they had and interpreted it to the best of their understanding. The message remains the same when it comes down to fundamentals, and that is the message that Christians embrace.


Right.Join the flock,conform,be like the rest of us.Learn to fear this invisible boogeyman we tell you exists,so we can dictate your actions in this life.


blind2reason said:


> The logical reason for Jesus to be crucified that Christians believe in is, (you're gonna love this ) to rid mankind of Original Sin and unlock the gates of heaven. Here's the catch... in order for original sin to be fully purged one must undergo the sacrament of Baptism.


And if you don't have the capacity to understand an infinite being in regards to why he allows things to happen, how can you believe that those who wrote the bible had any better understanding of him or it?


blind2reason said:


> In regards to God's methods of why he lets bad things happen, you will hear many Christians reply with, "We as humans do not have the capacity to understand God's reasoning." Then you will be told that only he can see the whole picture and that everything happens for a reason. That's the belief/justification for that good ol scenario. That response tends to piss me off (usually only when it comes from my step dad.)


So it's a piecemeal religion?You get to just take what you want and ignore the rest?I've seen that happen;ever heard of the guy from the "God hates fags" website?


blind2reason said:


> It kind of sounds like I'm thrashing my own religion a bit, well I am. I hate hypocrites, and man my sect of Christianity sure has a bunch of em. They are more worried about everything being verbatim instead of realizing the actual importance of the attitude Jesus was taking towards tradition and rules. If your sheep is drowning on sabbath are you not going to go in after it? He pointed out all the flaws of taking everything verbatim and now we completely ignore that.



Let me get this straight...you recognize the logic is faulty.You know the bible contradicts itself.You have never had any physical proof of this God...he's never spoken to you personally,nor has anyone ever proven there was a great flood, that the earth was created in 6000 years,that Jesus was an ACTUAL person...but you still choose to believe.


blind2reason said:


> Their faults still do not change what I believe though, and I do believe in his message and do my best to live my life accordingly.. but I'm not perfect, but that's okay. Hey, It was Jesus that was hanging out with the so called Pagans and Tax collectors, so he'd feel more at home chillin with me then with some self righteous establishment anyway.


Who said there needs to be an alternative religion?Hedging your bets is kinda cowardly, IMO.You don't want to think of the possibility that you are merely an organism,that you're not any more special than any other mammal on this earth, so you choose to take a pill you can't quite swallow all the way just to be safe?
If there must be an alternative...how about logic, and common sense?How about demanding proof instead of accepting tradition?How about thinking for yourself, and thinking critically? 
Thereason I don't present my beliefs is because I really have none.I prefer logical, tangible evidence.I know that I AM.That's all I know for certain.I know that I am the one who controls my destiny.I know that one day I will cease to exist in this form, but I will go on...because I will return to the earth, and from my carcass, plants will spring up,and worms,and gases, and things will come along and feed off of those,and continue on in their own life cycle.This I know for certain.Where my consciousness goes,I don't know.My thoughts are possible because of my brain,and the body it resides in.FACT.When my brain is gone, it's likely my thoughts will be, too.Fine.But even though I'm not recognizable as "me",I'll still go on in that I am a part of the natural cycle.That's what I believe, because that is what I KNOW to be true.


blind2reason said:


> I gave you all this background so you know I am not one sided on this issue and despite my name I have thought about all of this a lot. Every question you have asked, every point so far you have brought up, I've fought and argued about for hours on end. You can call bullshit if you like, but you are not putting your stance forward on what you actually believe in. Your trying to discredit Christianity without listing valid alternatives. Where's the benefit in that? I'd rather be lead wrong then lead nowhere.
> 
> -blind


----------



## Dr. Greenhorn (May 6, 2009)

stoney....looks like you got this multi-qoute shit wired down pretty good.. LOL.. I woudn't know where to begin dissecting the qoutes good job!!


----------



## Stoney McFried (May 6, 2009)

You just copy and paste the front part......[ quote=Dr. Greenhorn;2466984 ]
Without the spaces, in front of the text you want to separate, then, at the end of the paragraph, you copy and paste this part without the spaces....[ / quote ]


Dr. Greenhorn said:


> stoney....looks like you got this multi-qoute shit wired down pretty good.. LOL.. I woudn't know where to begin dissecting the qoutes good job!!


----------



## blind2reason (May 6, 2009)

Stoney McFried said:


> Religion is the abdication of responsibility.If you believe everything happens for a reason, and that it's god's will,basically you're saying you're not responsible for your own actions;that everything is preordained.You're asking an invisible man to make things better for you because you've lost all hope in yourself, in the one person who truly can change your circumstances.


Your putting a negative spin on every aspect of religion. Nothing we are doing is hurting anyone else. I do not accept that this is it and everything just happened by coincidence there's is less of a chance of that than my religion. Religion is not an abdication of responsibility there is still cause and effect. Some people take the approach that there is destiny involved and if things happen a certain way than it is "God's Will" but that is total bullshit, God gave us a free will so we can think for ourselves and decide whether we want to do what is right or wrong. Freedom of Choice.



Stoney McFried said:


> Because, as I said,if god allowed these things to happen to prove a point, he's childish and spiteful-a sadist.Would you make a bet on one of your own children against an evil persona which was about to do him harm to prove he could make him angry at you because you didn't step in and help him?I hope not.Does that mean you are more merciful than this god?And if he's omnipotent, he already knew what the outcome would be, so there was no reason for him to make Job go through it.
> As for creationism being taught in schools, creationism doesn't hold up to scientific scrutiny.That's why in Kansas they're trying to change the definition of what a scientific theory is.There is a clear separation of church and state, and they are trying to overcome it.They don't want the Egyptian creation beliefs taught;nor Buddhist, Wiccan, Greek...just THEIRS,which is Christian.It's not in the interest of fairness at all.


Who says our God is loving and wouldn't hurt any of his own, I don't claim that. Throughout the entire Old Testament when people pissed him off they were killed. God has his own agenda and it will unravel as he desires, I really don't care that you find that to be spiteful/sadist, in the end it's not you that I have to answer to.



Stoney McFried said:


> Then it isn't the word of an omnipotent god.It is the word of men, and men of their times.It is contradictory and erroneous.It's like people thousands of years from now unearthing a copy of the wizard of oz and proclaiming that their holy book.


It is the word of men who were said to be inspired by God. They interpreted his messages the only way they could comprehend how to. You're reaching with the Wizard of Oz statement. (Maybe Harry Potter)



Stoney McFried said:


> Right.Join the flock,conform,be like the rest of us.Learn to fear this invisible boogeyman we tell you exists,so we can dictate your actions in this life.


My actions have yet to be dictated. I am still free to turn away from God whenever I like. I am choosing to believe. Call it whatever you want it still remains freedom of choice. Besides, everybody else is doing it.



Stoney McFried said:


> And if you don't have the capacity to understand an infinite being in regards to why he allows things to happen, how can you believe that those who wrote the bible had any better understanding of him or it?


Well those men were said to be inspired and filled with the Holy Spirit, which is the third part of the Christian God Tripod. So their understanding was an interpretation of what God was saying to them.



Stoney McFried said:


> So it's a piecemeal religion?You get to just take what you want and ignore the rest?I've seen that happen;ever heard of the guy from the "God hates fags" website?


Piecemeal huh? I never said I didn't follow all rules to the best of my abilities, I just place more emphasis on the actual message of Jesus instead of the dos and don'ts. I maintain my beliefs while allowing myself the freedom to think for myself. Citing a radical who took the message of God and turned it into something it wasn't meant to be does not impress me. People have done that throughout history.



Stoney McFried said:


> Let me get this straight...you recognize the logic is faulty.You know the bible contradicts itself.You have never had any physical proof of this God...he's never spoken to you personally,nor has anyone ever proven there was a great flood, that the earth was created in 6000 years,that Jesus was an ACTUAL person...but you still choose to believe.


I was recognizing the faults of the individuals within the organization AKA the paritioners not the faults with the religion itself. You know well enough that the Faith defense will be played with the proof of God argument so why bring it up? You have no proof to discredit the existance of Jesus so saying I have no proof that he does is just a bad argument. We both can pull up tons of different sources that support and don't support his existance. We both are more than capable of coming up with reasons to disqualify each source. So after all that, yeah I still choose to believe, At least now you've got it straight.



Stoney McFried said:


> Who said there needs to be an alternative religion?Hedging your bets is kinda cowardly, IMO.You don't want to think of the possibility that you are merely an organism,that you're not any more special than any other mammal on this earth, so you choose to take a pill you can't quite swallow all the way just to be safe?
> If there must be an alternative...how about logic, and common sense?How about demanding proof instead of accepting tradition?How about thinking for yourself, and thinking critically?
> Thereason I don't present my beliefs is because I really have none.I prefer logical, tangible evidence.I know that I AM.That's all I know for certain.I know that I am the one who controls my destiny.I know that one day I will cease to exist in this form, but I will go on...because I will return to the earth, and from my carcass, plants will spring up,and worms,and gases, and things will come along and feed off of those,and continue on in their own life cycle.This I know for certain.Where my consciousness goes,I don't know.My thoughts are possible because of my brain,and the body it resides in.FACT.When my brain is gone, it's likely my thoughts will be, too.Fine.But even though I'm not recognizable as "me",I'll still go on in that I am a part of the natural cycle.That's what I believe, because that is what I KNOW to be true.


I choose to believe because I think that I am more than an organism. I am not a mindless sheep who was brought up in the faith taught never to question what he believes. I do think for myself and make my own decisions. I do not believe that this "life cycle" was a big mysterious bang that just so happened to make us the only truly intelligent life form on the planet. You are more than welcome to be worm food if you like, but I've got bigger plans.

I understand your logic. It all comes down to faith. Without it I would be sitting the same as you. We aren't that different, I just choose to believe and you choose not to.


----------



## Dr. Greenhorn (May 6, 2009)

hey bro....you got it going on too


----------



## the420 apprentice (May 6, 2009)

ok stoney i admit its very skeptical info. you mention we would see it with infared scopes, and we have 1rs in the 80 was launch and was the first to report the presence of a large celestial body. now some think it is different things some say its a brownstar or meteor. if you go to google sky and look in bottom right of the leo constellation it is visible for you to see. for me we should all be able to see it in the sky by years end and that seeing with my own eyes with tell me the truth.


----------



## the420 apprentice (May 6, 2009)

another compelling fact is the knowledge of the sumerian and myan, plus other cultures vast knowledge of the stars. such as the one i mentioned last time. the sumerian tablet with the solar system as it is with a ten planet, and they new the color of several planets when it took our own technology till the 1930s to confirm these findings.maybe they are coincidence but its very interesting.


----------



## Stoney McFried (May 6, 2009)

But it is hurting us if a religion insists upon interfering with the education of out children.Promoting ignorance is doing harm.The catholic church covering up the rape of children is doing harm. The church burning people in medieval times for proclaiming the world was not flat was doing harm.It has held science back,women back,minorities back, for years.Who is to say where we would be if we didn't bear the yoke of superstition?And how so YOU KNOW god gave you free will? Or anything?Where is your proof outside of the Bible?Has he spoken to you directly?


blind2reason said:


> Your putting a negative spin on every aspect of religion. Nothing we are doing is hurting anyone else. I do not accept that this is it and everything just happened by coincidence there's is less of a chance of that than my religion. Religion is not an abdication of responsibility there is still cause and effect. Some people take the approach that there is destiny involved and if things happen a certain way than it is "God's Will" but that is total bullshit, God gave us a free will so we can think for ourselves and decide whether we want to do what is right or wrong. Freedom of Choice.




So...it's "God's will?


blind2reason said:


> Who says our God is loving and wouldn't hurt any of his own, I don't claim that. Throughout the entire Old Testament when people pissed him off they were killed. God has his own agenda and it will unravel as he desires, I really don't care that you find that to be spiteful/sadist, in the end it's not you that I have to answer to.




