# Evolution Is A Theory On Which You Base A Religion



## hitch420 (Aug 30, 2009)

Let me make it clear that I do believe in variations within species. Some dogs appear to have
evolved from large to small (or small to large), but no "evolution" has actually taken place.
They are still dogs.
So I do believe in something called "microevolution"--variation within a species.
However, there is no evidence for man evolving from primates, commonly known as "the theory
of evolution."
Professor Louis Bounoure, Director of Research, National Center of Scientific Research so
rightly stated:
"Evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of
science. It is useless."
Sir Arthur Keith (Sir Arthur Keith wrote the foreword to the 100th edition of Origin of the
Species) said, "Evolution is unproved and unprovable."
Malcolm Muggeridge, the famous British journalist and philosopher said,
"I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially the extent to which its been
applied, will be one of the great jokes in history books of the future." (The End of Christendom,
Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, Mich., 1980, page 59).
Dr. T. N. Tah-misian of the Atomic Energy Commission said,
"Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story
they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever."
USA Today March 21, 2001
"Paleontologists have discovered a new skeleton in the closet of human ancestry that is likely to
force science to revise, if not scrap, current theories of human origins."
Reuters reported that the discovery left "scientists of human evolutionconfused," saying,
"Lucy may not even be a direct human ancestor after all."
The phrase "scientists of human evolution" is an oxymoron.
Evolution isn't "scientific." It's a theory.

6
If you go to www.raycomfort.com to will see an offer of $250,000.
Dr. Kent Hovind $250,000 "to anyone who can offer any scientific evidence that evolution is
true."
Take him to court. Become famous. Make this another Scopes trial.
But you won't, because you can't. All you have is faith in a theory.
Evolution is actually a religion.
Dictionary: "Religion": "A set of beliefs concerned with explaining the origins and purposes of
the universe"
The belief of evolution even has its own religious language:
"We believe, perhaps, maybe, probably, could've, possibly."
The founding father of the faith is Charles Darwin.
The god of the religion of Darwinism is referred to by the faithful as "Mother Nature."
She is the one who is responsible for everything we can see in creation.
What's more, she's very attractive to sinful men. They gravitate to her like a moth to a flame.
Why? Because she's deaf, blind, and mute.
Mother Nature doesn't hear anything, she doesn't see anything, and what's most important--she
doesn't say anything.
Mother Nature doesn't have any moral dictates.
So, if you make her your creator, YOU CAN DO ANYTHING YOU WANT
every sinful pleasure can be enjoyed with no qualms of conscience.
That's why evolution is so appealing.
7
Such a belief system is called "idolatry" (making up a non-existent god to suit yourself)
It is a transgression of the First and Second of the Ten Commandments.
To believe in the theory of evolution takes a great leap of bind faith.
Like little children, they believe without the need of a thread of evidence.
The theory doesn't disprove the existence of God.
It just reveals that those who believe it are truly capable of faith in the invisible
and confirms Napoleon's great observation:
"Man will believe anything, as long as it's not in the Bible."
Thank you for listening. Please feel free to avail yourselves of the literature on the table.


----------



## Anonononymous (Aug 30, 2009)

'"Evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of
science. It is useless."'

I seriously fuckin doubt a real scientist said that, it sounds quote mined to me. Evolution is used daily. You know that flu jab you got last winter? You know why you had to get another one? Why it's different from the one you got last winter? Because influenza evolves...

I hate this 'microevolution/macroevolution' bullshit. It's like saying 'I can pick my nose for 1 second, but not for 10'. 'Macroevolution' is just 'Microevolution' given a larger timescale.


----------



## Anonononymous (Aug 30, 2009)

And for the record, there is a huge difference between 'Theory' and 'theory'. The Theory of Evolution is as proven the Theory of Gravity.


----------



## Anonononymous (Aug 30, 2009)

Oh, and once again, 'Dr. Kent Hovind $250,000 "to anyone who can offer any scientific evidence that evolution is
true."'

He's a convicted fraudster.


----------



## hitch420 (Aug 30, 2009)

Anonononymous said:


> And for the record, there is a huge difference between 'Theory' and 'theory'. The Theory of Evolution is as proven the Theory of Gravity.


If you think evolution is as proven go claim your 250,000 reward, i know i would, if i had the evidence to back it up of course lol.
There is a reason it isn't science fact.
Maybe its somthing to do with the massive holes and flaws in the theory.


----------



## hitch420 (Aug 30, 2009)

Anonononymous said:


> Oh, and once again, 'Dr. Kent Hovind $250,000 "to anyone who can offer any scientific evidence that evolution is
> true."'
> 
> He's a convicted fraudster.


Still take him to court. It should be easyier to win if hes allready a convicted fraudster lol


----------



## Anonononymous (Aug 30, 2009)

'Maybe its somthing to do with the massive holes and flaws in the theory.'

Name 3.


----------



## hitch420 (Aug 30, 2009)

Anonononymous said:


> '"Evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of
> science. It is useless."'
> 
> I seriously fuckin doubt a real scientist said that, it sounds quote mined to me. Evolution is used daily. You know that flu jab you got last winter? You know why you had to get another one? Why it's different from the one you got last winter? Because influenza evolves...
> ...


I am aware that flu "evolves" as my best friends mum is Cheif of medicine at the local hospital.
It is also likley that these flus, like for instance swine flu are created in a lab and released on the public, to make us scared. so they hype it up in the media evan though the normal flu kills more a year.
just so they can have access to your bodies to put the chip into you. This may not be happening right now, but it will be soon.

ps Haven't you ever thought why monkeys are still around today, if there was such a great need for monkeys to evolve why are there so many alive today


----------



## Anonononymous (Aug 30, 2009)

'It is also likley that these flus, like for instance swine flu are created in a lab and released on the public, to make us scared. so they hype it up in the media evan though the normal flu kills more a year.
just so they can have access to your bodies to put the chip into you. This may not be happening right now, but it will be soon.'

Did you post in the tinfoil hat thread by any chance?

'ps Haven't you ever thought why monkeys are still around today, if there was such a great need for monkeys to evolve why are there so many alive today'

You clearly don't understand human evolution. We share a common ancestor with monkeys. We didn't evolve directly from them. Hence why they still exist. 

Who ever said there was a great need for monkeys to evolve anyway? They adapted to their respective environments, IE some hominidae such as orangutans have longer arms than other hominidae as they're mainly tree dwelling and as such they need to be able to reach further away branches, whereas more ground dwelling hominidae such as Gorillas don't need long arms as they crawl on their knuckles. 

I'm still waiting for my 'huge flaws in evolution'. Or are you avoiding that part?


----------



## hitch420 (Aug 30, 2009)

Anonononymous said:


> 'It is also likley that these flus, like for instance swine flu are created in a lab and released on the public, to make us scared. so they hype it up in the media evan though the normal flu kills more a year.
> just so they can have access to your bodies to put the chip into you. This may not be happening right now, but it will be soon.'
> 
> Did you post in the tinfoil hat thread by any chance?
> ...


I have never believed in evolution so yes you are right i do not understand it fully, so to understand it i have allready began reading into it from the athiest/scientist view and the christian view because i like a fair arguement, but yes do expect me to point out the flaws because i will, but it would be foolish of me to do so without reading alot more first from both sides. I somehow doubt that you will be reading both sides of story as you MAY chose to accept what you want to hear.
You cannot say the same for me as I wanted to believe there was no god, all of my life and believed it. Untill i decided to challange my way of thinking becuase i relised i had never given the other side of the story a chance.


----------



## Anonononymous (Aug 30, 2009)

I was Christened, and the 3 schools I went to were Christian. So yeh, I have 'given the other side of the story' a listen. I don't see how a God could possibly exist. 

IMO it's a fairytale.


----------



## dontexist21 (Aug 30, 2009)

hitch420 said:


> Let me make it clear that I do believe in variations within species. Some dogs appear to have
> evolved from large to small (or small to large), but no "evolution" has actually taken place.
> They are still dogs.
> So I do believe in something called "microevolution"--variation within a species.
> ...


You sir do not do a damn thing about science. The highest order for a scietific hypothesis is a theory, there is nothing higher. No one is the scientific community states that evolution or ANYTHING 100% . NO ONE. But with all of the data, test, that have been done and have shown to be accurate and consistent when reproduced it has shown that the theory is proven. Gravity is scientific theory to, just like evolution. Sorry if this is hard for someone that does not understand the basis of science or how it works. I have spent most of my academic life either in a lab or in a class devoted to this way of thinking. Always questioning, and believing in what gives us the best consistent answer that holds up to the test again and again. And this point in time evolution has the best data which is consistent. You loss credibility for you argument when you said evolution was not science it was a theory, sorry but in the scientific community a theory amounts to a fact, till it can be dissproven other wise. Have you not heard of the THEORY of relativity, tell me that is not science, even when it is a theory.


----------



## dontexist21 (Aug 30, 2009)

I have looked at the arguments made by the other side, and have found them to be weak. Saying that God created everything, is weak, since you can not prove or disprove the existence of God. You cannot really argue with someone that believes this since they can simply state it is so it has to be. It is based on faith not data unlike evolution. There is not a single alternative that has so much evidence to back it up. Religion is based on faith without evidence, science is based on testable theories that can be questioned and dis proven.


----------



## what... huh? (Aug 30, 2009)

The first presumption with the argument is that it implies that there is something wrong with belief in science that we laymen have only a simple understanding of, or lack thereof. 

In this it implies an absurdity involved with faith in something you are not capable of comprehending at this point. Which is interesting... considering...

The second problem is that it discredits all that science and technology have brought us... that religion really just hasn't. An ancient book... which makes you feel safer or logic and scientific method which has tangible results.

I trust the people who dedicate their lives in the pursuit of science... not money from suckers.



We know we do can not truly know all of the facts, as we can only interpret what can sense.


----------



## fish601 (Aug 31, 2009)

why do we see color?


----------



## Nocturn3 (Aug 31, 2009)

fish601 said:


> why do we see color?


For fuck's sake.


----------



## jfgordon1 (Aug 31, 2009)

fish601 said:


> why do we see color?


the answer is obviously God.


----------



## hanimmal (Aug 31, 2009)

> why do we see color?


Possible reason: 

Because in the jungle black and white vision would be very disadvantagous. If you could not make out the yellow of a tiger, you may end up as a meal.

As the mutations in evolution move forward the ancestors that could see color were able to survive better, and therefore were able to mate. So those genes moved forward, and as the chain closed our ancestors more and more were able to see color until we were no longer colorblind as a species.



We are a very weak species, the only thing that really makes us survive is our brains. If it was not for our ability to think and ration we would have been distinct for a long time. Things like sight just made it easier to get to the point that we were able to think.




> So I do believe in something called "microevolution"--variation within a species.
> However, there is no evidence for man evolving from primates, commonly known as "the theory
> of evolution."


There is a ton of evidence out there. There are bone collections showing evolution. Your own genes can point to evolution along with DNA. You can look at living things today and be able to see the evolutionary changes that took place over hundreds of millions of years. The list goes on and on.

So lets try this, as there is so much that backs up evolution it would take several books to get you up to speed. Why don't you inform us what examples that the creationists have told you to get you to believe this. Or are you just going off of what they told you in church about the bible being the only way and anything else being a sin.


----------



## Nocturn3 (Aug 31, 2009)

hitch420 said:


> Let me make it clear that I do *believe* in variations within species. Some dogs appear to have evolved from large to small (or small to large), but no "evolution" has actually taken place.
> They are still dogs.
> So I do believe in something called "microevolution"--variation within a species.
> *However, there is no evidence* for man evolving from primates, commonly known as "the theory of evolution."





hitch420 said:


> *I have never believed in evolution* so yes you are right *i do not understand it* fully, so to understand it i have allready began reading into it from the athiest/scientist view and the christian view because i like a fair arguement, but yes do expect me to *point out the flaws* because i will, *but it would be foolish of me to do so* without reading alot more first from both sides. *I somehow doubt that you will be reading both sides of story as you MAY chose to accept what you want to hear.*


So, there is no evidence for evolution, which is not something you have researched. You disbelieve it, whilst not understanding it, you think it would be foolish of you to argue about it without research, yet you post this thread, and you express doubts that others will research things properly, even though you obviously haven't done yourself.

Evolution does not have to be based on belief. If you are excessively stupid or lazy then yes, you can rely on the fact that smart men have already been through all this stuff before, and concluded that it holds true.

However, if you wish to make up your own mind, then simply research the evidence available. Many of us have, to varying degrees, and have done so without bias. Forget about belief completely, and approach it as an exercise in logic and lateral thinking. Also, consider the sources of what you read. Some places are more biased than others, particularly if they have an agenda to push.


----------



## fish601 (Aug 31, 2009)

hanimmal said:


> Possible reason:
> 
> Because in the jungle black and white vision would be very disadvantagous. If you could not make out the yellow of a tiger, you may end up as a meal.
> 
> .


How did we know to evolve color sight?
how did we even know it existed?
how many things did we try before we found color?
how did we survive without sight?
what made use even think we could evolve eyes to see with?
did we start with one eye and it wasnt good enuf?
where was that first eye placed? did it work its way up to see better?
how did we know that if we had two eyes we could judge distance?
did eyelids evolve the same time as eyes?
at first were our eyes allways dry then we evolved tears?


----------



## timeout (Aug 31, 2009)

If there is not god or we don't believe in god, WE CAN DO WHATEVER WE WANT? How do you figure? That's quite a leap. In fact, it's a faulty syllogism. Moral precepts arise from our need to form community, our need to get along, a pretty powerful adaption on the path of survival.


----------



## fish601 (Aug 31, 2009)

why did we evolve to were we need air to live?
wouldnt it of been easier and safer not to need air?


----------



## Nocturn3 (Aug 31, 2009)

You're still thinking in intelligent design terms. It works more like this:
1000000 animals are born
1000 mutations happen
999 of these mutations are useless or detrimental
The other 1 is the ability to see colours

This animal is more successful at hunting than his peers, due to his advanced vision, kills more prey, becomes more attractive to females due to his physique and prowess, and fathers 10 offspring. Half of them have the colour mutation, which makes them more successful than their peers.

Eventually the colour gene is widespread, and the less efficient monochrome gene is superceded.


----------



## fish601 (Aug 31, 2009)

Nocturn3 said:


> You're still thinking in intelligent design terms. It works more like this:
> 1000000 animals are born
> 1000 mutations happen
> 999 of these mutations are useless or detrimental
> ...


kinda interesting thought tho .. it just happend by chance? anyways one kind of creature changing into another via beneficial mutation has simply NEVER been shown.


----------



## Nocturn3 (Aug 31, 2009)

fish601 said:


> kinda interesting thought tho .. it just happend by chance? anyways one kind of creature changing into another via beneficial mutation has simply NEVER been shown.


Still haven't read the wiki links i gave you earlier, I see. This shit is well documented. There are plenty of transitional species. The only argument you have left is "but you haven't found them all".


----------



## what... huh? (Aug 31, 2009)

fish601 said:


> kinda interesting thought tho .. it just happend by chance? anyways one kind of creature changing into another via beneficial mutation has simply NEVER been shown.


http://www.nytimes.com/1984/12/04/science/sex-change-in-fish-found-common.html?sec=health


----------



## fish601 (Aug 31, 2009)

true science deals with facts -- observable, testable, reproducible under controlled conditions. The origin of things is not observable, not testable, not reproducible.


----------



## fish601 (Aug 31, 2009)

Nocturn3 said:


> You're still thinking in intelligent design terms. It works more like this:
> 1000000 animals are born
> 1000 mutations happen
> 999 of these mutations are useless or detrimental
> ...


*THE HUMAN EYE:* The human eye is so complex and sophisticated that scientists still do not fully understand how it works. The eye completes 100,000 separate functions in a single day. While we sleep the eye conducts its own maintenance work. Considering the number of complex structures in the eye, as well as the highly integrated synchronization, it is difficult to understand how the evolutionist can believe that the eye emerged from a natural trial-and-error process. Darwin himself was troubled by the design shown in this marvelous organ. The eye is known to be useless unless fully developed. It either functions as an integrated whole or not at all. Interestingly, the evolutionist has a deeper problem with the eye. Five different types of eyes exist: man, squid, vertebrate, arthropod, and trilobite. Are we to assume that chance mutations created not one, but five separate viewing systems?


----------



## Nocturn3 (Aug 31, 2009)

fish601 said:


> *THE HUMAN EYE:* The human eye is so complex and sophisticated that scientists still do not fully understand how it works. The eye completes 100,000 separate functions in a single day. While we sleep the eye conducts its own maintenance work. Considering the number of complex structures in the eye, as well as the highly integrated synchronization, it is difficult to understand how the evolutionist can believe that the eye emerged from a natural trial-and-error process. Darwin himself was troubled by the design shown in this marvelous organ. The eye is known to be useless unless fully developed. It either functions as an integrated whole or not at all. Interestingly, the evolutionist has a deeper problem with the eye. Five different types of eyes exist: man, squid, vertebrate, arthropod, and trilobite. Are we to assume that chance mutations created not one, but five separate viewing systems?


A stupid argument, as well as being completely wrong.
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/256/1345/53
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye

Just because it is complex does not imply design. The current incarnation of the eye is more complex than earlier versions, so your argument is being deliberately misleading by suggesting otherwise.

And yes, it is definately possible that types of eye evolved independently of each other.


----------



## hanimmal (Sep 1, 2009)

> why did we evolve to were we need air to live?
> wouldnt it of been easier and safer not to need air?


The other guy answered the color sight, so I will answer this.

No it is not safer and easier. What drove the first land creatures was the escape from the predators that were in water, at first that just meant the need to be able to survive short bursts. As predators adapted they had to go further and further out, until it was necessary to be able to breath air fully, making the ability to breath water unneeded.

But in reality we still have the dna in us that allows other animals to form gils and be able to breath under water, it is just that we over the hundreds of millions of years have not needed it and those genes have been pushed aside and dormant.



> kinda interesting thought tho .. it just happend by chance? anyways one kind of creature changing into another via beneficial mutation has simply NEVER been shown.


This is where ID fails, it assumes that this is some kind of chance, it is not. The intellegence is in the creatures decisions on how and when to mate.

If an animal is born with something that puts then at a disadvantage they may get eaten before they can mate. Like say a bird with a gimp wing. But say that the bird was born with a mutation of better eyesight it may be a better hunter or evade predators better so survives and thrives so it is able to mate passing those mutations down through the lines.

What I don't get is when people say that God is the intelligent designer, and we are all gods creatures and he loves us all the same, why would he chose to make most the mutations negatively affect us and end up dying shortly after birth? Wouldn't that mean that the designer is willing to warp 9999 out of 10000 of the things to design a better creature? Does he need that practice to get it right? 

If it was really god wouldn't it just be done right the first time?



> *THE HUMAN EYE:* The human eye is so complex and sophisticated that scientists still do not fully understand how it works. The eye completes 100,000 separate functions in a single day. While we sleep the eye conducts its own maintenance work. Considering the number of complex structures in the eye, as well as the highly integrated synchronization, it is difficult to understand how the evolutionist can believe that the eye emerged from a natural trial-and-error process. Darwin himself was troubled by the design shown in this marvelous organ. The eye is known to be useless unless fully developed. It either functions as an integrated whole or not at all. Interestingly, the evolutionist has a deeper problem with the eye. Five different types of eyes exist: man, squid, vertebrate, arthropod, and trilobite. Are we to assume that chance mutations created not one, but five separate viewing systems?


During one of the ID trials they used this argument about a bacteria, showing that the complexity of the design would not work without any of the pieces the same. And made referance to the mousetrap. If you take any one piece of the trap away, like the trigger, or the spring it would not ever catch a mouse.

So the scientists all took out the trigger and used them as tie clips.

The reason for this is to show that the way evolution works is not in one direction. We all (animals) have the same basic structure, we just use vastly different parts to make ourselves up. 

Structures like the eye can form from things they were never meant to be. 



> [FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]Researcher Sebastian Shimeld from Oxford approached this question by examining the evolutionary origin of one crystallin protein family, known as the &#946;&#947;-crystallins. Focusing on sea squirts, the researchers found that these creatures possess a single crystallin gene, which is expressed in its primitive light-sensing system. The identification of this single crystallin gene strongly suggests that it is the gene from which the more complex vertebrate &#946;&#947;-crystallins evolved. [/FONT][/FONT]


http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20050822230316data_trunc_sys.shtml

To help you think of evolution think of it as all sciences working in concert. If one branch of science has a workable theory, you have to take it into consideration. So if you think about underwater creatures. They are able to hear vast distances to know predators are around. But think about sight underwater, things are distorted or foggy almost. So sight is very unreliable.

But on land you do not have the same scenerios. The sound waves are not as pronounced, so sight is much more valuable. So what happens the mutations that benefit it will make those animals more apt for survival.


----------



## Stoney McFried (Sep 1, 2009)

I could argue WHY I don't believe in religion,but I've been over all of this before.The believers present the same arguments, over and over,and even though you give them links and reasons,etc,ad nauseam,they will still come back to the exact same argument they began with, even though you've knocked a hole in it.If there is a god or gods, it certainly isn't the Christian god...Christianity is a patchwork of old religions it has plagiarized and recycled from.And that's a fact.SO I have come up with one blanket statement which saves me a lot of time and headache on these threads.


Even if there is a god, I won't worship him.


----------



## fish601 (Sep 1, 2009)

Stoney McFried said:


> Christianity is a patchwork of old religions it has plagiarized and recycled from.And that's a fact.SO I have come up with one blanket statement which saves me a lot of time and headache on these threads.
> 
> 
> Even if there is a god, I won't worship him.


lol a fact huh?


----------



## fish601 (Sep 1, 2009)

hanimmal said:


> The other guy answered the color sight, so I will answer this.
> 
> No it is not safer and easier. What drove the first land creatures was the escape from the predators that were in water, at first that just meant the need to be able to survive short bursts. As predators adapted they had to go further and further out, until it was necessary to be able to breath air fully, making the ability to breath water unneeded.
> 
> ...


 
ok b wrong i dont care


----------



## Stoney McFried (Sep 1, 2009)

Most certainly is, fish.The Christians incorporated many pagan rites and holidays in order to "ease" the transition into Christianity for the pagans. Jesus is not a new concept, look at Mithra, for example...his story is nearly identical to Jesus. All Jesus is is another interpretation of the sun god religion...and his "death and (re)birth" tied to the solstice around December 25,when the sun seems to "stop" in the sky, and then begin moving again.Mithra himself is not an original concept...you can look all this up yourself if you have an inclination to do so.Yes, it's a fact that Jesus is not an original concept, and that many of the Christian religion's most sacred rites and rituals are just ripoffs from earlier pagan religions.


fish601 said:


> lol a fact huh?


----------



## fish601 (Sep 1, 2009)

Stoney McFried said:


> Most certainly is, fish.The Christians incorporated many pagan rites and holidays in order to "ease" the transition into Christianity for the pagans. Jesus is not a new concept, look at Mithra, for example...his story is nearly identical to Jesus. All Jesus is is another interpretation of the sun god religion...and his "death and (re)birth" tied to the solstice around December 25,when the sun seems to "stop" in the sky, and then begin moving again.Mithra himself is not an original concept...you can look all this up yourself if you have an inclination to do so.Yes, it's a fact that Jesus is not an original concept, and that many of the Christian religion's most sacred rites and rituals are just ripoffs from earlier pagan religions.


 
I looked it up and here is what i found

http://www.tektonics.org/copycat/mithra.html

http://www.tektonics.org/copycathub.html


----------



## Stoney McFried (Sep 1, 2009)

I find it interesting, that of the plethora of websites with information on the subject, you find the Christian website.


fish601 said:


> I looked it up and here is what i found
> 
> http://www.tektonics.org/copycat/mithra.html
> 
> http://www.tektonics.org/copycathub.html


----------



## Mr.KushMan (Sep 1, 2009)

hitch420 said:


> If you think evolution is as proven go claim your 250,000 reward, i know i would, if i had the evidence to back it up of course lol.
> There is a reason it isn't science fact.
> Maybe its somthing to do with the massive holes and flaws in the theory.


Your a dumb-fuck!

There have only been a handful of theories that have been conclusively proven. It is unlikely that a theory governing every living thing in the world is a perfect theory. So early in history no less. Give it time and everything will come to fruition.

Peace


----------



## hanimmal (Sep 1, 2009)

> ok b wrong i dont care


You say that you would like to have an open mind, but then follow up with that statement.

What do you feel is wrong and why?

You have already stated that you can see 'microevolution' but you chose to not accept actual evolution. Are you saying that over a long enough time those micro changes cannot possibly add up to the huge difference in species we have today?


----------



## OregonMeds (Sep 1, 2009)

Just think of how many deformed kids there are in the world on all those oddities shows... There's your evidence of macroevolution in progress and proof there is no god or if there is one he's a real son of a bitch.

We aren't all created equally and every kind of freak of nature mutation that can happen does because there is no control nor reason for anything. Massively complex things come from random small changes over vast time spans.


----------



## fish601 (Sep 1, 2009)

hanimmal said:


> Are you saying that over a long enough time those micro changes cannot possibly add up to the huge difference in species we have today?


 
i dont know if it can or not but i do know it has not been proven


----------



## hanimmal (Sep 2, 2009)

> i dont know if it can or not but i do know it has not been proven


 But yet you chose to believe so ardently on one theory that is the most dogmatic and offers the least amount of proof?


----------



## hanimmal (Sep 2, 2009)

None of that proves anything, but again either does this, but it is interesting to see things lined up.


----------



## hanimmal (Sep 2, 2009)

Nor this:








But it does help to see the picture.


----------



## what... huh? (Sep 2, 2009)

Let me ask the creation folks this...

If we do not evolve, why did we spend so much time in caves? 

Lets move beyond the stone age which you may or may not believe in. Let's start at 5000 bc. Why did it take over 6000 years to get where we are as a civilization? Why were we shorter with lower life spans? Why did it take so long to reach the age of enlightenment? Why was the bronze age so slow going? Why have we come further faster in EVERY marker which defines civilization in the last 200 years than the several millennia preceding? Faster in the last 50 years than the previous 200?

If we had the capabilities to achieve what we have... and DIDN'T have TV... why did it take millennia. 

If you and I are both not evidence of our evolution... 

What possible evidence WOULD you accept?


----------



## fish601 (Sep 2, 2009)

crap you got me on the bush monkey look alike 

naw really you do realize that that can not be proven and the more evidence scientist find the more evolution looks silly


----------



## fish601 (Sep 2, 2009)

.

http://www.knowwhatyoubelieve.com/


.


----------



## fish601 (Sep 2, 2009)

.


http://www.knowwhatyoubelieve.com/



.


----------



## what... huh? (Sep 2, 2009)

fish601 said:


> .
> 
> 
> http://www.knowwhatyoubelieve.com/
> ...


Know what YOU believe... and render unto Caesar that which is Caesars. 

Romans 12.


[SIZE=+1]1Peter 2:13-15[/SIZE]

13 Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme; 
14 Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well. 
15 For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men: 



So... why do you smoke/grow/sell/buy weed?


----------



## hanimmal (Sep 3, 2009)

> crap you got me on the bush monkey look alike
> 
> naw really you do realize that that can not be proven and the more evidence scientist find the more evolution looks silly


Your being fed false information. The evidence that keeps being found further backs up evolution. See this is the difference between science and religion. In science when new evidence is found it has the power to alter everything. If new evidence was found that would dispute evolution it would be one of the biggest stories in the world.

You don't want to learn about that though. You don't want to learn that when the dinosaurs went extinct it allowed the then very small mammals to thrive and grow and evolve into the dominant species on the planet. And from the mouse and other mammals you can pretty much follow the evidence to almost every mammal today.

If you would just do what you had said you were doing and let go and actually try to learn it you would be surprised at how interesting and complex our world is. It will still leave you room for god too.


----------



## OregonMeds (Sep 3, 2009)

hanimmal said:


> Your being fed false information. The evidence that keeps being found further backs up evolution. See this is the difference between science and religion. In science when new evidence is found it has the power to alter everything. If new evidence was found that would dispute evolution it would be one of the biggest stories in the world.
> 
> You don't want to learn about that though. You don't want to learn that when the dinosaurs went extinct it allowed the then very small mammals to thrive and grow and evolve into the dominant species on the planet. And from the mouse and other mammals you can pretty much follow the evidence to almost every mammal today.
> 
> If you would just do what you had said you were doing and let go and actually try to learn it you would be surprised at how interesting and complex our world is. It will still leave you room for god too.


He may want to learn but he can't. People this invested in religion, who base their whole lives and belief system upon it can't give it up so eaily or even seriously consider they may have been totally wrong all along. 

It would be as devastating to him as loosing his entire family in a car wreck, loosing his house to fire and loosing his job all in the same week. Could wipe out his entire will to live so his subconscious won't even allow it serious consideration out of simple self preservation.


----------



## fish601 (Sep 3, 2009)

what... huh? said:


> Know what YOU believe... and render unto Caesar that which is Caesars.
> 
> Romans 12.
> 
> ...


 
i speed and run stop signs also


----------



## hanimmal (Sep 3, 2009)

These creatures also have a self destructive nature:


----------



## what... huh? (Sep 3, 2009)

fish601 said:


> i speed and run stop signs also



Do you not find it somewhat pious and at the same time hypocritical to knowingly disobey the word of the Lord Who you are suggesting others follow?


----------



## Anonymiss1969 (Sep 3, 2009)

what... huh? said:


> Do you not find it somewhat pious and at the same time hypocritical to knowingly disobey the word of the Lord Who you are suggesting others follow?


Don't waste your time talkin to fish about religion. He's doesn't know much about the religion he follows.


----------



## what... huh? (Sep 3, 2009)

It's a fair question.


----------



## hitch420 (Sep 4, 2009)

what... huh? said:


> It's a fair question.


True lol 
but we can all agree that the marijuana law is bullshit though?

The ten comandments show that we all fall short of his expectations, (All christians sin(fact)) so god gave his only son to die on the cross and take the punishment, for us who believe and repent of our sins.


----------



## hanimmal (Sep 4, 2009)

There is something fundamentally messed up to me about a religion that the whole basis of how to get to the next level (heaven) was through the torturing and ultimately killing of someone.


----------



## Stoney McFried (Sep 4, 2009)

But dude, why should anyone accept such guilt?It's all a big guilt trip to make people feel unworthy.That they "need" this salvation, and only those in power, the priests,the church, can give it to them.The lower your self esteem,the less you fight back.Because you feel you "deserve" punishment.


hitch420 said:


> True lol
> but we can all agree that the marijuana law is bullshit though?
> 
> The ten comandments show that we all fall short of his expectations, (All christians sin(fact)) so god gave his only son to die on the cross and take the punishment, for us who believe and repent of our sins.


----------



## hitch420 (Sep 4, 2009)

Anonymiss1969 said:


> Don't waste your time talkin to fish about religion. He's doesn't know much about the religion he follows.


Do you know for an absolute fact that fish is religous?

If so exlain how and dont say because he believes in god because that doesn't fit the criteria of a religion lol


----------



## Nocturn3 (Sep 4, 2009)

Hitch, I fail to see why you felt the need to PM me regarding this thread. Post your shit here for everyone to discuss please:



hitch420 said:


> > "So, there is no evidence for evolution, which is not something you have researched. You disbelieve it, whilst not understanding it, you think it would be foolish of you to argue about it without research, yet you post this thread, and you express doubts that others will research things properly, even though you obviously haven't done yourself.
> >
> > Evolution does not have to be based on belief. If you are excessively stupid or lazy then yes, you can rely on the fact that smart men have already been through all this stuff before, and concluded that it holds true.
> >
> ...


I'm honestly not going to grace this with a proper reply, since you have already proved my point better than I ever could.


----------



## OregonMeds (Sep 4, 2009)

"I dont have time to research everything anymore i spend alot more time reading the bible."

Nobody here can help you then...


----------



## fish601 (Sep 4, 2009)

what... huh? said:


> Do you not find it somewhat pious and at the same time hypocritical to knowingly disobey the word of the Lord Who you are suggesting others follow?


 
Its a really good idea for everyone to obey the law of the land. Do i in every situation NO. If a kid runs out in the road and i have to cross the yellow line inorder not to hit him as a result break the law does god care?


----------



## fish601 (Sep 4, 2009)

Anonymiss1969 said:


> Don't waste your time talkin to fish about religion. He's doesn't know much about the religion he follows.


I do but you for sure dont


----------



## fish601 (Sep 4, 2009)

hanimmal said:


> There is something fundamentally messed up to me about a religion that the whole basis of how to get to the next level (heaven) was through the torturing and ultimately killing of someone.


 
next time you be god?


----------



## hanimmal (Sep 5, 2009)

> next time you be god?


Has nothing to do with god, it was the guys that got together to write the bible that wrote it.


----------



## fish601 (Sep 5, 2009)

hanimmal said:


> Has nothing to do with god, it was the guys that got together to write the bible that wrote it.


you really have no understanding of the bible. It has been attacked by the best and its still proven to be an accurate historical document, with fulfilled prophecys, proven by sources outside of the bible, has no contradictions tho written by several people over many years.


----------



## CrackerJax (Sep 5, 2009)

The bible says it's the word of G*D....so it must be true. Everything which is written down, by definition is true. Right???????????????????????

The Qaran is true then......Right????????????


----------



## fish601 (Sep 5, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> The bible says it's the word of G*D....so it must be true. Everything which is written down, by definition is true. Right???????????????????????
> 
> The Qaran is true then......Right????????????


 
just reread the post above you


----------



## CrackerJax (Sep 5, 2009)

That post answers nothing........ way to pass it off. 

The Bible is the only book which if it says it's true...you believe it. The Qaran says it's true.....and yet.....you stumble.


----------



## fish601 (Sep 5, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> That post answers nothing........ way to pass it off.
> 
> The Bible is the only book which if it says it's true...you believe it. The Qaran says it's true.....and yet.....you stumble.


I have looked at the evidence. Its real

Sorry God did not present the evidence in a way that you approve


----------



## CrackerJax (Sep 5, 2009)

Again, way to deflect.......

Just can't face it can you.


----------



## fish601 (Sep 5, 2009)

your being funny right?


----------



## fish601 (Sep 5, 2009)

fish601 said:


> you really have no understanding of the bible. It has been attacked by the best and its still proven to be an accurate historical document, with fulfilled prophecys, proven by sources outside of the bible, has no contradictions tho written by several people over many years.


this answers your question,,,
*no other book even comes close*


----------



## CrackerJax (Sep 5, 2009)

Because it says so..... 


So does the Qaran......


----------



## hanimmal (Sep 5, 2009)

So does nostrodomus, does that mean because he hasn't been disproven that he is the word of god?



> you really have no understanding of the bible. It has been attacked by the best and its still proven to be an accurate historical document, with fulfilled prophecys, proven by sources outside of the bible, has no contradictions tho written by several people over many years.


I do have a very strong understanding of the bible. The bible that you believe so strongly has changed so much to continue to try to not be outdated, and the rest is just taken as the proof that discredits it as wrong and heathenism.

I linked you to some contradictions the other day. Do you want me to point you to them again?

What do you think about all the books that were written but not put into the bible? They are out there you know.


----------



## CrackerJax (Sep 5, 2009)

Every cult and every religion, and especially every cult religion have a lie at the core of their doctrine. It all starts with a lie. If that big one is swallowed.... the rest are easy and become self reinforcing. 

I think Fishies name is appropriate...... hook, line, and sinker...


----------



## fish601 (Sep 5, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> Because it says so.....
> 
> 
> So does the Qaran......


*what part of* "
_the bible. It has been attacked by the best and its still proven to be an accurate historical document, with fulfilled prophecys, proven by sources outside of the bible, has no contradictions tho written by several people over many years." *do you not understand? *_


_*I have look at the contradictions and i do not believe there are any!!!*_

_*I have looked into prophecy and i believe they are real and accurate!!*_


_*i became a christian after i was convinsed that the Qaran nor any other religion (*that i know of*) has fulfilled prophecy and lots of contradictions that is why i am a christian.. I believe the bible based on evidence outside of the bible  you get it??*_

_*really even tho you dont agree if you cant understand what i am trying to say, i see now why you are theist*_


----------



## CrackerJax (Sep 5, 2009)

The bible is not considered to be an historical document outside of religious circles. The prophecy fufillments are not recognized outside of religious circles. 

