TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- This website is so ass-backwards it's funny
Pages (14): « 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 »

Thank you guys: occrider, MisterOpus, DrUg_Tit0 and DigiNut.
I've learned a lot from this topic.

The response is going to be stupendous ... I can feel it. The entertainment value is probably the surest thing that's going to come out of this thread. I'm preparing myself to be blown away.

this is just wrong, how can a thread go on for 9 pages here and NOT be related to Israel. This is horrible, something must be done quick.

MODERATOR, OH MODERATOR!!

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus this is just wrong, how can a thread go on for 9 pages here and NOT be related to Israel. This is horrible, something must be done quick. MODERATOR, OH MODERATOR!!

Go back to the Mustard field.

It is probably the only place safe for you since I feel a "The Jews Killed Jesus" comment coming from certain circles.




MrS

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 What I believe in is the observed, tested, and falsified evidence that is in front of us for all to see. This is what evolution has gone through over and over. The fact of the matter is Creationism cannot undergo the same scrutiny: give me one piece of evidence from creationism that shows it has undergone the observed, tested, and falsified scrutiny. If you do, you�ll win a great many science awards. So far, no creationist has done so, which is why nothing has been published in any peer-reviewed science magazines on ANY creationist theories. Why do you think that is?

You will only ignore it,So why should I even bother? No matter what you say,you still can't prove to me that Macro evolution is true.(even if you think those links explain everything.)

quote:

Repetition does not make a statement more true.

I was hoping maybe you'd get get it through your thick skull.^_^

quote:

Oh, so you�re having a problem with missing links? What missing links are you referring to? Now seriously, of course there are missing links � no evolutionist would ever deny such. But if this is your point, you are creating a straw man. One of the most obvious difficulties of digging up critters from the ground that are hundreds of millions of years old is there�s a lot of organic gunk that simply can�t be preserved. But the stuff that has been preserved has answered a great many questions about those �missing links� you refer to, and those �gaps� have become smaller and smaller and smaller. But hey, don�t take my word for it, have a look at a very small sample of those �missing links� for the vertebrate fossils (starting from the most primitive):

I'm not the one having the issue here. I'm not referring to any particular link, what I'm talking about is this theory is so full of holes that it's ridiulous. They aren't getting smaller,and they aren't getting found because Macro evolution is completely false. One species cannot morph,or cannot evolve into the next.

quote:

This was just a small sample of primitive vertebrate species. If you would like me to continue onward with the more advanced vertebrates, I�ll continue as needed. Just let me know. Now here�s the reference list to this evidence, just in case you thought I was making this up: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq...nal/part2c.html Now keep in mind that according to Creationist Theory, there should be NO transitions whatsoever. So how does creationism explain these transitions? Give specific examples in your answer.

If they have these so called fossils of this crap then show me a picture.
I've already read this stuff.

quote:

Yep, I know them quite well. Do you? Are you trying to tell me that your interpretation of evolution means that the Galapagos finches should evolve into something else by now? It�s the same bad creationist argument as to why bacteria is still bacteria. Welp, the short answer is an organism that is successful in a given niche has very little selective pressures to evolve any further. Only under selective pressures will an organism evolve in order to survive.

No, That's not my entire case.But, what I'm saying is Finches will throughout the future only be finches, they aren't going to evolve into something else.

I have a question for you later tonight(it isn't because I don't understand, It's food for thought.)but, I'm trying to find the correct way to word it so you understand.

quote:

Just to clarify a minor point � it�s not a belief system, it just �is�. The reason being is there�s no faith involved in science � it is purely the observed and tested, which evolution is. But whether or not you believe in it does not entail its lack of existence. It will continue on, whether or not you believe in it.

No it's not like a belief in God,that's not what I'm saying. It's not like I have faith in it.

quote:

But your actions (or in this case, your opinions) dictate your unwillingness to be fair. It is painfully obvious to everyone here that you have either blatantly ignored the material I posted, or you choose not to read it because you do not understand it. Since you haven�t asked me any questions in regards to the material, I�ve deducted that you are being blatantly ignorant but pretending to know the material in the first place. Hence, you are being dishonest.