Now you're just arguing semantics by panning my choice of booki.SUbstitute whatever title you like, the end result of the argument is the same.


blind2reason said:


> It is the word of men who were said to be inspired by God. They interpreted his messages the only way they could comprehend how to. You're reaching with the Wizard of Oz statement. (Maybe Harry Potter)




Then believe.Just leave my children's education OUT of it.


blind2reason said:


> My actions have yet to be dictated. I am still free to turn away from God whenever I like. I am choosing to believe. Call it whatever you want it still remains freedom of choice. Besides, everybody else is doing it.




"Were said to be?"Who said?Them? Who else?


blind2reason said:


> Well those men were said to be inspired and filled with the Holy Spirit, which is the third part of the Christian God Tripod. So their understanding was an interpretation of what God was saying to them.




Yes people have done that throughout history.Creationism is another incarnation of just that.Here's a handy pocket list of some of the do's and don't of the bible.Amusing, but true.Please don't tell me Jesus was all about love;he preached on many occasions the exact messages of his father.http://exchristian.net/pics/wallet bible1.pdf
http://exchristian.net/pics/wallet bible2.pdf


blind2reason said:


> Piecemeal huh? I never said I didn't follow all rules to the best of my abilities, I just place more emphasis on the actual message of Jesus instead of the dos and don'ts. I maintain my beliefs while allowing myself the freedom to think for myself. Citing a radical who took the message of God and turned it into something it wasn't meant to be does not impress me. People have done that throughout history.




Plenty of proof.There is no historical record of him.Period.None that cannot be proved a forgery.The ROMANS WERE METICULOUS RECORD KEEPERS.There is no mention of Jesus being executed by Pontius Pilate by the Romans.The only proof any crationists can ever cite is the bible.And using the bible to prove the validity of the bible is kinda silly.


blind2reason said:


> I was recognizing the faults of the individuals within the organization AKA the paritioners not the faults with the religion itself. You know well enough that the Faith defense will be played with the proof of God argument so why bring it up? You have no proof to discredit the existance of Jesus so saying I have no proof that he does is just a bad argument. We both can pull up tons of different sources that support and don't support his existance. We both are more than capable of coming up with reasons to disqualify each source. So after all that, yeah I still choose to believe, At least now you've got it straight.




So, if the big bang never happened,who created god?Did he just arrive out of nothing?According to creationsists, that simply can't happen, at least when they're referring to the Big Bang.So it has to apply to a creator as well.


blind2reason said:


> I choose to believe because I think that I am more than an organism. I am not a mindless sheep who was brought up in the faith taught never to question what he believes. I do think for myself and make my own decisions. I do not believe that this "life cycle" was a big mysterious bang that just so happened to make us the only truly intelligent life form on the planet. You are more than welcome to be worm food if you like, but I've got bigger plans.


Did you used to be Tronica?


blind2reason said:


> I understand your logic. It all comes down to faith. Without it I would be sitting the same as you. We aren't that different, I just choose to believe and you choose not to.


I'm sorry, I simply don't believe it.If it were supposed to be here in 2012, as everyone says,we'd already be noticing it's gravitational effects.There's always an end of times scenaria every few years, and I've never believed any of them,because they're full of holes.


the420 apprentice said:


> ok stoney i admit its very spectile info. you mention we would see it with infared scopes, and we have 1rs in the 80 was launch and was the first to report the presence of a large celestial body. now some think it is different things some say its a brownstar or meteor. if you go to google sky and look in bottom right of the leo constellation it is visible for you to see. for me we should all be able to see it in the sky by years end and that seeing with my own eyes with tell me the truth.


----------



## Stoney McFried (May 6, 2009)

Their calenders ended at 2012 simply because they stopped counting.It would start over, something mathematical, gives me a headache, it's easily googled.


the420 apprentice said:


> another compelling fact is the knowledge of the sumerian and myan, plus other cultures vast knowledge of the stars. such as the one i mentioned last time. the sumerian tablet with the solar system as it is with a ten planet, and they new the color of several planets when it took our own technology till the 1930s to confirm these findings.maybe they are coincidence but its very interesting.


----------



## x15 (May 7, 2009)

Stoney McFried said:


> See, that's the problem.If someone doesn't agree, they're spiritually "lacking." If you don't think God showed favoritism,let's look at some of his favorites..Moses, Abraham,Job,Jesus.Didn't they get some preferential treatment?I think so.Your god plays favorites, for those who don't believe in him must perish.
> [SIZE=+1][FONT=Times, Times New Roman, Serif][SIZE=+0]_Acts 10:34 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons..._[/SIZE][/SIZE][/FONT]​ [SIZE=+1][FONT=Times, Times New Roman, Serif][SIZE=+0]_Deut. 10:17 For the LORD your God is God of gods, and Lord of lords, a great God, a mighty, and a terrible, which regardeth not persons, nor taketh reward..._[/SIZE][/SIZE][/FONT]​ [SIZE=+1][FONT=Times, Times New Roman, Serif][SIZE=+0]_Romans 2:11 For there is no respect of persons with God._[/SIZE][/SIZE][/FONT]​ [SIZE=+1][FONT=Times, Times New Roman, Serif][SIZE=+0]_Galatians 2:6 But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man's person for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me..._ (cf. Eph. 6:9, Col. 3:25, 1 Peter 1:17)
> 
> [/SIZE][/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]Some examples of favoritism.
> ...



hey, stoney 

just wanted to say that the premise of the bible (new testament) is to achieve agape love. never are we to lord over our wives, neighbors, travelers...but instead we are commanded to be servants to our wives, neighbors, travelers, esteeming others better than oneself.

"No one shows greater love than when he lays down his life for his friends."
- john 15:13


"...if any be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new..."
- II Corinthians 5:17

it's all about love  the new operating system 

peace


----------



## Stoney McFried (May 7, 2009)

Untrue.It's all about trying to get more folks into the flock.When the fear tactics stopped working, then they switched to "love". You've still not addressed the fact that misogyny is present in the New testament as well.You can't use the bible to prove the bible,no matter what version you're referring to. You can't say, "oh we're not like that now,it's all about love," because it simply isn't.If it was all about love, Christians wouldn't condemn homosexuals, bomb abortion clinics,campaign against birth control .
You haven't refuted any of my arguments, just posted different excerpts from the same book.


x15 said:


> hey, stoney
> 
> just wanted to say that the premise of the bible (new testament) is to achieve agape love. never are we to lord over our wives, neighbors, travelers...but instead we are commanded to be servants to our wives, neighbors, travelers, esteeming others better than oneself.
> 
> ...



This has nothing to do with this discussion.


x15 said:


> "...if any be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new..."
> - II Corinthians 5:17


Same faith, new marketing campaign.


x15 said:


> it's all about love &#8212; the new operating system
> 
> peace


----------



## x15 (May 7, 2009)

Stoney McFried said:


> Untrue.It's all about trying to get more folks into the flock.When the fear tactics stopped working, then they switched to "love". You've still not addressed the fact that misogyny is present in the New testament as well...


misogyny - noun, the hatred of women by men.

this is never taught in the new testament nor the old testament.

btw, i'm always in love mode 

the scriptures in Ecclesiastes was written by a despondent man, you have to read it in this context. the same man wrote the Songs of Solomon which is a tribute to a women, his lover. no hatred in either books.


----------



## the420 apprentice (May 7, 2009)

so science says its there, ancient text says its there, google sky will locate it for you. infared scopes have tracked its movements for almost thirty years and its getting closer. not until it closer to our solar system, you wouldnt feel the effects yet besides it will start out small like our magnet field will be the first to exsperience changes. theres far out objects in the solar system that has no effect on us right now so why would this be any different. and science always is looking to space to exsplain extinction scenerios and come to the conclusion of at least one mass extinction from a celestial object. and yes i agree the myan calender 2012 it could just start over because its just a 3600 year calender. hmmm thats wierd i think the summerians in there text mention the 10 planet being on a 3600 hundred year ordit. i understand religon and all that crap being hard to swallow but science?


----------



## lunshbox (May 7, 2009)

There is no god. The universe come into being by happenstance. What was before is irrelevant, what is after is irrelevant. We are the product of a 4.5 billion year old solar system, multiple genetic mutations. That is all. When we die, we are dead. We also won't care, just as we didn't care before we were born. Weed is also a product of the same evolution that brought us to the point we are at now. Any belief in supernatural superstition is intellectually dishonest. 
While we are on the subject, the bible was written by people, just as all religious text were. Anyone who says the bible is the pinnacle of holiness (or any other text for that mater) has never read said text. The quickest way to become an atheist is to actually read the <insert religious text here>. The bible is so full of holes, that it should have been called the "Holey bible". 
To close, there is no real proof that Jesus was a real person. Current evidence points to Jesus being a mythical person that was a compilation of many people of the time. To say that there was a man named Jesus that lived in modern day Israel 2000 years ago is equivalent to saying that there is someone named John that lives in the US today.


----------



## Stoney McFried (May 7, 2009)

Then you're not reading the bible right,sorry.


x15 said:


> misogyny - noun, the hatred of women by men.
> 
> this is never taught in the new testament nor the old testament.
> 
> ...


I'm sorry, but the only"science" I've seen about it is pseudo science from youtube and conspiracy websites.The fact is, Jupiter is the vaccum cleaner of the solar system,and the other gas giants to some degree.As it moved inward, it would have to pass ALL of those planets.But first it would have to enter the oort cloud, and kuiper belt.As it did so(And it should already be there now if it is supposedly going to make it here in three years)there would me massive visible disturbances in this area,i.e comets being perturbed out of their orbits,kuiper objects being flung out of the solar system.That isn't happening.Secondly, this planet is supposed to be BIG, bigger than earth...many think it's a brown dwarf.News flash.Jupiter,if it would have been slightly more massive, would have been a brown dwarf. If we placed Jupiter in the oort cloud, it would still be highly visible from earth's telescopes.The smallest brown dwarf found so far is 8 Jupiter masses...and 500 light years away.We can see it,and it's disk of dust and rocks that surround it.Anything bigger than Jupiter would be visible in our solar system,no matter what, and it simply isn't.For a long time, there was abelief that there was a tenth planet, due to the miscalculation of the peturbations of the orbits of Uranus and Neptune.There was a mistake in the math.Please keep in mind also that many ancient cultures counted the moon as a planet.So once again, I state that I simply don't believe in planet x.Here's a website which gives a good explanation as to why it's not happening.http://www.universetoday.com/2008/05/25/2012-no-planet-x/


the420 apprentice said:


> so science says its there, ancient text says its there, google sky will locate it for you. infared scopes have tracked its movements for almost thirty years and its getting closer. not until it closer to our solar system, you wouldnt feel the effects yet besides it will start out small like our magnet field will be the first to exsperience changes. theres far out objects in the solar system that has no effect on us right now so why would this be any different. and science always is looking to space to exsplain extinction scenerios and come to the conclusion of at least one mass extinction from a celestial object. and yes i agree the myan calender 2012 it could just start over because its just a 3600 year calender. hmmm thats wierd i think the summerians in there text mention the 10 planet being on a 3600 hundred year ordit. i understand religon and all that crap being hard to swallow but science?


----------



## wm2009 (May 8, 2009)

Misogyny is the right part of the bible (or whatever), maybe not only the one.

I'm a bit misogyny, not in the matter I hate women, I LOVE them. I am misogyny in the matter to keep separated what evolution choose to keep separate. 

There is light and dark, hot and cold, fire and water, black and white, man and woman ...

Those things are Yes separated, but complementary.

It's important to love yourself as a single part of a system, this system is going that way and you can't stop it with ignorance.

The differences beetween sex, race etc. exists and the soon you accept them the soon you will enjoy life.