See a pattern?

The Qaran has at least an equal chance of being the truth as the Bible. All religions believe theirs to be true. 

RELIGION CREATES DIVISION 

Let's just all take a step forward and leave the myths behind.


----------



## fish601 (Sep 5, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> The bible is not considered to be an historical document outside of religious circles. The prophecy fufillments are not recognized outside of religious circles.
> 
> .


thats simply not true

FACT if you use the same standard for the bible as we do other historical documents noone would disagree about it. If you throw out the bible you would have to throw out everything you believe about Plato, Aristotle, Caesar, & Homer just to name a few i dont know of anyone that doubts them yet there is more evidence that the bible is historicaly correct than any of those guys.

Caesar lived around 100bc the earliest copy of about him are around 900ad thats about 1000 years do you believe he existed?


----------



## CrackerJax (Sep 5, 2009)

You misunderstand the concept as usual fish. 

The Bible is only historical because of its age. The group of stories have a history. 

This does not mean it is accurate in any way.

There are surviving books much older than the Bible. The Iliad comes to mind.... That story is a historical document, just like the Bible, no different. But that's as far as it goes.


----------



## fish601 (Sep 5, 2009)

lol why am i talking to you about this

if you believe the bible you would believe in God but you dont believe there is a god so why would you believe the bible is accurate. 

look i have spent many hours on SAB i found that site a few years ago trying to find that the bible wasnt real no evidence that i have seen on that page or anyother page has lead me to believe the bible is just stories. i realize they sound farfetched, but what good is a god that cant do amazing things?.

God doesnt allways do thing the way we would like.


----------



## CrackerJax (Sep 5, 2009)

Check mate... ty for playing.


----------



## jfgordon1 (Sep 5, 2009)

fish601 said:


> God doesnt allways do thing the way we would like.


I wish he would stop giving me heart burn... it's really getting annoying...


----------



## CrackerJax (Sep 5, 2009)

It's pretty evident if you look around.... no one's in charge.


----------



## PadawanBater (Sep 5, 2009)

What I find interesting is that these people would rather believe this stuff and live life the way we do, so many of our brothers and sisters living essentially their entire life in poverty, than to face reality, experience a period of uncertainty and actually acknowledge that they do not have all the answers for once, then experience a high of enlightenment that you can only obtain by becoming an atheist. Tyler Durdens quote comes to mind "once you've lost everything, you're free to do anything", in the context I mean, once you drop your belief in a diety, the world competely opens up, it's an experience I have a difficult time putting into words. Something ganja could never give me... They'd rather believe than be the change that progresses mankind and this generation to the next level. We could do it, the goals are right there in front of our faces, and we could actually make a huge impact on the planet and the next generations to come if we could only get past this bullshit story that does nothing but devide and deceive.

Enlightenment ftw!


----------



## fish601 (Sep 5, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> It's pretty evident if you look around.... no one's in charge.


because its not done crackers way?


----------



## CrackerJax (Sep 5, 2009)

No, because Crackers perceptions aren't shaded by pre set conditions. Just look around.....it's chaos. Nature loves chaos. There is no plan....


----------



## fish601 (Sep 5, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> No, because Crackers perceptions aren't shaded by pre set conditions. Just look around.....it's chaos. Nature loves chaos. There is no plan....


 
haha yeah earth is just spining randomly
sun is randomly the right distance
we randomly evolved, you were just randomly born, if nature loves chaos how did all that happen?


----------



## CrackerJax (Sep 5, 2009)

Since life only exists on planets which have the correct distance and source of heat.....it becomes a backward logical assumption. 
Meaning if the balance was off, there would be no life.... the case on most planets statistically. An awful waste of space and resources..... unless it's random and not dependent upon a personal G*D touch.


----------



## PadawanBater (Sep 5, 2009)

fish601 said:


> haha yeah earth is just spining randomly
> sun is randomly the right distance
> we randomly evolved, you were just randomly born, if nature loves chaos how did all that happen?


 
Cracker touched on this a little bit, but I get this argument a shit ton, more than any other probably, so I feel like I should throw my two cents in..

He's right fish, what you just did was take the conclusion of our circumstances, that is - us being alive, breathing, thinking here on Earth, then tried to assess how we came to be completely backwards. You don't start from the end and conclude "we are too complex to happen by chance", you start from the beginning and ask "what processes are responsible for our existence?". Doing it the way you just did presents a ton of problems and doesn't really deal with evidence or proof, it's all assertions and opinions. 

Nothing about our existence is "random". If it was, we would exist in another form. Random is not the right word to use, because that implies there are other methods of existing, which we know nothing about, which is not ''random''. 

We are here precisely because the processes that got us here and the mechanisms that are responsible are NOT random. 

Evolution happens, life evolves, the planet evolves, we have been evolving ever since the beginning, along with the environment, to suit our habitat. If Earths orbit was a little different, we'd evolve accordingly to that, and that process would not be random either. See how that works? You can stick a 'random' label on anything you want. What makes something random to you? Why do you believe everything that has happened is all by chance? I don't really understand that...


----------



## anhedonia (Sep 6, 2009)

an insightful passage on the nature of enlightenment and the final liberation taken from an early translation of The Tibetan Book of the Dead. 

"There is, deciples, a Realm devoid of earth and water, fire and air. It is not endless space nor infinite thought, nor nothingness, neither ideas nor non-ideas. Not this world nor that is it.
I call it neither a coming nor departing, nor standing still, nor death nor birth; it is without a basis, progress, or a stay; it is the ending of sorrow.
For that which clingeth to another thing there is a fall; but unto that which clingeth not no fall can come. Where no fall cometh there is rest, and where rest is, there is no keen DESIRE. Where keen desire is not, naught cometh or goeth; and where naught comrth or goeth there is no death, no birth.
Where there is neither death nor birth, there neither is this world nor that, nor inbetween - it is the ending of sorrow.
There is ,deciples, an Unbecome, Unborn, Unmade, Unformed; if there were not this Unbecome, Unborn, Unmade, Unformed, there would be no way out for that which is become, born, made and formed; but since there is an Unbecome, Unborn, Unmade, Unformed, there is escape for that which is become, born, made and formed."
- Buddha Gautama

Dharma will always exist wether humans are alive or extinct. Buddhists emphasize the importance of how precious this one lifetime is. When you look at the time that man has been alive thinking and contemplating existance its not even a blink of an eye. Its such an infinetesmal number. Its probably smaller. On the incomprehenceable scale. Theres so many things in nature that we should be humbled by but we take it for granted and get caught up with shit like the almighty. Its depressing.


----------



## That 5hit (Sep 6, 2009)

if people came from ape then there should be no apes around , now said that i still dont beleave that we just poofed here either- i think that man has always been on this planet and will always be here -man came from earlyer man and apes that we see today came from earlyer apes and k9's fromearlyer k9's and so on - there is no missing link of man and primate -sure man looks and ack like primates but thats means nothing . wales and dalphin both live in the sea and breath air but that dont mean that they re of the same order, no! humans like to think that primate are in there order because no other animal walkes on hind legs the way we do and comunacate the way they do- the truth of the mater is that human dont belong on this planet, they have been looking towards the ski for aliens for many years only to realize the truth that they have been searching for themselves- man is the only thing that does not make sence on this planet- the reason why early man was so educated about the stars is because that were they came from - this is what nasa knows- when they look toward the ski there not looking for alien life there looking for home. historyans and archaeologest are looking into the past for the answer on how and why we arived somewhere and some how the infromation was lost- every year we get some back


----------



## OregonMeds (Sep 6, 2009)

That 5hit said:


> if people came from ape then there should be no apes around , now said that i still dont beleave that we just poofed here either- i think that man has always been on this planet and will always be here -man came from earlyer man and apes that we see today came from earlyer apes and k9's fromearlyer k9's and so on - there is no missing link of man and primate -sure man looks and ack like primates but thats means nothing . wales and dalphin both live in the sea and breath air but that dont mean that they re of the same order, no! humans like to think that primate are in there order because no other animal walkes on hind legs the way we do and comunacate the way they do- the truth of the mater is that human dont belong on this planet, they have been looking towards the ski for aliens for many years only to realize the truth that they have been searching for themselves- man is the only thing that does not make sence on this planet- the reason why early man was so educated about the stars is because that were they came from - this is what nasa knows- when they look toward the ski there not looking for alien life there looking for home. historyans and archaeologest are looking into the past for the answer on how and why we arived somewhere and some how the infromation was lost- every year we get some back


Apes will not be around when they are no longer suited to exist in the environment they live in or when other species kill them all off. We see them becoming extinct in front of our own eyes with many species right now but just because we evolved doesn't mean we would have killed off all the apes.

Just because some evolved into neadertals or whatever in no way means all of them would or all of a previous species. That's why there is such biodiversity in the first place. There are way more types of animals on the world than would have fit two by two on any ark some sheepherder made within the limits of lumber contruction. And there are way more types of animals and life than would have been designed in only 7 days.

Some of what you say may be true though we could have been shipwrecked here and evolved elsewhere nobody can prove otherwise but more likely life has originated elsewhere in the universe and was seeded here as the simplest of organisms and evolved to where we are and life will keep being created and destroyed ad nauseum anywhere it can find a way. 

We already know our planet had a beginning and it will also have an end. When it's destroyed it will spew cosmic contaminants all over to seed other planets as they get to where they can support life. Not a single complicated life form will make the trip through space and atmospheres but single cell organisms trapped in rock, bacteria trapped in rock etc that's what will make seed to start life elsewhere if it doesn't happen to start elsewhere too which it probably does.

The idea that we were shipwrecked here and evolved elsewhere is certainly more plausable than there being a god though I will give you that.


----------



## waterboy (Sep 6, 2009)

Faith in any religion can be a good thing, It can get good people through some tough times, providing those of faith an anchor. Faith to the believer will trump science every time, they don't care because they have faith.

At times I wish I did too. wb


----------



## Anonononymous (Sep 6, 2009)

waterboy said:


> It can get good people through some tough times, providing those of faith an anchor.



Because it's a pillow of comfort in a bed of uncertainty. Faith is nothing more than a warm snuggly feeling that someone you can't see cares about you. It's a comfortable fantasy.


----------



## hitch420 (Sep 6, 2009)

Anonononymous said:


> Because it's a pillow of comfort in a bed of uncertainty. Faith is nothing more than a warm snuggly feeling that someone you can't see cares about you. It's a comfortable fantasy.


Proberly.. i felt the Holy spirit today! my god that was so much more powerfull than any other expirence in my life, The buzz felt ten times stronger Than any drug or cocktail of drugs i have ever taken. 
Including the time i od on a mixture of pills and mdma and trust me that was intense.


----------



## hanimmal (Sep 6, 2009)

> *what part of* "
> _the bible. It has been attacked by the best and its still proven to be an accurate historical document, with fulfilled prophecys, proven by sources outside of the bible, has no contradictions tho written by several people over many years." *do you not understand? *_
> _*I have look at the contradictions and i do not believe there are any!!!*_
> _*I have looked into prophecy and i believe they are real and accurate!!*_
> ...


I don't understand, here is something you should look through: http://www.ffrf.org/books/lfif/?t=contra

Here is one on historical contradictions: http://www.answering-christianity.com/sake.htm

One that I really like:


> Is the Bible 100% faultless and untampered with by the Church?
> Well then, in spite of these facts are the records found in the New Testament known to be 100% completely and fully authentic such that no intentional nor unintentional changes have ever been made by the church to the text of the NT? Well, since our opinion in this matter might be biased, therefore, let us ask the Christian scholars themselves:
> 
> 
> ...


Here is a good one from the contradictions:


> *4. How did Judas die?*
> 
> a. In Matthew 27:5 Judas hangs himself.
> 
> ...


Why are you looking for prophecies? If that is what you need, Nostradomis has made many more prophecies that are more exact than the Bible, and it is a lot harder to show his mistakes. So should we believe that he is the word of God?

When you go looking, you will find what you need, and that is what you did.

It does us no good to get you to see the facts, I try to just keep getting the information out there, because I like the refresher course that I go through when I do this.

Because this is a very important debate. When churches decide that the science being practiced is evil and corrupted and that thought leads to stagnating the country and leads to more and more panic and bombings of doctors and scientists it is time to strip the curtain that you all are standing behind shielding you from the real world.

You don't need god to exist, but he needs you to exist.


----------



## hitch420 (Sep 6, 2009)

hanimmal said:


> I don't understand, here is something you should look through: http://www.ffrf.org/books/lfif/?t=contra
> 
> Here is one on historical contradictions: http://www.answering-christianity.com/sake.htm
> 
> ...


Have you got any science proof that what happened to me today was not a gift from the creator but something else?
I would love to hear your views and explanations


----------



## Anonononymous (Sep 6, 2009)

In what way did you 'know' it was a divine being touching you with an invisible hand?


----------



## hitch420 (Sep 6, 2009)

Anonononymous said:


> In what way did you 'know' it was a divine being touching you with an invisible hand?


I went to church 100% sober.
Then People around me at church started doing all that "crazy stuff" likes falling down shaking etc etc.
Then a few people came and prayed for me and before you know it i felt wrecked !! The most intense buzz from my toes to the top of my head felt like i was rushing my tits off like being on lots of drugs.
I ended up on the floor.
stuck.
My hands were clentched in a weird postion that was almost painful. but i couldnt move.
And then after that a load of complete strangers started telling me things that i had read in the bible recently and thoughts that i hadnt shared with people but they were saying them word for word as they apeared in my head!!!! so that is how i came to the conclusion that it was from the all mighty.


----------



## Nocturn3 (Sep 6, 2009)

hitch420 said:


> I went to church 100% sober.
> Then People around me at church started doing all that "crazy stuff" likes falling down shaking etc etc.
> Then a few people came and prayed for me and before you know it i felt wrecked !! The most intense buzz from my toes to the top of my head felt like i was rushing my tits off like being on lots of drugs.
> I ended up on the floor.
> ...


Sounds more like a cult ceremony than a church one (if there is really a difference). What you "experienced" was a group delusion, and it wouldn't surprise me in the least if there was also some foul play involved to invoke that kind of behaviour from the congregation. I could make guesses as to the techniques used to do this, but it would only be conjecture on my part.

If I am wrong, I invite the holy spirit round to my house to invoke the same response from me. If I feel what you felt in the next 30 minutes, I will believe your experience was real, and will join you in preaching to the world.

Shouldn't be too hard for an omnipotent being to do, right?


----------



## hanimmal (Sep 6, 2009)

> Have you got any science proof that what happened to me today was not a gift from the creator but something else?
> I would love to hear your views and explanations


Well without knowing what happened to you today, it is difficult.

But lets try.

At some point you woke up. This is due to the need to sleep that provides your body time to repair your body and systems. It also allows your brain to repair itself. 

Then I am guessing that you ate some food. Since we need energy to keep the systems moving, eating food gets broken down in our stomach and turns into the energy that allows us to move.

I figure that you have breathed a bit today. We breathe to capture oxygen, which helps us convert food into energy in our cells, and to get rid of carbon dioxide &#8211; the waste gas which is formed as this happens. Our lungs pump these gases in and out of our bodies, and help us dissolve them in and out of our blood.

At some point you had sat down on the computer. Because we are a social species. This medium allows us to use the large functional brains that we have to learn and continue to keep those synapsis firing. Your hands that are typing are another wonderful form of evolution. Your posable thumb and digits allow a dexterity that no other animal (I believe this may not be correct with some obscure animal) possesses. The fingers allow us to complete very complex tasks like typing. Not to mention picking through bones or pulling off berries one by one.

Now if you are reading this you are using eyes that may have evolved as early as squids if not earlier that allowed them to see light reflections of fish and other prey on the ocean floor.

Amazingly if you are not one of the few that are color blind, evolution helped us evolve further with a mutation that allowed for color sight. At first it allowed us to seek out prey and predators in the jungle and savannas but now is used to see the different greens on this screen and some dude in really stupid glasses.


Now can I say, or will I say that there is no god, no I wouldn't say that. There is still room for god. Plenty infact. But that doesn't mean that he has to fit into the bible that has been written and rewritten by man to fit their needs over the last few thousand years. It is just a form of social control at worst, and at best a way to give people comfort.

I just don't need that comfort. I take comfort in loving life, my family that is left, freinds, books, learning, and the world. This place is so facinating once you really look at it! Thinking of how much we are all interconnected to everything else. Being able to look at a bird and think about how similar we are. Even the comfort in death, because we all do die, that doesn;t mean that I will not be of use to life. I will always be apart of the universe. My body will decompose and feed other animals and that will feed other things, on and on until the sun explodes and send the parts that I helped make up into other planets where I will become part of that system, until the very end when everything is pulled into one huge mass of material and we are slowly pulled in to a tight mass and it happens all over again.

That is where god can exist for me, the why can belong to him, the how has too much evidence to belong to man made books.


----------



## hitch420 (Sep 6, 2009)

Nocturn3 said:


> Sounds more like a cult ceremony than a church one (if there is really a difference). What you "experienced" was a group delusion, and it wouldn't surprise me in the least if there was also some foul play involved to invoke that kind of behaviour from the congregation. I could make guesses as to the techniques used to do this, but it would only be conjecture on my part.
> 
> If I am wrong, I invite the holy spirit round to my house to invoke the same response from me. If I feel what you felt in the next 30 minutes, I will believe your experience was real, and will join you in preaching to the world.
> 
> Shouldn't be too hard for an omnipotent being to do, right?


If in your heart you truly mean that and not sarcasticly it will.
The sarcasum is the hard bit to get over lol
I wouldnt give god a time limit thats sort of telling him what to do. If you told someone in authority over you to do your will not theres they wouldnt take to kindly to that.

And the group decpetion thing i doubt it. 
foul play?? are you suggesting drugs? or mind tricks or what ?


----------



## hitch420 (Sep 6, 2009)

And more to the point If it was bullshit what i felt, Its stilll free drugs


----------



## Nocturn3 (Sep 6, 2009)

hitch420 said:


> If in your heart you truly mean that and not sarcasticly it will.
> The sarcasum is the hard bit to get over lol
> I wouldnt give god a time limit thats sort of telling him what to do. If you told someone in authority over you to do your will not theres they wouldnt take to kindly to that.


I'm not being sarcastic. I'm offering myself willingly to god as a servant. All he has to do is to mirror what he did to you, in an environment where I can be sure there is no foul play involved. That would be enough to convince me.

The time limit is important because then I can be sure there are no coincidences involved. If I have a wierd feeling in 6 months time, It could be anything, from food poisoning to a brain tumor. If it happens in the next 20 minutes, I will know that it relates to this conversation, and will therefore be convinced.

I'm sure god is above "not taking too kindly" to being told what to do. I have valid reasons for the timeframe, and i'm sure an all-knowing creator can understand this.

Feel free to pray for me, if you think it will help convince the holy spirit to come and visit me.


----------



## Anonononymous (Sep 6, 2009)

The mind is a powerful tool.


----------



## hitch420 (Sep 6, 2009)

hanimmal said:


> Well without knowing what happened to you today, it is difficult.
> 
> But lets try.
> 
> ...


Wise words, unlike alot of athiest arguements that i have heard.
you dont rule out the possabilty of god, because you can't unless you know everything about everything.

Just to let you know i don't have a set mindset about evolution, infact i set up this thread to help further my opinion on somthing i couldn't careless about but it matters alot to my friends. who i am planning on showing who the big man in sky really is But not by arugment alone the biggest factor will be showing them x pills aren't near as good as the Holy spirit.


----------



## PadawanBater (Sep 6, 2009)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QTcFLp1uVZ4&feature=channel_page#

There's a great video about evolution, AronRa debunking some creationist claims!


----------



## klassenkid (Sep 6, 2009)

Anonononymous said:


> '"Evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of
> science. It is useless."'
> 
> I seriously fuckin doubt a real scientist said that, it sounds quote mined to me. Evolution is used daily. You know that flu jab you got last winter? You know why you had to get another one? Why it's different from the one you got last winter? Because influenza evolves...
> ...


 Why is there even a dispute about this, I read through only half of this forum and already got lost in hope of a good argument. Both sides have a lot of misguided information right from the get go.

I love science and right now im just going to bring up a little part of this thread that pissed me off. Micro and macro evolution are NOT THE SAME!! When someone says that they are revealing how uneducated they really are in Evolution. Or science in general. Micro is what is a proven FACT by our actual experiments and observations. It is when our genes are altered for its environment but only limited to what is already in our genes. Macro is putting a whole new piece into our genes and is where the whole believing in Evolution comes to play because they may say it happens but there is no facts other than saying thats the only explanation to our variety of species. IT IS NOT MICRO BUT IN A LARGER TIME SCALE, thats like me going saying Im going to put this nail in a coke bottle, couple days its going to be rusted away (FACT). Now lets let it sit for oh another million years and it will turn to aluminum. WHAT?! where would that come from? there isn't the right ionized elements in that bottle to create aluminum <-- there's your macro evolution. Its not proven but just a theory. Many literature even says its a fact which makes me want to run my nails on a chalkboard. There is no facts to back up one specie evolving to another, oh except there couple skeletons that have been resurrected from an area of 100m^2, Why? Is there so little skeletons to back a time zone that is in the millions. There should be thousands if not more of the "missing link" found and the "links" that supposedly have been found should have been replaced with a couple new fossils that maybe had all the bones in one burial area. The links are mutated chimps.


----------



## Nocturn3 (Sep 6, 2009)

klassenkid said:


> Come on Nocturn, that's where the closed minded part comes into play. Saying shit like that gets a dispute no wheres. Insults are for the weak.


Umm, what? It wasn't even me you quoted.

As for the rest of your post, your points have been addressed repeatedly.

And "insults are for the weak"??? What is that all about lol.


----------



## klassenkid (Sep 6, 2009)

Nocturn3 said:


> Umm, what? It wasn't even me you quoted.
> 
> As for the rest of your post, your points have been addressed repeatedly.
> 
> And "insults are for the weak"??? What is that all about lol.


I actually meant to multi quote, the part about you was directed about the whole cult and having a religious experience, i deleted so it wouldn't be confusing and sorry if i brought up a already discussed part, i skimed through and thought there was nothin on it, my bad


----------



## mared juwan (Sep 6, 2009)

hitch420 said:


> I have never believed in evolution so yes you are right i do not understand it fully


This is all I had to see to know that reading further is a waste of time. The OP has NO idea what they are talking about. Here's an idea, LEARN about what you are talking about before trying to change other people's minds. There are volumes and volumes of books that PROVE evolution without a doubt. But you don't need a whole book. Just read the 16 pages in the link below and tell me you can still deny evolution. To think these same principles don't apply to humans is simply arrogant. You are not so special. We are all part of the Animal Kingdom. Get over yourself. 

http://www.nature.com/nature/newspdf/evolutiongems.pdf


----------



## Nocturn3 (Sep 6, 2009)

Klassenkid, here you go:

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

Hopefully, this will clear up your confusion on the subject.


----------



## klassenkid (Sep 6, 2009)

mared juwan said:


> This is all I had to see to know that reading further is a waste of time. The OP has NO idea what they are talking about. Here's an idea, LEARN about what you are talking about before trying to change other people's minds. There are volumes and volumes of books that PROVE evolution without a doubt. But you don't need a whole book. Just read the 16 pages in the link below and tell me you can still deny evolution. To think these same principles don't apply to humans is simply arrogant. You are not so special. We are all part of the Animal Kingdom. Get over yourself.
> 
> http://www.nature.com/nature/newspdf/evolutiongems.pdf


thx for giving me that link just to prove how right i am in macro bullshit. Did anyone read it? Just like a typical evolutionist they put it words that make it sound like Macro is a fact with out saying "fact". Because they all know it is not a fact, for all you lazy people out there its "proof" on macro evolution all is based off a flie that from a thousand years ago now have now got a dot on their wing that is miscoloured pigmintation which has helped it attract females. THATS FUCKIN MICRO EVOLUTION, our genes can easly change our pigmintation, look at all the human colours. Wheres the new element in the DNA?


----------



## mared juwan (Sep 6, 2009)

klassenkid said:


> thx for giving me that link just to prove how right i am in macro bullshit. Did anyone read it? Just like a typical evolutionist they put it words that make it sound like Macro is a fact with out saying "fact". Because they all know it is not a fact, for all you lazy people out there its "proof" on macro evolution all is based off a flie that from a thousand years ago now have now got a dot on their wing that is miscoloured pigmintation which has helped it attract females. THATS FUCKIN MICRO EVOLUTION, our genes can easly change our pigmintation, look at all the human colours. Wheres the new element in the DNA?


 
You seem to be the kind of person that will deny the Sun is hot unless you touch it with your hand. I'm all with the objectivity thing but the evidence is overwhelming. And what is this fly with a dot shit? Did YOU read the link?


----------



## klassenkid (Sep 6, 2009)

Nocturn3 said:


> Klassenkid, here you go:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroevolution
> 
> Hopefully, this will clear up your confusion on the subject.


 
stop using Wikipedia as a reference, i could make that all say that Lucy was a dike if i wanted to, anybody could. So whats the chances of false info being on there?

The only reason they keep going with Macro evolution is because its the only ideology they have to fill in a huge blank without using the big book. They will replace it when they find something else with more evidence, which they are because of it being such a dead end. If you did read it tho you will notice they said i qoute 

"Predictions of empirical data from the theory of common descent have been so consistent that biologists often refer to it as the "_fact_ of evolution"."

Do you know why they refer to as "fact" like so, because they truly know it doesnt fit under the definition of "fact". Its just the most greatest thing they have for lead to creation of what we see today.


----------



## CrackerJax (Sep 6, 2009)

Not even the church will come out and use the word FACT when it comes to their own doctrine. 

Adhering to a BELIEF not based on fact and then ranting that because science doesn't throw the word FACT around like a teenager at a mosh party, is the zenith of hypocrisy.


----------



## klassenkid (Sep 6, 2009)

mared juwan said:


> You seem to be the kind of person that will deny the Sun is hot unless you touch it with your hand. I'm all with the objectivity thing but the evidence is overwhelming. And what is this fly with a dot shit? Did YOU read the link?


Yeah i am not interested in most of it because i dont argue with it, i just read the one thing that I and so many other biologists believe to be just a possible theory and shouldn't be pushed so strong as being a fact (Macro-evo).

???? You dont know about the fruit fly that changed its pigmintation of a circular part of its wing? DID YOU READ IT?


----------



## Anonononymous (Sep 6, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> Adhering to a BELIEF not based on fact and then ranting that because science doesn't throw the word FACT around like a teenager at a mosh party, is the zenith of hypocrisy.


Fact.


----------



## Nocturn3 (Sep 6, 2009)

klassenkid said:


> stop using Wikipedia as a reference, i could make that all say that Lucy was a dike if i wanted to, anybody could. So whats the chances of false info being on there?.


Actually, wikipedia is a great reference, because it cites sources, and is peer-reviewed, to some degree. By giving you that article, I was under the mistaken impression that you would actually be bothered to check the sources it cites, which would save me from having to link to them individually, or quote them out of context.

Do you honestly think that if you edited the wiki pages on evolution, it would stay that way for long?


----------



## klassenkid (Sep 6, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> Not even the church will come out and use the word FACT when it comes to their own doctrine.
> 
> Adhering to a BELIEF not based on fact and then ranting that because science doesn't throw the word FACT around like a teenager at a mosh party, is the zenith of hypocrisy.


Do i have to fight all of you? COME ON! you should know that fact is thrown around in science all the time. The word "fact" is what makes science so trustworthy, so truthful, so stable. They said "FACT" about the whole thing that we as mammals all look the same when first in the womb and it was proven wrong because they jumped the gun it using the word "fact"


----------



## klassenkid (Sep 6, 2009)

ADD ON. And thats what bothers me is that macro is not a fact but yet is claimed time after time as being one. UGH


----------



## mared juwan (Sep 6, 2009)

klassenkid said:


> ???? You dont know about the fruit fly that changed its pigmintation of a circular part of its wing? DID YOU READ IT?


Oh I see what you are saying. That is the only evidence mentioned in that particular article which was more intended for the OP but if you want to nitpick with this micro/macro stuff here's something else.

Start at Chapter 10

http://books.google.com/books?id=i8jx-ZyRRkkC&pg=PA188&lpg=PA188&dq=micro+macro+evolution&source=bl&ots=4b-LGuOxtn&sig=p6_6_2GP0f1aGq13E6xuqS6cq-Q&hl=en&ei=L_mjSr-aPNPYnAf5tZG5BQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9#v=onepage&q=micro%20macro%20evolution&f=false


----------



## CrackerJax (Sep 6, 2009)

Science has a very very strict methodology of discovery, testing, publishing, and retesting. Like sharpening any blade, it takes many strokes, over and over again to make the blade cut truly well.

Religion uses no such methodology...... and to compare the two as somehow equals, frankly is an insult to Man.


----------



## hanimmal (Sep 6, 2009)

> Why is there even a dispute about this, I read through only half of this forum and already got lost in hope of a good argument. Both sides have a lot of misguided information right from the get go.





> I love science and right now im just going to bring up a little part of this thread that pissed me off. Micro and macro evolution are NOT THE SAME!! When someone says that they are revealing how uneducated they really are in Evolution. Or science in general. Micro is what is a proven FACT by our actual experiments and observations. It is when our genes are altered for its environment but only limited to what is already in our genes. Macro is putting a whole new piece into our genes and is where the whole believing in Evolution comes to play because they may say it happens but there is no facts other than saying thats the only explanation to our variety of species.


Is this not just the study of evolution that is micro and macro? You are getting pretty worked up over the timelines people study. It does not make it different processes. Macro is the study after the branch. So say you study human genetics and how we changed once we became modern humans. So how we moved from africa to today. Where Micro just continues to follow those changes all the way back. 

The process is not changing, just when you chose to look at it.


> IT IS NOT MICRO BUT IN A LARGER TIME SCALE, thats like me going saying Im going to put this nail in a coke bottle, couple days its going to be rusted away (FACT). Now lets let it sit for oh another million years and it will turn to aluminum. WHAT?! where would that come from? there isn't the right ionized elements in that bottle to create aluminum <-- there's your macro evolution. Its not proven but just a theory. Many literature even says its a fact which makes me want to run my nails on a chalkboard.


Yeah! You are almost there. The _fact_ that the nail corrodes is indeed a fact. But the _theory_ is why it does that. We can back that theory up with all kinds of facts, but in the end it is still the _Basic_ _Corrosion Theory_.

That is the same with evolution. The _fact_ is that these changes take place. But the name of it that is using all the facts is the _theory of evolution_.



> There is no facts to back up one specie evolving to another, oh except there couple skeletons that have been resurrected from an area of 100m^2, Why? Is there so little skeletons to back a time zone that is in the millions. There should be thousands if not more of the "missing link" found and the "links" that supposedly have been found should have been replaced with a couple new fossils that maybe had all the bones in one burial area. The links are mutated chimps.


The problem is where we evolved from. In the jungles skeletons do not last long. It takes a very special set of circumstances to keep fossils intact for more than 10,000 years, much less the 5 million years it would need to see these transitional bones. Bone diagenesis happens and then you will not find them. Then you have the fact that they would not have burried the dead, so animals would have eaten the bones. It is very difficult to find them because of this. 



> *Published online 31 August 2005
> *
> 
> *First chimp fossil unearthed*
> ...


Here they are:


----------



## zorkan (Sep 6, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> Science has a very very strict methodology of discovery, testing, publishing, and retesting. Like sharpening any blade, it takes many strokes, over and over again to make the blade cut truly well.
> 
> Religion uses no such methodology...... and to compare the two as somehow equals, frankly is an insult to Man.


 
 why do science change so much If the method is so strict they should get it right the first time


----------



## CrackerJax (Sep 6, 2009)

Because we are learning and HONING the tested ideas of what has already been learned. there is no magical answer book (like the Bible) in the real world. Science is the only TRUE method of distilling the truth of the big questions....and the small.

If science was like religion, and didn't change, we'd all still be believing that the sun revolves around the earth.... which for CENTURIES was the position of the CHURCH.


----------



## hanimmal (Sep 6, 2009)

I don't understand, why do people think science is like religion? It is a process. You use all the information that is there and use it to make the most plausable and provable theory. If something comes up that completely destroys a theory then you have to start over with all the information.

If you think about all the technological advances the couple hundred years (computers for math, radioactive dating, better micro scopes, and telescopes, sonar, deep sea vessels, better digging methods, helicopters that allow for more remote science to take place, on and on) we have a much better understanding than we have at any point in history. That is why.

Everytime we are able to find new things, we are forced to change what we know. It is like reading a book and asking why you did not know everything in it by chapter one.


----------



## klassenkid (Sep 6, 2009)

mared juwan said:


> Oh I see what you are saying. That is the only evidence mentioned in that particular article which was more intended for the OP but if you want to nitpick with this micro/macro stuff here's something else.
> 
> Start at Chapter 10
> 
> http://books.google.com/books?id=i8jx-ZyRRkkC&pg=PA188&lpg=PA188&dq=micro+macro+evolution&source=bl&ots=4b-LGuOxtn&sig=p6_6_2GP0f1aGq13E6xuqS6cq-Q&hl=en&ei=L_mjSr-aPNPYnAf5tZG5BQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9#v=onepage&q=micro macro evolution&f=false


You clearly dont read what you put down as references and dont seem to know what your talking about because all your argument is, is just a bunch of links. People read the skim of things and take it as there knowledge, its what bad about the literature with modern science. Its like the old days bible that only the preists could read and understand. There are so many redundant sentences and overly complicated terms in evolution books that make it impossible for regular joes to read.


----------



## CrackerJax (Sep 6, 2009)

If you want redundancy and simplicity....stick with the Bible. The real world is a bit more complicated.


----------



## hanimmal (Sep 6, 2009)

> You clearly dont read what you put down as references and dont seem to know what your talking about because all your argument is, is just a bunch of links. People read the skim of things and take it as there knowledge, its what bad about the literature with modern science. Its like the old days bible that only the preists could read and understand. There are so many redundant sentences and overly complicated terms in evolution books that make it impossible for regular joes to read.


100% agree.

Scientists need to learn that they need to be able to talk with the common people that don't understand the scientific terms. I try to tell my fiance' this all the time.


----------



## fish601 (Sep 6, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> Because we are learning and HONING the tested ideas of what has already been learned. there is no magical answer book (like the Bible) in the real world. Science is the only TRUE method of distilling the truth of the big questions....and the small.
> 
> If science was like religion, and didn't change, we'd all still be believing that the sun revolves around the earth.... which for CENTURIES was the position of the CHURCH.


 
because we are learning & HONING is it possible that one day scientist could have it all wrong about evolution and dating methods?

the scientist taught the sun revolves around the earth...
are you suggesting since the church was wrong about the sun the whole religion is fake? 
I know of things today that "the chruch" is wrong about but that doesnt change who God is


----------



## klassenkid (Sep 6, 2009)

hanimmal said:


> I don't understand, why do people think science is like religion? It is a process. You use all the information that is there and use it to make the most plausable and provable theory. If something comes up that completely destroys a theory then you have to start over with all the information.
> 
> If you think about all the technological advances the couple hundred years (computers for math, radioactive dating, better micro scopes, and telescopes, sonar, deep sea vessels, better digging methods, helicopters that allow for more remote science to take place, on and on) we have a much better understanding than we have at any point in history. That is why.
> 
> Everytime we are able to find new things, we are forced to change what we know. It is like reading a book and asking why you did not know everything in it by chapter one.


No one said science is a religion and if they did there stupid, evolution is the thing thats sometimes stated a religion because of a lot of believing is involved because of the amount of black holes there is in its theories.


----------



## CrackerJax (Sep 6, 2009)

No, if the methodology of time dating were incorrect, it would have shown itself already. There is no doubt that science has an accurate way to measure the ages of the Earth.... the sharpening will only enhance the accuracy.