Me? Unfair? Naw. Who said I didn't read it? I've already read most the junk you've posted. I know what it's saying. ( there you go again with your condescending attitude. >_< ) I don't need to ask you questions,why would I? I'm not being dishonest. I can assure you.

quote:

Well when you get some fresh information, I hope you let me be the first to know.

You'll have to wait your turn.

quote:

Anyone with a right-mind would think otherwise, including the vast majority of readers here.

Sure,that's your opinion. Keep thinking that,maybe one day it will come true.

quote:

It sure appears that you are. Or you�re being quite ignorant.

No more than you,my friend.^_^

quote:

Ah yes, your other piece of evidence. Occrider did a descent job debunking a good portion of it. See for yourself: http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...15&pagenumber=2 Why did you not respond to his criticisms? What say you?

Oh,I didn't see it.
Just a heads up, If I don't reply to a post, I either don't see it,or I don't have anything to say at the time.

quote:

We�ve covered this ground already.

Then lets drop it.

quote:

I�m afraid I don�t. Please pull this specific quote off the link. I do not find it anywhere.

The whole " Get it? " post was yours, I just realized I messed up the quote thing. But, What I was saying was... (Let me see if I can find it.)

quote:

quote: Microevolution, or change beneath the species level, may be thought of as relatively small scale change

-Micro evolution small changes within the species.

quote:

quote: Macroevolution is evolution on the "grand scale"

Yes, Macroevolution large changes from one species to the next.
I just pulled that from a link you sent me.

quote:

Now look, if you want to play semantics games with me, I�ll bite � yes there is a difference between the words micro- and macro-. Science, however, does not see these changes as a difference � over long periods of time there is a result of lots of changes in allele frequencies. Hell, there�s a small change within a species (and thus creating a new species) in polychaete worms over a mere period of 40 years as a result of isolationism:

I told you,I'm not playing games here. It's not just the difference between the words. Do I have to explain it once again?

quote:

In accordance to you, this isin�t even �micro� evolution. Since a new species was created, it is (drum roll) Speciation (i.e. �macro�)! And this occurred in a mere 40 years, no less. Now what do you think would happen over 400 million years? Do you get it?

No no no, that's not what I'm talking about. Micro evolution, I already explain it but you aren't listening to me.
Take your pinky...ok? Lick it...now,both ears! okies?

Micro evolution is completely different than macro,and I guess I have to explain it once again. Lions,tigers,leppards,domestic cats, they are allllll a part of the feline family. All animals within the feline family are an example of micro evolution. They are all different kinds of cats,but they are all cats!

quote:

Everything up to this point indicates that you were either studying from a bad science source, or that you pick and choosed parts that only adhere to your faith.

No,it doesn't. I don't pick and choose what I want to hear, despite what you might think. It was a very good source.

quote:

But he did. How do you know he didn�t? Stop playing games and prove to me he didn�t.

One word " Bible ". There's all the proof you need,and beyond. That and I know he didn't, don't be immature.No mocking either.

quote:

I am neither above nor below you (though your Bible does say to respect your elders). You entered into the realm of science and made a claim that so far you have failed to prove with evidence. Consequentially, I have been criticizing you for doing so.

Yes, the bible says respect your elders,BUT you also have to show respect to deserve respect, It's a two way street my friend. (thought you had me there,eh?)

No one gave you the right to criticize me,Or anyone. That's the point.

quote:

But you personally attacked something I understand very well and know to be true and supported with evidence. You therefore attacked me first. I am defending what I understand to be true with evidence. So far you�ve failed miserably to do the same for what you believe.

I didn't come here to jump on your case,totally not my intentions. But,I'm also not going to let someone sit there and tell me things I know aren't true.(And I'm sure you're thinking the same thing.)

I'm defending what I understand to be the truth,and I do have evidence and I have presented it. I haven't failed.

quote:

Again, logical fallacy: Leap of Logic. You need to show me with DIRECT evidence how I am living proof that your God exists. Going from saying, �I exist� to �therefore God exists� is quite a humongous leap of logic without any evidence to support the following steps. However, going from �I exist� to �therefore evolution is true� is not near as big of a leap when you sit down and look at the fossil and genetic evidence that supports it.