P.S. Sorry for my english, I'm still learning.


----------



## the420 apprentice (May 8, 2009)

those miscalculations have been reputed from both sides. scientist to this day agree something else must be out there, nasa it self as recently announced something they think could be 2-4 mass of earth. theory on the kuiper belt is its a planet that did not form right. well what about a in solar system collision setting this planet on a eliptical orbit, also creating the moon and the kuiper belt. its all just theories and opinions from one scientist to the nezt. hell i dont think its the end of the world but a once in a life time plantery alignment maybe soon enough all will now if it really exist or not. after that the crazy will keeping moving the date of arrival to fit there theory and the rest of us can write it of as fiction


----------



## the420 apprentice (May 8, 2009)

and to the religion on woman thing is easy to see all the big religions keep there woman down and dont believe they are equal to a man and therefore they dont have the same divine rights as a man. this is just my generalization of it. fucking stupid shit.


----------



## Stoney McFried (May 8, 2009)

I hear ya.Personally, I don't think the evidence I've seen is compelling.If I'm wrong, I'll give you my number on doomsday 2012 and you can call me and say,"I fucking told you so, Stoney!"


the420 apprentice said:


> those miscalculations have been reputed from both sides. scientist to this day agree something else must be out there, nasa it self as recently announced something they think could be 2-4 mass of earth. theory on the kuiper belt is its a planet that did not form right. well what about a in solar system collision setting this planet on a eliptical orbit, also creating the moon and the kuiper belt. its all just theories and opinions from one scientist to the nezt. hell i dont think its the end of the world but a once in a life time plantery alignment maybe soon enough all will now if it really exist or not. after that the crazy will keeping moving the date of arrival to fit there theory and the rest of us can write it of as fiction


----------



## the420 apprentice (May 8, 2009)

lollol your the shit stoney i like you. you should write a book u have tons of knowledge and right now the population as a majority doesnt associate with a religion. good time to write open they eyes of some others ah.


----------



## Stoney McFried (May 8, 2009)

Eh, people are gonna go their own way anyway.I don't mind if someone has religion if they don't try to force it on me or my kids in the case of Creationism.People just have to realize..whether there is a being,collective consciousness,etc., out there or not,religion isn't the way to find it.Your relationship to the universe is personal,and can't be squeezed into a cookie cutter,one size fits all ideology.You have to expand the mind you have and come up with your own ideas and possibilities.You are your own god,I believe,and this search for the external some do should instead be an exploration of the internal.


the420 apprentice said:


> lollol your the shit stoney i like you. you should write a book u have tons of knowledge and right now the population as a majority doesnt associate with a religion. good time to write open they eyes of some others ah.


----------



## slipperyP (May 12, 2009)

Stoney McFried said:


> But when you go back in the fossil record, you DO see that humans did NOT live at the same time as Dinosaur.Which is what creationists forcefully assert, the 6000 year theory.Evolution doesn't claim to have all the answers.But Creationism does.All you have to do is suspend disbelief indefinitely. So...even if you don't believe in evolution, you have to admit Science does exist.And science teaches us critical thinking.It teaches us if a theory does not hold up to scrutiny, discard it. Creationism does not hold up to scrutiny.



There's evidence of humans and dino's walking together in the same fossilized rock. 
Here's a link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXDBX99qePA&feature=related

There are other suspicious things about whats being taught. The grand canyon raises a few questions...If a river carved the grand canyon...where is the river delta that was created?

Someone said you can get neanderthal DNA...I read on it...I highly doubt the validy of their tests? 

Carbon Dating: Assumes the amount of carbon in atmosphere in the past is the same as the carbon now. Those levels havent even hit equilibrium yet. There are other flaws also.

Fossilized Record uses circular logic in justifiying the age of the animals. They use the "Age of the Rock" to date the "Age of the Fossils". But this is the best part. The way you date the age of the rocks...You use the age of the fossils....That is BRILLIANT.


----------



## Forsaken5678 (May 12, 2009)

This is interesting...

http://discovermagazine.com/2009/apr/27-jack-horner.s-plan-bring-dinosaurs-back-to-life

I saw a documentary about this the other day. They figured out which genes to manipulate in order to make recessive traits come back. For example: In a chicken (most scientists think birds are the modern day descendants of dinosaurs) they were able to grow a tail and even fang-like teeth. Just by reactivating dormant genes they were able to make these features come back to life. The theory is is that all species still have in their DNA the old traits still buried but just turned off. Mutations are a normal occurrence and those are what causes the genes to turn off to begin with. All they need is somebody to switch them back on and these features pop back into existence. This isn't unproven either which is the scary thing! This has actually been done!

If these genes are still present then what does this say about the creationist/evolutionist argument? Pretty interesting stuff!


----------



## slipperyP (May 12, 2009)

Forsaken5678 said:


> This is interesting...
> 
> http://discovermagazine.com/2009/apr/27-jack-horner.s-plan-bring-dinosaurs-back-to-life
> 
> ...


DNA is a complex code....The fact everything uses a code is a sign of intelligence. Not random chance in my opinion. I can take the get lots of words using the alphabet. The letters are the building blocks...I'm going to check out the documentary. I am skeptical that gene manipulation proves anything accept genes can be manipulated.


----------



## TheBrutalTruth (May 12, 2009)

slipperyP said:


> There's evidence of humans and dino's walking together in the same fossilized rock.
> Here's a link:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXDBX99qePA&feature=related
> 
> ...



Colorado River is the river that carved the Grand Canyon, the mouth of the Colorado River is near the North Eartern Corner of the Baja Peninsula.


----------



## Forsaken5678 (May 12, 2009)

slipperyP said:


> DNA is a complex code....The fact everything uses a code is a sign of intelligence. Not random chance in my opinion. I can take the get lots of words using the alphabet. The letters are the building blocks...I'm going to check out the documentary. I am skeptical that gene manipulation proves anything accept genes can be manipulated.



Read the article my friend. I saw the documentary on NatGeo i think a week or two ago.


----------



## slipperyP (May 12, 2009)

TheBrutalTruth said:


> Colorado River is the river that carved the Grand Canyon, the mouth of the Colorado River is near the North Eartern Corner of the Baja Peninsula.


I have been through there many times...there is an enourmous amount of dirt missing....by comparison...even though there is less dirt missing most major rivers have deltas visible from space. Another point of interest to look up.

Also, there are layers of earth that are 1 billion years apart geologically stacked one on top of the other. Which means in a billion years...no sediments deposited there? 

The Colorado River cuts directly through an uplifted region called the Kaibab Upwarp. Normally a river would be expected to flow towards lower elevation, but the Colorado has cut right through an elevated region rather than going around it. Water dosen't flow uphill.


----------



## Dr Greene (May 12, 2009)

Here's my take . . .


----------



## Stoney McFried (May 12, 2009)

I've seen those before.They're fake.


slipperyP said:


> There's evidence of humans and dino's walking together in the same fossilized rock.
> Here's a link:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXDBX99qePA&feature=related
> 
> ...


----------



## slipperyP (May 13, 2009)

Stoney McFried said:


> I've seen those before.They're fake.


never seen the documentation as fakes? I did see where they went and peeled up layers of rock in the dried river be and the tracks kept gong along with dino prints? Tough forgery?


----------



## bicycle racer (May 13, 2009)

so you think the grand canyon was not formed by water and wind erosion and dinasaurs walked with people really? there is no real logical response to that as thats not logical to begin with by that standard one could convince themselves of anything.


----------



## Stoney McFried (May 13, 2009)

Sigh.If you'll believe that, Who am I to try and convince you otherwise.All it takes is a 30 second search of google.I really don't feel like debating with anyone right now, sorry if you wanted to.But it just seems like the same argument over and over.Get one to stop, and another comes in and posts the exact same stuff and wants to argue about it all over again.


slipperyP said:


> never seen the documentation as fakes? I did see where they went and peeled up layers of rock in the dried river be and the tracks kept gong along with dino prints? Tough forgery?


----------



## slipperyP (May 13, 2009)

Its not that I want a debate...I just wanted to post another point of view....And if actually looked at it....it dosen't matter...It was water that dug the canyon...just not millions and bilions of years of water....Early storys of dragon slayers and dragons....most likley left over dinosaurs.....and the bohemoth of the bible...also most likely an dino.


----------



## Stoney McFried (May 13, 2009)

If that were the case, we would see visible massive changes in our lifetimes to topography everywhere. The behemoth story is probably another of the bible's "borrowed" stories(most likely Leviathan,or Minotaur,probably more likely),see the similarities between mark and the story of Jason and the argonauts.You can believe what you want.But I just don't appreciate anyone trying to force their beliefs into my children's education.


slipperyP said:


> Its not that I want a debate...I just wanted to post another point of view....And if actually looked at it....it dosen't matter...It was water that dug the canyon...just not millions and bilions of years of water....Early storys of dragon slayers and dragons....most likley left over dinosaurs.....and the bohemoth of the bible...also most likely an dino.


----------



## slipperyP (May 13, 2009)

Stoney McFried said:


> If that were the case, we would see visible massive changes in our lifetimes to topography everywhere. The behemoth story is probably another of the bible's "borrowed" stories(most likely Leviathan,or Minotaur,probably more likely),see the similarities between mark and the story of Jason and the argonauts.You can believe what you want.But I just don't appreciate anyone trying to force their beliefs into my children's education.


I don't want garbage crammed down my kids throat either...I also don't want them to be completely caught up in the corporate and finacial brainwashing going on in the world. There's two sides to every story...i wish you many happy years with your family, you seam smart and possible able to grasp the facts...to each there own...good luck


----------



## blind2reason (May 24, 2009)

Sorry I was gone for a couple weeks, I had my summer 2 week drill.

This is going back a few pages so bear with me here.



Stoney McFried said:


> But it is hurting us if a religion insists upon interfering with the education of out children.Promoting ignorance is doing harm.The catholic church covering up the rape of children is doing harm. The church burning people in medieval times for proclaiming the world was not flat was doing harm.It has held science back,women back,minorities back, for years.Who is to say where we would be if we didn't bear the yoke of superstition?And how so YOU KNOW god gave you free will? Or anything?Where is your proof outside of the Bible?Has he spoken to you directly?


My religion is not forcing its beliefs onto anyone. With any group you will have your radicals, and you happen to be dealing with a few who are in a spot of authority. The Catholic church covering up molestations is shitty, but that was not a belief of the religion that was an act of corrupt individuals. 

Oppression never fully works, this forum is a perfect example. I cannot legally do anything in regards to what this forum is here for, but yet here I am. Where there is a will there is a way. Slavery and Sexism were not developed on the basis of religion, they've always been there and non religious took as much part of those acts as the religious.



Stoney McFried said:


> So...it's "God's will?


 That's a baited question, if I say yes you'll slam me for the whole belief in God thing again, but yes I do believe in "God's Will" and I am not required to prove the logic of faith.



Stoney McFried said:


> Now you're just arguing semantics by panning my choice of booki.SUbstitute whatever title you like, the end result of the argument is the same.


I apologize you weren't able to recognize my sarcasm, it can be hard to convey in writing at times but I thought you would have gotten it. My bad for attempting to be humorous.



Stoney McFried said:


> Then believe.Just leave my children's education OUT of it.


Never brought them into it, I am not fighting to have school curriculum changed at all one way or the other.



Stoney McFried said:


> "Were said to be?"Who said?Them? Who else?


Yes them, who cares who else, I'm not the one looking for clarification.



Stoney McFried said:


> Yes people have done that throughout history.Creationism is another incarnation of just that.Here's a handy pocket list of some of the do's and don't of the bible.Amusing, but true.Please don't tell me Jesus was all about love;he preached on many occasions the exact messages of his father.http://exchristian.net/pics/wallet bible1.pdf
> http://exchristian.net/pics/wallet bible2.pdf


Jesus was not only about love, that is true. There is still a cause and effect scenario in play here, but with Jesus you have forgiveness for wrong doing instead of condemnation.