----------



## hanimmal (Sep 6, 2009)

> because we are learning & HONING is it possible that one day scientist could have it all wrong about evolution and dating methods?
> 
> the scientist taught the sun revolves around the earth...
> are you suggesting since the church was wrong about the sun the whole religion is fake?
> I know of things today that "the chruch" is wrong about but that doesnt change who God is


It is like Klass nail analogy Fish. The evidence or 'facts' that these changes took place is already there. So even if evolution as it stands is not right, and the timelone is way off due to dating methods being found fraudulent in the future. The new theory would have to work in all the bone evidence, and dna mapping, on and on, to work the new method.

See people like to talk about the times when people thought that the sun revolved around the earth. When new evidence shattered that theory, it did not mean that the sun was not there anymore. 

That is what happens here. Those bones and dna don't just disappear, they are the facts that the theory has to incorporate. So it is not going to go away.



> No one said science is a religion and if they did there stupid, evolution is the thing thats sometimes stated a religion because how much black holes there in its theories.


I agree, they do talk about science like it is a religion, I have seen people type 'your god science' a lot.

Evolution is just like the theory of corrosion. It is using the facts of evidence. The reason why people get so worked up is that they cannot bring their speech to the level of getting others that don't know the science to understand it. And it gets to almost a religious talk because it is not able to be understood by the other side. Things like 'it just is!' does not get the point across, and is akin to 'God's will'.


----------



## klassenkid (Sep 6, 2009)

hanimmal said:


> Is this not just the study of evolution that is micro and macro? You are getting pretty worked up over the timelines people study. It does not make it different processes. Macro is the study after the branch. So say you study human genetics and how we changed once we became modern humans. So how we moved from africa to today. Where Micro just continues to follow those changes all the way back.
> 
> The process is not changing, just when you chose to look at it.
> 
> ...


This one of weakest arguments i have yet seen. You just revealed macro evolutions biggest gap hole  CONGRATUALTIONS!

No fossil proof, that picture also proves just a little they have on the whole topic.

HARD TO GET FOSSILS AT THAT AGE YOU SAY!? 
dinosaur fossils are found so easly though?'

Did you know that when an animal eats another they leave the bones, the main ones anyway so no sorry they should have some. At least some that had died from a flood or mud slide or something that give us some preserved fossils. Every other animal in there time zone has them. (Burial site doesnt have to mean barried by another but just where they died).


----------



## hanimmal (Sep 6, 2009)

> This one of weakest arguments i have yet seen. You just revealed macro evolutions biggest gap hole  CONGRATUALTIONS!
> 
> No fossil proof, that picture also proves just a little they have on the whole topic.
> 
> ...


We only have a few thousand dinosaur skeletons. And those are of the largest land animals ever. And all of those come from things like oil pits that they wandered into.

You just don't want to see it.

Humans and chimps are a very social and intelligent animal. So we do not stray haphazzardly into these traps that the dinosaurs did. And again just because there are not a ton of bones does not mean that there are none.



















Here is a good link: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27225171

Just for pics though.

The evidence is there, I was saying that the fact we evolved from the jungle is a large part of why we don't have more from the changes. Bones are not something that is easy to find.


----------



## klassenkid (Sep 6, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> If you want redundancy and simplicity....stick with the Bible. The real world is a bit more complicated.


 im gona have to say you never have read the bible. Its very complex and has some pretty long words and awkward words in there, thats why if it is all a hoax has been so successful. It has some how covered many topics and events we see today and was written thousands of years ago.

AND dont give me the bullshit anyways about the bible, when you get shit on something you defend you quickly point at something else


----------



## klassenkid (Sep 6, 2009)

hanimmal said:


> We only have a few thousand dinosaur skeletons. And those are of the largest land animals ever. And all of those come from things like oil pits that they wandered into.
> 
> You just don't want to see it.
> 
> ...


stop putting those pics up, i think everyone has seen them. The missing links that connect us to chimpanzee is where theres so few, just that one spot oddly. 

MY point is with so little bones to go by it could be easy to say that it can mean also just a mutation. Just like Mutations we have today that never progress.


----------



## fish601 (Sep 6, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> If you want redundancy and simplicity....stick with the Bible. The real world is a bit more complicated.


 



CrackerJax said:


> The reason ppl don't read the Bible is because it is mostly unintelligible.


this the real world your talking about


----------



## hanimmal (Sep 6, 2009)

> stop putting those pics up, i think everyone has seen them. The missing links that connect us to chimpanzee is where theres so few, just that one spot oddly.
> 
> MY point is with so little bones to go by it could be easy to say that it can mean also just a mutation. Just like Mutations we have today that never progress.


Sure that does fit. But there are also mutations that do progress. Even if it is small things that don't matter when that person has a child they carry that mutation, and pass it on. Now if it a mutation that makes them more appealing to the opposite sex, then they would have more of a chance to pass it on.

So using the information that we know today about how the mutations get passed on, we can follow those back in time with DNA.

But even still the difference between saying that there is no long term evolution and some how we just sprang up is that evolution actually has real proof. Where the sprung up (god) theory has no proof other than a bible that was written by men.


Edit: And the reason makes sence that it would be in one spot. The mutations would come from one 'family' they would not have started out of nothing in several different spots, it would have been different mutations, like forming gorillas, or bonobo, or oragatangs. Once the different species were formed into a different community it would start to branch off at that point.


----------



## CrackerJax (Sep 6, 2009)

Religion doesn't live in the real world Fish....


----------



## anhedonia (Sep 6, 2009)

Those pictures are very interesting. Ive been trying to watch more christian programming on TV and radio. Im putting togeather a series of paintings depicting the grossly unenlightened qualities of the abrahamic god. Im not an artist yet, but I can draw well and will take art classes at the college next semester and hopefully learn to paint. I have some ideas of biblical scenes and symbolisms I'll use impart the sense of the almighty suffering as a human being does and not having the capacity to see the errors of his ways instead becomes uncertain and angry at the thought but realizing that he has nowhere but inward to search and becomes disgusted with himself. I'll give him an angered and ignorant stare as he comes to the conclusion. Hopefully that will inspire people to question thier belief motives and look deeper into thier heart.


----------



## CrackerJax (Sep 6, 2009)

Just be aware that the Old testament is not Christian, even though that religion has co opted it. The G*D of Abraham is a Jewish G*D, not a Christian one.


----------



## mared juwan (Sep 6, 2009)

klassenkid said:


> You clearly dont read what you put down as references and dont seem to know what your talking about because all your argument is, is just a bunch of links. People read the skim of things and take it as there knowledge, its what bad about the literature with modern science. Its like the old days bible that only the preists could read and understand. There are so many redundant sentences and overly complicated terms in evolution books that make it impossible for regular joes to read.





hanimmal said:


> 100% agree.
> 
> Scientists need to learn that they need to be able to talk with the common people that don't understand the scientific terms. I try to tell my fiance' this all the time.


 

So because you two can't UNDERSTAND my links they are no good? Too many big words? Seems to be more of a personal problem. YOUR understanding is the problem. Do you know why I post links? Because people shouldn't believe something anyone types on an MJ forum. They should look at REAL information rather than the type of bullshit you put up here. Funny, if you were to try and find links to support your argument all you find are whacko Christian sites. Hmmmmm..........


----------



## Brazko (Sep 6, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> Just be aware that the Old testament is not Christian, even though that religion has co opted it. The G*D of Abraham is a Jewish G*D, not a Christian one.


 
This is A Profound Statement and Accurate oNe CJ, Sadly, Many So Called Christians cannot Grasp this.... I believe people get Killed over that Kind of Discrepancy!!

Jus SAying, .02


----------



## zorkan (Sep 6, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> Just be aware that the Old testament is not Christian, even though that religion has co opted it. The G*D of Abraham is a Jewish G*D, not a Christian one.


 
You sure does pay alot of respect to G*D not to believe in him


----------



## fish601 (Sep 6, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> Just be aware that the Old testament is not Christian, even though that religion has co opted it. The G*D of Abraham is a Jewish G*D, not a Christian one.


 
saying stuff like that makes me think you either dont understand the bible or you have never read it..

*Ac 28:28* - Show Context "*Therefore I want you to know that God's salvation has been sent to the Gentiles, and they will listen!"* 

*Ro 11:11* - Show Context Again I ask: Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all! Rather, because of their transgression, *salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious.* 
*it goes on and on*

*Ac 13:47* - Show Context For this is what the Lord has commanded us: "'I have made you a light for the *Gentiles*, that you may bring salvation to the ends of the earth.'" 
*Ac 11:18* - Show Context When they heard this, they had no further objections and praised God, saying, "*So then, God has granted even the Gentiles repentance unto life." * 
*Ac 13:46* - Show Context Then Paul and Barnabas answered them boldly: "We had to speak the word of God to you first. Since you reject it and do not consider yourselves worthy of eternal life,* we now turn to the Gentiles*. https://www.rollitup.org/spirituality-sexuality-philosophy/234919-evolution-theory-you-base-religion-15.html#post3037415


----------



## PadawanBater (Sep 6, 2009)

> HARD TO GET FOSSILS AT THAT AGE YOU SAY!?
> dinosaur fossils are found so easly though?'
> Did you know that when an animal eats another they leave the bones, the main ones anyway so no sorry they should have some. At least some that had died from a flood or mud slide or something that give us some preserved fossils. Every other animal in there time zone has them. (Burial site doesnt have to mean barried by another but just where they died).


Klass, dinosaur fossils are one of the rarest artifacts we have in science, up there with space rocks and meteors...

I once heard a statistic that gave a rough estimate on the process of fossilization. It said that with the current number of Americans - that is over 300 million, if we were to all die suddenly, statistically speaking, less than one full human skeleton would become fossilized. Not even one whole human, out of over 300 MILLION of us. What does that tell you about the process and how many dinosaurs must have walked the earth? 

Animals digest the bones of their prey, haven't you ever seen a snake documentary? 

And as I was browsing through the rest of this thread, I couldn't help but notice that almost every other post you made you constantly bitch about "FACTS!" - so tell me klass, what in science IS A FACT? - you tell me, because I was under the impression that science does not deal exclusively with facts, science has theories that have thousands of facts, then science has laws that unify theories... so what the fuck have you been going on and on about with the missing "FACTS!"?? 

And another thing... please seriously get your peabrained sized mind around this concept. Macro evolution is EXACTLY the same as micro evolution. The ONE AND ONLY DIFFERENCE is the TIME SCALE. That is seriously not that hard to grasp man... Less time for micro, more time for macro... less changes for micro, more changes for macro...


----------



## fish601 (Sep 6, 2009)

PadawanBater said:


> The ONE AND ONLY DIFFERENCE is the *TIME SCALE*. That is seriously not that hard to grasp man... Less time for micro, *more time for macro*... less changes for micro, more changes for macro...


 

ahhh see i bet that is why they use falty information about dating methods
and that is why they insist the earth is billions of years old haha
i get it now i see now why they use those silly dating methods they have to inorder to 'prove' evolution 

but where we stand now is: they do not know how to properly date things older than a few thousand years and they have not and can not prove evolution.

just a reminder if they do prove how old the earth is i do not have a problem with that and if they prove that we evolved i will not have a problem with that either.


----------



## mared juwan (Sep 6, 2009)

fish601 said:


> but where we stand now is: they do not know how to properly date things older than a few thousand years and they have not and can not prove evolution.


Are you kidding me? You're not one of those "the cavement hunted dinosaurs" people are you? Klassenchild, look at the kind of people on your side. This is ridiculous. I wonder if FISH601 has an agenda of any kind LOL.


----------



## fish601 (Sep 6, 2009)

mared juwan said:


> Are you kidding me? You're not one of those "the cavement hunted dinosaurs" people are you? Klassenchild, look at the kind of people on your side. This is ridiculous. I wonder if FISH601 has an agenda of any kind LOL.


 
not one of those but i do not rule it out.
i am just saying they do not know how to properly date things


----------



## PadawanBater (Sep 6, 2009)

fish601 said:


> not one of those but i do not rule it out.
> i am just saying they do not know how to properly date things


 
Yeah, we know that's what you're saying..

The problem is not whether the dating methods are accurate or not, it's what will it take to convince ol' fish that they are?

Everyone else seems to believe they are, you are the only exception.

So what will it take to convince you of something fish? Why do you believe the theory of gravity? Why do you believe the theory of evolution (when it suits your needs, like when you get vaccines) but not human evolution?

See man, you sit there and say that if any of the evidence were to contradict your current belief you wouldn't have a problem with it because it wouldn't matter to you because all your really seeking is the truth... but then when evidence is presented that does just that, and I'm talking elementary evidence, basic shit that kindergardeners know, the dinosaurs walking with man kind of evidence... is shown to you, you say the EVIDENCE is faulty, and it's not proof of anything... not your BELIEF. That's willful ignorance. You KNOW you are wrong, everyone is telling you your wrong, all the science disagree's with what you are saying, all of it, the only thing you have to back shit up is vague ancient biblical prophecies - even though you're saying the whole time religion doesn't sway your opinion.. and hearsay... 

You don't understand what theory means...

You don't understand what science means...

You don't understand what evidence/proof means...

You don't understand what macro/micro evolution means...

You believe things that are proven by the people who do the proving to be wrong and you refuse to change them no matter what...

You're a goddamn fanatic if I've ever seen one fish. At least the rest of the fundies admit it.


----------



## mared juwan (Sep 6, 2009)

I had a whole response typed up but Padawan Bater is right. This is a futile enterprise.


----------



## 88malice (Sep 6, 2009)

Evolution is very real, you can watch it happen between species over millions of years. Religion's are theories and will ALWAYS be theories due to not being able to come back from the dead and explain what you seen. Evolution is definatly happening as we speak.


----------



## fish601 (Sep 6, 2009)

this is something i have been looking into, if anyone has any comments i would consider them

GUADELOUPE WOMAN: *this skeleton was found inside extremely hard, very old limestone, which was part of a formation more than a mile in length Modern geological dating places this formation at 28 million years old&#8212;which is 25 million years before modern man is supposed to have first appeared on earth.*

*i cant find anything else on it can any of you help with that?*


----------



## fish601 (Sep 6, 2009)

PadawanBater said:


> The problem is not whether the dating methods are accurate or not, it's what will it take to convince ol' fish that they are?
> 
> Everyone else seems to believe they are, you are the only exception.
> 
> ...


 
i am not gona take what i was taught in kindergarden and just go with it..
yes i was taught dinos lived long before man and i do not have a problem with that except there is NO 100% evidence .. sure a few scientist say it is so, but why believe them, when there are a few others scientist who say it isnt so.. who to believe??




take this for example both from scientist

CALAVERAS SKULLJ.D. Whitney, chief of the California Geological Survey, *this person lived "over 2 million years ago,"*

*vs another scientist *

*Calaveras Man* Tests have shown it to be recent, probably* less than 1000 years old*



*i try to look at both sides of the story if what i was taught in grade school is right then so be it*



some advice: dont believe everything you read in textbooks http://www.thefoxnation.com/topics/textbooks


let me go on and throw this in also lol http://freehovind.com/watch-3954156199145885147

lol click this also http://freehovind.com/watch-2528412371399195162


----------



## PadawanBater (Sep 6, 2009)

fish601 said:


> this is something i have been looking into, if anyone has any comments i would consider them
> 
> GUADELOUPE WOMAN: *this skeleton was found inside extremely hard, very old limestone, which was part of a formation more than a mile in length Modern geological dating places this formation at 28 million years old&#8212;which is 25 million years before modern man is supposed to have first appeared on earth.*
> 
> *i cant find anything else on it can any of you help with that?*


 


*



Guadeloupe Woman Found

Click to expand...

*
​​​​​​

> (1812). This is a wellauthenticateddiscovery which has been in the British Museumfor over a century. A fully modern human skeletonwas found in the French Caribbean island of Guadeloupeinside an immense slab of limestone, dated by modern geologistsat 28 million years old. (More examples could be cited.)
> *Human beings, just like those living today (but **sometimes larger), have been found in very deep levels **of strata.*





>





http://www.3bible.com/books/Evolution%20Cruncher.pdf

Down on page 19 from that insane book. I barely skimmed the contents and could already determine the nuttiness within!​ 
That's a good example of how you know if something is bullshit. I went and searched for this "Guadeloupe Woman", couldn't find a damn thing except that same quote over and over again by creationists... How many DIFFERENT published, peer reviewed papers are there on evolution? Hundreds of thousands... ​​​​
​


----------



## PadawanBater (Sep 6, 2009)

fish601 said:


> i am not gona take what i was taught in kindergarden and just go with it..
> yes i was taught dinos lived long before man and i do not have a problem with that except there is NO 100% evidence .. sure a few scientist say it is so, but why believe them, when there are a few others scientist who say it isnt so.. who to believe??
> 
> 
> ...


 
Dude, I'm trying to be patient with you, do you see nothing wrong with the way you are going about researching this stuff?

*"i try to look at both sides of the story"*

I'm seriously contemplating putting that in my sig.


----------



## fish601 (Sep 6, 2009)

PadawanBater said:


> Down on page 19 from that insane book. I *barely skimmed the contents and could already determine the nuttiness within!*​​​​
> 
> 
> That's a good example of how you know if something is bullshit. ​​​​​​​






PadawanBater said:


> Dude, I'm trying to be patient with you, *do you see nothing wrong with the way you are going about researching this stuff?*
> 
> *"i try to look at both sides of the story"*
> 
> I'm seriously contemplating putting that in my sig.


 
should i research it like you and skim the contents to determine the nuttiness within and the bullshit? or give it a honest look? you shut it out without even giving it a good look.. atleast i am look into evolution and dating methods​


----------



## fish601 (Sep 6, 2009)

did you click my hovind links 


hes kinda funny


----------



## hanimmal (Sep 6, 2009)

I cannot find anything legit talking about the Guadalupa woman. The only things they say is that it was found in 1821 and taken down in 1881, and has not been seen since. And with radiocarbon dating being invented in 1949, how did they date it? I have not found anything close to science on this.

But with all the other things that the articles point to I was able to find some more:


> *Calaveras Skull*





> On February 25, 1866, miners found a human skull in a mine, beneath a layer of lava, 130 feet (39 m) below the surface of the earth, which made it into the hands of Josiah Whitney, then the State Geologist of California as well as a Professor of Geology at Harvard University. A year before the skull came to his attention, Whitney had published the aforementioned belief of humans, mastodons, and elephants having coexisted and the skull only served as proof of his convictions. After careful study, he officially announced its discovery at a meeting of the California Academy of Science on July 16, 1866, declaring it evidence of the existence of Pliocene age man in North America, which would make it the oldest known record of humans on the continent.
> 
> However, its authenticity was immediately challenged. In 1869 a San Francisco newspaper reported that a miner had told a minister that the skull was planted as a practical joke. Thomas Wilson of Harvard ran a fluorine analysis on it in 1879, with the results indicating it was of recent origin. It was so widely believed to be a hoax that Bret Harte famously wrote a satirical poem called "To the Pliocene Skull" in 1899.


So one hoax down.



> The Castenedolo and Olmo skulls from Italy and the Calaveras skull from California were modern skulls, but all were found in undisturbed Pliocene strata.
> 
> Talk Origins is using an out of date creationist reference: Their cited source is eight years more recent. Dr. Morris' source was a Readers Digest article from August 1973, and the error was made by that author, not Morris. It needs to be noted that these bones are not used any more. Most creationists have abandoned them in true scientific fashion as they have been found to be erroneous.


Hoax number 2.



> The *Moab Man* (also called "Malachite man") is a controversial find of around ten human skeletons in rock dated to the Early Cretaceous period, about 140 Ma. The discovery was made in 1971 by Lin Ottinger in the Keystone Azurite Mine near Moab, Utah and has been used by creationists as an argument for humans coexisting with dinosaurs. John Marwitt, an archaeologist and the Field Director for the Utah Archaeological Survey, examined the fossils and concluded that the fossils were probably only hundreds of years old, the result of burials of Native Americans.
> 
> Later examination of the "Moab Man" skeletons indicate that they are unfossilized, and have been carbon dated to between 210 and 1450 years old (Berger and Protsch, 1989; Coulam and Schroedl, 1995)


Yeah yeah I know they are wiki links, but I read other sources that debunked them all, it is just that wiki summed them up nicely.


I am guessing since Guadaluope woman was taken down shortly after darwins theory was stated it may have more to do with the excitement of what they had and more investigation into it to find it to be a fraud then it being one piece of information that would shatter a brand new theory. It would be a huge coup to have the one piece of evidence that would disprove all scientific theory into evolution.


----------



## hanimmal (Sep 6, 2009)

And I just reread some of the posts, and I completely missed when the dude with the tiger avatar posted this:



> THATS FUCKIN MICRO EVOLUTION, our genes can easly change our pigmintation, look at all the human colours. Wheres the new element in the DNA?


Here you go:



> Humans show big DNA differences
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## fish601 (Sep 6, 2009)

PadawanBater said:


> You don't understand what macro/micro evolution means...
> .


macro is not science


----------



## PadawanBater (Sep 6, 2009)

fish601 said:


> macro is not science


 
Tell me why.

Like I explained to you before, macro evolution has the exact same processes as micro evolution, the one and only difference is the amount of time.


----------



## CrackerJax (Sep 7, 2009)

Fish, you aren't even qualified to say if macro is scientific or not. All of your posts indicate an utter lack of knowledge of science. It's not simply a matte of "opinion". It's not a beauty contest.....


----------



## fish601 (Sep 7, 2009)

PadawanBater said:


> Tell me why.
> 
> Like I explained to you before, macro evolution has the exact same processes as micro evolution, the one and only difference is the amount of time.


micro can be proven
macro we only believe it can happen

asummption is the mother of all F***ups

they assume macro can happen

they assume dating methods are right

we assume scientist know what they are talking about

we assume text books give us accurate information

people assume marijuana is bad 

scientist cant even agree on how bad marijuana is


----------



## fish601 (Sep 7, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> Fish, you aren't even qualified to say if macro is scientific or not. All of your posts indicate an utter lack of knowledge of science. It's not simply a matte of "opinion". It's not a beauty contest.....


 
your right i am not qualified to talk about science i have a huge lack of knowledge about that subject. i find it really funny when scientist debate about science 
science is not a matter of opinion but alot of scientist use there opinion and teach it to our children


----------



## hanimmal (Sep 7, 2009)

> micro can be proven
> macro we only believe it can happen
> asummption is the mother of all F***ups
> they assume macro can happen
> ...


You are wrong, see the small changes that can be quickly seen are observed, the same changes that are small add up and that is where different 'species' occur.


The belief that you hold is that these animals are somehow different. What it really is is that all those very small changes took millions of years to evolve to the point that you call it a different species, family, order, ect. But it still starts from the same point.

One animal does not change into another. It is one animal that a mutation occurs that results in a small change, over time those small changes get passed on to others in its group, usually not even showing differences. But once two parents have a child that carried the same mutation the new offspring has the full trait. If it is benefitial it will be easier for them to reproduce, and slowly those changes occur.

Usually you will end up with several different new types of the same animal, with the original still sticking around. 


But the big thing with everything you said, is that you assume all this is wrong. And your only evidence is people that want to sell you the idea of god to keep you in their numbers. They cannot allow themselves to be questioned, because if they allow the holes to be poked, they lose their revenue stream. On the other hand science is constantly being challenged. People everyday question it and test it, and it still holds up to testing. But that is not good enough for you right now. Eventually you may decide to look into the actual facts instead of the churches propaganda, and when that happens you will find it is a interesting place to be.


----------



## fish601 (Sep 7, 2009)

hanimmal said:


> You are wrong, see the small changes that can be quickly seen are observed, the same changes that are small add up and that is where different 'species' occur.
> 
> 
> The belief that you hold is that these animals are somehow different. What it really is is that all those very small changes took millions of years to evolve to the point that you call it a different species, family, order, ect. But it still starts from the same point.
> ...


 
all that sounds good but....


----------



## mared juwan (Sep 7, 2009)

Do you know how much money they spend to produce a textbook? Do you know why they are so expensive? Because they spend thousands of hours FACT checking. Making SURE their information is correct. Things written in textbooks are far more believable than anything I see typed by a guy named "fish601" with a picture of Jesus as his avatar. Why do you even try to argue your point? You have no credibility because you are obviously viewing the world through a window tinted by religion. Nobody takes you seriously.


----------



## fish601 (Sep 7, 2009)

mared juwan said:


> Do you know how much money they spend to produce a textbook? Do you know why they are so expensive? Because they spend thousands of hours FACT checking. Making SURE their information is correct. Things written in textbooks are far more believable than anything I see typed by a guy named "fish601" with a picture of Jesus as his avatar. Why do you even try to argue your point? You have no credibility because you are obviously viewing the world through a window tinted by religion. Nobody takes you seriously.


you must of not seen the fox news special about textbooks;;;;;;

FOX News Reporting investigated the $10 billion dollar-a-year textbook industry and how the drive to be politically correct might be taking over American schools. Host Tucker Carlson, asked experts, teachers, publishers and parents the same question: "Do you know what is inside your children's textbooks?" *From kindergarten through college, we found staggering errors and omissions which may be pushing agendas*, hidden and otherwise http://www.thefoxnation.com/culture/2009/09/03/preview-fox-news-reporting-do-you-know-what-textbooks-your-children-are-really-re


----------



## fish601 (Sep 7, 2009)

mared juwan said:


> Why do you even try to argue your point? You have no credibility because you are obviously viewing the world through a window tinted by religion. Nobody takes you seriously.


shut me out because i believe something else?


----------



## ReggaeGanja (Sep 7, 2009)

well if evelution was real wouldnt our dicks be GINORMOUS? like trees?


----------



## ReggaeGanja (Sep 7, 2009)

OMG!! i just thought of something if the school can teach about EVOLUTION wich is pretty mmuch a theory.. thenn why is it against some laws to even say GOD in school? dude uhh fuk the police and the govnmt..


----------



## ReggaeGanja (Sep 7, 2009)

fish601 said:


> shut me out because i believe something else?


----------



## kms420 (Sep 7, 2009)

ReggaeGanja said:


>


i believe religion and evolution are two seperate areas of discussion. for example which came first the chicken or the egg? before i get into this dnt get me wrong i believe in the lord some what, now stating that you can go either way with that if your religious the lord created all living things so u would say the chicken cam first but at the darwinn stand point you would say the egg cam first, but what do i know i smoke pot lol as long as u believe in sumthin i guess....cronicals of a stoner....im ripped lol


----------



## CrackerJax (Sep 7, 2009)

Question: Which came first, the Chicken or the Egg?

Answer: Neither, the Rooster came first.....and then he smoked a cig.


----------



## OregonMeds (Sep 7, 2009)

fish601 said:


> all that sounds good but....


I love that this is all you had to say in response.

People are not taking your seriously, that's true because you don't even try to research things on sites that aren't cristian first and foremost. You are looking to them for everything and now you even list fox news as a reference to dismiss the accuracy and fact checking that goes into trying to clear up revisionist history.

We have waisted time trying to counter some of the crap you are brainwashed with and even given references to proof and shown you evolution is real and the only difference between macro and micro evolution is time and on and on and on but you can't or won't listen, don't take anytning other than what's on fox news or cristian websites seriously and want to claim science is as fake as the religion we can see clouds your mind completely.

On top of all this you sound generally ignorant, unedjucated, and young.

You have been polite though, so you don't seem like a complete waste...


----------



## mared juwan (Sep 7, 2009)

fish601 said:


> shut me out because i believe something else?


Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. Your "beliefs" cloud your judgement because you want all the facts to fit those "beliefs". I don't let my "beliefs" affect what I state as a fact. It's called objectivity.


----------



## fish601 (Sep 7, 2009)

mared juwan said:


> Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. Your "beliefs" cloud your judgement because you want all the facts to fit those "beliefs". I don't let my "beliefs" affect what I state as a fact. It's called objectivity.


 
thats what i think about most scientist


----------



## mared juwan (Sep 7, 2009)

I knew this was a futile enterprise a few posts ago but this is the last thing I'll say here and it CANNOT be disputed.

Bedrock principle of science: Examine ALL evidence and objectively draw conclusions from the TOTALITY of available knowledge. 

Bedrock prinicple of religion: Examine one book and make all other evidence fit what it says.

I'm out.


----------



## zorkan (Sep 7, 2009)

mared juwan said:


> I knew this was a futile enterprise a few posts ago but this is the last thing I'll say here and it CANNOT be disputed.
> 
> Bedrock principle of science: Examine ALL evidence and objectively draw conclusions from the TOTALITY of available knowledge.
> 
> ...


 
 I hope your other 2000 post was more helpful than that


----------



## OregonMeds (Sep 7, 2009)

zorkan said:


> I hope your other 2000 post was more helpful than that


The head banging smiley and dunce smiley and what you just said was far less valuable, maybe what he said just went over your head.


----------



## zorkan (Sep 7, 2009)

wut u say


----------



## CrackerJax (Sep 7, 2009)

That post was dead on......


----------



## fish601 (Sep 7, 2009)

A 94- to 90-million-year-old Sphaerodactylus gecko is one of the proofs that living things never underwent evolution.
pic bottom​ 

http://www.living-fossils.com/living_fossils_1_1.php​ 

The living fossils reveal that living things did not descend from one another in stages, nor have they evolved in any way. The fossil record provides no examples of intermediate forms. Countless living things have remained unchanged for millions of years, and their current anatomical structures are exactly the same as they were millions of years ago. The fossil record is almost complete with both animal and plant specimens demonstrating this. It definitively and scientifically refutes evolution​


----------



## PadawanBater (Sep 8, 2009)

> The living fossils reveal that living things did not descend from one another in stages, nor have they evolved in any way. The fossil record provides no examples of intermediate forms. Countless living things have remained unchanged for millions of years, and their current anatomical structures are exactly the same as they were millions of years ago. The fossil record is almost complete with both animal and plant specimens demonstrating this. It definitively and scientifically refutes evolution


fish, pay attention to this post man, this stuff is important, more important than you probably know. It's important that you understand the implications of your beliefs in Christianity and your stubborn opposition to the theory of evolution. How important? Why would I spend so much time posting, post after post clarifying your posts and checking your facts? Did you ever ask yourself that? Others on these threads do the same because they understand the impact your simple little belief has on the rest of us. Hopefully you understand the hostility some people have towards believers, that right there is where it comes from. Your obliviousness to modern mental oppression in our society. You get some comfort you could simply acquire somewhere else, like the rest of us, believing in fairy tales, while people on the other side of the planet starve to death because they believe something different than the tribe the next village over... 

Anyway man.. so I went and checked out that website you listed, did a basic run through.. (when I say that, that means I read 80% of it and skimmed 20%), I'll show you a few errors I found. I'm not a scientist or anything, but I've done a ton of research into the theory of evolution, I would say it's safe to conclude I know more than your average person. I check things, compare things, do basic research using more than one source, I know pretty much most of the newest up to date information about it, and I find it generally a really interesting subject to learn about, I study it on my own time. So here we go..

I'd LOVE an actual response from you fish, but I'm starting to think that's too much to ask for... I am spending a bit of time doing this, don't I deserve that much? I'll even make it as simple as possible, I don't like spending a lot of time doing pointless shit on the internet sometimes either... 



> The theory of evolution claims that all the living species on Earth descended, by means of a series of minute changes, from a common ancestor. To state the theory another way, living species are not separated from one another by absolute differences, but exhibit an inner continuity. However, actual observations in nature have indicated that there is no such continuity as claimed.


K, right off the bat, totally false. 

Every single living organism on earth, ALL OF THEM, have DNA. Does that not suggest that ALL LIFE on earth is RELATED? 

Also, what such observations in nature is the author referring to? - why doesn't he list any?



> For example, half-fish, half-amphibian creatures that still bore fish-like characteristics but which had also acquired certain amphibious features must have existed. And reptile-birds with both reptilian and avian features must have emerged. Since these creatures were in a process of transition, they must have been deformed, deficient and flawed. These theoretical creatures claimed to have existed in the distant past are known as "intermediate forms."


Seriously...wtf? 

*Tiktaalik 375 million years ago - fish > amphibian

*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik

http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/

*Ichthyostega 365 million years ago - fish > amphibian

*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ichthyostega

http://www.tolweb.org/Ichthyostega

*Pedopenna 140-168 million years ago - reptile > bird

*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedopenna

http://dinosaurs.about.com/od/carnivorousdinosaurs/p/pedopenna.htm

*Archaeopteryx 150-155 million years ago - reptile > bird

*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeopteryx

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/birds/archaeopteryx.html

Animals use transitional appendages like the beginning of a wing or beginning of a leg to their advantage in their environment. If they were not advantages, they would not be passed on, it's that simple. Clearly they benefit the organisms that have them. Just like opposable thumbs benefit us.



> If any such living species really did exist, then they should number, in the millions, or even billions.


...Well, let's examine this claim.

There are 6.7 billion human beings on Earth today. 

Given the extreme circumstances of fossilization;




> Fossilization is an exceptionally rare occurrence, because most components of formerly-living things tend to decompose relatively quickly following death. In order for an organism to be fossilized, the remains normally need to be covered by





> sediment as soon as possible. However there are exceptions to this, such as if an organism becomes frozen, desiccated, or comes to rest in an anoxic (oxygen-free) environment. There are several different types of fossils and fossilization processes.
> Due to the combined effect of taphonomic processes and simple mathematical chance, fossilization tends to favor organisms with hard body parts, those that were widespread, and those that existed for a long time before going extinct. On the other hand, it is very unusual to find fossils of small, soft bodied, geographically restricted and geologically ephemeral organisms, because of their relative rarity and low likelihood of preservation.
> Larger specimens (macrofossils) are more often observed, dug up and displayed, although microscopic remains (microfossils) are actually far more common in the fossil record.
> Some casual observers have been perplexed by the rarity of transitional species within the fossil record. The conventional explanation for this rarity was given by Darwin, who stated that "the extreme imperfection of the geological record," combined with the short duration and narrow geographical range of transitional species, made it unlikely that many such fossils would be found. Simply put, the conditions under which fossilization takes place are quite rare; and it is highly unlikely that any given organism will leave behind a fossil. Eldredge and Gould developed their theory of punctuated equilibrium in part to explain the pattern of stasis and sudden appearance in the fossil record. Furthermore, in the strictest sense, nearly all fossils are "transitional," due to the improbability that any given fossil represents the absolute termination of an evolutionary path.



 
So how would you suggest there should be billions or even millions of fossils in our possession? There is a big difference between saying there are millions out there and saying we've found that many... There probably are BILLIONS of fossilized organisms out there, but we haven't found that many because they're so rare and we've only been actively searching for them for a short period of time. The amount we HAVE found you guys STILL dismiss, so what would it even matter if we actually did have BILLIONS anyway? Honestly... 



> In the face of the lack of intermediate forms, Darwin claimed, 140 years ago, that they were not available then but new research would definitely unearth them. But has it?


Without a doubt and conclusively, YES! There is absolutely no doubt among the scientific community that evolution - that is, modification in genes over time - happens. Darwin knew this when he proposed the theory, even without the transitional fossils.



> Yet among these countless fossil specimens, no supposed intermediate form has ever been found. It seems impossible for the intermediate forms, that have not been discovered despite the rich fossil records, to be unearthed in new excavations.


A simple little illustration to explain the problem within this idea of 'transitional forms' or 'intermediate forms' and ''gaps'' in the fossil record... 

Imagine we have 5 species of animals, all descendants of the one before it. Let's call them A, B, C, D, E. Those are our animals. 

Animal A lived 2 million years ago, animal B 1.8 million years ago.. etc.

So the timeline for their existence goes in alphabetical order... A...B...C...D...E - notice there are 4 ''gaps'' in between each of our animals

Now say we discover an animal that shares some characteristics with B, but also looks a lot like C... It's a transition right? Now the timeline goes something liket his; A...B...b...C...D...E...F - now notice there are 5 ''gaps'' in between each of our animals. With the discovery of a new 'transitional species', it adds a new ''gap'' to the picture. That's the problem with this argument. The more 'transitional species' we discover, the more ''gaps'' there are. That is the way it's always going to be. Faulty logic on that one.



> The argument put forward 140 years ago that "no intermediate forms have been found yet, but they will be in the future" is no longer tenable today. The fossil record is sufficiently rich to account for the origin of life, and it reveals a concrete picture: Different species all emerged independently of one another, suddenly, and with all their different structures. No imaginary evolutionary "intermediate forms" existed among them.