You don't get it...ugh, I'm telling you. It's not that hard to understand. I'm not saying just because I exist God exists, but that's evidence enough for me. I guess not for you,seeing as you are completely ignoring faith here. Just read the Bible,it explains it all. Start to finish, heck who knows you might actually learn something from it! It can't hurt you-you know.

quote:

Show me the fossil, genetic, molecular, comparative biological evidence that God exists simply because I exist, and I will consider it. You are missing quite a few steps of logic here. Please fill them in accordingly.

Let's see, Noah..You remeber the happening of Noah? Scientists found fossils of animal and prey sitting together,WAY WAY up there on a mountain,they were trying to avoid the flood.

I keep wanting to say paul,I have no idea why(wathing way to much Dune.) But, Sampson..you do know the story of Sampson and Delilah(sp?) Right?
Well, when Sampson pushed over the pillars, they found the area that happened. The pillars are pushed over.

You remeber when Jesus was hung on the cross, the sky went dark..scientists back in the day recorded that happening,they also recorded the great earthquake too.

Maybe that isn't all about evolution,but that is proof the Bible isn't lying.

quote:

Incorrect Nessa. It�s not obvious at all. Your job was to prove it to me. God did not write anything down in the Bible. Man wrote all those things down. What�s more, man decided what stays and what goes into the Bible, as well as what merges with other pagan beliefs (i.e. 1st Council of Nicaea). I can read you a story about unicorns and it would be no different � both stories are created by man. The Bible is the weakest source known to show that God exists with evidence. You have to do a better job in showing God exists other than what man wrote down in a book. What is the observed evidence?

Not physically,no he didn't. Man physically wrote it down, but God wrote it through man.
(actually unicorns existed,but God took them off the earth because he knew man would covet their horn,Just like a rhino,or the Narwhal).) I can't remeber where it was said... They weren't all magical and junk like fairytales say though. The Bible is not the weakest source known to show that God exists.

quote:

And more importantly, how does that differentiate with the Muslim God in terms of evidence?

Muslims follow the same God Christians follow.

quote:

How does that differ with the evidence of Buddha?

Don't know much about Buddha.

quote:

How does that differ with the Hindu God? Keep in mind that the Hindu God is much older than your God by a couple of thousand years. Where is the evidence to support your God over the Hindu God?

Impossible. God has always been and always will be.

quote:

It�s rather presumptuous of you to think I haven�t read the Bible thoroughly. It�s even more presumptuous of you to think I haven�t learned anything from it. I tend to find a little judgement in your tone. That�s not very Christian of you to judge my beliefs, is it?

Tisk tisk, God said and you shall judge them by their fruits. I know many people who read the Bible,just to try and proove it wrong,and the way you've been speaking sounds like you'd be that kind of person.

quote:

You see, I grew up a devout Southern Methodist, Nessa, and I once believed very literally in much of what the Bible said. But it didn�t take long after a couple of college science courses to realize that the literal word of the Bible does not stand the scrutiny of science, and that a clear distinction between that of faith and that of scientific observation had to be made. IOW, you can believe in the supernatural all you want. You can believe in the powers of God, Jesus, Allah, or any other deity. But when it comes to the test of scientific scrutiny via Methodological Naturalism (from which the scientific method is derived), the supernatural simply cannot be tested because it has no observed evidence to support it.

ooh,Methodist,So strict. :/ so it's college that did it to you then? That happens to a lot of people. :/ Infact,I know a few friends that happened to. (God and Allah are the same person.Just different names.)

quote:

That is my take home message I am trying to get across to you � you must separate science and faith, because faith cannot and has never withstood the scientific scrutiny. When you do actually separate the two, you may actually find that you can still believe in the supernatural and even miracles for that matter, so long as you try not to rigorously test it.

Yea, it can. Scientists are working with it now.

quote:

And if it can�t be tested or observed, Nessa, then it simply can�t be science. That is a fact that you will have to come to grips with eventually (or not, depending on whether you want to continue being ignorant).