Stoney McFried said:


> Plenty of proof.There is no historical record of him.Period.None that cannot be proved a forgery.The ROMANS WERE METICULOUS RECORD KEEPERS.There is no mention of Jesus being executed by Pontius Pilate by the Romans.The only proof any crationists can ever cite is the bible.And using the bible to prove the validity of the bible is kinda silly.


See this is not proof, the lack of information is never proof, you believe in science you should know better than to try and pass this off as proof.




Stoney McFried said:


> So, if the big bang never happened,who created god?Did he just arrive out of nothing?According to creationsists, that simply can't happen, at least when they're referring to the Big Bang.So it has to apply to a creator as well.


This is a question that you will never have an answer to, neither side will because then we have to deal with the concept of time and the concept of a beginning.



Stoney McFried said:


> Did you used to be Tronica?


 ? I don't know what you mean by that one, is that an old member or something?

Well, I'm starting a grow journal, and am done killing time in this section, so I probably wont be posting here very frequently.

It's been entertaining,

-blind


----------



## TheBrutalTruth (May 24, 2009)

blind2reason said:


> Sorry I was gone for a couple weeks, I had my summer 2 week drill.
> 
> This is going back a few pages so bear with me here.
> 
> ...



Just thought I'd comment on the entire school debate thing.

If you don't want people expressing their opinion on what should be taught in schools then you shouldn't be taxing them to support the same. It is on par with what the British did to the colonies that lead to the Revolutionary War to ask some one to pay taxes with out a voice in how those taxes are used.

While I agree that teaching creationism in school is a pointless debate, I do think that the school should be focusing on teaching more courses in critical thinking (logic) and in civics and economics. The scope of the general populations ignorance of civics and economics is amazing.

Perhaps the entire debate about evolution vs creationism can be side stepped by replacing the science courses with courses in civics and economics. (Theoretical Science being replaced with Economic Science) I think it might be more important for the population of the United States to understand how credit is dangerous to their financial health than to actually know if humans evolved from apes, or if they were created by a creator.


----------



## cbtwohundread (Jun 27, 2009)

i said let there bee lite love shit and piss,,,then thunder came from my tongue and killed all the evil and fire came from my eyes and burned down all the churches and false thrones.....and i said SHAAAZAAAM!!!!...and you all were born cuz i made all people have sex and there was the world...but then you all went astry and strarted being sodimites and liars and vampires and back biters so i will now say let there be water and i flooded atlantis and made trhe mermaids keep them down in the water and i got on my unicorn and made unity,,,but the people went astray again so now i will burn down all the evil and put you in a volcano and blast you off in2 outerspace with the devil.............


----------



## Stoney McFried (Jun 28, 2009)

Fuck, dude.I want some of what you're smoking.


cbtwohundread said:


> i said let there bee lite love shit and piss,,,then thunder came from my tongue and killed all the evil and fire came from my eyes and burned down all the churches and false thrones.....and i said SHAAAZAAAM!!!!...and you all were born cuz i made all people have sex and there was the world...but then you all went astry and strarted being sodimites and liars and vampires and back biters so i will now say let there be water and i flooded atlantis and made trhe mermaids keep them down in the water and i got on my unicorn and made unity,,,but the people went astray again so now i will burn down all the evil and put you in a volcano and blast you off in2 outerspace with the devil.............


----------



## howdyguhk (Jun 28, 2009)

as to creation vs evolution...there's not really an argument.
if you have taken a college level biology or physical anthropology course, you know that the "THEORY" in theory of evolution is pretty much fact.
its the same thing as the "theory" of gravity. yea gravity is a theory but are you going to argue against that too?
there is countless physical fossil evidence discovered that gives so much insight into human ancestors and how we came from early primates.
YES THERE IS ACTUALLY PHYSICAL FOSSIL EVIDENCE OF THIS! google australopithecus or hominids, or just human ancestry.

these primates existed for thousands of years before humans did, and there is plenty of evidence out there to link our ancestry to them.

so how does all this evidence play into the bible's story about god creating man from dust? doesn't really fit too well...


----------



## cbtwohundread (Jun 29, 2009)

.u say u are a monkey....i am the angel gabriel who come to slay the dragon ...and to seperate monkey from man...u speak of science then science is your religion and when you die you will go in2 a textbook and no1 will ever read your page..because that page is a liar...monkey man so go with tha monkeys and worship your science...shazzam i said so now u are a monkey in a textbook.i will burn that text book


----------



## cbtwohundread (Jun 29, 2009)

god threw a rock in the sky and i fell down to earth tho slay all the evil and at nite time i am the stars that strike down lightning and make all the weakheart drop....fire comes from my tongue so i can burn all the evil i speak of...monkey.man...and his science god


----------



## bicycle racer (Jun 29, 2009)

so are you just messing around being funny or actually serious?


----------



## howdyguhk (Jun 29, 2009)

and he mixed the test tubez together. BAM! BIG BANG! the universe is alive spitting out black holes that suck up your god who cries out for help to his god, little does he know there is no higher god, sux. fear black holes they are all knowing of your secrets and sins that she prays to bathe her newborn in?


----------



## yandi1 (Jun 29, 2009)

good subject the only thing is no1 will ever be able to prove either completley. Both of these theorys are really beleifs in death we shall know for sure!


----------



## CrackerJax (Jun 29, 2009)

howdyguhk said:


> as to creation vs evolution...there's not really an argument.
> if you have taken a college level biology or physical anthropology course, you know that the "THEORY" in theory of evolution is pretty much fact.
> its the same thing as the "theory" of gravity. yea gravity is a theory but are you going to argue against that too?
> there is countless physical fossil evidence discovered that gives so much insight into human ancestors and how we came from early primates.
> ...


I agree. 

It is an insult to evolution to put the two subjects as equals to be contested. 

There is no contest. 

One adheres to strict scrutiny and fact finding through rigorous examination, the other does not. 

It's pretty simple....


----------



## PadawanBater (Jun 29, 2009)

yandi1 said:


> good subject the only thing is no1 will ever be able to prove either completley. Both of these theorys are really beleifs in death we shall know for sure!


 
That's where your wrong. 

Evolution is not a belief, no matter how much the religious tell you it is. I do not "choose" to believe in evolution. It's there, I look at reality, my mind AUTOMATICALLY decides for me what is true and false, I have zero conscious decison making ability in the process, just like I don't choose myself to have brown skin color.. It is simply reality, and it can be shown and proven to exist through experimentation and the scientific process. 

Religion... Creation, can't.

Evolution = Science > testable, observable

Creation = Religion > untestable, unobservable


----------



## bicycle racer (Jun 29, 2009)

religion needs to evolve and change with the times or go away completely.


----------



## cbtwohundread (Jun 29, 2009)

religion is not a fashion as it seems to you tricyle man.....u need to take the training wheels off your mind


----------



## bicycle racer (Jun 29, 2009)

religions and there fairy tales were created during a time when that was the best explanation that could be had at the time. now we have evolved and have ways to explain natural phenomenon in more logical precise and accurate ways which can be proven through the scientific method. there fore mainstream religion is outdated and not representative of what is known to be true in 2009. the truth will set you free try it sometime.


----------



## yandi1 (Jun 29, 2009)

cbtwohundread said:


> religion is not a fashion as it seems to you tricyle man.....u need to take the training wheels off your mind


 agreed ther also with the post above the cylcler evolution does eventually come back to the big bang wich correct me if im wrong hasnt been proven to acctually have happened yet. yet being the word there the LHC is working on that part but who knows what it will come up with


----------



## cbtwohundread (Jun 29, 2009)

Science is as much as a fairy tale as the life you must have lived to think there is no god,,,the sun will stop shining on all those who feel like you as the birds will stop singing to you...as the herb jah put here to smoke will stop uplifting you


----------



## bicycle racer (Jun 29, 2009)

im not an atheist im also not crazy.


----------



## yandi1 (Jun 29, 2009)

cbtwohundread said:


> Science is as much as a fairy tale as the life you must have lived to think there is no god,,,the sun will stop shining on all those who feel like you as the birds will stop singing to you...as the herb jah put here to smoke will stop uplifting you[/quote
> 
> <-i agree there to. aye cycler there are a few evolutionists who have looked into the bible as a historical book not a religous one and have seen that there are things that coinside with the evolutionists idea of things like the great flood for example. and the meteor that they think killed the dinosuars n shit.


----------



## CrackerJax (Jun 29, 2009)

cbtwohundread said:


> religion is not a fashion as it seems to you tricyle man.....u need to take the training wheels off your mind


I'd rather he keep the training wheels as opposed to wearing blinders. 

One will get better, the other won't.


----------



## bicycle racer (Jun 29, 2009)

good analogy.


----------



## cbtwohundread (Jun 29, 2009)

i am the sun you cant blind the sun i am the light and you are darkness i dont come to bow i come to conquer..no baldhead can ever conquer i...cracker jax u have no peace of mind you did come from a monkey your right,,i came from the sky....


----------



## PadawanBater (Jun 29, 2009)

Cbt, in every post you make, you allude to being some being of great power or something...

You ok upstairs buddy?


----------



## CrackerJax (Jun 29, 2009)

Wait a minute.... I'm channeling him now.... Ommmmmm... he says.... "no, I am not".


----------



## Brazko (Jun 29, 2009)

We got a Lion on the Loose , He's alright, a bit extreme but I understand him, just like I understand his extreme counterpart...... Take one of these and It'll all make sense


----------



## cbtwohundread (Jun 29, 2009)

IVE ALWAYS BEEN CALLED crazy....crazy is genuis...GENIUS IS CRAZY..people are born in2 lies ....and keep them as they grow older i burn them as i do...people believe everything there taught..i have 6th grade education,people stopped brainwashing i long ago,i am only 20 years old but think like an old man thats seen the world sum think like a fish inna aquarium


----------



## cbtwohundread (Jun 29, 2009)

i am the SADHU'S IN INDIA,THE MONKS IN THIALAND,THE RASTA IN ETHIOPIA,THE BIRD IN THE SKY IN FISH IN THE SEA.,,I AM SHIT PISS,,,I AM WEED,,,,I AM ALL THOSE THINGS WHILE I SIT HERE AND TYPE I AM THE COMPUTER I AM IN THE COMPUTER WORLD NOW SAYING LOVE THEM AND LIVE HATE AND YOU WILL DIE.....UNITY SAID THE UNICORN...


----------



## CrackerJax (Jun 29, 2009)

Your mom just called me.... clean your room!


----------



## yandi1 (Jun 29, 2009)

hey cracker have a quick look at this site seems like an old one but got some good arguments http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9404/bigbang.html


----------



## cbtwohundread (Jun 29, 2009)

haha,im a grown man ya dunce...i said thats the education ive obtaianed get ya head out ya batty,,,,read the caption fully b4 ya talk down,im up here


----------



## cbtwohundread (Jun 29, 2009)

goodday brazco...gooday yandi,,,good nite cracker


----------



## yandi1 (Jun 29, 2009)

nite dude good chat


----------



## TeaTreeOil (Jun 29, 2009)

Evolution is scientific fact.

Unless, of course, you believe some god created it(which has zero scientific basis). Then I ask who created this supposed god.... And we get stuck... Your answer at best completely supports evolution/secularity in the same right. So lets just skip the whole superstitious god notions and keep it real.