Blatant lie.



> With these words, Darwin states unhesitatingly that his claim does not square with the facts&#8212;for which reason he has ignored them. That is the same situation for those who support the theory of evolution today; despite the truth revealed by the fossil record they blindly continue in Darwin's wake and turn their backs on the facts. However, this deception is a short-lived one. The facts are now far more evident, and far more identifiable. The number of people who have seen the truth and preferred it is rising, and the number of people who unquestioningly believe in fairy tales is on the decrease. The facts cannot be concealed and ignored, as widely as they were in Darwin's day. Genetics, microbiology, paleontology, geology and all other branches of science constantly reveal a truth that Darwin and his supporters never wanted, and that they perhaps never expected&#8212;the fact of Creation.


This last paragraph pretty much sums up your whole attitude towards this stuff fish. This is pure nonsense dude. All of it. Atheists in America are rising by the day, every single poll put out increases the percentage. The US is becoming more secular, less people are going to church, religion is on the decline. This shit couldn't be less accurate. 

Please, for your own sake, get a grip on reality man. Let the fairy tales go, you'll come out a happier, stronger person on the other side, trust me.


----------



## SDSativa (Sep 8, 2009)

Adaptation, not evolution. If evolution were true, it would mean everything on this earth was started by one thing. And if that were true there would only be one living thing on earth. How would it make sense for a fish to grow legs, when there are no advantages for this? It would be mutation after mutation that wouldn't benefit the original animal. It would benefit humans to have four arms, it doesn't mean we are going to evolve to have four arms. Evolution makes no sense.


----------



## OregonMeds (Sep 8, 2009)

SDSativa said:


> How would it make sense for a fish to grow legs, when there are no advantages for this?


Lakes, rivers, ponds go dry. Legs allow fish to find more water in another nearby swimming hole. It's a massive and obvious advantage, I can't believe I have to point that out. Even fish can can just walk on the bottom have advantage in being able to do so.


We have many many many examples of fish that developed legs in fossil records and fish that live today that have legs and this is very basic common high school level stuff here that they teach all the time. You should have learned this already whether you wanted to believe it or not if you are in fact over 18.

Here's the first fish with legs video I found taking one second to google:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VOWA_sPGfLA

Clearly not fake, he exists


----------



## CrackerJax (Sep 8, 2009)

A few years back I had several hurricanes come through in short order......I was FLOODED, and I do mean flooded. I had oplympic sized pools out there in the fields. Normally this area is dry with no nearby water.....yet within a few days...I had catfish....BIG ones.....in all the pool areas. ????? How can this be? The small fish appearing were no surprise since they are delivered by bird droppings (eggs).

But foot long catfish? Then one late night I walked out to the back properties and there they were.all walking around.... walking Catfish. They have not developed legs but are a perfect example of something making a move from totally aquatic to not being fully aquatic.

Evolution......


----------



## mexiblunt (Sep 8, 2009)

I hear ya cracker. We go catfish fishing all the time. It's river fishing so we catch all types of fish but the great thing about catfish is you don't have to put them back they go on their own! Just take out the hook and they will always find their way back into the river. When we were younger we would bring them further up the bank to see how far they will go... I don't know the answer cause I wasn't going to wait around for a day or two to see em walk a mile. What distances were they walking on your fields crackerjax?

I will also bring up snakes and their "legs" what of that?


----------



## CrackerJax (Sep 8, 2009)

As long as the air is very humid..... they can go a long long way. The big ones stayed and fed on the fish fry being born by bird droppings. One morning I noticed they were slowly leaving the fields at night. The ones that stayed, were eventually eaten by Herons and Hawks. There is a large pond about a half mile from the edge of my property.....I can only surmise they went there.....and then to a canal system another few hundred yards further on which connects into everything. Occasionally, even though I have no standing water nearby...I get an alligator or a turtle in my pool. Always fun...


----------



## mexiblunt (Sep 8, 2009)

Finding a gator in my pool would be kinda cool, but on the other hand I'm glad I don't live near anything that will kill me lol. We get the odd cougar once in a while and maybe some black bears. No deadly snakes,spiders here.


----------



## CrackerJax (Sep 8, 2009)

I've done hundreds of wetland projects and some of the very biggest in the southeast. I have been in some incredibly wild (by todays standards) places. I've spent countless hours in the water hip deep with 10 footers nearby. I had this one female who was at least 10 foot that would WITHOUT FAIL cruise real slow about thirty feet out from me parallel to the shoreline. Sort of crossing the T.... the T being me. I had this spot in about three (just at the crotch line ) of water that I would go for a certain plant. Every time I went to that location.....within an hour...here she'd come. Nice and slow....that's their trick .... I'm sure she knew me. Making eye contact is very important. It was a hoot for me, but after awhile, none of my crew wanted to go...... I'd go by myself after that. No worries.....alot of it is attitude. da dum da dum dad da dum (think jaws)


----------



## mexiblunt (Sep 8, 2009)

Sounds like an interesting job! I hear ya with the attitude part. Animal behavior etc. I've always been good with that stuff but If I don't have to I would rather not. In my job I get to go to some pretty wild places myself, very remote by todays standards. heli in and out stuff. Surveying line thru the bush where everyday I get to walk places that very possibly have never been walked before aside from a few old native peoples. 
This last year the researchers found an old.. shit I can't find the name now(geo-forms?) Round rocks placed in circles and patterns. We had to work around that site, they find them from time to time. 

Kinda side tracked this thread for a bit sry. But we did have "sensitivity" training with some of the elders and they talked a bit about their beliefs and "religion" It was very interesting and in alot of ways scientific and somewhat appealing.


----------



## CrackerJax (Sep 8, 2009)

Pagan religions are very deep and feel much more natural to the instinct of a human being. It's really a way of connecting with nature and finding the rhythms in all things. Going with the flow. Man centered religions don't flow.....


----------



## hanimmal (Sep 8, 2009)

> Adaptation, not evolution. If evolution were true, it would mean everything on this earth was started by one thing. And if that were true there would only be one living thing on earth. How would it make sense for a fish to grow legs, when there are no advantages for this? It would be mutation after mutation that wouldn't benefit the original animal. It would benefit humans to have four arms, it doesn't mean we are going to evolve to have four arms. Evolution makes no sense.


I just have had another epiphany moment with you guys that think evolution is wrong. Well at least Fish and Sativa.

You guys think that evolution means that one animal literally turns into another animal!

Like we are saying that chimps turned into humans.

Here is a direct example of extra extremeties: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polydactyly







Now lets say that those fingers worked very well, and somehow that kid has some kids. Those kids would have that trait (there is whole villages that have a high number of things like this). After a few generations two people that have this resessive trait get together, not knowing that they are distant relatives and have a baby, and there it is again. 

Because this is (hypothetically) a desired trait, they mate, and on it goes until you have a section of the planet that have 6 digits.

As this goes on more and more, it could take over the whole population so that everyone has kids.

Or it could be regionalized. So that eventually that group of people are no longer considered homo sapiens. They are now homo sapisixians. And you now have two groups of people.

Btw this is very similar to how dwarfism occur.


----------



## hanimmal (Sep 8, 2009)

> Pagan religions are very deep and feel much more natural to the instinct of a human being. It's really a way of connecting with nature and finding the rhythms in all things. Going with the flow. Man centered religions don't flow.....


I agree. I think it is because it is very childlike reasoning. Wolves may eat me, so they must be evil gods. Sun is good and makes plants grow so the sun god is good and the plant god loves him.

Moon god is out these times of the month, so we pray those nights, because we can see it, and see our way to the circle easier.


----------



## CrackerJax (Sep 8, 2009)

I think Pagan religions bring about a reverence for nature. It's more about living with it. Man based religion quickly exclaim the planet is theirs, and they can do what they wish to it. Go forth and multiply.....dominate all that you see. Is man predestined to dominate? In a way yes..... but domination comes in many forms. Ants dominate us, but on a subtler plane. It's how you go about that domination and survival that counts. The pagan religions give/gave homage to all. The life and death struggle continued, but reverence and respect were given.


----------



## hanimmal (Sep 8, 2009)

Man how fucked will we be if lions evolved into intelligent beings.


lol nm we will kill them before they would get time to acclumulate any dangerous intel.


----------



## CrackerJax (Sep 8, 2009)

That's why we have to worry about the ants, not the lions....


----------



## dontexist21 (Sep 8, 2009)

People are still posting on this, for all the guys that are wasting their time with people that will never look at the facts you guys are troopers.


----------



## fish601 (Sep 8, 2009)

Every single living organism on earth, ALL OF THEM, have DNA. Does that not suggest that ALL LIFE on earth is RELATED? [/QUOTE]
sure it can suggest it but doesnt prove it, sounds like you can explain everything by time and chance. 
what its more likley to suggest is an amazing creator it could mean we were all created by one creator.

[/QUOTE] Also, what such observations in nature is the author referring to? - why doesn't he list any? [/QUOTE]

I dont know.. what i do know is if anyone looks hard enuf they can find errors in anything noone is perfect including scientist


[/QUOTE] Seriously...wtf? 

*Tiktaalik 375 million years ago - fish > amphibian*

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

http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/ [/QUOTE]
gods got a since of humor lol
one thing i thought of awhile back is how men are suppost to be big and bad yet a little thump in the right place  will take him down &&& women nice clean and beautiful yet bleed every month kinda funny huh?





[/QUOTE] ...Well, let's examine this claim.

There are 6.7 billion human beings on Earth today. 

Given the extreme circumstances of fossilization;



So how would you suggest there should be billions or even millions of fossils in our possession? There is a big difference between saying there are millions out there and saying we've found that many... There probably are BILLIONS of fossilized organisms out there, but we haven't found that many because they're so rare and we've only been actively searching for them for a short period of time. The amount we HAVE found you guys STILL dismiss, so what would it even matter if we actually did have BILLIONS anyway? Honestly... [/QUOTE]

lost me.. where you going with this? that site was a Islam site just to let you know

[/QUOTE] Without a doubt and conclusively, YES! There is absolutely no doubt among the scientific community that evolution - that is, modification in genes over time - happens. Darwin knew this when he proposed the theory, even without the transitional fossils. [/QUOTE]

easy to say YES! but can you prove it?
you know you cant prove it you just say all the evidence suggest it. those ape men the missing links , how do you know its not an extinct monkey?





[/QUOTE] This last paragraph pretty much sums up your whole attitude towards this stuff fish. This is pure nonsense dude. All of it. Atheists in America are rising by the day, every single poll put out increases the percentage. The US is becoming more secular, less people are going to church, religion is on the decline. This shit couldn't be less accurate. [/QUOTE] atheist will rise, so?

[/QUOTE] Please, for your own sake, get a grip on reality man. Let the fairy tales go, you'll come out a happier, stronger person on the other side, trust me.
[/QUOTE] 

you speak of fairy tales.. tell me the one about how the big bang created planets ,space, and how men crawled out of a rock, again please i like it
 and you know there are alot of scientist that disagree with evolution its not just the religious


----------



## dontexist21 (Sep 8, 2009)

The big bang is supported by tons of mathematical data and experiments. So I can see why it would put you to sleep. See what I mean by you guys are wasting your time. You could present all the data and they will just say its wrong without providing evidence to say WHY its wrong. My little brother who is in the 7th grade does not even believe that giants or dragons ever existed, or you could fit two of every creature inside a boat. Why because you can not show him proof that they did. He is not gullible enough to take the word of one source that has been changed around over the course of a few thousand years.


----------



## fish601 (Sep 8, 2009)

dontexist21 said:


> The big bang is supported by tons of mathematical data and experiments. .


 
haha .............


----------



## dontexist21 (Sep 8, 2009)

fish601 said:


> haha .............


Can you tell me WHY that is wrong. Please amuse me in why the math or experiments would be wrong. Or are you going to take the easy way out and cop out and just say its wrong because a book that is supported by nothing but itself says its wrong.


----------



## fish601 (Sep 8, 2009)

tell me what made the stuff that exploded and created everything?
i believe god created everything
you believe nothing? created everything


----------



## dontexist21 (Sep 8, 2009)

fish601 said:


> tell me what made the stuff that exploded and created everything?
> i believe god created everything
> you believe nothing? created everything[/QUOTE
> 
> Again you are wrong, scientist might not know but they are still searching and trying to figure it out. A lot harder then saying you know yet not having any information the back it up. I never claimed I knew the whole story, but I see the information that has been provided from data and research and understand part of the puzzle. Then try to understand the rest, knowing that I may never know but it is worth the effort. I take the harder road to understanding things while you take the easy one.


----------



## fish601 (Sep 8, 2009)

you put your faith in science i put mine in god


----------



## dontexist21 (Sep 8, 2009)

fish601 said:


> you put your faith in science i put mine in god


Yes you put your faith in god I will understand science. I will correct you in saying I have no faith at all just understanding of evidence.


----------



## hanimmal (Sep 8, 2009)

> sure it can suggest it but doesnt prove it, sounds like you can explain everything by time and chance.
> what its more likley to suggest is an amazing creator it could mean we were all created by one creator.


But then if it is created by one entity and that entity is infallible, why do we have so many malformed infants, that have mutations that are so horrendous that they die very disturbing deaths?



> you put your faith in science i put mine in god


 It is not faith, it is logic and evidence that the belief spawns from.


----------



## fish601 (Sep 8, 2009)

hanimmal said:


> But then if it is created by one entity and that entity is infallible, why do we have so many malformed infants, that have mutations that are so horrendous that they die very disturbing deaths?
> .


 
hmm i figured you would know the answer to that.. maybe you forgot, noproblem.

the easy quick answer adam and eve sinned that sin brought evil, sickness, disease, death and (umm yeah i think thats it lol) into the world. 

They say if you take a clone from a clone from a clone many many many times you end up with a differiant plant... u think thats true? anyways kinda like people god made adam and eve perfect which is why they could marry brother and sister with no defects but after awhile copy after copy things get messed up (because of sin of course)


been doing alittle homework 
theory of evolution is not a scientific law or a law of biology. and scientific law must be 100% correct right? evolution is not a law so does that mean it has errors? alittle lost can you fill me in?

are there any species with out any links?


----------



## dontexist21 (Sep 8, 2009)

fish601 said:


> hmm i figured you would know the answer to that.. maybe you forgot, noproblem.
> 
> the easy quick answer adam and eve sinned adam and eve sinned that sin brought evil, sickness, disease, death and (umm yeah i think thats it lol) into the world.
> 
> ...


 Nothing is 100% in science, since any new piece of information can change what was once believed to be true. There is nothing that can refute evolution that has enough information to back it up. Sorry but 99% of science is theory, such as the Theory of Relativity. All scientist follow the same hypothesis-->theory--->law. Even a law can be refuted if enough information comes in to disprove it. By going by you previous logic most of science is wrong because it is not 100% right.


----------



## dontexist21 (Sep 8, 2009)

fish601 said:


> hmm i figured you would know the answer to that.. maybe you forgot, noproblem.
> 
> the easy quick answer adam and eve sinned adam and eve sinned that sin brought evil, sickness, disease, death and (umm yeah i think thats it lol) into the world.
> 
> ...


 Nothing is 100% in science, since any new piece of information can change what was once believed to be true. There is nothing that can refute evolution that has enough information to back it up. Sorry but 99% of science is theory, such as the Theory of Relativity. All scientist follow the same hypothesis-->theory--->law. Even a law can be refuted if enough information comes in to disprove it. By going by you previous logic most of science is wrong because it is not 100% right. Of course there are holes in science, NO ONE says they know everything, yet they are working towards trying to.


----------



## fish601 (Sep 8, 2009)

dontexist21 said:


> Nothing is 100% in science, since any new piece of information can change what was once believed to be true. There is nothing that can refute evolution that has enough information to back it up. Sorry but 99% of science is theory, such as the Theory of Relativity. All scientist follow the same hypothesis-->theory--->law. Even a law can be refuted if enough information comes in to disprove it. By going by you previous logic most of science is wrong because it is not 100% right. Of course there are holes in science, NO ONE says they know everything, yet they are working towards trying to.


 
can i get a second opinion


----------



## fish601 (Sep 8, 2009)

dontexist21 said:


> Nothing is 100% in science, since any new piece of information can change what was once believed to be true. There is nothing that can refute evolution that has enough information to back it up. Sorry but 99% of science is theory, such as the Theory of Relativity. All scientist follow the same hypothesis-->theory--->law. Even a law can be refuted if enough information comes in to disprove it. By going by you previous logic most of science is wrong because it is not 100% right.





dontexist21 said:


> Nothing is 100% in science, since any new piece of information can change what was once believed to be true. There is nothing that can refute evolution that has enough information to back it up. Sorry but 99% of science is theory, such as the Theory of Relativity. All scientist follow the same hypothesis-->theory--->law. Even a law can be refuted if enough information comes in to disprove it. By going by you previous logic most of science is wrong because it is not 100% right. Of course there are holes in science, NO ONE says they know everything, yet they are working towards trying to.


err mabye a 3rd opinion


----------



## dontexist21 (Sep 8, 2009)

fish601 said:


> err mabye a 3rd opinion


If you can give me data that can support Creationism which means you have to support to existence of God with data from experiments I will rethink evolution. Till then...


----------



## fish601 (Sep 8, 2009)

dontexist21 said:


> If you can give me data that can support Creationism which means you have to support to existence of God with data from experiments I will rethink evolution. Till then...


 
till then bye bye


----------



## CrackerJax (Sep 8, 2009)

Fish is a typical Christian. He argues against science without understanding any of it.


----------



## fish601 (Sep 8, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> Fish is a typical Christian. He argues against science without understanding any of it.


maybe something useful nextime?
oh maybe you trying to reach 11k post?
by all means post away


----------



## CrackerJax (Sep 8, 2009)

Deflect away..... but it's true. You've been running around in circles for a long time.


----------



## PadawanBater (Sep 8, 2009)

fish601 said:


> err mabye a 3rd opinion


 
dontexist is exactly right.

Nothing in science is 100%. That's why I asked you earlier, when you were going on and on about "FACTS!", what was absolutely true in science... nothing is, and that's the beauty of it.

Tell me this fish, can you be ABSOLUTELY SURE your reality isn't just your perception being broadcast into your brain sitting in a lab somewhere? How do you know, FOR SURE, that you actually exist?


----------



## fish601 (Sep 8, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> Deflect away..... but it's true. You've been running around in circles for a long time.


deflect away lol your the king of that

anyways hanimmal and a few others actually have knowledge to pass on so unless you have something useful to say i am not gona respond to you.


----------



## fish601 (Sep 8, 2009)

PadawanBater said:


> Nothing in science is 100%.
> ?


ok then evolution may not be real
dating methods may not be accurate
we all agree then? lets talk about did man really land on the moon? why cant they do it now?


----------



## CrackerJax (Sep 8, 2009)

Cause I've already pinned you to the mat on several occasions......


----------



## fish601 (Sep 8, 2009)

did man really land on the moon?


----------



## OregonMeds (Sep 8, 2009)

Jesus Fucking Christ 

Yes you are running around in circles and there is no hope, I see that now.

Ok I'm done with this thread. Goodbye...


----------



## PadawanBater (Sep 8, 2009)

fish601 said:


> did man really land on the moon?


Yes fish. Man has landed on the moon.

You sure took my statement and ran with it..

"Not 100%" means not *absolutely certain in which certainty could ever possibly be attained, *as there is no such thing as "absolute certainty". It is impossible to be absolutely certain about anything, at all. That's why we use science to distinguish between the real shit and the fake shit. That's why science is so useful. 

So let me rephrase it...

Science is 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% certain.


----------



## anhedonia (Sep 8, 2009)

You can never be 100% certain of anything. You can only know with a greater or lesser degree. I trust buddhism in part due to realizing that I was merely connecting random thoughts and meanings, emotionalisms and traditions togeather and thought the almighty, through my understanding of him, enjoyed spending his omnipotent time mentally torchering me. I mean, why wouldn't he? It's in his character to do so. I also used to wonder if God experiences suffering, shouldnt his congregation be concerned for his well being? In mormonism it is said that the God they worship was once a man but then became a God and now he rules over the most degenerate and sinful world out of the entire number of gods there are that, in other words, rule over other earths. Were the worst. Just like helpless Babies. Babies dont care about anyones well being except themselves. You think a 2 year old cares how hungry his mother is? They cant understand. Everyone thinks he must be happy because he's the lord and doesnt have mood problems or a personality disorder even though he's a completely anthropormorphosized concept and I cant believe some therapist hasnt written a critique on the personality of the almighty. You'd think that would be a fun project. Those are my beliefs.


----------



## fish601 (Sep 8, 2009)

PadawanBater said:


> Yes fish. Man has landed on the moon.
> 
> You sure took my statement and ran with it..
> 
> ...


 
hehe i know you knew i was gona do this but are you absolute certain there is no "absolute certainty". ? really how sure are you 

i havent looked into it but if man landed on the moon why cant they do it now?


----------



## anhedonia (Sep 8, 2009)

sorry padawan. I didn't see your post befor I put mine up. Said the exact same thing.


----------



## CrackerJax (Sep 8, 2009)

I'm with Oregon.....


----------



## PadawanBater (Sep 8, 2009)

fish601 said:


> hehe i know you knew i was gona do this but are you absolute certain there is no "absolute certainty". ? really how sure are you
> 
> i havent looked into it but if man landed on the moon why cant they do it now?


 
Who says they couldn't do it now?

There's a mission I'm following where NASA's going to launch a probe into the surface next year to collect samples. There's a base planned for 2020.. The moon base is the next step in space exploration.


----------



## Brazko (Sep 9, 2009)

OregonMeds said:


> Jesus Fucking Christ
> 
> Yes you are running around in circles and there is no hope, I see that now.
> 
> Ok I'm done with this thread. Goodbye...


Man you don't find this entertaining, it's like watching Tom and Jerry 



anhedonia said:


> You can never be 100% certain of anything. You can only know with a greater or lesser degree. I trust buddhism in part due to realizing that I was merely connecting random thoughts and meanings, emotionalisms and traditions togeather and thought the almighty, through my understanding of him, enjoyed spending his omnipotent time mentally torchering me. I mean, why wouldn't he? It's in his character to do so. I also used to wonder if God experiences suffering, shouldnt his congregation be concerned for his well being? In mormonism it is said that the God they worship was once a man but then became a God and now he rules over the most degenerate and sinful world out of the entire number of gods there are that, in other words, rule over other earths. Were the worst. Just like helpless Babies. Babies dont care about anyones well being except themselves. You think a 2 year old cares how hungry his mother is? They cant understand. Everyone thinks he must be happy because he's the lord and doesnt have mood problems or a personality disorder even though he's a completely anthropormorphosized concept and I cant believe some therapist hasnt written a critique on the personality of the almighty. You'd think that would be a fun project. Those are my beliefs.


Interesting Thoughts and Concepts 



CrackerJax said:


> I'm with Oregon.....


No, CJ, you Are like the Big Bulldog "Spike" 

Now if we can just identify Tyke


----------



## CrackerJax (Sep 9, 2009)

Some ppl just aren't capable of objective thought. I've got better things to do....

Catch you all on better threads.


----------



## Brazko (Sep 9, 2009)

You're Right...Some ppl are incapable of Objective thought, I Objectively Know you are not 1 of them , See you on the flip side then 

And let's begin from the top


----------



## Stoney McFried (Sep 9, 2009)

Troll.Plain and simple.You ask these guys these questions, but don't ask them of yourself.A lot of really smart people in this thread wasting their time when all you're doing is trolling.If your god parted the red sea, why can't he do it now?If he talked to Moses, why can't he talk to us now?If we're all so evil, why doesn't he purge us with a big flood now?Why is there no evidence of this global flood(beyond the religiously affiliated websites you will now undoubtedly provide links to)?And how can you be so certain of the word of god?Ever spoken to him personally?


fish601 said:


> hehe i know you knew i was gona do this but are you absolute certain there is no "absolute certainty". ? really how sure are you
> 
> i havent looked into it but if man landed on the moon why cant they do it now?


----------



## ChrisUK (Sep 9, 2009)

If evolution doesn't exist, and the world started 10,000 years ago. How do you explain the dinosaurs?


----------



## mexiblunt (Sep 9, 2009)

Just run around in circles and the answer will come to you!


----------



## Brazko (Sep 9, 2009)

Hmmm, If I run around in Circles, I will become tired... If I become tired, I will Give UP..... If I have given Up, Then I Give In.... Once I've Given In, Hmmmm .....Yep , I;m Converted 

btw, another treat 4 U....mmm,mmm, good


----------



## hanimmal (Sep 9, 2009)

> hmm i figured you would know the answer to that.. maybe you forgot, noproblem.
> 
> the easy quick answer adam and eve sinned that sin brought evil, sickness, disease, death and (umm yeah i think thats it lol) into the world.
> 
> ...


I tried to find anything that says clones of clones will end up with different plants, but I couldn't (in the 5 minutes I looked) but I could see it since one of those clones may have mutated. It would not make say a pot plant into a tomato plant, but some alteration of the origional pot plant. This is consistent with evolution.

Now for the human being mangles because of sin. They would have had mutations all throughout history, and would have had to have had some explanation of it in the bible. So toss it to 'evil beings' similar to what I said about pagan religions and demon gods in the poisonous bushes. It is easier than trying to explain how god screwed up if he is infallible.


Back to science though, I think you should understand something called an asymptote.

Basically if you imagine being in a room. You start on one side and walk half way across it. Then you walk halfway across again, and again and again. The thing is hypothetically you are never able to cross the room all the way, since you can only go 1/2 of the distance left.

But what happens is that as you get so close to the wall, essentially you are at it.

But as you go further and further down the numbers are very precise. Like if the room was 10 feet long you would eventually be at 9.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999996. Essentially 10, but never really 10 (Hope I still have you here).

This is how science works. That asymptote of scientific learning infinitely approaches the 'truth' but can never truly say that it is 100% true.

Everything that we add in puts it closer and closer, but it will never be enough, because everything is constantly changing, even the new things that change over time will eventually have to be added in. So again it will never be possible to be 100%, but that does not mean it won't be very precise.


The bible is set up to scrap this, and just close out everything that does not jive by saying 'god's will'. In math it is called 'undefined'. The bible is set up to stop people from questioning things, and just submit to their will. That is why I feel it is obsolete now. The bucket that filled the information in the bible has long overflown, that is why there are so many teachings of it, to explain away things that people don't want to believe. Sciences bucket is again like that asymptote, it will have a fill point, but it will always be able to contain what is learned, because it can change with it. Even though it will never be 100% 'truth' because there is no such thing.


----------



## fish601 (Sep 9, 2009)

hanimmal said:


> It would not make say a pot plant into a tomato plant, but some alteration of the origional pot plant. This is consistent with evolution.
> .


 
Thats is consistent with evolution?

just to clear this up

what do you believe humans came from? 

I agree that a pot plant will never turn into a tomato plant
I believe that one dog can produce long haird dogs short dogs tall dogs floppy eard dogs no tail dogs...... but they are all still dogs and will allways be dogs they will never produce a human, do you agree?


----------



## PadawanBater (Sep 9, 2009)

fish601 said:


> Thats is consistent with evolution?
> 
> just to clear this up
> 
> ...


 
This is how it goes..

-chemicals in the oceans in the early earth formed proteins

-those proteins formed chains of DNA

-that DNA formed the first prokaryote cells, cells without a nucleus, the very first stages of life

-those prokaryote cells formed eukaryotes, similar to modern cells

-from the eukaryote cells we get the very basic organisms 

-then, about 610 million years ago, multicellular organisms began to appear in the oceans

-500 million years ago, mostly plants and fungi on the land, followed by arthropods

-300 million years ago we get the first signs of amphibians

-200-300 million years ago reptiles dominated the land, not big dinosaur reptiles, I'm talking small reptiles

-200 million years ago are the first signs of mammals, evolving from a different branch of the reptile lineage

-100 million years ago are the first signs of birds, also evolving from a different branch of the reptile lineage

It all fits with the evolutionary model, the data and evidence was being gathered long before Darwin ever proposed his theory, so I'm not exactly sure how the people who discovered all the artifacts supporting the theory of evolution, even before it ever existed, tried to manipulate the evidence to fit into a non existent theory... but I guess you guys don't really care too much about logic...


----------



## hanimmal (Sep 9, 2009)

> Thats is consistent with evolution?
> 
> just to clear this up
> 
> ...


Not a human being in the way that you or I think of them, but it is possible they turn into another intelligent being. Well .. hmm... I guess if you have infinite number of alterations over an infinite amount of time, at some point the evolution could in theory work itself around to it, but it is very unlikely.

A dog is a dog correct. But lets look at them. All the different shapes and sizes and types. They all have common ancestors that have been tracked back to east asia. http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s732808.htm



> New genetic research has found that man's best friend evolved from a common wolf ancestor in East Asia - not in Europe as previously thought.
> 
> The Swedish team, led by Dr Peter Savolainen at the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm, has published their genetic analysis this week in the journal _Science_.
> 
> After studying the mitochondrial DNA sequences of 654 domestic dogs representing all the major dog populations worldwide, Savolainen said the variations found suggest "a common origin from a single gene pool for all dog populations".


So once they were established we crossed them with different wild dogs and have gotten very wide arrays.

So at what point is a 'dog' no longer considered a dog? Is this:







Getting closer to a different species? 

Eventually if the genes get too different they will not be able to mate.

Like Mules. They are the offspring of Horses and Donkeys. Donkeys have 2 less chromosomes than horses. But they are still even numbers. So when they have the offspring (donkey) that donkey has an odd number of chromosomes and is infertile as a result.

They were once at somepoint the same animal but through time they had a major split and now are close enough to mate and reproduce, but not enough to allow their babies to do so.


----------



## fish601 (Sep 9, 2009)

PadawanBater said:


> This is how it goes..
> 
> -chemicals in the oceans in the early earth formed proteins
> 
> ...


"chemicals in the oceans in the early earth formed proteins" how do they know that happen? no matter how you look at it , its a belief 

so in the beginning water created?


----------



## fish601 (Sep 9, 2009)

hanimmal said:


> They were once at somepoint the same animal but through time they had a major split and now are close enough to mate and reproduce, but not enough to allow their babies to do so.


 
i totally agree with that but i do not believe that they will ever produce a rat


----------



## hanimmal (Sep 9, 2009)

No but your thinking narrow with it, a rat has already been made. It would be something different.

The mutation will be totally new and unique (basically) with the evolution of those animals. To make a rat you have to go backwards a few hundred million years to get back to that point. 

But think about it, is a rat a mouse? No, but you can tell that they are very close just by looking at them. Now by looking at a chuiwawa and a Irish wolfhoud it would be hard to call them the same animal if you had never heard or seen of a dog. But through DNA and genetic testing you would be able to tell that they were the same family.

That new animal that comes from a dog, would not be a rat, or dog, it would be something new and unique. And only through genetic testing would you really be able to understand that it is a new species. Infact it is possible that it has already happened, but people have not gotten it tested to see.


----------



## mared juwan (Sep 9, 2009)

I know I said I was out but I would still like to discuss evolutionary topics. I just won't being trying to "convince" anybody anymore. I've realized that Fish admitting we (the evolution supporters) are right is just as likely as us admitting he's right.... so never ever in a million years. Don't even reply to this post, Fish, it is not directed at you. 

One point I think that has been larger ignored thus far is the impact of isolation on species development. Darwin specifically chose his locations because they were remote and isolated. The extreme diversity and uniqueness of species there indicated a deeper truth to him. As with the gnarly looking dogs hanimmal posted, the limitations on population size forced a certain amount of inbreeding. However, nature is not as cruel as man and those hideous monster dogs would most likely not have been fit enough to survive in the wild. The only effects of inbreeding that are sustained over the long term are traits which facilitate survival. It is very important to realize that genetic survival is two-pronged. The animal must be adapted to the environment in order to obtain food and avoid predation, but also (and in many cases with regard to evolutionary development, more importantly) they must be attractive to the opposite sex. For example a lion's mane is in fact a hinderance to its survival in the wild. It is hot and a perfect home for nasty parasites. But studies have been done which show that the lionesses find the male with the biggest darkest mane most attractive. In this sense evolution is not perfect but an endless cycle of trial and error. When populations are constrained the process is accelerated because inbreeding essentially increases the number of faces on the die cast with every new generation of a species. There are more available outcomes due to mutation. The vast majority of mutations are a hinderance to the animal so increasing the number increases the chances of finding the rare advantages traits. Not meant to convince anyone. Just food for thought.


----------



## hanimmal (Sep 9, 2009)

> "chemicals in the oceans in the early earth formed proteins" how do they know that happen? no matter how you look at it , its a belief
> 
> so in the beginning water created?


We can actually see this today. In the pools around volcanos.

And also they had shown how it can happen in labs.


----------



## hanimmal (Sep 9, 2009)

> For example a lion's mane is in fact a hinderance to its survival in the wild. It is hot and a perfect home for nasty parasites. But studies have been done which show that the lionesses find the male with the biggest darkest mane most attractive. In this sense evolution is not perfect but an endless cycle of trial and error. When populations are constrained the process is accelerated because inbreeding essentially increases the number of faces on the die cast with every new generation of a species. There are more available outcomes due to mutation. The vast majority of mutations are a hinderance to the animal so increasing the number increases the chances of finding the rare advantages traits. Not meant to convince anyone. Just food for thought.


That is interesting about the lions manes, I had no idea thank you.


This is why the issue of evolution is so important to me, that even though I am not going to get a degree in anything close to it (other than the math I guess) I think that it is one of the most important thing we can do is study it.

If we can really get it figured out and we can get passed our insecurities we would be able to understand how and why we feel the ways we do. So that when we have x response, we know it is due to this evolutionary trait, and came from this animal, and can try to logically figure out if the response is what we want it to be.

Also it would help us to get an idea of what animals and humans changes are about and understanding things like nutrition better. It is amazing how important it is.


----------



## mared juwan (Sep 9, 2009)

hanimmal said:


> That is interesting about the lions manes, I had no idea thank you.
> 
> 
> This is why the issue of evolution is so important to me, that even though I am not going to get a degree in anything close to it (other than the math I guess) I think that it is one of the most important thing we can do is study it.
> ...


Yes, like our friend Fish I think that the breeding of dogs is not a perfect corollary to my point but for different reasons(wait...I mean I didn't have a point LOL). Keep in mind the DNA structure of dogs and wolves are more prone to mutation than most other mammals. The different breeds of dogs are a direct result of man's intervention. We supply the "environmental factors" that determine which traits are desirable. Nature has a very different formula. We don't care about the dogs survival, we care about how the dogs can aide our survival. The natural selection process makes it all about what is best for the dog. It would not be bred to be friendly or pretty or obedient. We have actually brought the dog backwards in evolutionary terms when you consider that we started the process with wolves. A wolf's ears are pointed upwards when it's an adult but as a juvenile they are floppy and flimsy. The ears stand upright only once the wolf has become a mature member of the pack. It is an aggressive trait. Because man has bred mostly juvenile and submissive traits into the dog population you see many breeds with floppy ears. Notice most "aggressive breeds" (pit bull, rottweiler, german shepard, bull dog) all have pointy ears - the trait of a mature and aggressive animal. So in a sense the transition from wild wolf to tame wolf to dog is going in the opposite direction as nature would usually determine. Just more food for thought.


----------



## OregonMeds (Sep 9, 2009)

mared juwan said:


> I know I said I was out but I would still like to discuss evolutionary topics. I just won't being trying to "convince" anybody anymore. I've realized that Fish admitting we (the evolution supporters) are right is just as likely as us admitting he's right.... so never ever in a million years. Don't even reply to this post, Fish, it is not directed at you.


I never even considered we'd take the jesus out of him, clearly that wouldn't be possible but at one point it did appear we might get somewhere in convincing him evolution is at least real. Not something to joke about in the same sense we would poke fun at his religion. It's not a competing religion, it's not a religion period.

There are many "believers" even of the same faith as fish who do accept both. Only in some peoples minds are they truly mutually exclusive.

I only got fed up when it became clear he was just jerking us off and wasting our time. The same questions asked and answered and then asked right over again. Not even trying to learn anything or giving any credit to anything other than cristian sites and fox news...