You must really enjoy my name,you use it quite often. I'm not ignorant, no more than you are my friend.

quote:

Show me where I�ve been dishonest and I�ll consider it. Otherwise, stop playing games. And if you can�t post the links about your past �wins�, it would do you credit not to mention them at all. If I can�t see you �winning� any arguments, I can just as easily conclude that you are lying. So please be careful not to post anything in the future you cannot support with evidence. You�re just better off sticking to the topic at hand and not trying to draw upon past �wins� to support your stance. Quite frankly it is completely irrelevant anyway.

I'm not playing games, must I remind you so often?

Yea, well if he still had the posts up I would show you..but the webmaster can't keep that many posts from the past, He's trying to keep his space down so he doesn't have to pay for the forum he is hosting.

But, most debates were political.

Hmm,no one is replying to my post I posted last night. (I'm still waiting,patiently I might add.)

quote:

Let's see, Noah..You remeber the happening of Noah? Scientists found fossils of animal and prey sitting together,WAY WAY up there on a mountain,they were trying to avoid the flood.

linkage? evidence? the earths tectonic plates have moved so much in the last 100 million years that that isn't suprising. As for "great floods" they have been occuring for millions of years, ice age after ice age, fossils of sea dwelling creatures have been found in the middle of deserts dating back hundreds of thousands of years before creationists believe the earth was created.

quote:

I keep wanting to say paul,I have no idea why(wathing way to much Dune.)

Frank Herbert Dune???

quote:

You remeber when Jesus was hung on the cross, the sky went dark..scientists back in the day recorded that happening,they also recorded the great earthquake too.

Scientists back then were naive, I saw a documentary in Israel where after an earthquake the "fire and brimstone" shot forth from the ground. Scientists discovered large fissures of flammable gasses including sulfur underneath the ground and theorised that this explained what happened in the bible (revelations?)

a solar eclipse in south america could be used to validate the Cookie Monster God's existence, a hurricane in Asia could be used to prove that Shambola of the church of the unholy octopus' was angry so they needed to sacrifice more virgins. What people don't understand they attribute to some higher power, (you don't understand a GREAT deal ) we have entered an age where any force majeure or natural phenomenon including something as trivial as an earthquake can be explained.

quote:

Maybe that isn't all about evolution,but that is proof the Bible isn't lying.

Have you listened to nothing about the council of nicaea??!! what of the thousands of contradictions in the bible?

quote:

Originally posted by tathi Have you listened to nothing about the council of nicaea??!! what of the thousands of contradictions in the bible?

there are no bible contradictions.

quote:

Originally posted by WhoaNellie1487 No,they haven't. I'm not a wall. But that's only your opinion,and it doesn't matter to me.

So chuffed I read the quote without looking at the name of the poster and I thought it was someone taking the piss. Nellie just step back a second, go back to the time before you thought god was real, before you knew about the bible. And have a wee think two choices proof or proofless. You have four marbles then drop two do you have two marbles because you can see them in your hand or do you have four? Not a question of if the mables exist by the way just if you have four, just incase you tried to be cheeky.

quote:

Originally posted by nic01445 there are no bible contradictions.

http://www.ffrf.org/lfif/contra.html

Killing

# Exodus 20:13 "Thou shalt not kill."
# Leviticus 24:17 "And he that killeth any man shall surely be put to death."

vs.

# Exodus 32:27 "Thus sayeth the Lord God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, . . . and slay every man his brother, . . . companion, . . . neighbor."
# I Samuel 6:19 " . . . and the people lamented because the Lord had smitten many of the people with a great slaughter."
# I Samuel 15:2,3,7,8 "Thus saith the Lord . . . Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass. . . . And Saul smote the Amalekites . . . and utterly destroyed all the people with the edge of the sword."
# Numbers 15:36 "And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the Lord commanded Moses."
# Hosea 13:16 "they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with children shall be ripped up."

Stealing

# Exodus 20:15 "Thou shalt not steal."
# Leviticus 19:13 "Thou shalt not defraud thy neighbor, neither rob him."

vs.