----------



## Brazko (Jun 29, 2009)

cbtwohundread said:


> IVE ALWAYS BEEN CALLED crazy....crazy is genuis...GENIUS IS CRAZY..people are born in2 lies ....and keep them as they grow older i burn them as i do...people believe everything there taught..i have 6th grade education,people stopped brainwashing i long ago,i am only 20 years old but think like an old man thats seen the world sum think like a fish inna aquarium





cbtwohundread said:


> i am the SADHU'S IN INDIA,THE MONKS IN THIALAND,THE RASTA IN ETHIOPIA,THE BIRD IN THE SKY IN FISH IN THE SEA.,,I AM SHIT PISS,,,I AM WEED,,,,I AM ALL THOSE THINGS WHILE I SIT HERE AND TYPE I AM THE COMPUTER I AM IN THE COMPUTER WORLD NOW SAYING LOVE THEM AND LIVE HATE AND YOU WILL DIE.....UNITY SAID THE UNICORN...


, Yeeaah, go get'em CB2HuhDread



CrackerJax said:


> Your mom just called me.... clean your room!


Come on CJ, I've seen you do better....This guy is a Genius Like You, wait, that means Crazy too,  ahhh hell it's all the Same, ....A Crazy Genius you both Are , You Guys have made my day


----------



## cbtwohundread (Jun 29, 2009)

the truth is coming down liars run for cover..!!!!!!!!!


----------



## yandi1 (Jun 29, 2009)

'In the very beginning, there was a void, a curious form of vacuum, a nothingness containing no space, no time, no matter, no light, no sound. Yet the laws of nature were in place and this curious vacuum held potential. A story logically begins at the beginning, but this story is about the universe and unfortunately there are no data for the very beginnings--none, zero. We don't know anything about the universe until it reaches the mature age of a billion of a trillionth of a second. That is, some very short time after creation in the big bang. When you read or hear anything about the birth of the universe, someone is making it up--we are in the realm of philosophy. Only God knows what happened at the very beginning' Leon Lederman. this dude summs up my argument haha thats probly as best as i can get at 5:50am haha


----------



## yandi1 (Jun 29, 2009)

haha this post has had me reading for like the last 3 hours but from where i am seeing it atm neither sides can prove the point without someone or something being there at the begining to recount it


----------



## cbtwohundread (Jun 29, 2009)

becuase we are the beginning before us theyre were dragons and demons u call them t-rex and there was no sun moon or stars then they came and the demons couldnt stand it and perished but now the weakheart will do the same


----------



## CrackerJax (Jun 29, 2009)




----------



## cbtwohundread (Jun 29, 2009)

i am him you found the computer me cracker thank you i lost him...SHAZZAAAAM NOW CRACKER IS UNDER MY FOOT I AM GABRIEL COME TO SLAY THE DRAGON


----------



## cbtwohundread (Jun 29, 2009)

Im leving the computer world and going to the outernet now to uplift gooday i give truth to all.who accept it...


----------



## yandi1 (Jun 29, 2009)

yer fuck that livin with dinosuars ude get some nice steaks


----------



## Brazko (Jun 29, 2009)

TeaTreeOil said:


> Evolution is scientific fact.
> 
> Unless, of course, you believe some god created it(which has zero scientific basis). Then I ask who created this supposed god.... And we get stuck... Your answer at best completely supports evolution/secularity in the same right. So lets just skip the whole superstitious god notions and keep it real.


I've seen this question pop up before, Not saying I believe this god or that god, but I pondered it and what if the Universe was put forth to understand how "God" itself was made to be itself...You know just sitting in a timeless Void, like who, what, & where the fuck Am I, Sounds like an Experiment in waiting, with the conclusion probably ending in, Well, Shit..........I AM

This has been too much in 1 day  Pour Surp!!


----------



## Brazko (Jun 29, 2009)

,LMAO, Stop it, Stop it, Stop it.. I can't take it any more, I'm heading back to the OuterNet AS Well


----------



## bicycle racer (Jun 29, 2009)

man they really come out of the wood work sometimes that one guy is absolutely bat shit crazy. its funny most intelligent people i know realize they know nothing in the big scheme of things where as the most unintelligent believe they know all. sound like anybody on here. some people will never KNOW anything like our new friend the dragon slayer lol.


----------



## yandi1 (Jun 29, 2009)

man i got a question now speaking hypotheticly here if god created the universe n there is a heaven and hell does heaven and hell also have psychics and laws to make it exist haha that question will trouble me the rest of my life


----------



## cbtwohundread (Jun 29, 2009)

were in hell now...heaven is in the mind people wanna think of god as a majestic in the sky...hes as simple as a lamb the diffrece between me and them i look for god and zion around me,,,thats realistic....god is a man


----------



## cbtwohundread (Jun 29, 2009)

and we are in his image...his imperial majesty jah rastafari


----------



## yandi1 (Jun 29, 2009)

hahah rastafari have the belief of a god figure dont they?


----------



## bicycle racer (Jun 29, 2009)

the physics and laws we know may or may not apply in some places in the universe or for that matter in time/dimensions or in the universe of the mind it gets abstract real quick when you start on that stuff but simply no one knows thats part of the game.


----------



## yandi1 (Jun 29, 2009)

yer i dunno what it is that has me so interested now but im pretty dam keen on learning more on this subject its great


----------



## bicycle racer (Jun 29, 2009)

people are inquisitive by nature at least some people.


----------



## yandi1 (Jun 29, 2009)

tru that brother im off man sore eyes -_-


----------



## bicycle racer (Jun 29, 2009)

i have viewed that and the secret as well somewhat similar in concept which i mostly agree with. applying such philosophies is more tricky understanding something on a mental level and applying it spiritually is much more difficult imo.


----------



## Stoney McFried (Jun 29, 2009)

cbtwohundread.....Did YOU eat all the sunshine acid?Did you?


----------



## bicycle racer (Jun 29, 2009)

if he did one would achieve more clarity in there posts i would think.


----------



## Stoney McFried (Jun 29, 2009)

It takes all kinds, I guess.


bicycle racer said:


> if he did one would achieve more clarity in there posts i would think.


----------



## cbtwohundread (Jun 29, 2009)

physics dont apply to me and i dont apply to my physical its temporary like being a man,your a baby twice you come out of the pussy and you shit and piss mamma has to change your little diaper then your a man you have to change mamas diaper cuz shes a little baby again.....and inbetween then and then you have to find truth in space and water and fire and dirt cuz thats all thats forever cuz then you will bee dirt and wind and fire see you beleive in lies and i beleive in truth so run away liars i am the truth and run away shadows cuz im some lite i am the herb smoke me and get wisdom soloman was the wisest one....


----------



## Stoney McFried (Jun 29, 2009)

Well...if physics don't apply, you should be able to bungee jump with an extra long cord, right, dude?


cbtwohundread said:


> physics dont apply to me and i dont apply to my physical its temporary like being a man,your a baby twice you come out of the pussy and you shit and piss mamma has to change your little diaper then your a man you have to change mamas diaper cuz shes a little baby again.....and inbetween then and then you have to find truth in space and water and fire and dirt cuz thats all thats forever cuz then you will bee dirt and wind and fire see you beleive in lies and i beleive in truth so run away liars i am the truth and run away shadows cuz im some lite i am the herb smoke me and get wisdom soloman was the wisest one....


----------



## CrackerJax (Jun 29, 2009)

evidently, computers, electricity and the internet apply........


----------



## Stoney McFried (Jun 29, 2009)

Those who are against science should not accept any of its benefits.


CrackerJax said:


> evidently, computers, electricity and the internet apply........


----------



## Bon3z (Jun 29, 2009)

Whoa Kay.... lots of ground to cover so bear with me. if i stray i apologize, im stoned...

I'd first like to say CHASE THE BASS where'd you go man? i said finally! another quantum enthusiast!
Stoney, LOL, DUDE YOU RAWK!

i share many of Stoney's views on life in regards to people and their own religion i.e. i dont care what religion you are, its your choice, just keep it out of work, school etc. Hey Stoney, has anyone ever told you that you're very left AND right brained?

Thats a lot of effin information to go through in one sitting..... after page 10 i started skimming to save time lol, blunt #2.5 is where im at right now after reading all that i have.... some of the posts made me laugh so hard that i nearly peed mahself! others made me feel like doing this  

Anyway, my main point is that i cant believe that quantum theory/physics was only mentioned ONCE in 20 pages of posts. Have none of you seen the documentary film "What the Bleep: Down the Rabbit Hole"? (ok im not implying an "OMG i cant believe you have not seen it" attitude, its just a question ) If not, i recommend, nay, DARE you to watch it. I DARE you to open your mind to infinite possibilities, to get a perspective that is neither comforting or easy to fathom, to make an attempt at increasing the level of brain activity that you are aware of, to question the very fabric of reality and the universe as you know it. so take one of these  and sit back a sec.


* This is Straight from Wikipedia under search: quantum physics*

*"Quantum mechanics* is a set of principles underlying the most fundamental known description of all physical systems at the submicroscopic scale (at the atomic level). Notable among these principles are simultaneous wave-like and particle-like behavior of matter and radiation ("Waveparticle duality"), and the prediction of probabilities in situations where classical physics predicts certainties. Classical physics can be derived as a good _approximation_ to quantum physics, typically in circumstances with large numbers of particles. Thus quantum phenomena are particularly relevant in systems whose dimensions are close to the atomic scale, such as molecules, atoms, electrons, protons and other subatomic particles. Exceptions exist for certain systems which exhibit quantum mechanical effects on macroscopic scale; superfluidity is one well-known example. Quantum theory provides accurate descriptions for many previously unexplained phenomena such as black body radiation and stable electron orbits. It has also given insight into the workings of many different biological systems, including smell receptors and protein structures*."* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_physics


That best explains in short the very broad spectrum of studied areas in quantum mechanics. They just say it better than i do lol.

I do need to say one thing before i continue to my *OPINIONS* and *SELF DISCOVERIES*: I have no problem with religion as a whole, do what you want, i dont care, just dont force it on me, as i dont force anything on you. 

For so long scientists and physicists alike have been looking in the wrong direction, as have many of you posting on this thread, in my opinion. Right now the focus is on the grand scale of GOD and CREATION and EVOLUTION which are all good and all have their cooky aspects, that comes with this kind of territory and im sure MOST of you will agree with me on that (hopefully). When i say wrong direction i mean just that, were looking OUT instead of in... To the molecular level. We look at Einstein and see, wow, E=mc^2 / theory of relativity and all of that. Einstein HATED quantum theory, he didnt like what was known as "spooky space" or more descriptively; the space between the orbit path of an electron, and the nucleus of an atom. 

Which brings me to my next point. Atoms, which we are undoubtedly made up of, are essentially empty! Now, were talking on a molecular scale here, only observable by the most powerful of microscopes, but what physicists noticed/discovered is that atoms are essentially empty spae. Another interesting characteristic of atoms is that they NEVER TOUCH, electron fields around atom nuclei repel eachother, even if the atoms are part of the some molecular structure, they are not touching, they NEVER touch eachother, they get REAL close, REAL CLOSE, like i said this is on a molecular level, measurable only by tables and scales most humans would never use throughout their entire lives. 
Ok now im rambling.... its in the documentary

Did you know that your thought affects reality? 
Did you know that Electrons are aware of themselves? 
Did you know that your brain is processing 400,000,000,000 bits of information a second (thats four hundred BILLION) and that we are only consciously aware of 2000? ( two thousand ) 
Imagine if we as an entire race began working towards ONE common goal, WE COULD MOVE MOUNTAINS LITERALLY! 

Here are a couple of excerpts from "What the Bleep"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlomn1Hc_VM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQe0oiaBssg This one is my favorite!!it has my favorite experiment in it! the double slit test!!!