----------



## Brazko (Sep 9, 2009)

Well, the POst's have lost their Entertainment value, but have become Fascinatingly Interesting.. It's like I'm watching the Discovery Channel... I'm actually learning something


----------



## fish601 (Sep 9, 2009)

OregonMeds said:


> I never even considered we'd take the jesus out of him, clearly that wouldn't be possible but at one point it did appear we might get somewhere in convincing him evolution is at least real. Not something to joke about in the same sense we would poke fun at his religion. It's not a competing religion, it's not a religion period.
> 
> There are many "believers" even of the same faith as fish who do accept both. Only in some peoples minds are they truly mutually exclusive.
> 
> I only got fed up when it became clear he was just jerking us off and wasting our time. The same questions asked and answered and then asked right over again. Not even trying to learn anything or giving any credit to anything other than cristian sites and fox news...


scientist all over the world claim evolution is false


----------



## fish601 (Sep 9, 2009)

hanimmal said:


> No but your thinking narrow with it, a rat has already been made. It would be something different.
> 
> The mutation will be totally new and unique (basically) with the evolution of those animals. To make a rat you have to go backwards a few hundred million years to get back to that point.
> 
> .


 
evolution is random? why cant it go back to a rat


----------



## OregonMeds (Sep 9, 2009)

fish601 said:


> scientist all over the world claim evolution is false


This is all you have to say? Yep, done with you.


----------



## Brazko (Sep 9, 2009)

fish601 said:


> scientist all over the world claim evolution is false


 
What part of Evolution do you see as False? You believe in Micro Evolution, but not Macro Evolution correct?


----------



## ReggaeGanja (Sep 9, 2009)

well there is a creator and it created a begining of everything and the creator has been around for eternity..


----------



## hanimmal (Sep 9, 2009)

> evolution is random? why cant it go back to a rat


That is why I wrote this in the post on page 25 just above the ugly dog:



> > I agree that a pot plant will never turn into a tomato plant
> > I believe that one dog can produce long haird dogs short dogs tall dogs floppy eard dogs no tail dogs...... but they are all still dogs and will allways be dogs they will never produce a human, do you agree?
> 
> 
> Not a human being in the way that you or I think of them, but it is possible they turn into another intelligent being. Well .. hmm... I guess if you have infinite number of alterations over an infinite amount of time, at some point the evolution could in theory work itself around to it, but it is very unlikely.


So in theory with infinite amount of changes and time, it is entirely probable that it would work back to a rat, it is just not likely to happen in the time we have on this planet.


----------



## anhedonia (Sep 9, 2009)

No shit? And all this time I thought we were lost in time and space.


----------



## hanimmal (Sep 9, 2009)

> well there is a creator and it created a begining of everything and the creator has been around for eternity..


I agree that everything we are has been around for eternity, but if you really truly think about it, if god can be eternal why can not the same apply to all the matter in space? Is it not just as likely that every piece of material is forever, as it is that a god is forever and created everything? 

It is really just one extra step that you are taking by saying that something had to be before everything else. We KNOW that everything else is here already, we just can't comprehend what everything actually is, so that makes it easier to believe that something had to come before it so that it could be created.


----------



## mared juwan (Sep 9, 2009)

I think the intricacies of nature are far more amazing if you search for the real explanation rather than say it was created that way. For example did you know that locusts are really just crickets? When their habitat becomes overpopulated the smell of each other's feces causes them to change appearance and behavior. They turn from green or brown to bright yellow in color and take on a swarm mentality. The swarm is driven by cannabilism. If a cricket/locust in the front of the swarm becomes injured or moves slowly it is killed and eaten by the other locusts. See how beautifully nature can work? It sounds harsh but this change in behavior due to overpopulation creates the impetus for the swarm to move elswewhere. Otherwise it would perish due to overpopulation. It is all a survival mechanism.


----------



## fish601 (Sep 9, 2009)

hanimmal said:


> I agree that everything we are has been around for eternity, but if you really truly think about it, if god can be eternal why can not the same apply to all the matter in space? Is it not just as likely that every piece of material is forever, as it is that a god is forever and created everything?
> 
> .


 
yes but if your right i lose nothing if i am right you lose ..

however they have a bible that has phrophecy that is accurate doesnt that mean anything?
and i know people can come up with excuses for anything but if looking at facts is the phrophecy right?


----------



## fish601 (Sep 9, 2009)

PadawanBater said:


> This is how it goes..
> 
> -those proteins formed chains of DNA
> 
> -


 
lets go to number 2

proteins forming chains of DNA is like turning on a computer a 100 million years ago and claiming that the end result is going to be windows vista when there was zero programming on it at the beginning...

Its kinda like allowing computres to write programs as if it would just happen

Can science give me an example of dna programing itself?


----------



## PadawanBater (Sep 9, 2009)

fish601 said:


> lets go to number 2
> 
> proteins forming chains of DNA is like turning on a computer a 100 million years ago and claiming that the end result is going to be windows vista when there was zero programming on it at the beginning...
> 
> ...


 
What do you mean by 'programming'?


----------



## Hybrid01 (Sep 10, 2009)

"Ever notice how creationists look really unevolved?". Bill Hicks was onto something there. I don't fully beleive either in creationism or evolution, but I'm a pragmatist who beleives that what happens before my eyes is much better proof than the idea that something that no one has ever been able to prove exists is the cause of everything that happens before my eyes.


----------



## hanimmal (Sep 10, 2009)

> lets go to number 2
> 
> proteins forming chains of DNA is like turning on a computer a 100 million years ago and claiming that the end result is going to be windows vista when there was zero programming on it at the beginning...
> 
> ...


Nobody (besides religion) is claiming that the chains of DNA where programmed in the beginning where going to turn out to be life we have today. 

Think of it more like lightning and what it is (electricity) and that being turned into vista today. It was not that the lightning was there and through experiments it was found that it could be captured, and then someone else figured out that it would be able to be produced. Someone else found that wires covered in rubber could transport it.

Then through different things happening with textiles, people figured that a electrical surge could be used to 'program' with many many small switches. Then they figured how to build a computer that did the switched off the loom design. That turns later into 010001010 and on and on until they worked it into Vista.

Scientists don't usually figure things from the beginning and work forward when discussing or figuring out history, they start from the present and work backwards, like following breadcrumbs until they converge on one point. 

It is like a dead body, they cannot start at "Oh this is who killed them and why", they start with observing what happened at the area the body was found, then they figure out when they died, then try to find evidence of who killed them, then they track that person down and try to figure out the why they did it, you have to work backwards.



> yes but if your right i lose nothing if i am right you lose ..
> 
> however they have a bible that has phrophecy that is accurate doesnt that mean anything?
> and i know people can come up with excuses for anything but if looking at facts is the phrophecy right?


There are several hundred gods in history, and even this god that you follow cannot be agreed on how he feels within the same people that follow him. 

That being said, although I am pretty confident, there is no win or lose in this. 

Now if you want to go back to these prophecies why not, what prophecies are in the bible. I personally don't believe that nostradomas is not a bunch of obscure refrences, close guesses, and a lot of belief in the followers that allow for bending of logic.


----------



## anhedonia (Sep 10, 2009)

Why cant prophecy accurately predict the future? All of it is seen in retrospect and then translated into prophecy. Like that douche with the beard who is on every history channel show whenever they talk about nostradamus. What a tool. That guy is for entertainment purposes only. Yet there's people that take that shit seriously. I mean really, wouldn't there be some kind of mass military mobilization if the end of the world was coming in 2 and a half years???? Oh, but I guess they don't realize it yet but the history channel and the nostradamus guy are going to break the sectret of our fate to us this thursday at 9 on HC. Over your television set, lol.
...stupid entertainment.


----------



## Stoney McFried (Sep 10, 2009)

I predict that somewhere, sometime in the next 100 to 1000 years,either under the sea or on land,possibly in the winter, but maybe spring, summer, or fall,on either a cloudy or clear day, there's going to be an earthquake.


----------



## hanimmal (Sep 10, 2009)

> I predict that somewhere, sometime in the next 100 to 1000 years,either under the sea or on land,possibly in the winter, but maybe spring, summer, or fall,on either a cloudy or clear day, there's going to be an earthquake.


Lol that is too specific!


Here is my stab at prophecy!


"And then thou and the rest of man will then be given a set of choices that may end up with a bad choice. And from that event all else will change forever. Once those doors are open the gates of hell will be weakened and all shall tremble. The future events all hinged on that one decision that was unwise. And from the fallibility and sinful nature of mankind the end shall come, and man shall no longer be in the kingdom that the ardvark sits upon."


----------



## Stoney McFried (Sep 10, 2009)

Damn, you're much better at this than I am.Thou art truly blessed.


hanimmal said:


> Lol that is too specific!
> 
> 
> Here is my stab at prophecy!
> ...


----------



## OregonMeds (Sep 10, 2009)

In the kingdom where the aardvark sits upon. 

haha

If you're wrong about religion you've wasted much of your life in a completely pointless endeveaor fearing judgement from something that only exists in your own mind and VASTLY limited lifes possibilities. The one and only life you have. Plus held back progress for the rest of the people on this earth with your limits you want to impose on all of us. No loss?


----------



## PadawanBater (Sep 10, 2009)

OregonMeds said:


> In the kingdom where the aardvark sits upon.
> 
> haha
> 
> If you're wrong about religion you've wasted much of your life in a completely pointless endeveaor fearing judgement from something that only exists in your own mind and VASTLY limited lifes possibilities. The one and only life you have. Plus held back progress for the rest of the people on this earth with your limits you want to impose on all of us. No loss?


 
Not only that, but to say a God, if it does exist, would send it's most critically thinking creations to a place of eternal torment for doing the very thing it designed us for in the first fucking place is nothing short of ABSURD. 

If we're simply here to worship God, love God, glorify God, praise God, then I can honestly and whole heartedly say "fuck that God". A God that has the ability to create life and all of existence, I can assure you, is not interested in whether or not we would believe in it. That shit would not matter to such a being, and if it did, like I said, it would not deserve my worship or my praise. 

There are so many goddamn paradoxes involved in religion, you either must not have given any of this much thought at all and drank it in without so much as a question, or are a really gullible person. 

The power and control aspect of religion is as clear as day to any outside observer...


----------



## mared juwan (Sep 10, 2009)

Yea I didn't want to talk about religion anymore but I did always find the paradoxes quite puzzling. If I am supposed to believe because I am inspired by the Holy Spirit then why are there all these penalties for not believing? Are people supposed to be scared into believing? That hardly seems right. Seems too much like "if I'm a bad boy then Santa won't bring me presents." Not to mention, why does each religion think only they are right and no other religions? I guess there is gonna be a lot of disappointed people on judgment day just because they worshipped the "wrong" god all their lives. And finally the point Padawan Bater made is indeed perplexing. Why would God create a man endowed with logic and intellect and then require him not to use it? That seems like Hell to me.


----------



## hanimmal (Sep 10, 2009)

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1l4h4_the-final-exammormons-are-the-answe_news

Tried to embed it but failed.


----------



## mared juwan (Sep 10, 2009)

Oh I almost forgot. I was watching this TV show on Noah's Ark and it was fascinating. Fish knows it's all lies but there was actually some evidence that supports his cause (although only in a metaphorical translation of scripture, not literal). Apparently the Middle East really did experience a massive (Great?) flood in Biblical times. It is responsible for the present size of the Black Sea, which used to be a much smaller fresh water lake. They studied the bottom of the Black Sea and found at lower depths many fossils of salt water animals and also many ancient beaches that marked where the shore line used to be. As they studied the shallower depths they found evidence of a very sudden and dramatic change from fresh water to salt water and the water level rose very quickly. Their explanation was that at the end of the last Ice Age as glacial melting increased global water level the strip of land between the Mediterranean and the Black Sea became much smaller, forming a sort of natural dam. That dam finally gave way and the Mediterranean Sea rushed into what was formerly a lake and turned it into the Black Sea we know today. So here is what appears to me to be a much more logical explanation of seemingly miraculous events. (BTW Noah was 150 years-old when he built a ship the size of Titanic by himself out of wood) I don't dispute the events in the Bible were "inspired by true events" but I think the writers took a little creative license to make the story more interesting. Again I am no longer arguing or trying to convince anyone, just more or less sharing interesting information I pick up.


----------



## mared juwan (Sep 10, 2009)

hanimmal said:


> http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1l4h4_the-final-exammormons-are-the-answe_news
> 
> Tried to embed it but failed.


LMAO I like how they made my point better. I love that show.


----------



## hanimmal (Sep 10, 2009)

Yeah did you see the imagination land one? I love that God and Jesus are a part of imagination land, right up there with luke skywalker and morphius.


That is very interesting about the Black sea. And timewise it would be well withing human times, because they were in Europe during the last ice ages, so there would have been many people that were living in those areas at the time.


----------



## OregonMeds (Sep 10, 2009)

On the subject of water levels... There are remnants of advanced civilizations under water today which were just above sea level thousands of years ago. The timline of when our ancestors developed civilized societies with citys and advanced buildings is getting earlier and earlier than we'd ever realized before.

If you're a diver you can go see them, they're not even that deep. Apparently Jesus was a little late getting here so thousands of years worth of people I guess just went straight to hell because they weren't even given "the word" in time.


----------



## mared juwan (Sep 10, 2009)

hanimmal said:


> Yeah did you see the imagination land one? I love that God and Jesus are a part of imagination land, right up there with luke skywalker and morphius.
> 
> 
> That is very interesting about the Black sea. And timewise it would be well withing human times, because they were in Europe during the last ice ages, so there would have been many people that were living in those areas at the time.


 

Yea those guys put a lot of thought into that show. Every episode actually says something about the world we live in. But yea I thought that Black Sea thing was cool too. Explains many of the flood stories in texts of all religions around the world. It makes so much sense that the end of the Ice Age would be seen as the coming of light, however there would also be a lot of climatic turmoil associated with such a change in global weather. Great floods and storms would be commonplace until the ice finished receding and the weather patterns stabilized. Compared to the weather of the Ice Age and the period of transition our current global climate is ideal for us. A "new begininng" perhaps?


----------



## hanimmal (Sep 10, 2009)

Not to mention the dying off of the major threats to our species, the largest land mammal predators. It would allow us to no longer fear the wild as much and be able to be in larger communities. 

And the death of the mammoths meant that the major agricultural revolution was free to happen since they no longer had them to rely on as a food source.


----------



## mared juwan (Sep 10, 2009)

Yes, very good point. And of course these events would have taken a few generations to unfold. It would be important to keep track of who the main characters are and how they are related... such as whom begat whom.....hmmmmmm


----------



## OregonMeds (Sep 10, 2009)

mared juwan said:


> Yes, very good point. And of course these events would have taken a few generations to unfold. It would be important to keep track of who the main characters are and how they are related... such as whom begat whom.....hmmmmmm


Fred and Wilma begat pebbles, and Barney and Betty begat Bam Bam and that's even before the dinosaurs were gone. 

They were even visited by a supreme being called The Great Kazoo from another world.


----------



## mared juwan (Sep 10, 2009)

That gets me thinking, if there is no evolution that means all animals that are around now have always been around. No way for them to appear otherwise, right? How did perfect prey animals like cows survive with dinosaurs and saber tooth tigers everywhere? And not just cows. On every continent there are animals that would have been massacred by dinosaurs if they existed at the same time.


----------



## PadawanBater (Sep 10, 2009)

mared juwan said:


> That gets me thinking, if there is no evolution that means all animals that are around now have always been around. No way for them to appear otherwise, right? How did perfect prey animals like cows survive with dinosaurs and saber tooth tigers everywhere? And not just cows. On every continent there are animals that would have been massacred by dinosaurs if they existed at the same time.


 
Very good thought MJ! 

I'd love an explination for that one, lmfao!


----------



## Anonymiss1969 (Sep 10, 2009)

mared juwan said:


> That gets me thinking, if there is no evolution that means all animals that are around now have always been around. No way for them to appear otherwise, right? How did perfect prey animals like cows survive with dinosaurs and saber tooth tigers everywhere? And not just cows. On every continent there are animals that would have been massacred by dinosaurs if they existed at the same time.


+rep for that thought. Never thought of that.


----------



## Katatawnic (Sep 12, 2009)

For those insisting that science means proof, wrong. Science is simply the study and quest for knowledge. Pondering and experimenting with hypotheses and theories is science. Obtaining answers is the result of science, not the definition of it.

Religion, on the other hand, is having "answers" without the need to study, learn, experiment, etc.

Attempting to claim that science is religion, or that religion is science, is futile. Apples and oranges, as they say.


----------



## Brazko (Sep 12, 2009)

Katatawnic said:


> For those insisting that science means proof, wrong. Science is simply the study and quest for knowledge. Pondering and experimenting with hypotheses and theories is science. Obtaining answers is the result of science, not the definition of it.
> 
> Religion, on the other hand, is having "answers" without the need to study, learn, experiment, etc.
> 
> Attempting to claim that science is religion, or that religion is science, is futile. Apples and oranges, as they say.


+ rep for Wisdom


----------



## krustofskie (Sep 13, 2009)

I have just spent the last two hours reading through all the posts and looking at the "facts" put forward by each point of view and not one person from the religouse community will waver from their beliefs in sight of overwhelming evidence against their point of view, where as those of the scientific are open to being proved wrong and admit to a posability, no matter how small, that they could be wrong.

An argument can not be won if who your arguing with is not open to being proved wrong.

I think thats why its called blind faith as you have to be blind to the evidence to carry on believing in religion.

Why do most religouse types think that science is trying to disproove the existance of God, its not, its just trying to understand via evidence how and what we are. Science does not disprove god, in some cases it can be used to say thats how he/she/it created things. What science has done for us however is put more than seriouse doubt in the claims of religouse orginisations. Religion is not God but how someone believes in God.

Personally don't believe in God but I am open to the idea that there could be.



PadawanBater said:


> It is impossible to be absolutely certain about anything, at all.


Sorry to be picky, I am actually on your side of the argument Padawan. But you can be absolutley certain that eventually we will all die.


----------



## Katatawnic (Sep 13, 2009)

The vast majority of religious people I know do agree with evolution and not creationism. They believe that God did it, but they don't argue evolution or the Big Bang or the age of the universe, etc. They also believe that science can prove the existence of God, not the other way around. However, I also have an aunt who is highly intelligent and educated; until God comes into the conversation, and with her it always does.  She insists that the earth is 6,000 years old, and believes the Bible word for word. It's quite difficult, albeit also amusing, to hear her speak with vast knowledge about neo-natal ICU units, and then talk about the Noah's ark in the next breath. 


> Religion is not God but how someone believes in God.


I couldn't agree more!  Fortunately, I've known many people who also understand this. I have nothing against people believing in a deity. It's organized religion that scares the hell out of me!


----------



## PadawanBater (Sep 13, 2009)

krustofskie said:


> I have just spent the last two hours reading through all the posts and looking at the "facts" put forward by each point of view and not one person from the religouse community will waver from their beliefs in sight of overwhelming evidence against their point of view, where as those of the scientific are open to being proved wrong and admit to a posability, no matter how small, that they could be wrong.
> 
> An argument can not be won if who your arguing with is not open to being proved wrong.
> 
> ...


 
Touche!

Good post Krusty, +rep.


----------



## sdholic (Sep 13, 2009)

Have to say, there really is an imbalance in the creationism argument. To auto-respond with "God" to every piece of potential evidence pointing toward evolution shows a huge amount of ignorance and even disbelief in your own "faith". Not a single one of us knows how we got here. To be offended by mans attempt at understanding our origin is certainly counterproductive.

btw, It seems to me that the Bible is best read in light of its human origins. Man obviously wrote this book so be it divinely inspired or not, it is not literal (especially not the 6000 years idea, lets be reasonable). Its a sort of metaphorical history book if your ask me, but not without value by any means. Im a weird one...

God Bless,
SD


----------



## landracer (Sep 13, 2009)

i am finishing my degree in biology and have studied science my whole life. evolution is extremely problematica from a scientific point of view. it doesnt stand up to the standard scientific analysis. furthermore, even among respected professors the subject is debated with a religious fervor. it seems that the peer pressure from the science community is such that anyone that publicly rejects evolution is cosidered stupid.... regardless of any facts. i am just stating what i have personally witnessed.


----------



## hanimmal (Sep 13, 2009)

+Rep for everyone, very good posts.




> i am finishing my degree in biology and have studied science my whole life. evolution is extremely problematica from a scientific point of view. it doesnt stand up to the standard scientific analysis. furthermore, even among respected professors the subject is debated with a religious fervor. it seems that the peer pressure from the science community is such that anyone that publicly rejects evolution is cosidered stupid.... regardless of any facts. i am just stating what i have personally witnessed.


First congrats on your degree! We need more scientist in this country.

I am curious though which things are you talking about that don't stand up? 

I would imagine you mean things like conjecture (connecting the dots when there is not a dot to connect). But in absence of evidence and a 3 billion year old video camera there would be little that you can do other than constantly fit the facts and evidence that you get into the theory.

I think that I more look at it like a math problem. Think a function. You do the math for the few points that you know and come up with a formula. That allows you to plug in the formula you had just seen with the evidence and get the graph. Now for every piece of evidence that we find it would need to fit into that formula, or the formula is void. And if it is void, you now need to get back to work and figure a formula that works for all the new information. And with that you redo it. And redo it when something else comes up. Everytime you may/will not be right, but you are closer to the answer.

See I think that the discourse you are referring to is more about the methods and evidence, and not that they happened. There can be other things that caused the changes, but what has more facts and evidence evolution or religion? I would say to the people that would argue that evolution doesn't stand up but religion does to really explain their point of view.

And the religious people jump on the disagreements, and say: See they cannot agree that it even happened! Instead of actually learning about what they are disagreeing about is more about the method, not the actual evidence.


----------



## Brazko (Sep 13, 2009)

krustofskie said:


> I have just spent the last two hours reading through all the posts and looking at the "facts" put forward by each point of view and not one person from the religouse community will waver from their beliefs in sight of overwhelming evidence against their point of view, where as those of the scientific are open to being proved wrong and admit to a posability, no matter how small, that they could be wrong.
> 
> An argument can not be won if who your arguing with is not open to being proved wrong.
> 
> ...


This was a Good Post, but Flawed..Firstly 90% (guesstimate) of the posts have been by Fish, 5% (guesstimate) by OP who admitted he doesn't know shit so thought he would manipulate a thread to gain some understanding... & the other 5% (guesstimate) by people who have religious/mysticism based concepts whom appear more than logically opened to scientific views...

Fish, although outspoken and likes to share doesn't account for everyone

Vice versely 90% of the posts by the Evolution base (guesstimate) are completely Closed to the notion/concept of a god being or, atleast care not to discuss it, and only waiver to the possiblity once science uncovers what is said to be truth... The only problem with this is that Man will discover the truth, not religion or Science, tools of the Man and Woman 

10% (guesstimate) are by those who place their trust in Science and are simply open to the facts, understanding, and truth..

Other than that I completely agree with your post, however, being closed minded doesn't discriminate, but more so a Choice, 

So it's the 10% and 5% that will move Us forward, and the Rest simply needs to be recycled 

addendum: Sorry to be picky, I'm actually on nobody's side, but technically you can't be absolutely certain that we will all die, technically speaking..



hanimma l said:


> +Rep for everyone, very good posts.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Good Post as Well, however, I believe Evolution is Real but the science is flawed, just as God is REal and the religion is flawed... It's a hard and unjust comparison for me to compare the "Do Overs" of Science with the Misguided steps of religion, Man's approach to Theory eventually gets the Science Right, Just as Man's honest attempt to understand Himself and the World around him, finally get's the Religion right... Remember We are simply a Chemical Formula of thought, sometimes We have to simply start over as Well, Be Born Again!

I also enjoyed this statement 

"See I think that the discourse you are referring to is more about the methods and evidence, and not that they happened"

this is very True and it doesn't discriminate neither,

Anyhow, I enjoy reading your posts, I get a fulfillment of Growth instead of stagnation as with most others...


----------



## krustofskie (Sep 13, 2009)

Brazko said:


> This was a Good Post, but Flawed..Firstly 90% (guesstimate) of the posts have been by Fish, 5%


True, I shouldn't label all religouse types with Fishes narrow way of thinking. Just after reading for so long in the early ours stopped rearlising most of the God side of the argument was from fish.


+rep you seem to be a truly objective and open minded thinker, need more peoples like yourself in the world.


----------



## krustofskie (Sep 13, 2009)

Brazko said:


> addendum: Sorry to be picky, I'm actually on nobody's side, but technically you can't be absolutely certain that we will all die, technically speaking..


I think we would need to start a new thread to debate this, in fact I think I will, how should I title it? 'Is death an absolute certainty or not ?'


----------



## hanimmal (Sep 13, 2009)

> Good Post as Well, however, I believe Evolution is Real but the science is flawed, just as God is REal and the religion is flawed... It's a hard and unjust comparison for me to compare the "Do Overs" of Science with the Misguided steps of religion, Man's approach to Theory eventually gets the Science Right, Just as Man's honest attempt to understand Himself and the World around him, finally get's the Religion right... Remember We are simply a Chemical Formula of thought, sometimes We have to simply start over as Well, Be Born Again!
> 
> I also enjoyed this statement
> 
> ...


I definantly agree with you, everything is flawed at this point (because we don't have the absolute truth with anything). 

And interestingly I do agree with your talk on religion, religions are adjusting and evolving to this day to try to get the things that fit into them (not a lot of the ones I know of, but I am sure they are out there). I just think that religion (like some scientists (not the science itself, because that has to adjust to be called science)) stagnates and gets too set in its own ways. 

Anyway good post!


----------



## Katatawnic (Sep 13, 2009)

Brazko said:


> I believe Evolution is Real but the science is flawed, just as God is REal and the religion is flawed... It's a hard and unjust comparison for me to compare the "Do Overs" of Science with the Misguided steps of religion, Man's approach to Theory eventually gets the Science Right, Just as Man's honest attempt to understand Himself and the World around him, finally get's the Religion right... Remember We are simply a Chemical Formula of thought, sometimes We have to simply start over as Well, Be Born Again!


Indeed! I have never bought that "Born Again" only applies to religion. Hell, I'm in the process of being "Born Again" due to chronic illness. It's gone on at least since I was two years old (that's the first incident to which my mom took notice; she and the doctors were beyond baffled as to what was causing so much pain in my legs and dangerously high fever, with no injuries or knowable illness, to make me scream uncontrollably; much more than a toddler would without breaking a bone, etc.), but it's increased throughout my life, and exponentially faster and more intense the last 12 or so years.

I've been going through a major grieving process for the last four years, and more intensely the last year and a half when I finally had to give in and give up my career which was also my biggest passion; mourning the life I've lost and will never regain. Never is a fairly long time! This results in severe depression, anger, denial, apathy, extreme jealousy (sometimes to the point of feeling extreme resentment) of healthy people, and a general feeling of hopelessness. And yes, sometimes suicidal thoughts as well; just wanting it all to end and feeling the desperation that it never will.

Although I still go through these emotions and misgivings, they are finally starting to recede, a step at a time. With immense conscious effort, might I add. The more I accept that this is simply the hand that I was dealt, and that my former life is just that, the more I'm able to let go of the mourning and have the ability to appreciate the wonderful things I do have in my life. This leads to more acceptance, and learning to let go of my previous Comfort Zones to make room for new ones that are more beneficial to my well being as well as that of my loved ones. It's a long and difficult process, but I'm finally making it further down the path on which I want, and need, to travel.

As difficult as it is on my body, growing my own medicine has given me something with which to pass my time aside from computer and TV; a feeling of accomplishment I haven't felt in years; a personal pride/satisfaction that I'm doing something extremely difficult (and often disabling the rest of the day/week) with very little help; a pleasurable hobby and activity; and a feeling of self worth for which I worked so hard to obtain, lost, and am again beginning to build; albeit one baby step at a time. This enables me to commit even more to doing it, and that encourages me committing to do more things that I've previously slowed down or stopped doing out of fear of the price I'm guaranteed to have to pay. I've even come to be less embarrassed using a cane or wheelchair, or needing my spouse to assist me in walking or housework or giving me injections, etc. (I don't look sick, nor young enough to be needing such things; it's what we call Invisible Disease, and people tend to look at us with contempt for "playing" disabled and ill when we appear normal and healthy), learning to look at it as not "giving in" to the illness because I'm doing activities that I otherwise wouldn't do without the assistance.... the latter is giving in to it, not the former! How we view hardships has everything to do with acceptance or the lack thereof.

I've learned more and more to see this as a birthing process; the birth of the New Me that will not only be able to accept the limited life that I now have, but equally importantly feeling and knowing that I *will* be Born Again into a person who may be broken, but still whole with a self identity that isn't That Disabled Person. My body won't heal (it deteriorates constantly and will continue to do so), but my mind can and *will*.

OK, it may seem I'm babbling and OT, but my point is.... *Being Born Again isn't just for religion.* My old self has died, and my new self is in the birthing process. That is what keeps me going, makes me hold on to hope for the peace and serenity I need and deserve. Some people need to believe in a deity to accomplish this, whereas some don't.

To be honest, I quite often wish that I had the ability to put faith into a deity, and believe that he/she/it is watching over me; helping me get through this life, to find what new life I do have ahead of me that I haven't been able to see.... the forest for the trees. But I've never had faith, even when I was a very little girl going to Sunday School and reading the Bible stories, etc. God/dess, for me, has always been "felt" when I'm surrounded by raw nature. Growing up in Wisconsin's beauty instilled that in me I'm sure, and moving to Southern California's Mojave desert as a pre-teen made me appreciate what I had growing up that much more. I'm one with a pagan philosophy, so to speak. I've had people argue with me that one cannot be simultaneously an atheist and a pagan; they are the ones who don't understand that paganism is a way of life and how one sees/approaches it, but doesn't necessarily have to be a religion. It's a connection with nature, the here and now; taking action and responsibility for our lives instead of expecting someone or something else to do it for us.

If I had the ability to have faith in the unknown (i.e., an omnipresent deity that is always watching out for and listening to me), I'm positive I could have coped with and accepted all of this much more easily, believing that it'll be taken care of for me if I just believe it will. I sometimes envy those who have such strong faith. But I've never had it.... I was one of those kids that debated with pastors in the middle of congregation. 

However (and finally the summary to my rambling, LOL!), though I'm not being Born Again to a deity, I am well on my way to being Born Again to Life; one that will still have severe pain and limitations, but balancing the scales to acceptance, peace, serenity, and gratitude for what I can have and do with my life; which of course positively effects my loved ones. Lack of faith, much less a deity and/or religion, hasn't prevented me from being reborn; faith in myself and those who touch my life has enabled me to be Born Again. Or at least be on my way out of hell and into my own paradise.... my personal evolution, one could say. 

In *my* not so humble opinion, heaven and hell are what we make of life in the here and now; not something to desire or fear in the hereafter.

Sorry this was so long!


----------



## Brazko (Sep 13, 2009)

Wow, I was reading and was at the last few sentences and was thinking to myself, This person isn't wasting, She's Evolving.. and Soon after you mentioned this being your personal Evolution.. And So iT is .. 

and More importantly, Selfish of Me not to say earlier, I'm sadden by your Condition/Ailment 

But hey Your Right!! , You are becoming to understand the Life you had before doesn't mean it no longer exists, It matters because it was Part of/Still influence the Person U have become 2day, So what you Lived for Yesterday is As easy as living for What You Have Now and Desire today as well as Tomorrow!!

I don't believe in a Deity, but I do Believe what you Have Opened/Awakened yourself 2, will Allow you to REcieve everything that Is needed for your Happiness..

Good Luck


----------



## sdholic (Sep 13, 2009)

I have to say its encouraging to see people still looking for truth in these areas, and taking the time to talk about it. I laugh to myself when i see how many people i work with everyday in my mba program dont give a shit about such issues, but the socially condemned tokers are seemingly hungry to expand their minds... keep it up, you unmotivated insane pot smokers!


----------



## hanimmal (Sep 13, 2009)

Great post Kata!


----------



## PadawanBater (Sep 13, 2009)

sdholic said:


> I have to say its encouraging to see people still looking for truth in these areas, and taking the time to talk about it. I laugh to myself when i see how many people i work with everyday in my mba program dont give a shit about such issues, but the socially condemned tokers are seemingly hungry to expand their minds... keep it up, you unmotivated insane pot smokers!


I couldn't agree more with this! 

I find it REALLY odd that most people I come across don't really bother with thinking about this stuff. Most just accept what their parents told them was true their entire lives. 

Such questions are why we're here. The universe is just waiting to be answered.

I also find it incredibly sad to think that there are billions of people who already think they have all the answers. If they only opened their eyes and accepted the unknown our species would be 100 times better off. 


Anyone else ever get the old  when you bring stuff like this up in person with people?


----------



## hitch420 (Sep 14, 2009)

PadawanBater said:


> I couldn't agree more with this!
> 
> I find it REALLY odd that most people I come across don't really bother with thinking about this stuff. Most just accept what their parents told them was true their entire lives.
> 
> ...


Yeah too much lol.

The reason no one bothers these days, is because we are no longer taught to think. But instead, we are taught how to read and repeat infomation.
So at the end of the year you pass your test and then shortly afterwards you forget everything lol
No one ever asks why, they just accept whats told to them.
My grandad whos a professor at northamton university, said somthing along them lines at the dinner table once, i just laughed it off at the time but now i really see his point lol


----------



## PadawanBater (Sep 14, 2009)

hitch420 said:


> Yeah too much lol.
> 
> The reason no one bothers these days, is because we are no longer taught to think. But instead, we are taught how to read and repeat infomation.
> So at the end of the year you pass your test and then shortly afterwards you forget everything lol
> ...


 
I guess people don't see the importance of their simple little beliefs...

People starve to death while they sit there in their cozy little comfort zone. 

Blind ignorance must be the shit!


----------



## hitch420 (Sep 15, 2009)

PadawanBater said:


> I guess people don't see the importance of their simple little beliefs...
> 
> People starve to death while they sit there in their cozy little comfort zone.
> 
> Blind ignorance must be the shit!



+rep for making me lol


----------



## Stoney McFried (Sep 15, 2009)

Gonna spam every thread with the same uncredited source?http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/evolfact.htm


zorkan said:


> "Approximately 15 billion years ago, life began..."
> "No, it was more like 7 billion years ago..."
> "Uh, well, the earth probably began about..."
> "The strata may show..."
> ...


----------



## mared juwan (Sep 15, 2009)

zorkan said:


> "Approximately 15 billion years ago, life began..."
> "No, it was more like 7 billion years ago..."
> "Uh, well, the earth probably began about..."
> "The strata may show..."
> ...


It is interesting to me how someone has tricked you into not knowing about a subject before speaking on it. Who said a monkey was your uncle? You obviously have no comprehension of this subject. So if all the evolutionists adopted the same theories just to APPEAR correct it would make the evidence more legitimate in your eyes? The fact that there is disagreement means that people want the truth, not just to APPEAR to be correct. Spam elsewhere  Your type of logic has already been defeated in this thread.


----------



## mared juwan (Sep 15, 2009)

Oh I see. Not only are you are spammer, you are 12 years old with no thoughts of your own. Goodbye.


----------



## hanimmal (Sep 16, 2009)

Wow what a well said argument to w/e garbage suedoscience you try to pump into whatever made up fairytale you wish to believe in this year.

I couldn't have said it better myself, if I got to devoid my argument of all facts and reason, and regurgitate it over and over again like a child that is afraid of the monster under their bed, and even though their parents have repeatedly shown them nothing is under it.


Continue to wail your bs. It will be dismissed and proven wrong again and again.

And maybe one day you can pick up a real book that has things in it that will help you understand more than a bush can burn and talk to you. And evil snakes can come into a garden and whisper for you to eat a apple from a tree that ruins all mankind.


----------



## mared juwan (Sep 17, 2009)

That chart is not consistent with modern evolutionary theory. There is no clear linear progression of one hominid species into another "more advanced" species as the chart suggests. Rather the process was more like a tree with branches that split and evolved parallel at the same time. All the other parts of this branch ran into dead ends and only homo sapiens remains. This seems to be too complicated of a theory for many creationists to comprehend. Anyways, I hope that chart was not intended to discredit evolutionary science. If so, it is a very poor attempt.


----------



## anhedonia (Sep 17, 2009)

I always wanted to know where new guinea was too.


----------



## mared juwan (Sep 17, 2009)

whereistruth? said:


> i thnk dats the point he was making
> 
> scientist dun know


It doesn't appear you grasped what I was saying. Lucy did not evolve into Heidleburg Man and then he didn't evolve into Nebraska Man and then he didn't evolve into Piltdown Man. Some of these species lived along side eachother at the same period in time and therefore there could not be a linear pattern to their evolution. I'm not here to argue or convince anyone. Just correct gross misrepresentations of facts when I see them. Believe what you want. I could give a shit.


----------



## PadawanBater (Sep 18, 2009)

TEHRAN said:


>


 
How do you guys ever expect to get anything right when you can't even get a simple concept right? 

It's like you were told something way back when you were in grade school about the theory of evolution, decided THEN it was false (probably because of your parents beliefs or your very basic knowledge of the theory at the time, what 4th grade or so?) and from then on, with the faulty idea of evolution still in your mind, you haven't accepted it as an adult. 

Do you at least understand that what you guys are proposing, like with this picture, is NOT AT ALL HOW THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION WORKS! AT ALL! You are arguing against your own retarded idea of what you think the theory says, not the actual theory of evolution, as accepted by 99.9% of bioligists worldwide. 

It's laughable.


----------



## anhedonia (Sep 18, 2009)

I was raised in the mormon church and my dad always explained lifes origins in terms of evolution rather than the creation story and left it up to me to decide. Yet he still accepted all of the churches doctrines. He's not a mormon anymore though and has recently started smoking pot again something he hasnt done since the 1960's. Now he's an astronomer and is into telescopes.


----------



## fish601 (Sep 18, 2009)

> PadawanBater said:
> 
> 
> > How do you guys ever expect to get anything right when you can't even get a simple concept right?
> ...


----------



## fish601 (Sep 18, 2009)

PadawanBater said:


> Do you at least understand that what you guys are proposing, like with this picture, is NOT AT ALL HOW THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION WORKS! AT ALL!
> 
> not the actual theory of evolution, as accepted by 99.9% of bioligists worldwide.
> 
> It's laughable.


_




_


There were two or three different groups of walking apes, and one was the forefather of humans it has been estimated that the human lineage diverged from that of chimpanzees about five million years ago, and from that of gorillas about eight million years ago..


can you give me some pictures to look at so i can see how you evolved?


----------



## PadawanBater (Sep 18, 2009)

fish601 said:


> _
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Rofl! Not at all fish, you can't be serious! We did not evolve from Chimpanzees or gorillas. Whoever made that claim has no idea what they're talking about.

homo habilis - 2.4 million years ago (the beginning of the homo species, US)

homo erectus 1.8 million years ago

homo neanderthalensis 400,000 years ago



But the dating methods are flawed.. even though the cerebral capacity increases with each hominid, which lines up with the theory of evolution, and also the predicted outcome of evolution.. Each one gets taller and stands more upright... each one loses body hair, learns to use tools, and learns to use clothes.. learns to use fire, develops language, creates society... 

But I guess it's all just nonsense...


----------



## mared juwan (Sep 19, 2009)

Yea that's a good example that even creationists should be familiar with... Neanderthal man. However, we are not directly related to this species as creationists love to pass of as accepted theory in the scientific community. In fact there is a lot of evidence which suggests homo sapiens and neanderthals lived side by side for a period of time, meaning at most we would be distant cousins rather than direct descendents. Neanderthals were more physically adapted to colder temperature and occupied Europe at a time when it was mostly covered in ice. As the ice age ended and homo sapiens spread north and west into Europe from the Middle East they inevitably came into contact with one another. Whether there was confrontation, cooperation, or they simply ignored eachother is not known. But this leads to another point which hasn't yet been touched. Many creationists are happy to believe that evolutionary theory suggests man's development took place solely in Africa. That is only a fraction of the story. 

Homo sapiens as a species did originate in Africa however that population was left behind as a few of these early humans left the continent to move north east into the middle east to a place now known as the fertile crescent. This is the true cradle of civilization. It is believed the humans who did not leave Africa eventually all perished because several DNA studies have been conducted which show that humans of every race alive today share common genes with Middle Eastern people, not African. The Africans of today are also decendent from this original Middle Eastern population. You can think of the spread of the human species as having an origin in Africa and continuing in one line to the fertile crescent which becomes a hub. The people left in Africa for the most part disapear but from this hub in the Middle East we radiated back outwards in every direction to eventually repopulate Africa and the rest of the world. Part of this is due to climate change and part is due to the fact that the environment in the fertile crescent was so favorable to our survival that we were able to easily increase our population there and spend more time learning new skills. So the point is that we are talking about time scales so vast with so many thousands of generations passing that it is very easy to oversimplify the real chain of events. 

As always, the preceding was solely meant to inform others of what the issue we are discussing is really about. I don't care if you want to label it as "unproven." Apparently those who wish to think that all evolutionary science is some conspiracy must live in a world of magic and mystery. Evolution is not testable but it is the most logical explanation given the evidence not only in the scientific community but in your own life. You have to really commit yourself to having an open mind and look at the world around you and ask questions like why are kangaroos only in Australia and not everywhere else? Why is it true that the more science learns about the world the more religious views must be explained away? Remember when the Sun revolved around the Earth? Those were the good-old days, huh? But whatever, who you are in life really comes down to what information you accept as real and what you choose to do with it. I accept religious ideas as part of my information base, however to make them the foundation of everything I believe would be logically absurd.


----------



## fish601 (Sep 19, 2009)

PadawanBater said:


> Rofl! Not at all fish, you can't be serious! We did not evolve from Chimpanzees or gorillas. Whoever made that claim has no idea what they're talking about.


 
i agree we did not evolve from chimpanzees or gorillas but that is what wiki says


----------



## PadawanBater (Sep 19, 2009)

fish601 said:


> i agree we did not evolve from chimpanzees or gorillas but that is what wiki says


No, Wiki does not say "chimpanzees" or "gorillas", it says "apes". We are a part of the great ape family, homo sapiens being the newer great apes. 

You're an ape, I'm an ape, we are all apes.


----------



## fish601 (Sep 20, 2009)

PadawanBater said:


> No, Wiki does not say "chimpanzees" or "gorillas", it says "apes". We are a part of the great ape family, homo sapiens being the newer great apes.
> 
> You're an ape, I'm an ape, we are all apes.


It has been estimated that the human lineage diverged from that of chimpanzees about five million years ago, and from that of gorillas about eight million years ago.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human


----------



## mared juwan (Sep 20, 2009)

Why argue about what wikipedia says? That is not a valid source. Here is a very interesting article I think you both would enjoy.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v437/n7055/full/nature04072.html


----------



## mared juwan (Sep 20, 2009)

hitithard said:


> wiki is lame
> 
> the link you provided says


Correct. Humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor but one does not directly descend from the other. _Nature_ is considered the most prestigious and reputable journal in the scientific community.


----------



## Nocturn3 (Sep 21, 2009)

The thing is, the wiki article is correct, if read in it's entirety. Fish just took a few sentences out of context (again).



> The closest living relatives of humans are gorillas and chimpanzees, but *humans did not evolve from these apes: instead these apes share a common ancestor[13]* with modern humans. Humans are probably most closely related to two chimpanzee species: Common Chimpanzee and Bonobo.[13] Full genome sequencing has resulted in the conclusion that "after 6.5 [million] years of separate evolution, the differences between chimpanzee and human are ten times greater than those between two unrelated people and ten times less than those between rats and mice". Suggested concurrence between human and chimpanzee DNA sequences range between 95% and 99%.[14][15][16][17] It has been estimated that the human lineage diverged from that of chimpanzees about five million years ago, and from that of gorillas about eight million years ago. However, a hominid skull discovered in Chad in 2001, classified as _Sahelanthropus tchadensis_, is approximately seven million years old, which may indicate an earlier divergence.[18]


----------



## PadawanBater (Sep 21, 2009)

Nocturn3 said:


> The thing is, the wiki article is correct, if read in it's entirety. Fish just took a few sentences out of context (again).


 
This post FTW!! +Rep bro!

Not only is fish ignorant, he's now been exposed as actively being deceitful. You can no longer give him the benefit of the doubt, he saw the ENTIRE quote and he ACTIVELY picked a part that he thought supported his position. Classic example of quote mining.

You're fuckin' done in this thread son. 

You showed that believers will attempt conversion by all means they feel necessary, even lying, a sin. What does that say about their faith? 

Atheism never made me lie to anyone...

Nocturn3, can't rep you man...


----------



## fish601 (Sep 21, 2009)

Nocturn3 said:


> The thing is, the wiki article is correct, if read in it's entirety. Fish just took a few sentences out of context (again).


 
I think you took my post out of context i said a few post ago...
There were two or three different groups of walking apes, and one was the forefather of human....
if its still out of context sorry, i though evolutionist wouuld understand

its not even true so its kinda funny to argue about it






PadawanBater said:


> This post FTW!! +Rep bro!
> 
> Not only is fish ignorant, he's now been exposed as actively being deceitful. You can no longer give him the benefit of the doubt, he saw the ENTIRE quote and he ACTIVELY picked a part that he thought supported his position. Classic example of quote mining.
> 
> ...


Dont put your faith in me, i dont know everything i make alot of mistakes i do not fully understand science or god. I am learning alot I also know that you will never believe creation, you put your faith in scientist and i dont have a problem with that, they are very smart but science is way to young for me to put faith in.

There is no reason for me to lie to you.


----------



## Keenly (Sep 21, 2009)

its hard for me to believe in anything that can not be proven correct

i refuse to have blind faith and hope for the best, so i only believe in things that can be proven, repeated, explained


----------



## fish601 (Sep 21, 2009)

Keenly said:


> its hard for me to believe in anything that can not be proven correct
> 
> i refuse to have blind faith and hope for the best, so i only believe in things that can be proven, repeated, explained


big bang cant be proven repeated or explained so i guess you dont believe in that.. so
how did earth form?


----------



## PadawanBater (Sep 21, 2009)

> Dont put your faith in me, i dont know everything i make alot of mistakes i do not fully understand science or god. I am learning alot I also know that you will never believe creation, you put your faith in scientist and i dont have a problem with that, they are very smart but science is way to young for me to put faith in.
> There is no reason for me to lie to you.


No man, you're not just going to back your way out of it like that. I started engaging with you about this stuff way back on page 16, you've been doing the same thing all the way to now. 

That really pissed me off, this is the internet, I don't even know you personally, but you clearly understand what you did. You did it on purpose. You took a quote from wiki, the source you and all your creationist buddies claim is not accurate, totally quote mined it because you probably thought it wouldn't make any sense for humans to have evolved from chimpanzees because there are still chimpanzees around today, copied the bit that appeared to support your position, and posted it thinking nobody would notice. 

This is the reason it's tough to do this, not because the information is so hard to learn, but because the people you try to teach refuse to listen, dispite all the evidence presented, because of their beliefs. You sit there and claim you don't believe Christianity or religion or whatever, but are so clearly shackled by your faith I can't take it seriously. 

It wasn't a mistake. A mistake I would understand. It was a deliberate attempt to deceive people. You, sir, lied. Have you ever been lied to? If so I'm sure you must know how the person being lied to feels about the person doing the lying...


----------



## Keenly (Sep 21, 2009)

fish601 said:


> big bang cant be proven repeated or explained so i guess you dont believe in that.. so
> how did earth form?


we are not talking about the big bang are we? 


were talking about a religion

i expressed my opinion, i did not state that the way you feel is wrong or incorrect

i merely stated how my mind works, and if you dont like it, too bad

your not going to change my mind, and im not going to try to change yours, i expressed my opinion, and thats all


----------



## fish601 (Sep 21, 2009)

PadawanBater said:


> But the dating methods are flawed.. even though the cerebral capacity increases with each hominid, which lines up with the theory of evolution, and also the predicted outcome of evolution.. Each one gets taller and stands more upright... each one loses body hair, learns to use tools, and learns to use clothes.. learns to use fire, develops language, creates society...
> 
> But I guess it's all just nonsense...


people come in all sizes and shapes..
compair people from all around the world..... 
just wondering, how do they know how much hair they lost?


----------



## fish601 (Sep 21, 2009)

Keenly said:


> we are not talking about the big bang are we?
> 
> 
> were talking about a religion
> ...


 
easy man it was just a question
you said you only believe in facts i was asking how you thought earth appeard
i wasnt trying to convert you to christianity


----------



## fish601 (Sep 21, 2009)

fish601 said:


> There were two or three different groups of walking apes, and one was the forefather of humans it has been estimated that the human lineage diverged from that of chimpanzees about five million years ago, and from that of gorillas about eight million years ago..


"human lineage diverged"



PadawanBater said:


> Rofl! Not at all fish, you can't be serious! We did not evolve from Chimpanzees or gorillas. Whoever made that claim has no idea what they're talking about.


*does diverge mean evolve?*






PadawanBater said:


> No, Wiki does not say "chimpanzees" or "gorillas", it says "apes". We are a part of the great ape family, homo sapiens being the newer great apes.
> 
> You're an ape, I'm an ape, we are all apes.


There were two or three different groups of walking *apes*, and one was the forefather of humans 





fish601 said:


> It has been estimated that the human lineage *diverged* from that of chimpanzees about five million years ago, and from that of gorillas about eight million years ago.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human





PadawanBater said:


> Not only is fish ignorant, he's now been exposed as actively being deceitful.


diverge = to move or extend in different directions from a common point 

you changed the word diverge to evolve

but it may be my falt. .if i would of added a period here


> (the forefather of humans*(here)* it has been estimated that the)


maybe it would of been better but as you can tell i get lazy with* . ,* *capitol letters, spelling*,......

this will probably be misunder stood as well


----------



## PadawanBater (Sep 21, 2009)

fish601 said:


> "human lineage diverged"
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Go look at Nocturn3's post, post #326.

You took a sentence from wiki, when a few lines above it it says "we did NOT evolove from chimps". You copied the part that you felt supported your position and left the rest, that CLEARLY DIDN'T support your position, out. 

This shows that you will resort to these kinds of tactics just to 'win' whatever 'argument' you feel we might be having.

This also shows that you cannot admit when you're wrong.

It's just become a waste of time at this point.


----------



## fish601 (Sep 21, 2009)

PadawanBater said:


> > Go look at Nocturn3's post, post #326.
> 
> 
> i cant believe we are taling about this lol
> ...


----------



## fish601 (Sep 21, 2009)

who named these?




_




_


----------



## fish601 (Sep 21, 2009)

Iran's Ahmadinejad proud of Holocaust denial

with all the evidence  ....you evolutionist  and him must be the missing link scientist are looking for


just kidding, you know thats a joke.. there isn't even chain


----------



## fish601 (Sep 21, 2009)

PadawanBater said:


> Do you at least understand that what you guys are proposing, like with this picture, is NOT AT ALL HOW THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION WORKS! AT ALL!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


do you not like the way scientist say we looked ?... sure these pictures arnt perfect but it gives a pretty good idea of what they think we looked like


----------



## mared juwan (Sep 21, 2009)

fish601 said:


> do you not like the way scientist say we looked ?... sure these pictures arnt perfect but it gives a pretty good idea of what they think we looked like


Fish, we've already pointed out that chart is BS. I was hoping at some point you would follow my lead and stop trying to convince people and instead share your knowledge on the issue. Teach us about religion. I want to learn something. I've tried to make every post of mine at least contain some information that educates people on the subject we are discussing. You are never going to be able to disprove evolution. You don't know enough about it. Why don't you instead tell us something we don't know about your side of the story. I'm surprised you had nothing to say when I said I was in agreement that a Great Flood did occur in our history around the time of the Bible. I would have thought a true Christian would have tons of points from the Bible to contradict all we are saying. I haven't seen anything from you except snide little comments clearly intended to aggravate people and nothing more. If you want to convince us, educate us. Prove you know as much about religion as we do about evolution. If you can't do that, I don't really understand why you keep posting. I repect religious scholars. They put as much time into studying their subject matter as scientists do. So if you have something real to say, I'm listening.


----------



## fish601 (Sep 21, 2009)

mared juwan said:


> Fish, we've already pointed out that chart is BS. I was hoping at some point you would follow my lead and stop trying to convince people and instead share your knowledge on the issue. Teach us about religion. I want to learn something. I've tried to make every post of mine at least contain some information that educates people on the subject we are discussing. You are never going to be able to disprove evolution. You don't know enough about it. Why don't you instead tell us something we don't know about your side of the story. I'm surprised you had nothing to say when I said I was in agreement that a Great Flood did occur in our history around the time of the Bible. I would have thought a true Christian would have tons of points from the Bible to contradict all we are saying. I haven't seen anything from you except snide little comments clearly intended to aggravate people and nothing more. If you want to convince us, educate us. Prove you know as much about religion as we do about evolution. If you can't do that, I don't really understand why you keep posting. I repect religious scholars. They put as much time into studying their subject matter as scientists do. So if you have something real to say, I'm listening.


 
this is the first post of yours that i have skimed over. and thats about it lol...


----------



## mared juwan (Sep 21, 2009)

fish601 said:


> this is the first post of yours that i have skimed over. and thats about it lol...


Wow, you're hopeless. If you "skimmed" my post, where is your response to what it said?


----------



## fish601 (Sep 22, 2009)

mared juwan said:


> Wow, you're hopeless. If you "skimmed" my post, where is your response to what it said?


i only read a couple of sentences and well... you havent pointed that the pictures was bs, if you have please give me the post number i will check it again.



> Teach us about religion. I want to learn something


if you want to learn about religion go here
_1.__http://gotquestions.org/crucial.html_
_2. __http://www.godandscience.org/_
_3.__http://www.carm.org/christianity/answers-seekers_ 
i am not teaching religion 




> You are never going to be able to disprove evolution.


disprove evolution? lol its never been proven._not the evolution that we have been talking about _.. it sure sounds like it might work so i am still open to the possiblity. 

thats as far as i read


----------



## Brazko (Sep 22, 2009)

mared juwan said:


> Fish, we've already pointed out that chart is BS. I was hoping at some point you would follow my lead and stop trying to convince people and instead share your knowledge on the issue. Teach us about religion. I want to learn something. I've tried to make every post of mine at least contain some information that educates people on the subject we are discussing. You are never going to be able to disprove evolution. You don't know enough about it. Why don't you instead tell us something we don't know about your side of the story. I'm surprised you had nothing to say when I said I was in agreement that a Great Flood did occur in our history around the time of the Bible. I would have thought a true Christian would have tons of points from the Bible to contradict all we are saying. I haven't seen anything from you except snide little comments clearly intended to aggravate people and nothing more. If you want to convince us, educate us. Prove you know as much about religion as we do about evolution. If you can't do that, I don't really understand why you keep posting. I repect religious scholars. They put as much time into studying their subject matter as scientists do. So if you have something real to say, I'm listening.


I wanted to Rep you for this Post but I couldn't, Well sPoken Chief, Ole'School Rep +++


----------



## PadawanBater (Sep 22, 2009)

fish601 said:


> disprove evolution? lol its never been proven._not the evolution that we have been talking about _.. it sure sounds like it might work so i am still open to the possiblity.
> 
> thats as far as i read


 
You're not open to shit.

How do you expect to accept something if you will never aknowledge the way we retrieve information is accurate? 

Stop wasting everyones time.


----------



## Katatawnic (Sep 23, 2009)

fish601 said:


> this is the first post of yours that i have skimed over. and thats about it lol...


Did your teachers take kindly to remarks like this? Or did you have better excuses for not contributing anything more than what *you* believed was enough to get by? You could have answered if you'd wanted to, even if it meant taking out the two minutes to go back and read what you "skimmed" the first time. Laziness isn't any more attractive than being simply a twit.


----------



## Xeno420 (Sep 23, 2009)

I don't know if any of you know a guy named Zecharia Sitchin but he's a walking brain and know's quite a bit of a lot of things. Anyway, I got this from his official website http://www.sitchin.com/. A lot of poeple say he's a case but for those that know better than to be brainwashed by the religions of the world like this guy and respect him. He's even gone to the vatican to argue about where we came from and they had nothing to say . His discoveries on ancient Sumerian artifacts have details about certain technology and astrological facts that 'NASA' is 'discovering' as new but Sitchin shows them where it has been written before in ancient times by the first 'civilized' people... Anyway, read on and check out the dude's site. Peace!


THE CASE OF ADAM&#8217;S ALIEN GENES

In whose image was The Adam &#8211; the prototype of modern humans, Homo sapiens &#8211; created?

The Bible asserts that the Elohim said: &#8220;Let us fashion the Adam in our image and after our likeness.&#8221; But if one is to accept a tentative explanation for enigmatic genes that humans possess, offered when the deciphering of the human genome was announced in mid-February, the feat was decided upon by a group of bacteria!

&#8220;Humbling&#8221; was the prevalent adjective used by the scientific teams and the media to describe the principal finding &#8211; that the human genome contains not the anticipated 100,000 - 140,000 genes (the stretches of DNA that direct the production of amino-acids and proteins) but only some 30,000+ -- little more than double the 13,601 genes of a fruit fly and barely fifty percent more than the roundworm&#8217;s 19,098. What a comedown from the pinnacle of the genomic Tree of Life!

Moreover, there was hardly any uniqueness to the human genes. They are comparative to not the presumed 95 percent but to almost 99 percent of the chimpanzees, and 70 percent of the mouse. Human genes, with the same functions, were found to be identical to genes of other vertebrates, as well as invertebrates, plants, fungi, even yeast. The findings not only confirmed that there was one source of DNA for all life on Earth, but also enabled the scientists to trace the evolutionary process &#8211; how more complex organisms evolved, genetically, from simpler ones, adopting at each stage the genes of a lower life form to create a more complex higher life form &#8211; culminating with Homo sapiens.


The &#8220;Head-scratching&#8221; Discovery

It was here, in tracing the vertical evolutionary record contained in the human and the other analyzed genomes, that the scientists ran into an enigma. The &#8220;head-scratching discovery by the public consortium,&#8221; as Science termed it, was that the human genome contains 223 genes that do not have the required predecessors on the genomic evolutionary tree.

How did Man acquire such a bunch of enigmatic genes?

In the evolutionary progression from bacteria to invertebrates (such as the lineages of yeast, worms, flies or mustard weed &#8211; which have been deciphered) to vertebrates (mice, chimpanzees) and finally modern humans, these 223 genes are completely missing in the invertebrate phase. Therefore, the scientists can explain their presence in the human genome by a &#8220;rather recent&#8221; (in evolutionary time scales) &#8220;probable horizontal transfer from bacteria.&#8221;

In other words: At a relatively recent time as Evolution goes, modern humans acquired an extra 223 genes not through gradual evolution, not vertically on the Tree of Life, but horizontally, as a sideways insertion of genetic material from bacteria


An Immense Difference

Now, at first glance it would seem that 223 genes is no big deal. In fact, while every single gene makes a great difference to every individual, 223 genes make an immense difference to a species such as ours.

The human genome is made up of about three billion neucleotides (the &#8220;letters&#8221; A-C-G-T which stand for the initials of the four nucleic acids that spell out all life on Earth); of them, just a little more than one percent are grouped into functioning genes (each gene consists of thousands of "letters"). The difference between one individual person and another amounts to about one &#8220;letter&#8221; in a thousand in the DNA &#8220;alphabet.&#8221; The difference between Man and Chimpanzee is less than one percent as genes go; and one percent of 30,000 genes is 300.

So, 223 genes is more than two thirds of the difference between me, you and a chimpanzee!

An analysis of the functions of these genes through the proteins that they spell out, conducted by the Public Consortium team and published in the journal Nature, shows that they include not only proteins involved in important physiological but also psychiatric functions. Moreover, they are responsible for important neurological enzymes that stem only from the mitochondrial portion of the DNA &#8211; the so-called &#8220;Eve&#8221; DNA that humankind inherited only through the mother-line, all the way back to a single &#8220;Eve.&#8221; That finding alone raises doubt regarding that the "bacterial insertion" explanation.


A Shaky Theory

How sure are the scientists that such important and complex genes, such an immense human advantage, was obtained by us --&#8220;rather recently&#8221;-- through the courtesy of infecting bacteria?

&#8220;It is a jump that does not follow current evolutionary theories,&#8221; said Steven Scherer, director of mapping of the Human Genome Sequencing Center, Baylor College of Medicine.

&#8220;We did not identify a strongly preferred bacterial source for the putative horizontally transferred genes,&#8221; states the report in Nature. The Public Consortium team, conducting a detailed search, found that some 113 genes (out of the 223) &#8220;are widespread among bacteria&#8221; &#8211; though they are entirely absent even in invertebrates. An analysis of the proteins which the enigmatic genes express showed that out of 35 identified, only ten had counterparts in vertebrates (ranging from cows to rodents to fish); 25 of the 35 were unique to humans.

&#8220;It is not clear whether the transfer was from bacteria to human or from human to bacteria,&#8221; Science quoted Robert Waterson, co-director of Washington University&#8217;s Genome Sequencing Center, as saying.

But if Man gave those genes to bacteria, where did Man acquire those genes to begin with?


The Role of the Anunnaki

Readers of my books must be smiling by now, for they know the answer.

They know that the biblical verses dealing with the fashioning of The Adam are condensed renderings of much much more detailed Sumerian and Akkadian texts, found inscribed on clay tablets, in which the role of the Elohim in Genesis is performed by the Anunnaki &#8211; &#8220;Those Who From Heaven to Earth Came.&#8221;

As detailed in my books, beginning with The 12th Planet (1976) and even more so in Genesis Revisited and The Cosmic Code, the Anunnaki came to Earth some 450,000 years ago from the planet Nibiru &#8211; a member of our own solar system whose great orbit brings it to our part of the heavens once every 3,600 years. They came here in need of gold, with which to protect their dwindling atmosphere. Exhausted and in need of help in mining the gold, their chief scientist Enki suggested that they use their genetic knowledge to create the needed Primitive Workers. When the other leaders of the Anunnaki asked: How can you create a new being? He answered:

"The being that we need already exists; 
all that we have to do is put our mark on it.&#8221; 

The time was some 300,000 years ago.

What he had in mind was to upgrade genetically the existing hominids, who were already on Earth through Evolution, by adding some of the genes of the more advanced Anunnaki. That the Anunnaki, who could already travel in space 450,000 years ago, possessed the genomic science (whose threshold we have now reached) is clear not only from the actual texts but also from numerous depictions in which the double-helix of the DNA is rendered as Entwined Serpents (a symbol still used for medicine and healing) -- see illustration &#8216;A&#8217; below.

When the leaders of the Anunnaki approved the project (as echoed in the biblical &#8221;Let us fashion the Adam&#8221, Enki with the help of Ninharsag, the Chief Medical Officer of the Anunnaki, embarked on a process of genetic engineering, by adding and combining genes of the Anunnaki with those of the already-existing hominids.

When, after much trial and error breathtakingly described and recorded in antiquity, a &#8220;perfect model&#8221; was attained, Ninharsag held him up and shouted: &#8220;My hands have made it!&#8221; An ancient artist depicted the scene on a cylinder seal (illustration &#8216;B&#8217.

And that, I suggest, is how we had come to possess the unique extra genes. It was in the image of the Anunnaki, not of bacteria, that Adam and Eve were fashioned.


A Matter of Extreme Significance

Unless further scientific research can establish, beyond any doubt, that the only possible source of the extra genes are indeed bacteria, and unless it is then also determined that the infection (&#8220;horizontal transfer&#8221 went from bacteria to Man and not from Man to bacteria, the only other available solution will be that offered by the Sumerian texts millennia ago.

Until then, the enigmatic 223 alien genes will remain as an alternative &#8211; and as a corroboration by modern science of the Anunnaki and their genetic feats on Earth.


----------



## mared juwan (Sep 23, 2009)

fish601 said:


> you havent pointed that the pictures was bs, if you have please give me the post number i will check it again.


Here... check it again. Post 314. 


mared juwan said:


> That chart is not consistent with modern evolutionary theory. There is no clear linear progression of one hominid species into another "more advanced" species as the chart suggests. Rather the process was more like a tree with branches that split and evolved parallel at the same time. All the other parts of this branch ran into dead ends and only homo sapiens remains. This seems to be too complicated of a theory for many creationists to comprehend. Anyways, I hope that chart was not intended to discredit evolutionary science. If so, it is a very poor attempt.


 
And by "teach me about religion" I mean use some actual information to back up what you are saying. *Why* are we wrong and you are right?


----------



## Xeno420 (Sep 23, 2009)

mared juwan said:


> Here... check it again. Post 314.
> 
> 
> 
> And by "teach me about religion" I mean use some actual information to back up what you are saying. *Why* are we wrong and you are right?


Check out post 348


----------



## mared juwan (Sep 23, 2009)

Xeno420 said:


> Check out post 348


I did. Why would such advanced aliens need to use the measly strength of chimpanzees they gentically engineered into slave humans? That's what it's saying, right? Aliens were here on Earth mining gold and gave us these 223 mystery genes so we could be their slaves? I would think they would have robotics and machinery that would serve their purposes far better than we could if they were capable of travelling here. It is still an interesting theory....


----------



## Xeno420 (Sep 23, 2009)

mared juwan said:


> I did. Why would such advanced aliens need to use the measly strength of chimpanzees they gentically engineered into slave humans? That's what it's saying, right? Aliens were here on Earth mining gold and gave us these 223 mystery genes so we could be their slaves? I would think they would have robotics and machinery that would serve their purposes far better than we could if they were capable of travelling here. It is still an interesting theory....


When you've been around who know's how long, you might not want robots and machinery. How about creating something unique, something not done before? You want an answer to your questions? You have to go to the source: The Akkadian and Sumerian cuneiform stone tablets where the story of man exists. This is where the modern bible took the genesis and revamped it to it's will and ommited many things and added others.

Edit: They might have wanted humans over machines also because humans have a tendency to evolve socially which robots and machines cannot. We might have also been an experiment to them to see if the 'new hybrids' can become more than simple animals and make an advanced infrastructure, maybe even become smart enough to attain the knowledge of 'the gods' with the information left behind and the craftiness of the 'Neo-Homo'.


----------



## anhedonia (Sep 23, 2009)

WOW! You sound like you get all these ideas from the history channel or coast to coast am. Don't take it so literally bud. Theyre selling you entertainment. LOL


----------



## Xeno420 (Sep 24, 2009)

mared juwan said:


> It doesn't appear you grasped what I was saying. Lucy did not evolve into Heidleburg Man and then he didn't evolve into Nebraska Man and then he didn't evolve into Piltdown Man. Some of these species lived along side eachother at the same period in time and therefore there could not be a linear pattern to their evolution. I'm not here to argue or convince anyone. Just correct gross misrepresentations of facts when I see them. Believe what you want. I could give a shit.


Can you rule out a form of bestiality? Maybe the different breeds were screwing eachother and maybe they had similar chromosomes. Finaly Homo sapien is born.


----------



## PadawanBater (Sep 24, 2009)

Xeno420 said:


> Can you rule out a form of bestiality? Maybe the different breeds were screwing eachother and maybe they had similar chromosomes. Finaly Homo sapien is born.


Not likely. 

For the same reasons a great dane can't mate with a german shepard. 

Different species cannot produce fertile offspring.


----------



## Xeno420 (Sep 24, 2009)

PadawanBater said:


> Not likely.
> 
> For the same reasons a great dane can't mate with a german shepard.
> 
> Different species cannot produce fertile offspring.


This is true but given that nature surprises us, anything is possible. You never know, maybe a genetic mutation allows contradiction. It may be possible that after years of trying, some of the genetic code through transfer intercourse or cannabalism or both may have changed a few thing that permit a change and compatibility. Remember, "you are what you eat".


----------



## PadawanBater (Sep 24, 2009)

Xeno420 said:


> This is true but given that nature surprises us, anything is possible. You never know, maybe a genetic mutation allows contradiction.


Anything is possible...


----------



## fish601 (Sep 24, 2009)

mared juwan said:


> Some of these species lived along side eachother at the same period in time and therefore there could not be a linear pattern to their evolution. .


you do realize there is no fossil evidence of evolution?



mared juwan said:


> Here... check it again. Post 314.
> 
> And by "teach me about religion" I mean use some actual information to back up what you are saying. *Why* are we wrong and you are right?


the best dating methods can not tell us how old something is. i could care less how old the earth is but when you use a dating method.. ask yourself Are there any assumptions involved in the dating method?

If you really dig into all the fossil evidence, youll 
see there are no proven links that support 
the claim that evolution occurred from one species to another. Modern textbooks have filled in the blanks 
with assumptions, not facts. We have millions of fossils 
in our museums today, and not one of them prove that there was ever a species-to-species transition.

_http://www.evidenceforhope.com/Evolution%20versus%20Creation.html_


----------



## PadawanBater (Sep 24, 2009)

fish601 said:


> you do realize there is no fossil evidence of evolution?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## fish601 (Sep 24, 2009)

show me just one


----------



## PadawanBater (Sep 24, 2009)

fish601 said:


> show me just one


 
No, because there is nothing I could show you to make you accept evolution. 

You have already decided you are not going to accept it.

So what is the point?


----------



## anhedonia (Sep 24, 2009)

Yeah, "How dare they teach my children that our lord and savior came from an ape! How dare they!" Ever heard that one? Thats one of the reasons creationists cant accept evolution. Poor bastards.


----------



## PadawanBater (Sep 24, 2009)

anhedonia said:


> Yeah, "How dare they teach my children that our lord and savior came from an ape! How dare they!" Ever heard that one? Thats one of the reasons creationists cant accept evolution. Poor bastards.


 
lmfao @ anyone who told you that!!

If that person carried the logic through... if evolution happened, then there is a very good chance Jesus and Christianity as told by the bible did not.


----------



## mared juwan (Sep 24, 2009)

fish601 said:


> show me just one


This is starting to piss me off. Do you want us to hold your hand and walk you down to the Museum of Natural History? Buy you an ice cream? What the fuck, fish. Go out into the world and actually get a clue. This is pathetic. Who is feeding you this bullshit information that the fossils don't exist? Go for yourself to where the fossils actually are and SEE them!!!!!!!!! Talk to a real anthrapologist instead of accepting all this second-hand and third-hand nonsense. It is really quite aggravating that some people just don't care how stupid they sound. Were you homeschooled, fish? Have you ever left your house to actually investigate what we are talking about? Is ignorance really bliss? Maybe I should try some


----------



## fish601 (Sep 25, 2009)

PadawanBater said:


> No, because there is nothing I could show you to make you accept evolution.


so you cant find me just one? really if you can show me one that 100% proves evolution if its the real deal i will quit posting on this fourm.
you will shut me up with just one because if one is real than evolution is real.





mared juwan said:


> the fossils don't exist? Go for yourself to where the fossils actually are and SEE them!!!!!!!!! Talk to a real


fossils do exist but are there any fossils that prove evolution?.... just one is all i am asking for... dont get pissed just show me one that's real


----------



## mared juwan (Sep 25, 2009)

fish601 said:


> so you cant find me just one? really if you can show me one that 100% proves evolution if its the real deal i will quit posting on this fourm.
> you will shut me up with just one because if one is real than evolution is real.
> 
> 
> ...


 
There's fourteen of them in this picture. None of these are human skulls and none are from any modern ape species but all fall in between the specifications of the two.


----------



## Nocturn3 (Sep 25, 2009)

fish601 said:


> so you cant find me just one? really if you can show me one that 100% proves evolution if its the real deal i will quit posting on this fourm.
> you will shut me up with just one because if one is real than evolution is real.
> 
> fossils do exist but are there any fossils that prove evolution?.... just one is all i am asking for... dont get pissed just show me one that's real


Look at the wiki links I gave you in this post.


----------



## fish601 (Sep 25, 2009)

mared juwan said:


> There's fourteen of them in this picture. None of these are human skulls and none are from any modern ape species but all fall in between the specifications of the two.


why because they are a diff size?
could it be an extinct animal?
tell me why you believe this shows evolution


----------



## fish601 (Sep 25, 2009)

Nocturn3 said:


> Look at the wiki links I gave you in this post.


just give me 1


----------



## Nocturn3 (Sep 25, 2009)

fish601 said:


> just give me 1


I've given you lots. I know the amount of evidence is overwhelming to you, but that is sort of the point. One fossil alone doesn't prove too much, but all of them combined paints a very clear picture. Add to that the genetic and other evidence, and you can see why only the most ill-educated people are still able to cling to the position you are advocating.