"consciousness is free because there is no mathematical description of the subject, only objects can be described mathematically." love that quote 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWXJUNkkKj0 
This one is the last 10 minutes of the video.. it goes into how reality is perception, and only when perception is altered can reality be altered


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zpnlCo5APrE
This is my second favorite part, the part that backs my question, why dont we all work towards a common goal. FOCUS everything, every attention, every thought, to one common thing? even more backed by THIS experiment ----> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XB6-OY-c9rk

This is one thing ive never understood about the human race: We destroy ourselves continuously, fight endlessly, try to one up eachother..... WHY? More people have been killed in the name of god than for any other reason on this planet, which is why i cant relate myself to christianity as a whole. Doesnt the word "christian" literally translated mean "christ like"? did Jesus kill anyone in the name of his father? NO! HE DIDNT! (or at least thats the common belief, pure, holy, virgin , never sinned) Look im not denouncing anyones beliefs, i just find it hard to believe that he was conceived immaculately, lived 33 years (and as famous as he was for his prophetic visions) and STAYED a virgin, and NEVER sinned.... COME ON, fame changes people... good or bad. Another thing that didnt set well with me was going to church, I sit in silence while some guy on stage, that i know nothing about, preaches to me what he believes to be the correct interpretation of holy scripture (while its only HIS interp.) and how it should tie in to my life next week. wtf? how is that a path anyone would want to follow? being TOLD what to do your entire earthly life? Why not experience things for yourself? make your own conclusions, look inside yourself, instead of looking out at the rest of the world. Meditation (for me anyway) is the best form of "inner looking", not only do your discipline, muscle control, and thought processes become more controlled, but you begin to see whats really there, what reality really is. And that the power of thought is far greater than any of us know, and has the ability to change reality as we know it. LOL this is all explained in greater detail than i could ever give here in the RIU forums lol

Ok im ranting again, i apologize *deep breath*


OK back to this question: "This is one thing ive never understood about the human race: We destroy ourselves continuously, fight endlessly, try to one up eachother..... WHY?" its always been a hard set of facts for me to swallow, lemme tell ya. Even a a child i never understood why kids fought in school, or why girls had to gossip and spread rumors just to be more popular and in control of the school yard... why? To be perfectly honest, i dont know if we will ever know the answer to that question, or if we'll even come to some sort of median to settle differences, find common ground, and GROW from that. Thats how i settle quarrels in real life... No joke, i was a local rock show and stopped a fight like this. One was pissed cause the other accidently moshed into his girlfriend, and the other was mad cause the first guy used a racial slur to express his feelings about the accidental bump into his girlfriend. so i walked over to the dudes and told my GF to go check on the guy's gf, make sure she wasnt hurt or nothin. Long story short, i got both of their attentions and asked one question to both of them, "why did you guys come here tonight? both replied that they had friends in the one of the bands (different bands but still =D) i then followed with, " ok, so you guys are both here to support your friends right?" "Yes" then i said, "ok, the common ground is found, cmon guys, is it really worth fighting over? You're both here to enjoy music, and truthfully, your girl needs to back away from the "pit" if you don't want her getting hurt, shell be just 20 feet behind you at the bar, i promise." the guy smiled and said i was right, a smartass, but right. They shook hands and enjoyed the show TOGETHER. Ok, i think im done, again, i am sorry for the jumbled-ness of all this, lol i had to take in 20 pages of posts!! 

Look, were all on this planet together, its time we act like it. Lets find the common ground, and grow from that, just like the babies that we all love and grow ourselves


----------



## Stoney McFried (Jun 29, 2009)

They told me something about the parent,adult, and child portions of the brain switching out really rapidly...I figured it just meant I was a nut.But thanks.


Bon3z said:


> Hey Stoney, has anyone ever told you that you're very left AND right brained?


----------



## Bon3z (Jun 29, 2009)

I meant it as a compliment =) i get along with analytical people really well.


----------



## Stoney McFried (Jun 29, 2009)

Well, welcome to riu.And interesting post.I'll have to read it over again, because right now, nothing is sinking in,lol.


Bon3z said:


> I meant it as a compliment =) i get along with analytical people really well.


----------



## Bon3z (Jun 29, 2009)

Oh one more thing i found that was interesting that i thought would further "solidify" ( cause nothing is really solid ) my statement of reality only being perception, and that infinite possibilities are reality, only when we see something is it "really there"

do this test, i promise nothing bad will happen
http://www.blindspottest.com/


that test link was in the article here, read it, it will make you go, wtf? 
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/188440/the_blind_spot_does_our_brain_see_things.html?cat=5


----------



## CrackerJax (Jun 29, 2009)

There's nothing TO sink in.....


----------



## Bon3z (Jun 29, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> There's nothing TO sink in.....


you found nothing of interest, not one thing?


----------



## CrackerJax (Jun 29, 2009)

nothing cohesive ...no.

Then again, you've said nothing new for me. Not your fault, but I have walked down that road a long time ago.


----------



## yandi1 (Jun 29, 2009)

hey bonez thnx for adding that in i am starting to get really interested in that area n those videos wer pretty insightfull


----------



## Bon3z (Jun 29, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> nothing cohesive ...no.
> 
> Then again, you've said nothing new for me. Not your fault, but I have walked down that road a long time ago.



ok, fair enough. You've heard everything that i said, but how is what i said not cohesive? i may be wrong, but i thought to *cohere* meant to be united, or stuck together, like in a mass of some sort... i could be wrong... but if im right, i then, dont follow what you mean. 

edit : If youre talking aesthetically, i think i understand, and i did apologize for the jumbled-ness in the beginning of my post. Ya, i can understand how my post AS IS wouldn't_ logically_ cohere...

its all good! trust me, no ill will or nothing, just not following you is all =/


----------



## Bon3z (Jun 29, 2009)

yandi1 said:


> hey bonez thnx for adding that in i am starting to get really interested in that area n those videos wer pretty insightfull



ya i thought there had to be someone reading this thread that could find some way or another to relate to the video (and those are just PIECES)... lol for me it was one of those things that just shook my brain about so much that i had to watch it 4 more times. i couldn't get enough of it at first lol. and youre welcome.  

anyone else think this is a no no picture circle cut out?  some see an exclamation mark,i see something else...


----------



## cbtwohundread (Jun 30, 2009)

u apply science to everything ure lost bee serious wat is science...its "smart" people looking at things thats been here simple little things birds,butterflys,etc. forever ,and they scrutinize it....when i look at things i look at it in the simplest fashion ,,,people stopped accepting the simple things and thats wat science is to me i dont look at its benifits before i look at its destruction....people dont overstand that machines are invading our space....science is just a excuse for wanting to play god,,,u want to fly to outerspace to do this and that....u dont even know wats at the bootom of our sea...u dont know how to fix our problems u caused...they can build a million cars cant feed a million hungry people?they destroy wat they cant make then replace it with metal...and thats the time u live in....im done now with this subject its now boring i


----------



## CrackerJax (Jun 30, 2009)

yes, move on to the crayon section....


----------



## cbtwohundread (Jun 30, 2009)

lol cracker jax do u admire i u seem to always bee under my foot,,


----------



## cbtwohundread (Jun 30, 2009)

u are the president of imans fanclub,,,i will be sure to send you a nice picture for the t-shirts


----------



## LoverOfTheFruit (Jun 30, 2009)

its bin scientificaly proven we have evolved, think of it as this everything came from the big bang, so incase we are all from the same atom that everythin came from, but over trillions and trillions of year the atoms evolved forming nitrogen carbon etc, are molecular structure could not and is not explained by the god theory, which is just a theory, personally i tihnk we arfe all part of the same thing, started of as the same thing and jus evolved over time, and we will not stop evolving until we die off, either the universe wil colapse into itself or due to our own acts as a species or some other universal happenings


----------



## bicycle racer (Jun 30, 2009)

quantum physics is an interesting subject i like abstract sciences like that some creativity is needed in the quantum field. i appreciate purely scientific analytical minds but i also like more creative thinking as well very rarely to people have an ability in both.


----------



## howdyguhk (Jun 30, 2009)

here is my impression of cbtwohundred:

"science is but a subject of clown skewl. you juggle your science in the air but then youdrop your science and it breaks on the ground spilling out god, his angels, and all the hippies. the 90s were a time of evil when science was gaining power working out in the gym taking steroids that shrank its balls. god doesnt need steroids and has huge balls so heshe teabags science and you all fall asleep believing in evolution."

his only argument so far has sucked...he just points out the imperfections in humans(as if we all didn't know that already)

TO THE CRAYON SECTION YOU GO cb200!!


----------



## CrackerJax (Jun 30, 2009)

Quantum physics shows how very little we actually know. We have a long way to go... a long way. In a few hundred years, this time period will seem elemental. 

CB... short answer...no. But you double and triple post inanely, so it's just increased chance my posts are near yours.


----------



## bicycle racer (Jun 30, 2009)

whether there was a big bang or not does not answer the question of infinity what happened before the big bang? where did the dense ball of matter come from? how can the universe be infinite? how can it not be? how can time be infinite? how can it not be and so forth and so forth. humans will never answer these questions its not in our inherent capabilities as humans. i love playing with these questions in my mind.


----------



## CrackerJax (Jun 30, 2009)

Yes, it's disconcerting to realize that man may NEVER get all the answers he seeks. But the wonder, the enjoyment comes from the search....


----------



## bicycle racer (Jun 30, 2009)

its good for the mind and healthy to question things and come to your own conclusions. i think one of the biggest human problems is that many dont question anything and except everything as fact automatically.


----------



## cbtwohundread (Jun 30, 2009)

theyre u go again with your schamatics i enjoyed this argument tho cracker jax i like u more than u kno...probably not mutual because u think im crazy but everybody does so as u can see and smell and taste and hear and piss and shit why u say that i hope u enjoyed this as much as i did i enjoy points of view of you and yours and theres and mine so dont bee a swine give me some wine !shazaam everythings fine!!sun shineth and clouds partith!!!birds singith and frogs ribbit!



none of us will get all the answers we are looking for friend but we try and try


----------



## CrackerJax (Jun 30, 2009)

bicycle racer said:


> its good for the mind and healthy to question things and come to your own conclusions. i think one of the biggest human problems is that many dont question anything and except everything as fact automatically.


Not all ppl are competent.


----------



## Dr. Greenhorn (Jun 30, 2009)

Ouch..... !!


----------



## CrackerJax (Jun 30, 2009)

Zing?


----------



## PadawanBater (Jun 30, 2009)

Really though, the implications of not accepting this theory has an entire negative aspect on society. A lot like the religious nuts preach about how manditory prayer isn't allowed in public schools and that's going to lead to the moral decay of our youth...


----------



## CrackerJax (Jun 30, 2009)

To start, most folks think that a scientific "theory" means "flimsy". It does not, for it means the very opposite.


----------



## TeaTreeOil (Jun 30, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> Not all ppl are competent.


I'm still searching for one. 

We'd have the grandest discussions, oh, I simply can not wait.


----------



## CrackerJax (Jun 30, 2009)

TeaTreeOil said:


> I'm still searching for one.
> 
> We'd have the grandest discussions, oh, I simply can not wait.


Needle in a haystack I'm afraid.


----------



## Stoney McFried (Jun 30, 2009)

I'm not competent, but I am legal to purchase alcohol!


----------



## CrackerJax (Jun 30, 2009)

Alcohol, that always makes me more competent....


----------



## Stoney McFried (Jun 30, 2009)

AND you DID stay at that Holiday Inn last night. I know because they found another dead hooker in the dumpster today.


CrackerJax said:


> Alcohol, that always makes me more competent....


----------



## CrackerJax (Jun 30, 2009)

No, No, I only dump at Marriott. Must be one of my competitors.... grrr.


----------



## want_my_ink (Jun 30, 2009)

keico said:


> My personal belief is that God Created through evolution.
> 
> I believe he said let there be light earth etc, and it happened through evolution
> 
> ...


Very well put!! I believe it has been proven that you can't get something from nothing. I believe the big bang therory is very possible but men scratch the surface of how God created all things and draw conclutions leaving out the possiblity of God himself. There is a God, his son Jesus Christ did walk this earth in the flesh.


----------



## CrackerJax (Jun 30, 2009)

I will simply put it to you this way.


Evolution gave us G*D....... think about it.


----------



## cbtwohundread (Jul 1, 2009)

dont be a swine give me some wine


----------



## bicycle racer (Jul 1, 2009)

people make the mistake of seeing god in mans image thats arrogance and vanity on a grand scale and an improper way of thinking. if there is a benevolent power or force its not some bearded guy in the sky whos son was jesus and who waits for us to fuck up to punish us. such ideas are those of hateful men who dont understand the simple concepts of life which are obvious if you allow them to be presented to you.


----------



## bicycle racer (Jul 1, 2009)

i prefer beer


----------



## CrackerJax (Jul 1, 2009)

Ahhh, but man made G*D in HIS image...... beard must stay on.


----------



## MARS1 (Jul 1, 2009)

{Evolving is Creation} Darwin and the creator of life are two different things! I like this debate


----------



## Dr. Greenhorn (Jul 1, 2009)

be careful what you ask for, it gets brutal in here....LOL


----------



## weedyweedy (Jul 1, 2009)

GreatwhiteNorth said:


> The chance that higher life forms might have emerged through evolution is comparable with the chance that a 'tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a flyable Boeing 747 from the materials therein, or that an explosion in a print shop created the entire unabridged encyclopedia britannica".
> I simply cannot accept that life appeared in a void of lifelessness and that the complexities of this world are the result of random chance.
> My opinion only.
> Peace,
> GWN


A false analogy (tornado..boeing 747) is not only unscientific but it is also an invalid argument. 

In the case of creation vs. evolution, take it from the law of thermodynamics which state that matter can neither be created nor destroyed but comes from pre-existing materials. The universe is made up of matter ergo it was not created but evolved from PRE-EXISTING materials. 

I don't mean to be culturally insensitive, but for me, God is a product of man's imagination and faith in God should be personal, and not imposed upon society.


----------



## CrackerJax (Jul 2, 2009)

Dr. Greenhorn said:


> be careful what you ask for, it gets brutal in here....LOL


This isn't your Grandmother's Thread. *BRING IT ON GRANNY!!! BRING IT!!! *



weedyweedy said:


> A false analogy (tornado..boeing 747) is not only unscientific but it is also an invalid argument.
> 
> In the case of creation vs. evolution, take it from the law of thermodynamics which state that matter can neither be created nor destroyed but comes from pre-existing materials. The universe is made up of matter ergo it was not created but evolved from PRE-EXISTING materials.
> 
> I don't mean to be culturally insensitive, but for me, God is a product of man's imagination and faith in God should be personal, and not imposed upon society.


As far as we know.....

(this disclaimer has been brought to you by concerned scientists who want to keep their grant money. Thank you.)


----------



## bicycle racer (Jul 2, 2009)

yeah ok and where did this pre existing material come from lol.


----------



## CrackerJax (Jul 2, 2009)

Walmart? Everything comes from Walmart....


----------



## TeaTreeOil (Jul 2, 2009)

Physical Law: The universe has always, and will always exist.

Conservation of matter and energy, which we consider physical laws, would make this one as well.


----------



## CrackerJax (Jul 2, 2009)

As far as we know....  I love science!


----------



## cbtwohundread (Jul 2, 2009)

e=mc2...science science liars...fire fire fire...


----------



## bicycle racer (Jul 2, 2009)

ok physical law does not explain the origins of the universe and did not solve the problem of matters origin. science cannot answer such questions the answer can only be speculated on. its an impossibility to know such things if you think differently well your not thinking.


----------



## bicycle racer (Jul 2, 2009)

cbtwohundred you seem to hate science. i hope you dont use or live better from anything science has brought us if you do your rather confused about what you say.


----------



## cbtwohundread (Jul 2, 2009)

science is a religion to me...i dont hate anything i conquer...things are simple ya spit in the sky itll fall in ya eye i dont need someone to say thats gravity to overstand that


----------



## bicycle racer (Jul 2, 2009)

i dont think you can overstand anything anyway. so you do not use or benefit from anything science has brought? right well you better stop posting on your computer. and go live off the land cause otherwise your statements hold no water.


----------



## PadawanBater (Jul 2, 2009)

bicycle racer said:


> i dont think you can overstand anything anyway. so you do not use or benefit from anything science has brought? right well you better stop posting on your computer. and go live off the land cause otherwise your statements hold no water.


He's gotta be just bullshitting the entire time. There's no way he actually believes the stuff he's been posting. It's just nonsense after jiberish.


----------



## bicycle racer (Jul 2, 2009)

well at first i literally thought he was joking i really did but who knows.


----------



## CrackerJax (Jul 2, 2009)

well, he can't work out cubic feet


----------



## PadawanBater (Jul 8, 2009)

Who believes in the God created evolution theory?

God > creates everything > doesn't get involved > created evolution to start the workings of human beings, knowing the entire time what would happen > etc...

What's everyones take on that?


----------



## CrackerJax (Jul 8, 2009)

I think it would be the happy compromise. 

I am not technically an atheist, since that entails saying that there is no possibility of there being a G*D. I am willing to accept the possibility of a starting point of creation, but only science can bring us to G*D, not a primitive myth.


----------



## bicycle racer (Jul 8, 2009)

im not atheist either i try to avoid words like god as it suggests religion. for me from experiences i have had i simply know there is more than meets the eye regarding this big sha-bang we call life. but theres sure as shit no bearded guy whos a dick floating around somewhere punishing people for this or that. that much im sure of. sick hateful ideas like that only come from the minds of men.


----------



## CrackerJax (Jul 8, 2009)

Let's just refer to G*D as S.P. "starting point".


----------



## PadawanBater (Jul 8, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> I think it would be the happy compromise.
> 
> I am not technically an atheist, since that entails saying that there is no possibility of there being a G*D. I am willing to accept the possibility of a starting point of creation, but only science can bring us to G*D, not a primitive myth.


I think theres a distinction between ''there is no God'' and ''I don't know if there is a God, there just isn't enough evidence to believe in one". The former would require someone to travel the entire universe in search of a God - unrealistic, illogical. On the other hand the latter is exactly where I fall, I just havn't seen enough evidence to support any God's existence, and I feel the same as BR regarding the rest of the universe. 

No way in fuck the God of the Bible or Allah or Zeus or any of those other mythical Gods have ever existed, I am as certain about this as certainty will permit me to be. 

When knowledge and information are obsticles to belief, you know theres a problem with that belief. An omnipotent being wouldn't require you to become a sheep in order to win in this game we call life. That's the most absurd belief in religion "believe this even though it contradicts reality, just have enough faith!"...



bicycle racer said:


> im not atheist either i try to avoid words like god as it suggests religion. for me from experiences i have had i simply know there is more than meets the eye regarding this big sha-bang we call life. but theres sure as shit no bearded guy whos a dick floating around somewhere punishing people for this or that. that much im sure of. sick hateful ideas like that only come from the minds of men.


----------



## CrackerJax (Jul 8, 2009)

Religion had its purpose before science although I don't think it was run well at all.

Now it is simply................outdated.


----------



## PadawanBater (Jul 8, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> Religion had its purpose before science although I don't think it was run well at all.
> 
> Now it is simply................outdated.


 
To you and me, but tell that to 85%-90% of the rest of the 'thinking' world...


----------



## CrackerJax (Jul 8, 2009)

It's a hard crutch to let go of. And there are many who profit by it being there.


----------



## PadawanBater (Jul 8, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> It's a hard crutch to let go of. And there are many who profit by it being there.


 
True, those are very important aspects of it...

Another would be the group of people who never actually give this stuff any thought, they just sail through life claiming to be one thing or another because that's how they were brought up without actually ever thinking about it... 

I'd guess atleast 40%-50% of the world and 50%-60% of Americans fall into that category. 

So in reality, the 30% or so fundies, the ones who believe it word for word, as if the shit came directly from God himself, are the problem.

Christian, Muslim, Catholic, Jewish... doesn't matter, they're all equally as dangerous to the future of mankind.


----------



## CrackerJax (Jul 8, 2009)

Reality is a tough thing for most.... religion is a comfort, and hardly examined if it takes away that comfort.


----------



## bicycle racer (Jul 8, 2009)

i agree with you guys its quite the conundrum. as one or both of you mentioned for me the most offensive people are the ones who think or consider nothing but what there told or believe from a young age. thats blasphemy against the mental abilities humans are gifted with to consider things in a unbiased way and come to there own proper thought out conclusions imo.


----------



## CrackerJax (Jul 8, 2009)

Indoctrination of the young is always a top priority to cult religions....


----------



## DrSimmy (Jul 10, 2009)

PadawanBater said:


> I think theres a distinction between ''there is no God'' and ''I don't know if there is a God, there just isn't enough evidence to believe in one". The former would require someone to travel the entire universe in search of a God - unrealistic, illogical. On the other hand the latter is exactly where I fall, I just havn't seen enough evidence to support any God's existence, and I feel the same as BR regarding the rest of the universe.
> ...


In regard to travelling in the universe search of god you should watch that Futurama episode "Godfellas" call me stupid or whatever you may but that episode raises a lot of good points and theory's it deffinatley changed my view on the subject it was funny as hell to.


----------



## PadawanBater (Jul 10, 2009)

DrSimmy said:


> In regard to travelling in the universe search of god you should watch that Futurama episode "Godfellas" call me stupid or whatever you may but that episode raises a lot of good points and theory's it deffinatley changed my view on the subject it was funny as hell to.


 
I definitely will, that's actually not the first time I've heard that...


----------



## bicycle racer (Jul 10, 2009)

futurama can be a funny show.


----------



## MARS1 (Jul 11, 2009)

www.reasons.org _Hugh Ross_ has very good insight on the topic. I believe you all will enjoy this site.


----------



## TheBrutalTruth (Jul 13, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> Indoctrination of the young is always a top priority to cult religions....


Not just cult religions CJ, also cult ideologies and cult politicial parties that rely upon demogoguery.


----------



## phoenixaflame (Jul 13, 2009)

Going back to the main theme of the thread...

I don't believe there should be much argument on how weed got here. The information is out there and all logical signs point to evolution and the big bang. All the questions of "who created the big bang?" and "why are we here?" are trivial.


----------



## CrackerJax (Jul 13, 2009)

Yes TBT, the operative word being cult. Imagine trying to explain the Bible to a young adult for the very first time... with no preconditioning . In just a few generations, the Bible would be an oddity.


----------



## mindphuk (Jul 14, 2009)

I would like just one evolution denier give a reasonable creationist explanation of Human Chromosome number 2. 
This fusion of ape chromosomes found in the human genome is solid evidence of common ancestry. In fact finding these fused chromosomes was a prediction based in evolution, something that the creationists claim cannot be done. 
The evidence for evolution is overwhelming if you just take the time to look. We can use genetics to trace lineage far back in the evolutionary tree, showing which species are related and which ones ended up in a separate branch. 

 [FONT=Book Antiqua, Times New Roman, Times]*Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
*--Theodosius Dobzhansky (1900-1975) Russian geneticist and evolutionary biologist[/FONT]
 
[FONT=Book Antiqua, Times New Roman, Times]*Evolution is the GUT (GRAND UNIFYING THEORY) of biology. It is the bedrock principle of our scientific understanding of the natural laws that govern life. Furthermore, it is logically necessary for life's survival in a changing world environment. To deny this scientific principle is analogous to believing that the earth is the center of the universe!*
--Dr. J. William Schopf, paleobiologist and director of UCLA's Center for the Study of Evolution and the Origin of Life[/FONT]
 
These quotes are significant because all of biology today is evolutionary. Every scientific and medical advance that is made, only could have occurred with evolution in mind. The fact is that science itself is self-correcting and self-confirming. If the science was wrong, the results of the science would not work. You would not be typing on your computer and benefiting from modern medicines if the basic theories of science were incorrect. Germ theory, atomic theory, cosmology, as well as evolutionary theory are all supported to be accurate models of the way things actually work by the very fact that we have technology based on them. 