----------



## fish601 (Sep 25, 2009)

Nocturn3 said:


> I've given you lots. I know the amount of evidence is overwhelming to you, but that is sort of the point. One fossil alone doesn't prove too much, but all of them combined paints a very clear picture. Add to that the genetic and other evidence, and you can see why only the most ill-educated people are still able to cling to the position you are advocating.


 
so when you look at this pic you believe that proves evolution?.. is this a clear pic you were thinking of?


----------



## Nocturn3 (Sep 25, 2009)

You still don't get it, do you. You're expecting all the evidence to come down to a single picture or sentence. It's the SUM of ALL the evidence which makes evolutionary theory so convincing.

The pic is a pretty good representation of horse evolution, in a simplistic way. Alone, it does not prove anything, since it is just a picture. You need to look at the details, not just the pretty pics.


----------



## mared juwan (Sep 25, 2009)

I made this point before but <surprise> we seem to be going in circles once again..... 


Let's say that I accept that there is no evolution. You win, fish. Alas, I prove no match for your genius and wish to become your humble disciple. I would just like to get something straight about our belief. Since there is no evolution that means there is no way for a new animal to be created, right? Therefore, the world must have began with all the animals that ever existed. We may have lost some to extinction but before they were gone humans must have lived with all of them because we couldn't appear afterwards. The same can be said for elephants for example. So how do I explain to all these silly scientist people how these big juicy defenseless elephants survived with all those nasty killer dinosaurs running around? I mean how can I really get them to believe that every species EVER discovered was walking around together at one point? What should I do if they bring this up? Plz help!!!!!


----------



## fish601 (Sep 25, 2009)

Nocturn3 said:


> You still don't get it, do you. You're expecting all the evidence to come down to a single picture or sentence. It's the SUM of ALL the evidence which makes evolutionary theory so convincing.
> 
> The pic is a pretty good representation of horse evolution, in a simplistic way. Alone, it does not prove anything, since it is just a picture. You need to look at the details, not just the pretty pics.


 
you still dont get it, do you.
i know the pic doesnt prove anything and i am looking for details to prove evolution. ... can you prove evolution?


----------



## fish601 (Sep 25, 2009)

mared juwan said:


> The same can be said for elephants for example. So how do I explain to all these silly scientist people how these big juicy defenseless elephants survived with all those nasty killer dinosaurs running around? I mean how can I really get them to believe that every species EVER discovered was walking around together at one point? What should I do if they bring this up? Plz help!!!!!


 
ask them what killed the 'nasty killer dinosaurs.' 

and

tell them that there are many defenseless animals alive today


----------



## Nocturn3 (Sep 25, 2009)

fish601 said:


> you still dont get it, do you.
> i know the pic doesnt prove anything and i am looking for details to prove evolution. ... can you prove evolution?


I can prove evolution, with a fair degree of certainty, to any logical person who is willing to read, and objectively process the evidence. However, I can't prove evolution to you, any more than I can prove colors to a blind man.


----------



## fish601 (Sep 25, 2009)

Nocturn3 said:


> I can prove evolution, with a fair degree of certainty, to any logical person who is willing to read, and objectively process the evidence. However, I can't prove evolution to you, any more than I can prove colors to a blind man.


Have you ever questioned evolution or just believe what white coats tell you


----------



## Nocturn3 (Sep 25, 2009)

I question everything. I research things before I form an opinion, and only do so when I have the relevent facts.


----------



## anhedonia (Sep 25, 2009)

fish601 said:


> Have you ever questioned evolution or just believe what white coats tell you


Are you mad at what scientists tell us?


----------



## OregonMeds (Sep 25, 2009)

Nocturn3 said:


> I can prove evolution, with a fair degree of certainty, to any logical person who is willing to read, and objectively process the evidence. However, I can't prove evolution to you, any more than I can prove colors to a blind man.


----------



## mared juwan (Sep 26, 2009)

If fish is allowed to pick and choose his own definition of what a "fact" is then we can't ever get through to him. It's like me saying I don't believe in electricity. PROVE to me that my computer doesn't work by magic, fish. I can't see the electrons moving so how do I know electricity really works like these scientists say? We only see the "effects" of electricity. Sure, almost every reasonable person in the world looks at all the clues about electricity and understands that it is not magic, but I like to go my own way.... you know, just to be special. And I would really really really love it if you would say to me "You're wrong. We see electricity in lightning." Because then I get to say, "PROVE to me that lightning is made of electricity." I think they're the daggers of Zeus meant to punish the wicked


----------



## hitch420 (Sep 26, 2009)

Nice posts boys and girls


----------



## fish601 (Sep 26, 2009)

mared juwan said:


> If fish is allowed to pick and choose his own definition of what a "fact" is then we can't ever get through to him. It's like me saying I don't believe in electricity. PROVE to me that my computer doesn't work by magic, fish. I can't see the electrons moving so how do I know electricity really works like these scientists say? We only see the "effects" of electricity. Sure, almost every reasonable person in the world looks at all the clues about electricity and understands that it is not magic, but I like to go my own way.... you know, just to be special. And I would really really really love it if you would say to me "You're wrong. We see electricity in lightning." Because then I get to say, "PROVE to me that lightning is made of electricity." I think they're the daggers of Zeus meant to punish the wicked


Is this your way of saying NO i can not prove evolution and there are no facts?




*"The fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change..." *_*(Dr. Stephen Jay Gould, Harvard Professor of Paleontology)* _



*Dr. Etheridge*, paleontologist of the British Museum "Nine-tenths of the talk of evolutionists is sheer nonsense, not founded on observation and wholly unsupported by facts. 
This museum is full of proofs of the utter falsity of their views. In all this great museum, there is not a particle of evidence of the transmutation of species."


----------



## mared juwan (Sep 26, 2009)

fish601 said:


> Is this your way of saying NO i can not prove evolution and there are no facts?


 
No, it's my way of saying you are silly. 

That's another nice creationist cartoon you posted there. You guys are great at making cartoons but not so great at research it seems. Does your cartoon imply that evolutionary theory suggests ROCKS are part of the formula? Seriously? And where did you get these quotes please? Who is this Dr. Etheridge? Never heard of him. And what the other guy said about no gradual change doesn't mean evolution didn't happen. When you view the history of life on Earth in the billions of years then evolutionary changes can be quite sudden by comparison.


----------



## litteringand... (Sep 26, 2009)

This thread is purely laughable. Heres an idea prove creationism to me. Guess what creationist believe the earth is 7000 years old carbon dating, radiation dating, and a slew of other technologies tell us the earth is more like billions of years old. You really think they are that far off. You want to combat a scientific study good for you science is and always will be under scrutiny thats the scientific method. What about god? what about the bible the most worthless pages on the best seller list? You know the bible tells you not to shave your beard? wow real relevant to todays time maybe it is an allegory right?lol So let's shift gears here and I want you to prove to me that the bible is gods word and that god exists and knows how many hairs are on all of our heads and how many times i have said fuck and masturbated. Go ahead i'll wait


----------



## litteringand... (Sep 26, 2009)

i like how evolution is faith in the invisable isn't that the whole premise of EVERY religon. Quick question how many people have been killed for not believing in evolution? hmmmm none to my knowledge can we say the same about religon? So no matter what you want to argue or believe seems to me science is actually more morally sound than religon ever can be just by that fact alone.


----------



## fish601 (Sep 26, 2009)

mared juwan said:


> Does your cartoon imply that evolutionary theory suggests ROCKS are part of the formula? Seriously? ? .


rocks mayb, mayb not

Some question whether life began on Earth at all, asserting instead that it came from a distant world or the heart of a fallen comet or asteroid. 



One of the greatest mysteries in science is how life began. Now one group of researchers says diamonds may have been life's best friend. 26 July 2008 

type How Life Began in wiki and you are redirected to Abiogenesis how life on Earth could have arisen from inanimate matter 
*inanimate definition* not animate; not endowed with (animal) life








litteringand... said:


> Guess what creationist believe the earth is 7000 years old carbon dating, radiation dating, and a slew of other technologies tell us the earth is more like billions of years old.
> 
> You know the bible tells you not to shave your beard?


Not all creationist believe earth is young
however dating methods are a joke

Old Testament law forbid priests from shaving their heads or beards but what does that have to do with us?


----------



## Nocturn3 (Sep 26, 2009)

fish601 said:


> *"The fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change..." *_*(Dr. Stephen Jay Gould, Harvard Professor of Paleontology)* _
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Here we go again with the fucking quote mining.

For your first one:


> The fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change . . . - Stephen J. Gould, "The Return of Hopeful Monsters", Natural History 86:22 (1977) ​First the necessary recital: this quote comes from a discussion of Eldredge's and Gould's proposed theory of Punctuated Equilibria. Here it is in greater context:Many evolutionists view strict continuity between micro- and macroevolution as an essential ingredient of Darwinism and a necessary corollary of natural selection. Yet, as I argue in essay 17, Thomas Henry Huxley divided the two issues of natural selection and gradualism and warned Darwin that his strict and unwarranted adherence to gradualism might undermine his entire system. _The fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change_, *and the principle of natural selection does not require it -- selection can operate rapidly*. Yet the unnecessary link that Darwin forged became a central tenet of the synthetic theory. [1]​Note how the quote miners must cut off the sentence in mid stride (not all bother with an ellipsis) lest their readers be confused by facts and learn that Gould, in speaking of "gradual change", is not talking about "evolutionary change" being unsupported by the fossil record.
> What was he alluding to? Since Gould referred to essay 17 in The Panda's Thumb, entitled "The Episodic Nature of Evolutionary Change", let him explain it himself:On November 23, 1859, the day before his revolutionary book hit the stands, Charles Darwin received an extraordinary letter from his friend Thomas Henry Huxley. It offered warm support in the coming conflict, even the supreme sacrifice: "I am prepared to go to the stake, if requisite ... I am sharpening up my claws and beak in readiness." But it also contained a warning: "You have loaded yourself with an unnecessary difficulty in adopting _Naturra non facit saltum_ so unreservedly."
> The Latin phrase, usually attributed to Linnaeus, states that "nature does not make leaps." Darwin was a strict adherent to this ancient motto. As a disciple of Charles Lyell, the apostle of gradualism in geology, Darwin portrayed evolution as a stately and orderly process, working at a speed so slow that no person could hope to observe it in a lifetime. Ancestors and descendants, Darwin argued, must be connected by "infinitely numerous transitional links" forming "the finest graduated steps." Only an immense span of time had permitted such a sluggish process to achieve so much.
> Huxley felt that Darwin was digging a ditch for his own theory. Natural selection required no postulate about rates; it could operate just as well if evolution proceeded at a rapid pace. ...​As noted in the Introduction to the Gould, Eldredge and Punctuated Equilibria Quotes Gould is arguing for a "jerky, or episodic, rather than a smoothly gradual, pace of change" in evolution. But he also contends that evolution is fully supported by the empiric evidence, including the fossil record. [2]
> Creationists are free to argue against Gould's conclusions, of course, but the fact that they are reduced to ripping his words from their context in a blatant attempt to distort his intent, only demonstrates that they don't have an argument worth stating.


Source


As for Dr Etheridge:


> As has been  pointed out on the talk.origins newsgroup, the his use of the term &#8220;transmutation of species.&#8221; gives away that this is a quote from the 19th century. Indeed this quote got wide circulation in the 1920s. Ronald L. Numbers1 discussed the use of quote in the evolution/creationism controversies in the 19th century: The widely touted &#8220;Dr. Etheridge, of the British Museum,&#8221; who always appeared in creationist literature without a given name, was quoted by Townsend as saying, &#8220;In all this great museum there is not a particle of evidence transmutation of species. Nine-tenths of the talk of evolution is sheer nonsense, not founded on observation and wholly unsupported by fact. This museum is full of proofs of the utter falsity of their views.&#8221; The content of Etheridge&#8217;s statement varied from work to work, and its source remained unidentified, except for Alexander Patterson&#8217;s comment that Etheridge was answering a question put to him by a Dr. George E. Post. When curious parties in the 1920s inquired about the identity of Etheridge, the director of the British Museum surmised that the man in question was &#8220;Robert Etheridge, Junr., who was Assistant Keeper of Geology in this Museum from 1881 to 1891,&#8221; at which time he left for Australia, where he died in 1920. The director hastened to add that &#8220;Mr. Etheridge&#8217;s opinion on this subject should not be considered as in any way representing scientific opinion in this Museum.&#8221;
> 
> Thus instead of a contemporary distinguished scientists doubting evolution we have an obscure nineteenth century figure that never had any fame at all. In short the creationists have been dishonest in their presentation of the quote.


Source


So, of your two quotes, one was taken completely out of context, and the other was written by some nobody over a century ago.


----------



## Stoney McFried (Sep 26, 2009)

Species in the middle of an evolutionary transition:


http://www.sms.si.edu/IRLspec/Clarias_batrachus.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mudskipper
http://www.planetcatfish.com/catelog/species.php?species_id=646
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freshwater_hatchetfish


----------



## PadawanBater (Sep 26, 2009)

Nocturn3 said:


> Here we go again with the fucking quote mining.
> 
> For your first one:
> Source
> ...


 
Good post man! I can't rep you anymore..

I'm gonna call fish out on his bullshit every single time I see it!

That's two different times the guy has tried to lie to pass off his trash as genuine. Both times he knew exactly what he was doing. 

It's seriously like he's the typical stereotype believer adamant against evolution. They lie, never admit defeat, only provide their ''faith'' as ''evidence'' or the bible, quote mine, dismiss SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE if it contradicts their belief... down the list... your doing them ALL fish... I've been doing this shit for atleast 3 years now man, I've heard IT ALL, trust me. I've heard almost every single argument against the theory of evolution, I know where they come from and how they're supposed to be interpreted... usually it's some smug ass looking white guy with a part in his hair talking about shit he knows absolutely nothing about... wait a minute, fish, do you have a part in your hair?! Anyway... the funny thing about their bullshit is always the fact they themselves don't know the theories they ''refute'', so whenever they attempt it, they fuckin' CRASH AND BURN! Anyone out there like me watching knows exactly what's going on, exactly where the guy deliberately lied or simply didn't know what the fuck he was talking about. Two douches I can think of right now who represent this shit to a T are Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort. Holy shit those guys are retarded, I love watching their stuff! It's so damn funny how stupid those guys are!! 

So basically fish, until you get a little smarter, come up with your own ideas that HAVE NOT been completely debunked yet, like the ''no transitional species'' argument that you will not give the fuck up on, even though I already explained to you why that argument is invalid... remember my little demonstration with the letters... A...B...C...c...D...E...? Or like the way you don't recognize the accuracy of the dating methods... 

It feels like I'm pitching to a blind kid...


----------



## Keenly (Sep 26, 2009)

how life began? they have already discovered how the first life could have been formed


when you take a protein filled liquid (the primordial ooze if you will)


and you hit it with an electric current (lightning strike)

you are left with protiens and amino acids, the building blocks of life, from which the first single celled organisms came to be...


----------



## Katatawnic (Sep 26, 2009)

mared juwan said:


> There's fourteen of them in this picture.


https://www.rollitup.org/attachments/spirituality-sexuality-philosophy/559898d1253913505-evolution-theory-you-base-religion-dam_u_fish.jpg  Anyone else catch the photo name? 




mared juwan said:


> No, it's my way of saying you are silly.
> 
> That's another nice creationist cartoon you posted there. You guys are great at making cartoons but not so great at research it seems. Does your cartoon imply that evolutionary theory suggests ROCKS are part of the formula? Seriously? And where did you get these quotes please? Who is this Dr. Etheridge? Never heard of him. And what the other guy said about no gradual change doesn't mean evolution didn't happen. When you view the history of life on Earth in the billions of years then evolutionary changes can be quite sudden by comparison.


Go to *this search result*, then find "Etheridge" on any/every page the search returns. 

So far, I've found the exact same quote that Fish quoted, mostly on Christian sites such as *this one*:



> Dr. Etheridge, famous paleontologist of the British Museum "Nine-tenths of the talk of evolutionists is sheer nonsense, not founded on observation and wholly unsupportable by facts. This museum is full of proofs of the utter falsity of their views. In all this great museum, there is not a particle of evidence of the transmutation of species."


*May 29, 2006 4:34 PM*


> Interesting Quotations from Scientists on Evolutionism:
> 
> "Nine-tenths of the talk of evolutionists is sheer nonsense, not founded on observation and wholly unsupported by facts. This museum is full of proofs of the utter falsity of their views. In all this great museum, there is not a particle of evidence of the transmutation of species." (Dr. Etheridge, Paleontologist of the British Museum)


OH, here's one from a "Men's Style" site forum *post/thread*:



> What do evolutionists and other well respected scientists say about evolution? Evolutionists themselves disagree, and those with scientific backgrounds often deny the evidence of evolution. Consider these sources:
> 
> The Dissidents No less an authority than the world-renowned paleontologist (with Dr. Colin Patterson) for the British Museum of Natural History, Dr. N. Etheridge, has remarked: "Nine tenths of the talk of evolutionists is sheer nonsense, not founded on observation and wholly unsupported by facts. This museum is full of proofs of the utter falsity of their views. In all this great museum, their is not a particle of evidence of the transmutation of species." (quoted by Lindsay Gordon, Evolution - The Incredible Hoax, 1977)


Same poster, several paragraphs down:



> Another topic would be population growth. There have been estimates of population growth as high as 2% per year. Assuming that population grows at only .5% per year, it would take only 4000 years to achieve today's population beginning from a single couple. Many creationists feel that Noah's flood was about 4000 years ago, so this fits creation theory quite nicely. If the Earth is as old as evolutionists claim, and the population grew at .5%, in a million years there would be lOE2100 people! Even if it took a million years to get at our present population, there would have been about 3,000,000,000,000 people before us! Where is the fossil evidence? Where is the cultural evidence?


So far, anyone citing just where Etheridge's quote is cited appears to be coming from the book "Evolution - The Incredible Hoax" by Lindsay Gordon, 1977. But I haven't yet found *Etheridge* stating this anywhere as of yet; only other people quoting Lindsay Gordon's book.  From what discussion/article/journal/etc. did Gordon retrieve this quote? WTH is Etheridge?


----------



## Katatawnic (Sep 26, 2009)

litteringand... said:


> i like how evolution is faith in the invisable isn't that the whole premise of EVERY religon. Quick question how many people have been killed for not believing in evolution? hmmmm none to my knowledge can we say the same about religon? So no matter what you want to argue or believe seems to me science is actually more morally sound than religon ever can be just by that fact alone.





Nocturn3 said:


> Here we go again with the fucking quote mining.
> 
> For your first one: Source
> 
> ...


I posted before reading further  .... didn't want to forget what I was going to say. 




Stoney McFried said:


> Species in the middle of an evolutionary transition:
> 
> http://www.sms.si.edu/IRLspec/Clarias_batrachus.htm
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mudskipper
> ...





PadawanBater said:


> Good post man! I can't rep you anymore..
> 
> I'm gonna call fish out on his bullshit every single time I see it!
> 
> ...



Amazingly, I've "over" repped today!  So here's pseudo-rep for you all!


----------



## litteringand... (Sep 26, 2009)

I don't know why you bother researching these quotes one scientist disagreeing with evolution is a drop in a bucket. Scientist can be just as misguided as all the rest of you that talk to your invisable friends for answers you can't find. The bottom line is MOST scientist agree with evolution! They agree, because there is evidence that supports it! Thats how theories are made do I need to post a cartoon of the scientific method to get it across? By the way still waiting on evidence from any of you that supports a creation in ANY way. Not proof that evolution big bang and such are false but that you are correct. Furthermore to think that is is so mind blowing that we on earth can support life the probability is .006 that one of the planets we know about could support earth. Out of the 1000's of plantes that we know just one can support earth. Not too mind blowing if you ask me.


----------



## fish601 (Sep 26, 2009)

> Nocturn3 said:
> 
> 
> > Here we go again with the fucking quote mining.
> ...


 
still true today


----------



## Katatawnic (Sep 26, 2009)

It was asked who this Etheridge is/was, as none of us had heard of this "famous" Dr. Etheridge. Hence researching the quotes.


----------



## fish601 (Sep 26, 2009)

Stoney McFried said:


> Species in the middle of an evolutionary transition:
> 
> 
> http://www.sms.si.edu/IRLspec/Clarias_batrachus.htm
> ...


 
does this mean that flying fish are ancestors of birds?

there are about 25,000 species of living fish that have been identified, with 200&#8211;300 new species being discovered every year how many have allready became extinct?

i wonder if the walking fish is of the same kind as the famous Tiktaalik 375 million years old fossil geez evolution sure is slow

how do scientist explain evolution? they dig up fossils from different places around the world and arrange them in the order they want them to be in
like this one


----------



## OregonMeds (Sep 27, 2009)

Fish you can stop trying to explain anything related to how scientists think or how theories are formed because you just don't get it and simply never will. You don't have even the first clue how a scientist thinks you're assuming they act and think like you do where you start with an agenda and line things up in your own head to fit that agenda. Many many many times now people have tried to clue you in and you just did it yet again, still not learning. Only the worst most laughable scientists in the world work that way, the ones you so often quote.

You're superimposing your own mental flaws on everyone elses thought processes as if it's normal or standard, and it's simply not. (Well it's normal human nature technically, nothing that odd about you actually, but it's just completely the opposite of scientific)


You do fine talking about how you think and feel though, you should really just stick to that.


----------



## fish601 (Sep 27, 2009)

_between impersonators and evolutionist _

_When Elvis Presley died in 1977, there were an estimated 37 Elvis impersonators in the world. By 1993, there were 48,000 Elvis impersonators, an exponential increase. Extrapolating from this, by 2010 there will be 2.5 billion Elvis impersonators. The population of the world will be 7.5 billion by 2010. Every 3rd person will be an Elvis impersonator by 2010.  _*Source: Caen, H., San Francisco Chronicle; October 27, 1993*


----------



## litteringand... (Sep 27, 2009)

fish601 said:


> _between impersonators and evolutionist _
> 
> _When Elvis Presley died in 1977, there were an estimated 37 Elvis impersonators in the world. By 1993, there were 48,000 Elvis impersonators, an exponential increase. Extrapolating from this, by 2010 there will be 2.5 billion Elvis impersonators. The population of the world will be 7.5 billion by 2010. Every 3rd person will be an Elvis impersonator by 2010. &#8211; _*Source: Caen, H., San Francisco Chronicle; October 27, 1993*


LOL 1 in 3 is almost as many catholic priest that are in N.A.M.B.L.A here is fishes youtube page

http://www.stumbleupon.com/s/#9FJGo7/www.spikedhumor.com/articles/178208/If-Atheists-Ruled-the-World.html?rh=19653/topic:Religion

this is what we deal with.
by the way at least scientist have fossils to arrange. you have a warm feeling in your bosom? Solid logic good show.


----------



## OregonMeds (Sep 27, 2009)

That video is hilarious...

That page hangs IE for me while trying to run some script. Spooky... Here's the youtube video directly so you can skip loading the page if others have that problem:
[Youtube]qO9IPoAdct8[/Youtube]


----------



## krustofskie (Sep 27, 2009)

litteringand... said:


> LOL 1 in 3 is almost as many catholic priest that are in N.A.M.B.L.A here is fishes youtube page
> 
> http://www.stumbleupon.com/s/#9FJGo7/www.spikedhumor.com/articles/178208/If-Atheists-Ruled-the-World.html?rh=19653/topic:Religion


Thats quite funny, got me giggling.


----------



## mared juwan (Sep 27, 2009)

OregonMeds said:


> That video is hilarious...
> 
> That page hangs IE for me while trying to run some script. Spooky... Here's the youtube video directly so you can skip loading the page if others have that problem:
> [Youtube]qO9IPoAdct8[/Youtube]


I seriously think one of those guys in the video was fish. I mean not the actor but whoever wrote what they were reading. LOL it sounds just like this thread. They even said that scientists use too many big words to confuse people. LMFAO.


----------



## stonedroach (Sep 28, 2009)

Flat earth morons


----------



## stonedroach (Sep 28, 2009)

The original poster's not the satire video.


----------



## stonedroach (Sep 28, 2009)

Christians are proof man has not evolved enough.


----------



## PadawanBater (Sep 28, 2009)

stonedroach said:


> Christians are proof man has not evolved enough.


 
Maybe the atheist is the next step in human evolution? 

It has been pretty much exclusively our brains evolving for a few hundred thousand years...


----------



## fish601 (Sep 28, 2009)

when you give it a try let us know 
Show Times are from 6-7 PM, M-F, Mountain Time, 
Phone number to call the show is 208-377-3790


[youtube]5zyRIYWdEtM[/youtube]


----------



## litteringand... (Sep 28, 2009)

fish601 said:


> when you give it a try let us know
> Show Times are from 6-7 PM, M-F, Mountain Time,
> Phone number to call the show is 208-377-3790
> 
> ...


First of all who is this guy to say I have to defend my beliefs anyway? No matter how I got to where I am I don't owe an explanation to anyone ever! second of all you still have yet to show me one ounce of proof that that god exists. Furthermore, you have yet to show anyone anything of any fiber, and we are accused of hit and runs. lol this is why I normally stay out of these threads about religion but to say evolution is a religion or untrue, unproven in any way deserves my defense. However what you talk to invisable people about before you go to bed is all you. I don't care in the least just don't go around proclaiming things you could never back up. By the way evolution isn't tax exempt, so thats a big tip off it isn't a religon it is a quest for knowledge not just filling in blanks with: "This must be gods doing." If thats not your thing then so sorry for you please don't define our beliefs and pretend we think like you folks and came to our decisions by simply listening to some ass hate quote an old historically inaccurate book every sunday.


----------



## PadawanBater (Sep 28, 2009)

fish601 said:


> when you give it a try let us know
> Show Times are from 6-7 PM, M-F, Mountain Time,
> Phone number to call the show is 208-377-3790
> 
> ...


 
Give me the gist of that in text form fish and I'd be happy to, the clip is only a little longer than a minute, that shouldn't take too long right?

My audio doesn't work right now.


----------



## krustofskie (Sep 28, 2009)

PadawanBater said:


> Give me the gist of that in text form CG and I'd be happy to, the clip is only a little longer than a minute, that shouldn't take too long right?
> 
> My audio doesn't work right now.


The guy in the video is inviting Atheists to call up his radio show where he says he will proove his religion with "facts" and "evidence" in an unbiased debate. Just the jist of it.


----------



## PadawanBater (Sep 28, 2009)

krustofskie said:


> The guy in the video is inviting Atheists to call up his radio show where he says he will proove his religion with "facts" and "evidence" in an unbiased debate. Just the jist of it.


lol...well if this numb nuts could "prove" his religion, he'd be pretty rich indeed.

Howbout a video of him "proving" his religion to one of his atheist callers?


----------



## krustofskie (Sep 28, 2009)

PadawanBater said:


> lol...well if this numb nuts could "prove" his religion, he'd be pretty rich indeed.
> 
> Howbout a video of him "proving" his religion to one of his atheist callers?


That would be easy

"The bible says"
"The bible says"
"The bible says"
"The bible says"
"The bible says"
"The bible says"
"The bible says"


----------



## PadawanBater (Sep 29, 2009)

krustofskie said:


> That would be easy
> 
> "The bible says"
> "The bible says"
> ...


 
lol, check out this channel on youtube...


http://www.youtube.com/user/TheAtheistExperience

Pretty much how you just described it... lmao


----------



## mared juwan (Sep 29, 2009)

I hope this doesn't turn into creationists vs atheists. I don't consider myself either. I think saying that for sure there is NO god is just as bad as saying I know for sure that he does exist. For the time being, we don't know and we can't know. If I had to make my best educated guess I would say that if you define god as "an intelligent creator of the universe" then I think there is a distinct possibility he/she/it does exist... or did exist at one point in time. That is why I think of myself as a combination of agnostic and deist. Agnosticism simply means we cannot presume to know the nature of god. Nothing on the subject can be proved either way right now because we don't have enough evidence to go on. Deism is a belief held by many of the founding fathers including Thomas Jefferson which states that any god or creator of this universe is no longer acting upon it. In other words, god created the Universe and then left. He is not he telling us what to do and not answering our prayers and not sending plagues upon the Earth. 

So in the combination of these two ideas it is very important to define what "god" you are talking about. No beard, no white robe... the god in this case would be an architect or engineer... someone who designed a universe "machine" and set it into motion. That is far more amazing to me. The precision with which this machine had to be constructed is unbelievable. As you move the timeline back to the Big Bang the proportional effect of each event increases exponentially. Meaning that in the time immediately after the Big Bang the slightest difference in the arrangement of energy and forces and the order with which events proceeded would have had unimaginable impacts on everything afterwards. The probabilities that matter would perfectly balance antimatter and that the arrangement of tiny granularities in space-time would allow this matter to clump together and that all laws of physics would be created in such perfect balance are so unimaginably slim that they suggest a method and motive to it all. Our universe works so beautifully and perfectly that it's hard to believe it is an accident..... but it all comes back to the fact that we don't know exactly what that means right now. 

And while I'm sidetracked talking about beliefs rather than evolution let's talk about the evil/good, wrong/right, heaven/hell debate because I think creationists have it all wrong there. They are really the ones with the false idols. Science and math are the language of the universe and therefore the language of god, which we can only hope to one day understand. To ignore the pursuit of that understanding in favor of a book written by men is a tragedy to me.


----------



## OregonMeds (Sep 29, 2009)

I respect those who believe in a god but not a religion. That's fine even in any athiests mind. 

It's the organized religions that we despise.


----------



## PadawanBater (Sep 29, 2009)

OregonMeds said:


> I respect those who believe in a god but not a religion. That's fine even in any athiests mind.
> 
> It's the organized religions that we despise.


 
Somehow that escapes them...


----------



## morgentaler (Sep 30, 2009)

A deistic approach, one where someone considers the existence of a force or being capable of creation is reasonable.
But the Christian god is certainly a fabrication, no more valid than Osiris, Thor, Gaia, Ganesh, etc. etc.
What a small, petty god they chose to explain the universe.

To deal with some of the OPs original claims about evolution.

The eye: In The Origin of Species, Darwin does indeed reference the fact that the eye is an amazing organ that seems almost too complex to have evolved. And then in the next paragraph he begins a long and detailed explanation of the process. Creationist websites invariably include the partial quote and ignore the rest.
The eye began as a simple light sensitive cell, which you can still find on some single celled organisms today. Mutation, which occurs in all organisms, affects various genes in the DNA. In some organisms mutation may have disabled the light sensitivity, but in other mutations it increased the chemical photosensitivity, or the number of cells within a cluster giving directional feedback. You can find an excellent video describing the evolution of the eye if you google for "The Blind Watchmaker". (edit: I found a copy on YouTube) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EG-7SDb_8Wo


Regarding science constantly finding new proof to dispute evolution:
Science is driven by the quest for knowledge. If research discovered a more realistic or elegant method of natural biological diversity, the discovers would be lauded for their efforts. But research in fields both inside and outside the realm of biology confirm Darwin's original theory. Darwin did not have all the answers, and in fact got some things wrong. But he laid a framework that has been improved upon by research in ethology, geology, molecular biology, genetics, paleontology and so on.
For example, there is no longer a missing link. Those gaps have been filled.
Transitional fossils showing the relationship between whales and hippos/cows have also been found.
Geological evidence involving sedimentary rock, igneous rock, carbon and uranium dating also verify predictions made about the appearance of 'simple' and increasingly complex organisms. Though a molecular biologist may take umbrage at the term 'simple'.

Genetics has reinforced the theory of evolution in a way that no other field of study. It's possible to map out the genome and see where relations occur, and even see the where branches in the evolutionary tree have occured. This can be mapped by ERVs, endogenous retroviruses, which modify genetic code within the host. If you examine the genetic code of two distinct organisms and find a segment of ERV on the same point, yet not in a third organism with a strong relation to one, you can map out the divergence of genetics within the species.

There are now several examples of observed speciation, visible evolution, taking place.
Look up the evolution of nylonase, an enzyme capable of breaking down nylon, despite nylon being an invention of the 20th century.
Also look up Lenski's 20 year experiment with E. coli, in which thousands of generations of the bacteria were bred in a lab and archived at set generational gaps. Due to the speed at which E. coli reproduces, it is possible to observe and map out evolutionary chance and speciation within the organism.
Genetic drift, the slow change of genetic information between isolated populations of the same species can result in the eventual inability of the populations to mate, as no cross breeding occurs to correct transcription errors. You can find excellent examples of this by searching for "ring species" or for a specific example "Larus gulls".

Okay, I could spend the next day citing stuff, but there's an issue that needs to be addressed first.
If I remember correctly, in one post the OP stated they didn't believe in evolution and didn't know much about it. Unless you actually read about evolution and understand the processes involved, you might as well be arguing with someone about how to perform microsurgical nerve reattachment.

If you're going to try and argue against evolution, you have to do better than parroting Creationist websites. You need to find the science that disproves it. 

Ray Comfort is not a source of useful information on any subject, let alone biology. The man has shown himself to be ignorant of even a junior high level concept of basic biology. You may be familiar with the now infamous video in which he claims that a Banana is absolute proof of Creationism, the fruit in question being created to fit in mans hand perfectly.

Except that the banana Ray holds is the common banana found in supermarkets, a cultivar created by selective breeding over centuries. The wild variant isn't similar. Cauliflower, broccoli, carrots, all have similar ancestors which may still be found in the wild but with which they are not able to breed.

Kent Hovind is a con man and a fraudster, convicted as such. 

I've rambled on long enough, and my laptop just warned me that it's almost out of juice.

The only reason to disbelieve evolution is if you are a Young Earth Creationist, who believes the bible is literal truth. If you believe the bible is a book of parables used to teach morality, or define social structure, or as a guide to worship, evolution isn't even an issue. But if you're a YEC, then I hope you have a good explanation for Unicorns.

Edit: Oh, and I hope everyone enjoyed International Blasphemy Day! (Sept 30th)


----------



## PadawanBater (Oct 1, 2009)

morgentaler said:


> A deistic approach, one where someone considers the existence of a force or being capable of creation is reasonable.
> But the Christian god is certainly a fabrication, no more valid than Osiris, Thor, Gaia, Ganesh, etc. etc.
> What a small, petty god they chose to explain the universe.
> 
> ...


Great post! +rep


----------



## tahoe58 (Oct 1, 2009)

*October 1, 2009--*In 1994 a research team led by Tim White of the University of California, Berkeley; Berhane Asfaw, former director of the National Museum of Ethiopia; and Giday WoldeGabriel of the Los Alamos National Laboratory announced the discovery of the first fossils of a new human ancestor, _Ardipithecus ramidus._ The researchers presented tantalizing evidence that the species was a biped living in woodland conditions more than a million years before the famous "Lucy" fossil of the species _Australopithecus afarensis._ 

The research, to be published in an October 2, 2009, special issue of the journal _Science,_ reveals that our earliest ancestors underwent a previously unknown phase of evolution, shedding new light on the nature of the last common ancestor of chimpanzees and humans. 

An artist's reconstruction of the face of _Ardipithecus ramidus_ was made possible by a digital reconstruction of skull parts from two individuals. The face of "Ardi" did not project as much as those of modern apes, but was not as flat and massive as the later australopithecines. Researchers who studied the species suggest this difference is related to the small size of the species' incisor teeth compared to those of chimps. Based on the relatively small size of its brow ridge and canine teeth, scientists suggest this fossil is of a female.


----------



## PadawanBater (Oct 1, 2009)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091001/ap_on_sc/us_sci_before_lucy


----------



## mared juwan (Oct 1, 2009)

Fish won't believe anything unless it was written two thousand years ago.... But I did read about that on cnn's website. Very interesting that this species predates australopithicus afarensis by so long. Both also found in what is now Ethiopia. Also interesting was an article I read that examines the climate changes in Africa during the revised/earlier(due to this discovery) time period for bipedal development. The environment in general became drier and changed from tropical jungle to grassland, eliminating most of the trees and forcing the tree-dwelling apes to spend more time on the ground. Coincidentally it is very useful when you are on the ground to be able to stand up on two legs and look out over the high grass for predators.....