[FONT=Book Antiqua, Times New Roman, Times]*A preacher thundering from his pulpit about the uniqueness of human beings with their God-given souls would not like to realize that his very gestures, the hairs that rose on his neck, the deepened tones of his outraged voice, and the perspiration that probably ran down his skin under clerical vestments are all manifestations of anger in mammals. If he was sneering at Darwin a bit (one does not need a mirror to know that one sneers), did he remember uncomfortably that a sneer is derived from an animal's lifting [of] its lip to remind an enemy of its fangs? Even while he was denying the principle of evolution, how could a vehement man doubt such intimate evidence?
*--Sally Carrighar, Wild Heritage

[/FONT][FONT=Book Antiqua, Times New Roman, Times]*If every fossil were magicked away, the comparative study of modern organisms, of how their patterns of resemblances, especially of their genetic sequences, are distributed among species, and of how species are distributed among continents and islands, would still demonstrate, beyond all sane doubt, that our history is evolutionary, and that all living creatures are cousins. Fossils are a bonus. A welcome bonus, to be sure, but not an essential one. It is worth remembering this when creationists go on (as they tediously do) about "gaps" in the fossil record. The fossil record could be one big gap, and the evidence for evolution would still be overwhelmingly strong. At the same time, if we had only fossils and no other evidence, the fact of evolution would again be overwhelmingly supported. As things stand, we are blessed with both.*
--Professor Richard Dawkins[/FONT]
[FONT=Book Antiqua, Times New Roman, Times]
[/FONT]


----------



## yandi1 (Jul 16, 2009)

have a quick research ona pygmy munchin whatever u wanna call it lol it was found in the indonesian islands a few years ago im sorry i cant give to much more info than that i was pretty ripped when i seen the doco but it pokes a few large holes in the evolutionary chain im not sayin evolution isnt tru but u mite find that stuff interestin if u can find it found a link that explains a tiny bit about it http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/10/1027_041027_homo_floresiensis.html


----------



## PadawanBater (Jul 16, 2009)

yandi1 said:


> have a quick research ona pygmy munchin whatever u wanna call it lol it was found in the indonesian islands a few years ago im sorry i cant give to much more info than that i was pretty ripped when i seen the doco but it pokes a few large holes in the evolutionary chain im not sayin evolution isnt tru but u mite find that stuff interestin if u can find it found a link that explains a tiny bit about it http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/10/1027_041027_homo_floresiensis.html


 


> This chart depicts one view of the evolution and worldwide dispersal of the genus _Homo._ The new species, _Homo floresiensis,_ is part of the Asian dispersals and is believed to be a long-term, isolated descendant of Javanese _H. erectus,_ though it could be a recent divergence. The evolutionary history of _Homo_ is becoming increasingly complex as new species are discovered.


This pic explains that it's just an isolated species of Homo from 18K years ago. Being on an island could create a number of different types of homo sapiens, this one just happened to be small, I don't think that says anything against the theory of evolution.


----------



## polar (Jul 17, 2009)

I think God created the Evolution Machine.... It's not Nature vs. Nurture... It's a degree of both, kind of thing....
And why are we so full of ourselves to think that we are it and everything is about us humans? The human body, as perfect as it is, HAS flaws. But I think the evolution system that God created will take care of that in due time. I believe that God created us for a purpose (and not one so petty that we can understand ourselves).


----------



## TheHighClub (Jul 17, 2009)

Hey everybody guess what?............God Loves You!


----------



## CrackerJax (Jul 17, 2009)

Yes, that's why we're here killing each other....it's the love machine up in the sky.


----------



## mindphuk (Jul 17, 2009)

PadawanBater said:


> This pic explains that it's just an isolated species of Homo from 18K years ago. Being on an island could create a number of different types of homo sapiens, this one just happened to be small, I don't think that says anything against the theory of evolution.


Exactly, isolation is what drives selection. Who claims that this pokes holes in evolution? Oh, let me guess, ICR, AiG, or Hovind.


----------



## IndicaFatnHeavy (Jul 17, 2009)

i like the first post.. saying god created everything through evolution.... sounds cool

personally it was evolution.

god is something made up by people who are too afraid to die. afraid that they wont live anymore.. so they make up some bogus shit to make their mind at ease. It makes me angry how people kill other people over what their mind is too ignorant to comprehend. "Im going to kil lyou because u think god is a fat bald indian... no im going to kill u cuz u think hes an old carpenter with a beard " 

my 17 cents


----------



## bicycle racer (Jul 20, 2009)

to phonexaflame so you feel that the explanation of the true source of time matter energy consciousness life etc... before the big bang is trivial wtf are you talking about???? that? question is number#1 in importance and in no way trivial but its also unanswerable at this time and probably forever as far as were concerned as humans. but to say the origins of the universe as thats the word we use to explain the unexplainable is trivial is a rather belligerent and not a thought out opinion maybe i misinterpreted your post idk. whether your an atheist or deeply religious its the most important question. answer that and well.......????


----------



## GregD88 (Jul 21, 2009)

keico said:


> My personal belief is that God Created through evolution.
> 
> I believe he said let there be light earth etc, and it happened through evolution
> 
> ...


No offense but I hate when people say shit like that. They start off saying "God created everything" then the big bang and evolution theories will be proven and they'll say "Well god created the atom that started the big bang". They'll just keep trying to 1up science without providing any evidence behind their beliefs.


----------



## CrackerJax (Jul 21, 2009)

Now just think about this one....

Evolution created G*D. Chew on that for a bit.


----------



## MARS1 (Jul 21, 2009)

keico said:


> My personal belief is that God Created through evolution.
> 
> I believe he said let there be light earth etc, and it happened through evolution
> 
> ...


My thoughts Too. But I am nobody, and I see it's hot in here about this topic. People can't state ones opinion without someone getting their feelings hurt.  Unsubscribe


----------



## CrackerJax (Jul 21, 2009)

I guess Mars was talking about himself...


----------



## PadawanBater (Jul 21, 2009)

MARS1 said:


> My thoughts Too. But I am nobody, and I see it's hot in here about this topic. People can't state ones opinion without someone getting their feelings hurt.  Unsubscribe


 
Lol, dude, I hope you're not serious..


----------



## MARS1 (Jul 22, 2009)

yeah! Sounds like I have the hurt feelings! I have read the whole Thread and it seams like there is only one general opinion in here, and if you don't agree you get a new asshole! I am not for that! I thought people in here where knowledgeable and willing to listen to opinions. This is not a Good Thread! In my opinion! is not a fact.
This thread is like middle & High school! If you don't agree with the cool kids your not cool like us. it's stupid given the Topic were talking about. 
It's a huge topic and people in here are on some kid stuff. We all need prayer! Chew on that. "really good topic, little kids talking about it".


----------



## CrackerJax (Jul 22, 2009)

Well I'm not about to speak for others, but in my OPINION, fairly religious ppl tend to hang out together and agree with each others faith views. This is natural. I guess the same could be said for non religious folks. 
Usually there is a harmony between the two, even perhaps the majority of the time. 
However, it always hits a sour note when the religious group tries to compare Creationism with Evolution. It's apples and oranges. 
Only one of those subjects is based on faith. The other has been rigorously tested over and over and even now today, being checked and double checked with real data. 
The other one is all based on faith. You can't get away from the Bible with Creationism. A book which cannot be tested, cannot be verified, other than to say it existed and was passed on. That doesn't prove a whit of anything. 

So only one actually uses a verifiable methodology. The other simply doesn't. 

So when ppl get on here and post, they rightfully are entitled to their opinion, but when they insist on comparing apples to oranges, ....well, the fruit is going to fly...


----------



## Dr. Greenhorn (Jul 22, 2009)

who you calling a fruit?! heheheh


----------



## PadawanBater (Jul 22, 2009)

MARS1 said:


> We all need prayer!


 
What the fuck has prayer ever accomplished?


----------



## mastakoosh (Jul 22, 2009)

keico said:


> My personal belief is that God Created through evolution.
> 
> I believe he said let there be light earth etc, and it happened through evolution
> 
> ...


my thoughts exactly. i was just explaining this to my coworker the other night.


----------



## cbtwohundread (Jul 22, 2009)

3hundreads and 2 baldhead


----------



## Dr. Greenhorn (Jul 22, 2009)

^^ be nice now CJ 
ahahaha


----------



## CrackerJax (Jul 22, 2009)

I keep my promises... but it's becoming more difficult than I imagined...


----------



## poplars (Jul 23, 2009)

how bout this, I believe in the future physics will prove/disprove god.


----------



## Brazko (Jul 23, 2009)

poplars said:


> how bout this, I believe in the future physics will prove/disprove god.


How about science/physics have already done so...We need to catch up, 

Hey Doc & CJ, I'm still shook from that one, but I have some free time on hand to ponder its meaning, Hope I don't get sucked into the madness in doing so tho


----------



## Dr. Greenhorn (Jul 23, 2009)

it was an inside joke bro.. sorry!


----------



## Dr. Greenhorn (Jul 23, 2009)

I'll tell you then  I scolded CJ for being a little harsh on my pal Cbtwohundred a while back..... so I was just reminding him to be nice  LOL


----------



## Brazko (Jul 23, 2009)

Dr. Greenhorn said:


> I'll tell you then  I scolded CJ for being a little harsh on my pal Cbtwohundred a while back..... so I was just reminding him to be nice  LOL


Yeah, I know, that's what I was referring too, more specifically.... I'm usually able to follow him, but I'm going to have to sit and think about his last quote a while this time....I know it's solid ground behind what he was trying to say, I'm just goin to have to take some time figuring it, OUt...it'll B Fun , His train of thought is very Unique


----------



## PadawanBater (Jul 23, 2009)

Some kid tried to come at me believing in theistic evolution recently...

Why exactly would someone believe God started evolution?

I do not understand that... their own religion doesn't say that... the theory of evolution doesn't say that... It really seems like these kinds of people are trying to pick a safe middle ground so they don't have to actually pick a side so they don't piss anyone off.

Cowards.


----------



## TheBrutalTruth (Jul 23, 2009)

PadawanBater said:


> Some kid tried to come at me believing in theistic evolution recently...
> 
> Why exactly would someone believe God started evolution?
> 
> ...


Or it could be that they are attempting to find a way to fit both Science and Religion into their life.

And actually, the Bible doesn't really say much of anything on Evolution or Intelligent Design.


----------



## Brazko (Jul 23, 2009)

cbtwohundread said:


> 3hundreads and 2 baldhead


, I Gotcha'..I should've been following more closely. 

*...* nuff respect..nuff respect...*buck*...*buck* *....*


----------



## CrackerJax (Jul 23, 2009)

Brazzy, i'm gonna rep bomb you for your avatar. I just loved the lil rascals as a boy with Buckwheat in the top three. 

What was with naming the kids after oats? 
Alfalfa
Buckwheat
Farina


----------



## Brazko (Jul 24, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> Brazzy, i'm gonna rep bomb you for your avatar. I just loved the lil rascals as a boy with Buckwheat in the top three.
> 
> What was with naming the kids after oats?
> Alfalfa
> ...


Thanks, Appreciate it... That was good television, a very profound show for its time too now that I think about it,

I neva really noticed that with the names, Can't forget Spanky, Froggy, & Stymie


----------



## CrackerJax (Jul 24, 2009)

Yes, one of my fav shows of all time.

Spanky: Are you going to eat me Uncle George? Better not, Mom says....I'm spoiled.


----------



## Woodstock.Hippie (Jan 27, 2010)

[youtube]rwUkDPyXYvA&NR[/youtube]


----------