----------



## PadawanBater (Oct 1, 2009)

mared juwan said:


> Fish won't believe anything unless it was written two thousand years ago.... But I did read about that on cnn's website. Very interesting that this species predates australopithicus afarensis by so long. Both also found in what is now Ethiopia. Also interesting was an article I read that examines the climate changes in Africa during the revised/earlier(due to this discovery) time period for bipedal development. The environment in general became drier and changed from tropical jungle to grassland, eliminating most of the trees and forcing the tree-dwelling apes to spend more time on the ground. *Coincidentally* it is very useful when you are on the ground to be able to stand up on two legs and look out over the high grass for predators.....


Imagine that...


----------



## litteringand... (Oct 6, 2009)

yeah but but carbon dating is BS lol. it is just plain laughable. By the way another tasty nugget is that marijuana evolved to produce THC as a defense mechanism. We evolved through sea creatures in that area to have THC receptors no evolution no stoner.


----------



## PadawanBater (Oct 6, 2009)

litteringand... said:


> yeah but but carbon dating is BS lol. it is just plain laughable. By the way another tasty nugget is that marijuana evolved to produce THC as a defense mechanism. We evolved through sea creatures in that area to have THC receptors no evolution no stoner.


 
Dude, not one bit of this made any sense at all.

Carbon dating does work. I really don't know how many times I have to keep repeating that. I realize your new and probably didn't skim through this entire thread, but we've already gone over that with fish. He made that exact same claim, a few of us asked for him to tell us why, then all he came up with was saying it's all somehow based on assumptions, even though we showed him how that wouldn't even be possible...


----------



## morgentaler (Oct 6, 2009)

No, no. He makes perfect sense. He has some previously unknown information which invalidates it.

The thousands of geologists, paleontologists, and anthropologists that have tested, and refined it are simply lacking the key bit of information that he has yet to reveal.

Once it becomes available they'll throw away all of their scientifically validated work, and he can provide them with his new solution.

Right?


----------



## litteringand... (Oct 6, 2009)

PadawanBater said:


> Dude, not one bit of this made any sense at all.
> 
> Carbon dating does work. I really don't know how many times I have to keep repeating that. I realize your new and probably didn't skim through this entire thread, but we've already gone over that with fish. He made that exact same claim, a few of us asked for him to tell us why, then all he came up with was saying it's all somehow based on assumptions, even though we showed him how that wouldn't even be possible...


LOL dude i was being sarcastic read my earlier posts talk about skimming LOL seriously brotha sorry for the mistake i figured you would see I have posted anti religious stuff all over the board. I figured me talking about us evolving to be able to even get high from cannabis would illustrate my scathing remark. anyways cheers bro friendly fire


----------



## PadawanBater (Oct 6, 2009)

litteringand... said:


> LOL dude i was being sarcastic read my earlier posts talk about skimming LOL seriously brotha sorry for the mistake i figured you would see I have posted anti religious stuff all over the board. I figured me talking about us evolving to be able to even get high from cannabis would illustrate my scathing remark. anyways cheers bro friendly fire


 
Well, we do need a bit more laughs in this section, eh? 

It's tough to pick up sarcasm over the net, so that's totally my bad.

It's all good.


----------



## morgentaler (Oct 7, 2009)

I didn't associate the name with other posts either. I just thought it was high Xian ramblings.

I shall holster my weapon!


Funny thing about these arguments, is I haven't seen any call each other names yet. We can rip each others beliefs to shreds but there's no name calling against each other. Not bad.

Except that I'm a dirty, amoral atheist.

(It's okay, I *am* amoral. I prefer Evolutionary Stable Systems instead)


----------



## morgentaler (Oct 8, 2009)

And now for a brief musical interlude, starring Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron

[youtube]90_sYazHoas[/youtube]


----------



## Katatawnic (Oct 8, 2009)

SHEESH, and to think I liked Kirk Cameron when I was a kid!  Child actor turned religious guru. Who'd've thunk it? lol


----------



## Stoney McFried (Oct 9, 2009)

I just made this.


morgentaler said:


> And now for a brief musical interlude, starring Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron


----------



## morgentaler (Oct 9, 2009)

I'll see your Kirk Cameron, and raise you one Crocoduck.



(I gave up looking for the right font among hundreds, and used Garamond)


----------



## Stoney McFried (Oct 9, 2009)

LMAO!How about......


morgentaler said:


> I'll see your Kirk Cameron, and raise you one Crocoduck.
> 
> View attachment 576596
> 
> (I gave up looking for the right font among hundreds, and used Garamond)


----------



## Katatawnic (Oct 10, 2009)

Hilarious! 

The Crockoduck is so cute... can I have one?


----------



## anhedonia (Oct 10, 2009)

You have to ask god for one.


----------



## OregonMeds (Oct 10, 2009)

anhedonia said:


> You have to ask god for one.


Don't forget to pray and do penance and give some kind of huckster cash for jesus first or your request will surely go unanswered.

I almost forgot the worshiping part, you'll get nowhere if you don't worship...

Oh and fear, you must fear him and love him too for the whole thing to work.

If your prayers aren't answered remember that perhaps they've just been answered in a different way you can't understand yet so be patient. 

Shit there's another one I almost forgot. If you haven't accepted Jesus Christ as your lord and savior...

At any rate you obviously can't just ASK god for something, you must do the above and remember to humbly beg on your knees sorta like a dog.


----------



## morgentaler (Oct 10, 2009)

Actually, just wire the funds to my paypal account.
I'll see that Jesus gets it.

Look, I can be an evangelist too!


----------



## OregonMeds (Oct 10, 2009)

morgentaler said:


> Actually, just wire the funds to my paypal account.
> I'll see that Jesus gets it.
> 
> Look, I can be an evangelist too!


Cool that makes it really easy.

You could have at least given your paypal address though so we don't all have to pm you for it.



I forgot about chewing on jesus's flesh and drinking his blood and being bathed by a horny supposedly celebate priest while you wear a see through white t-shirt type thing. 

Take care of that too mkay?


----------



## mared juwan (Oct 10, 2009)

OregonMeds said:


> Cool that makes it really easy.
> 
> You could have at least given your paypal address though so we don't all have to pm you for it.
> 
> ...


Don't forget to donate 10% of your income to the church so they can impress god with the biggest and best temple. Remember, god wants you to build big monuments for him. He loves that shit. He doesn't want to see that money wasted on helping the less fortunate.


----------



## OregonMeds (Oct 10, 2009)

"He doesn't want to see that money wasted on helping the less fortunate."

You can't understand his choices but that doesn't mean he's wrong to like big gold castles. Could be the act of creating historic buildings that may stand for a while is more important than helping some people that would die in under 100 years anyway. Or then again maybe he's gay and was teased all his life about it and finally has his own planet to frilly up all he wants.

You don't know what he's thinking, so don't judge him man.


----------



## morgentaler (Oct 11, 2009)

Soooo...

If you're Catholic and you eat the cracker, and it does the whole transfiguration thing in your mouth... and it's one of Jesus's testicles... and you swallow it with his blood...

Does that make you a cannibal who likes guys or just devout?

Is that how the priests select from the altar boys?


----------



## krustofskie (Oct 13, 2009)

For anyone who tries to argue that there is a split in the scientific community about evolution this video shows the consensus of said community. Fish if your out there still, have a look, open your ears, listen learn and try to understand. Don't fall for the creationists lies. Evolution is true.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bV4_lVTVa6k&feature=related


----------



## Woodstock.Hippie (Nov 4, 2009)

edit:

I believe some were Biochemists before wandering down the Forest path of Ecology. 

This was long after I believed in the fittest making the most baby's mommas.

It was easier for me to accept when I substituted Survival Of The Fittest for Evolution.

What are folks left with when their logic is stripped?

Hopefully something with which they can still construct a new reality.


----------



## morgentaler (Nov 4, 2009)

A list compiled (by creationists) of creationist scientists who have contributed to science.
http://www.creationinfo.com/list.htm
Some of the names on the list are suspicious, but for the purposes of their headcount I will suspend doubt.
Oddly enough they don't include Behe (who has a real degree), and happily they don't include Hovind (whose fake degree is from a shack diploma mill)
Just under 50 current scientists listed.

A list of current scientists who go by Steven, Stephen, or Steve and have asserted their belief in evolution in writing.
http://ncse.com/taking-action/list-steves
1109 listed.


Discuss


----------



## DJBoxhouse (Nov 4, 2009)

I was reading half way through and stopped. I farted. That's as constructive as it's getting to be with anything in this topic.


----------



## PadawanBater (Nov 4, 2009)

morgentaler said:


> A list compiled (by creationists) of creationist scientists who have contributed to science.
> http://www.creationinfo.com/list.htm
> Some of the names on the list are suspicious, but for the purposes of their headcount I will suspend doubt.
> Oddly enough they don't include Behe (who has a real degree), and happily they don't include Hovind (whose fake degree is from a shack diploma mill)
> ...


 
That's straight up scientific pwnage. I still haven't seen anything from the creationists in response to that... as if they could muster up something to compete... lmao.


----------



## CrackerJax (Nov 7, 2009)

*Survival of the Fattest: Man Is Still Evolving*


* In modern life, evolution comes down to a question of fertility, not fitness.*
Evolution was once translated directly as "survival of the fittest," meaning those creatures best adapted to live longer were more likely to pass on their genes. Modern humans don't face the same threats our ancestors once did, however; we're all able to live long enough to reproduce.
Yet we're still evolving.
According to a study by Yale University evolutionary biologist Stephen Stearns, contemporary evolution is based on the genetic traits surrounding fertility. 
"Variations in reproductive success still exist among humans, and therefore some traits related to fertility continue to be shaped by natural selection," Stearns told Time magazine. That is, women who have more children are more likely to pass on certain traits to their progeny.
Stearns' team examined the vital statistics of 2,238 postmenopausal women participating in the Framingham Heart Study, which has tracked the medical histories of some 14,000 residents of Framingham, Mass., since 1948. Investigators searched for correlations between women's physical characteristics &#8212; including height, weight, blood pressure and cholesterol levels &#8212; and the number of offspring they produced.
According to their findings, it was stout, slightly plump (but not obese) women who tended to have more children &#8212; "Women with very low body fat don't ovulate," Stearns explains &#8212; as did women with lower blood pressure and cholesterol levels. Using a sophisticated statistical analysis that controlled for any social or cultural factors that could impact childbearing, researchers determined that these characteristics were passed on genetically from mothers to daughters and granddaughters.
If these trends were to continue with no cultural changes in the town for the next 10 generations, by 2409 the average Framingham woman would be 2 cm (0.8 in) shorter, 1 kg (2.2 lb.) heavier, have a healthier heart, have her first child five months earlier and enter menopause 10 months later than a woman today, the study found. _*"That rate of evolution is slow but pretty similar to what we see in other plants and animals. Humans don't seem to be any exception," Stearns says.*_


----------



## SmokeyMcChokey (Nov 7, 2009)

hitch420 said:


> Let me make it clear that I do believe in variations within species. Some dogs appear to have
> evolved from large to small (or small to large), but no "evolution" has actually taken place.
> They are still dogs.
> So I do believe in something called "microevolution"--variation within a species.
> ...


denial is the first step. next comes anger.


----------



## PadawanBater (Nov 7, 2009)

SmokeyMcChokey said:


> denial is the first step. next comes anger.


 
Lol, where did you dig up that post Smokey?


----------



## anhedonia (Nov 7, 2009)

Its the first post.


----------



## Woodstock.Hippie (Nov 7, 2009)

I love it!!!


----------



## CrackerJax (Nov 12, 2009)

[SIZE=+2]Why God never got a PhD[/SIZE]
-----------------------
1. He had only one major publication.
2. It was written in Aramaic, not in English.
3. It has no references.
4. It wasn't even published in a refereed journal.
5. There are serious doubts he wrote it himself.
6. It may be true that he created the world, but what has he done since
then?
7. His cooperative efforts have been quite limited.
8. The Scientific community has had a hard time replicating his results.
9. He unlawfully performed not only Animal, but *Human* testing.
10. When one experiment went awry, he tried to cover it by drowning his
subjects.
11. When subjects didn't behave as predicted, he deleted them from
the sample.
12. He rarely came to class, just told his students to read the book.
13. Some say he had his son to teach the class.
14. He expelled his first two students for learning.
15. Although there were only 10 requirements, most of his students
failed his tests.
16. His office hours were infrequent and usually held on a mountain top.


----------



## PadawanBater (Nov 12, 2009)

[youtube]SF2N2lbb3dk&feature=sub#[/youtube]

Epic pwnge! 

Yeah... it's "just a theory"...


----------



## CrackerJax (Nov 12, 2009)

Hmmm... an error! No plan... no perfection... no direction towards perfection.

Major video find. I thought he explained it very well. +rep Paddy!


----------



## fish601 (Dec 5, 2009)

just a guess but i think these scientist http://news.discovery.com/earth/global-warming-emails.html came up with the hole evolution theory


----------



## PadawanBater (Dec 5, 2009)

fish601 said:


> just a guess but i think these scientist http://news.discovery.com/earth/global-warming-emails.html came up with the hole evolution theory


 
Charles Darwin published his theory of evolution...


----------



## Katatawnic (Dec 8, 2009)

Still rewriting history, I see, fish.


----------



## CrackerJax (Dec 8, 2009)

The best he can do is guess at his own source ... 

That's confidence.


----------



## fallinghigh (Dec 8, 2009)

hitch420 said:


> Let me make it clear that I do believe in variations within species. Some dogs appear to have
> evolved from large to small (or small to large), but no "evolution" has actually taken place.
> They are still dogs.
> So I do believe in something called "microevolution"--variation within a species.
> ...


OMFG GO FUCK YOURSELF BRAIN DEAD REPUBLICAN I AM GUESSING ya and the world is 6000 years old ....lmao open your eyes we are all evolving as we speak MOTHER NATURE IS GOD BTW IMHO but she created evolution 

There is no such thing as progresion from 1 to infinity, there is only infinty and progression is preceved...thats how fucking stupid you sound. without progression infinity is impossible bamm MOTHERLESS FUCKING COCKSUCKERS


----------



## Katatawnic (Dec 9, 2009)

C'mon, Fallinghigh, tell us how you *really* feel!


----------



## sherriberry (Dec 9, 2009)

i can shatter religions if i wanted to, as can many others. But there is no point.

But for those interested, answer a couple questions...

If you had an hourglass flow of sand, can you build an ant hill? Of course.

A hill... given enough time, yes.

A mountain? Given enough time, yes.

People who dont believe in evolution cant comprehend that small changes add up over time.

A duckbill platapus is the perfect thing to throw in front of super christians who think god created different kinds of animals and there are no links between mamals, birds, fish, insects, etc.

A tamato is a perfect thing to throw in front of people who believe you either have a fruit or a vegetable, and dont believe a plant can evolve between the 2 species.

But my personal favorite question to ask a super religious person who has no clue who god actually is... is this:

"do you think god is a dawrin, an evolutionist?"

They say no, he didnt mean for killing to occur, thats satans fault, he wants us all to be happy, etc..

then I ask "so god didnt intend for darwinism to occur because you believe that when you lose, or something else loses at something, instead of accept defeat, you cant, and you want to cry about this factor of life, and if this was gods intention, you would lable him as a jerk, right?"

and they usually beat around the bush for a while, but say, "yes, if god intended for darwinism to occur, i would definately think hes a jerk"

Ready for the kill question??? 

"so let me get this straight, you cant wait for this flawed life to end, where there are winners and losers (darwinism) and you are positive that there is no way god inteded for darwinism to exist...

and yet... you look forward to the day that god becomes the ultimate darwin... when he sends some people to heaven.. and some to hell... for this is darwinism at its finest...

so lets call a spade a spade shall we?

You like to WIN. You hate to lose.

but without competition, there is no winner and no loser.

Eternity, or any amount of time for that matter, without competition... is very boring.

So the reality is... you are a fool who is being tricked with your own hypocricy that you are too dumb to notice...

You fall for a lie that god doesnt ever want you to lose (thus making him nice in your mind)

and yet you want god to be fair to everyone...

and you look forward to the day that you win over the people who end up in hell.

You dont hate darwinism... you hate losing.

You love darwinism so long as you are winning.

Its that simple.

A promise that you will be a winner.

Not a promise that darwinism will ever cease to exist.

Ta Da! 

Go to church, its better than the other alternative... id rather have happy people who are dumber than shit than a bunch of angry people who are dumber than shit.

Jesus loves you, its okay if you dont appreciate this gift called life and need a birbe that there will be a better one some day that only you and a select few get to enjoy. Perfect god and his ego need worshippers and people to sing him songs, or else perfect god will have a melt down.

It actually sounds like you described yourself... and not a perfect god...

you want attention and friends...

so you assume so would a perfect god.

Its like saying you or I would want to hang out with someone who has down syndrome... and needs an army of retards on our team... for eternity.

No thanks. Stupidity is annoying.

Again, gods aremy vs satans army... battling... darwinism.




Wanna know the difference between a human and an ape?

An ape, when confronted with a banana shortage, will fight and eventually kill off other apes who arent sharing the bananas.

A human, sees the banana shortage coming due to a higher iq, and plants more banana trees in advance.



SKin color, religion, location of birth... none of this matters.

Its people who want to get violent to solve problems (apes)

And people who understand that working to produce more products and services actually solves the problems (humans)

and the morons who want to get violent becuase they dont appreciate life as it is, and arent willing to work to improve it themselves...

they end up on the battlefield because their ape instinct says that killing another human being is going to increase their odds of getting more products at a later date (fixing the economy)

dumbasses from this team, vs dumbasses from that team...

the dumbest most violent die, 

and the meek will inherit the earth.

War is not a bad thing... it is a great thing.

Its putting all the people who want to get violent into a designated area, takes away their liberties, and hands them a machine gun so that they kill eachother off.

Darwinism is very real.

Religious leaders know what they are doing...

they are killing off the morons who have to be tricked into doing logical things...

just as you and I trick a dog into doing good things by giving it a treat.

We dont argue with the dog that the vet is good.

We say, "i know, that evil vet hurt you with the needle, heres a treat"

and next time you take the dog to the vet, you dont show it the vets picture and show it the needle and ask if it wants to go get a shot...

you trick it with a treat.

Dog treats arent healthy, but the dog likes them

Religious lies arent healthy, but humanity likes them.

Trick humanity into getting life right, and if they still cant appreciate this world, of which they showed up and didnt have to work a day for (i didnt build earth, did you?)

... then tell the unapreciative dumbass to exit the community and relocate to an isolated battlefield where they can eat spam in a tank and hopefully realize they had it pretty damn good... before a bullet rips through their skull.

People are fools... i could go on for hours. God is nice... but people lack the intelligence to see the good in the situation...

just as a dog will never see the good in going to the vet. It lacks the iq to see the long term benefits and only notices the short term pains.


----------



## strain stalker (Dec 9, 2009)

...I got a question for all the belivers of GOD.... *where the fuck did "HE/SHE/IT" come from*????? Who's the maker of such animal? LOL


----------



## sherriberry (Dec 9, 2009)

strain stalker said:


> ...I got a question for all the belivers of GOD.... *where the fuck did "HE/SHE/IT" come from*????? Who's the maker of such animal? LOL


 
exactly.

People say that without a god to be impressing, life is pointless...

and they cant think past their nose to the day that they go to heaven, and are chilling with god, and a few billion years go by... and now what do you have...

life, without a higher mythical power to impress.

Like i said, people dont hate competition, they love it... they jsut hate losing.

religion is a way to promise all the people who percieve their current status as "loser" to keep a smile on their face and keep the faith that one day they will be a winner.

It benefits the rest of mankind because now that person is not angry and treating everyone like shit and trying to get even.

THe problem with society is not religion.

It is genetically limited brainpower (stupidity) and people with negative mutations can only think so far, and thus, they can literally be incapable of seeing the glass half full, because they are too stupid, so their feeble imaginations ASSUME there is better without understanding the negative tradeoffs.

And since they assume there is better, they throw fits like little bitches because they want to have/be the best.

THese are the people that the world leaders cant stand.

Most political and religious illusions are designed to get these people to either chill out and be happy, or if they cant even see the glass half full after being lied to that they are gods favorite, and hes going to give them a big reward...

fine, dont spend another minute of enrgy trying to convince this moron to see that life is a gift that we were given without working a day for it... so god isnt the asshole, 

youre the asshole for complaining about life like a 16 year old girl complaining to her dad for buying her a ferrari for her birthday..

you have no clue what you are talking about if you complain about life.

For god to give everyone free agency, it means he cant make you do anything, he cant make her, make him...

so when things go wrong, appreciate that we are all in this together, and we all have the right and ability to make mistakes...

thus nothing "bad" is gods fault.

He gave you the ferrari called life, as a gift, and you didnt have to work a day for it, and he on the other hand did have to put in work to create it, and you think because you got a door ding he can be blamed?

think again, chances are you are a whiney bitch who needs to grow up.

anyway, for all the people who cant appreciate life even after being lied to that they are gods favorite,...

then the second stage of religion is to get that asshole to enguage in battle in a controlled, isolated area, so that he and another asshole kill eachother off.

but as mentioned before, does there have to be a god? no

Can one appreciate "life" itself and give back to life itself just as they would try to give back to impress a god, but in this case simply give back to life for the next generation...

keep life going instead of see it all get destroyed in nuclear war?

I think its a pretty simple concept...

but there in lies the problem...

most peoples brains are apparently slower than shit...

so like a dog... you dont make the dog think about big decisions... you order and bribe the dog into making the right ones.

This is what world leaders do to the masses.

And anyone could become a world leader btw.... so if you are jelous of this concept, guess what, get off your ass like they did, and do something with your life.

But understand life cant be fair AND we hand over power to all the know it alls who parrot what they hear on the news, and think they are entitled to power.

Take responsibility, and youll have all the power you ever wanted.


----------



## Woodstock.Hippie (Dec 9, 2009)

"It is genetically limited brainpower (stupidity) and people with negative mutations can only think so far, and thus, they can literally be incapable of seeing the glass half full, because they are too stupid, so their feeble imaginations ASSUME there is better without understanding the negative tradeoffs."

Bend the FUCK over, you fuckin' Hater.

We believe Humanity is capable of understanding most of everything in their favorite flavor.


----------



## sherriberry (Dec 9, 2009)

or...

keep beleiving that god enjoys hearing you complain about the muslims/jews/christians/iran/bin ladden, etc, 

and pretend that he wants to spend eternity with your whiney ass 

when you are too stupid to realize if he is to be fair, he has to give EVERYONE free agency,

so complaing to him about these thigns and asking him to change things via prayer...

is almost as much of a waste of time as singing him songs for hours every sunday.

If you want to thank god... dont destroy life... build upon it and make things better.

Work to improve yourself. After all, with free agency, you are the only person you really have control over.

If you do that... you are the one waxxing and changing the oil on the ferrari.

Doesnt matter how many people thank him, talk to him, sing songs to him...

if you are god, who are you going to give another ferrari to.

The one who kept it in good shape, or the one who sang you songs all day, and complained about other people givign their ferrari door dings.

This isnt rocket science, get off your ass and make the world a better place, or shut the fuck up and smile.

And if you cant do those, go to a battlefield, fight like an ape, and get shot.

And then tell yourself that god HAS TO GIVE YOU A BETTER LIFE THAN THIS ONE, because this one wasnt up to your expectations.

And pretend you arent a clueless spoiled brat who did nothing but whine and fight...

and pretend a perfect being needs you on his team... for eternity.

or realize, you were lied to because the world leaders dont know what to do with your ignorant ass.


----------



## CrackerJax (Dec 9, 2009)

I think WH is doing the best she can.

The question is ... are you?

Ur posts indicate a big fat no.



WH wins it by a landslide.


----------



## Woodstock.Hippie (Dec 9, 2009)

You believe in some of our beliefs, but like every other flavor of Religion, only some.

That is the beauty of existing in your own Universe of Attraction.

Just don't force your shit down our throats by attracting us to read this thread.

Because if we read your shit, then you alter our Multiverses, and we don't like you being in charge of our realities.


----------



## sherriberry (Dec 9, 2009)

its no different than pot plants. SOme have desirable traits, some dont.

plants have dna.

Humans have dna.

Dna mutates every new generation.

if you dont like the traits of a plant, you dont let it make babies.

Same goes for humans. 

If humans are in jail/in battle/dead...

they arent making babies.

Everyone wishes for world peace, what they fail to realize is that there are no lava monsters, no aliens attacking us, no evil goblins.

WHat there are... humans who lack the intelligence to see a problem coming, lack the intelligence to solve the problem, and think that yelling and getting violent like an ape will solve the problem.

The reality is... these individuals are the reason there is not world peace.

War is not a bad thing... it gives these individuals free agency to go kill themselves off.

First thing they do when you join the military is get an iq test. If you score high, you are in military intelligence... IN A BUNKER, not the front lines.

The system is obvious...

unless your brain doesnt work. In that case, i dont know what to tell you.

Smile and appreciate all the stuff in this world that you dont understand that you get to enjoy, like big screens, laptops, cars... all the stuff that you cant build on your own, be thankful that you are on a planet with those who can.

Or, like i said... if you still think you deserve better, get mad and kill something like and ape, and when you see god, have your shpeal ready for why this life wasnt good enough and you deserve something "better"


----------



## ANC (Dec 9, 2009)

http://www.thecrowhouse.com/Documents/Earths Forbidden Secrets Part One.pdf

Please look at this book called Earth's forbidden secrets.

[youtube]klNHRNgHclg[/youtube]


----------



## Stoney McFried (Dec 11, 2009)

Oh and uh...don't know if anyone noticed this, but here's your source, since you forgot to post it.http://www.3bible.com/articles/Ray Comfort/Atheist Debate.pdf


hitch420 said:


> Let me make it clear that I do believe in variations within species. Some dogs appear to have
> evolved from large to small (or small to large), but no "evolution" has actually taken place.
> They are still dogs.
> So I do believe in something called "microevolution"--variation within a species.
> ...


----------



## Woodstock.Hippie (Dec 11, 2009)

"WHat there are... humans who lack the intelligence to see a problem coming, lack the intelligence to solve the problem, and think that yelling and getting violent like an ape will solve the problem." - Some mean person

Insults are often the most common vocalization of violent like ape-like mammals.

We dream Humanity possess the intelligence to see and solve oncoming problems.

The War Scroll found near the Dead Sea says this.

What really happens when a prophet ascends to heaven?


----------



## OregonMeds (Dec 11, 2009)

"We dream Humanity possess the intelligence to see and solve oncoming problems."


Dream sounds so weak and flimsy.
I dream I'll be a rock star, a millionaire, George Clooney, that my penis will shrink so it doesn't hurt virgins so much. All meaning absolutely nothing.

"The War Scroll found near the Dead Sea says this. What really happens when a prophet ascends to heaven?"

I really try to follow what you say and figure out where you are coming from but when you blather I am lost. Did you leave out a sentence which would make what you said make any sense at all? Was this a question as is, because if so I will attempt to answer.

One minute I think you are just mocking things acting all batshit crazy just for fun and making up some religion that doesn't even exist, and another minute I'm thinking those that believe some people need faith might be right and that I would be wrong trying to set you straight because you can't stand on your own.

Please help me figure out what to do. Should I give you the red pill or the blue pill? Or just lithium for your bipolar disorder?

Please excuse me for being so crude, but are you on any medication other than pot?


----------



## Woodstock.Hippie (Dec 11, 2009)

Rather, intelligent, civilized discussion is so rare and valuable, many believe it well worth taking the few seconds it takes to ask one to elaborate.

We intentionally write efficiently to the point of unintentionally leaving out sentences from time to time to time to time to time.

Are you aware of what The War Scroll found near the Dead Sea can synopsize?

We firmly believe (in addition to dreaming) that most every humanity being in existence today possess the intelligence to see and solve oncoming problems.

Are you aware of what occurred at the temple mount?

Are you bitter from being circumcised? (can't see through your underwear)

Are you offended by our crudeness?

"All meaning absolutely nothing"

We firmly disagree with your belief on that topic.

Let's peaceably agree to disagree on that one, as we prefer to believe thoughts become things.


----------



## OregonMeds (Dec 11, 2009)

"Rather, intelligent, civilized discussion is so rare and valuable, many believe it well worth taking the few seconds it takes to ask one to elaborate."

Great.

"Are you aware of what The War Scroll found near the Dead Sea can synopsize?"

I'm aware what I took from it, but I would like to know what you did.


"We firmly believe (in addition to the dreams) that most every human being in existence today possess the intelligence to see and solve oncoming problems."


Then some do not, what about them? Which are you? Do you feel you would be able to live without faith, and furthermore do you feel your life would be lessened by the loss of it?

"Are you aware of what occurred at the temple mount?"

Somebody stoned someone to death?


"Are you bitter from being circumcised? (can't see through your underwear)"

No I don't think it would matter I am bitter because a huge portion of America believes in the crap in the bible as if it has any value or truth or relevance at all and votes in idiots and stupid policies and holds back progress of any kind and causes me to be a victim and persecuted. (bisexual pot smoker, I don't hide my past but those reasons pale in comparison to the country and the world today.)

I spend a little time here and there trying to do my part to free slaves in the modern sense. (But I admit I am not above ridiculing people either when it seems appropriate)

But I can't put a finger on you... Your ideas are just out there and honestly I really would like to know what drugs you do.




Are you offended by our crudeness?[/QUOTE]


----------



## CrackerJax (Dec 11, 2009)

If one only asks questions, ppl start to doubt you have any answers.


----------



## Woodstock.Hippie (Dec 11, 2009)

Circumcision does not necessarily have to have anything to do with your bible, my friend.

"Which are you?"

Why thank you for asking.

Personally, I believe reside amongst the ranks of those possessing the intelligence to see and solve oncoming problems.

My ideas are reality just in your head, kind sir.

Is your little finger as talented as James Bond's?

The Humanity Psyche is so much more than written words, eh?


----------



## strain stalker (Dec 11, 2009)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RNy6ziOyxoA


----------



## Woodstock.Hippie (Dec 11, 2009)

He was high.


----------



## OregonMeds (Dec 11, 2009)

Woodstock.Hippie said:


> Circumcision does not necessarily have to have anything to do with your bible, my friend.
> 
> "Which are you?"
> 
> ...


If you and I are going to have a dialogue I ask that you actually try to stay on topic and answer my questions. I didn't get a single answer to anything I asked from what you said. Not one.


----------



## Woodstock.Hippie (Dec 11, 2009)

I and I wrote, "We firmly believe (in addition to the dreams) that most every human being in existence today possess the intelligence to see and solve oncoming problems."

To which you replied, "Then some do not, what about them? Which are you?"

To which we replied, "Why thank you for asking. Personally, I believe reside amongst the ranks of those possessing the intelligence to see and solve oncoming problems."

Question answered quite clearly.

You're just bitter because you do not understand why you do not have a foreskin.

Be glad your clit was not trimmed off.

There are lots of nerves there.

https://www.rollitup.org/spirituality-sexuality-philosophy/271731-care-guess-how-long-transgendered.html


----------



## CrackerJax (Dec 11, 2009)

Struck a nerve did I? 

My observation was more general pertaining to the entirety of ur postings.


----------



## OregonMeds (Dec 11, 2009)

Woodstock.Hippie said:


> I and I wrote, "We firmly believe (in addition to the dreams) that most every human being in existence today possess the intelligence to see and solve oncoming problems."
> 
> To which you replied, "Then some do not, what about them? Which are you?"
> 
> ...


Yes sorry I missed an answer in the middle of some other stuff you typed. You kind of add stuff in a response that makes no sense then whatever should have made sense is lost in the mix.

I asked you several other questions too like if you are on any medication and if you think you could survive without a religion and if you think your life would be lesser for it. Maybe I missed those answers too because you aren't speaking like a normal person.

I and I and blah blah blah. Can you drop that any just talk to me?

You run a church... Is it profitable? I will just walk away right now from this conversation if you just blather for money.


----------



## Woodstock.Hippie (Dec 11, 2009)

You must have missed us blathering for money too, my friend.

We currently survive and reproduce quite well without believable Religion and feel our lives are lessor for it.

We (not I and I) must have missed the normal person speak rule.


----------



## OregonMeds (Dec 11, 2009)

Nevermind then, have a nice day.


----------



## jfgordon1 (Dec 11, 2009)

Woodstock.Hippie said:


> We (not I an I) must have missed the normal person speak rule.


Article 3, Section 8


----------



## OregonMeds (Dec 11, 2009)

It's not a rule that people speak normally, it's just helpful when you want people to understand you.


----------



## Woodstock.Hippie (Dec 11, 2009)

You may have missed that post also.


----------



## OregonMeds (Dec 11, 2009)

No you edited it after I read it, the first time I saw it you had only the first line.

I got negative repped for doing that very thing recently. I guess I was guilty of confusing someone that way too.

Thanks again JohnnyO you da man.

I do thank you for trying, maybe we can get somewhere but I have to leave now. I would like to find out more about your true beliefs and your cannabis church. I said the money thing just because I am naturally suspicious of anyone that is a preacher or runs a church, I'm sure you can understand that.


----------



## Grower1 (Dec 11, 2009)

Just a few words for the evolution deniers. Darwin's "theory" wasn't about the fact of evolution itself, it is a theory as to how it works. Evolution has been obersved and noted by literate civilizations for thousands of years, even the ancient Greeks. So, come into the 21st or perhaps the 4th century b.c., and give up the trashing of a long established scientific fact. It doesn't have to interfere with religious views unless you want it to, so keep your religion and leave the scientific community alone.


----------



## Woodstock.Hippie (Dec 11, 2009)

Evolution is defined.

Humanity evolution is undefined.


----------



## CrackerJax (Dec 11, 2009)

We all exist under the same law of Evolution. Put down the ego.


----------



## Woodstock.Hippie (Dec 11, 2009)

Lets agree to disagree on that point Mr. Cracker.

We prefer to believe We can now make our own rules.

How many laws of evolution are there?

Only One?

Please define your belief by writing it down.

That is a very nice necklace your Avatar is wearing, by the Way.

Ever thought the possibilities of Avatar-Solutions.org?


----------



## CrackerJax (Dec 11, 2009)

Only one evolution is verifiable .. yes. Wishful thinking aside.


----------



## Woodstock.Hippie (Dec 11, 2009)

Our evolution &#8800; Your evolution.


----------



## CrackerJax (Dec 11, 2009)

Life's much easier if you only skim the surface.

I prefer deeper waters.


----------



## Woodstock.Hippie (Dec 11, 2009)

Then beware phludded rabbit holes, Mr. Mad Cracker.


----------



## PadawanBater (Dec 11, 2009)

Evolution is the same for *all living organisms* Hippie. It even goes for some things that are not alive, and don't reproduce, in a specific sense. Everything evolves, including us. (which is verifiable)


----------



## Woodstock.Hippie (Dec 11, 2009)

Evolution processes differently for every single entity capable of attraction.


----------



## CrackerJax (Dec 11, 2009)

You mistake wishful thinking for evolution. 

You're making the dolphins laugh.


----------



## supermega (Feb 13, 2012)

hitch420 said:


> I am aware that flu "evolves" as my best friends mum is Cheif of medicine at the local hospital.
> It is also likley that these flus, like for instance swine flu are created in a lab and released on the public, to make us scared. so they hype it up in the media evan though the normal flu kills more a year.
> just so they can have access to your bodies to put the chip into you. This may not be happening right now, but it will be soon.
> 
> ps Haven't you ever thought why monkeys are still around today, if there was such a great need for monkeys to evolve why are there so many alive today


Major paranoia here champ. Throw it back a couple of cogs on the hooch.....you sound retarded.


----------



## mindphuk (Feb 13, 2012)

supermega said:


> Major paranoia here champ. Throw it back a couple of cogs on the hooch.....you sound retarded.


You might want try one of the more current evolution threads as this one is over 2 years old and the poster you are responding to hasn't posted here in over a year.


----------