# Exodus 3:22 "And ye shall spoil the Egyptians."
# Exodus 12:35-36 "And they spoiled [plundered, NRSV] the Egyptians."
# Luke 19:29-34 "[Jesus] sent two of his disciples, Saying, Go ye into the village . . . ye shall find a colt tied, whereon yet never man sat: loose him, and bring him hither. And if any man ask you, Why do ye loose him? thus shall ye say unto him, Because the Lord hath need of him. . . . And as they were loosing the colt, the owners thereof said unto them, Why loose ye the colt? And they said, The Lord hath need of him."

etc etc etc, thats just a part of thousands of contradictions and errors found in the bible by scholars.

quote:

Originally posted by Dervish So chuffed I read the quote without looking at the name of the poster and I thought it was someone taking the piss. Nellie just step back a second, go back to the time before you thought god was real, before you knew about the bible. And have a wee think two choices proof or proofless. You have four marbles then drop two do you have two marbles because you can see them in your hand or do you have four? Not a question of if the mables exist by the way just if you have four, just incase you tried to be cheeky.

I've always had a belief in God. I've been raised around it,and I eventually had to make my own choice and I have.

Tathi, I see no contradictions. All of it is perfectly understandable to me.

Mister Opus, Here is that food for thought I told you I would post.

If a fish were to evolve into a bird,at one point the fins will turn into wings,at some point the fins will not be good fins,and the wings will not be good wings. The fish will not be a good swimmer,or flyer,There it will be easy prey,or will die of starvation. Survival of the fittest can't be used here, because it's not fit as a fish,or even as a bird.

quote:

Originally posted by tathi linkage? evidence? the earths tectonic plates have moved so much in the last 100 million years that that isn't suprising. As for "great floods" they have been occuring for millions of years, ice age after ice age, fossils of sea dwelling creatures have been found in the middle of deserts dating back hundreds of thousands of years before creationists believe the earth was created.

You know the story of Noah,I'm sure. But, I read it in a focus on the family article somewhere. (Still trying to find the one I read about gay marriage..)

quote:

Frank Herbert Dune???

Yes,of course.

quote:

Scientists back then were naive, I saw a documentary in Israel where after an earthquake the "fire and brimstone" shot forth from the ground. Scientists discovered large fissures of flammable gasses including sulfur underneath the ground and theorised that this explained what happened in the bible (revelations?)

No,they weren't naive. But, the earthquake wasn't just in Israel,it was all over the world. Just as the darkness was.

quote:

a solar eclipse in south america could be used to validate the Cookie Monster God's existence, a hurricane in Asia could be used to prove that Shambola of the church of the unholy octopus' was angry so they needed to sacrifice more virgins. What people don't understand they attribute to some higher power, (you don't understand a GREAT deal ) we have entered an age where any force majeure or natural phenomenon including something as trivial as an earthquake can be explained.

You don't know how much or how little I understand,just as I don't know what you think or understand. But,just because it can't be explained doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

quote:

Have you listened to nothing about the council of nicaea??!! what of the thousands of contradictions in the bible?

There aren't contradictions.

quote:

Originally posted by Dervish So chuffed I read the quote without looking at the name of the poster and I thought it was someone taking the piss. Nellie just step back a second, go back to the time before you thought god was real, before you knew about the bible. And have a wee think two choices proof or proofless. You have four marbles then drop two do you have two marbles because you can see them in your hand or do you have four? Not a question of if the mables exist by the way just if you have four, just incase you tried to be cheeky.

damn and I thought the Scottish folk just didn't make sense when they spoke on TV

It's quite rare when I'm at a loss for words ... but logic just bolted from the room and trampled me down into the ground on the way out.

quote:

Originally posted by WhoaNellie1487 You will only ignore it,So why should I even bother? No matter what you say,you still can't prove to me that Macro evolution is true.(even if you think those links explain everything.)

Now Nellie, this is the second time you've done this and it's as equally ineffective as your first attempt. Generally, when presenting a thesis or a claim, the norm is to provide evidence to support your claim in order to establish credibility. Otherwise what is the point of you speaking? Are you trying to reassure your own beliefs? Because by no means are you either convincing anybody that you are correct or building up credibility for the case that you are arguing by refusing to provide your evidence. That entire line of reasoning escapes logical reasoning because if everybody is going to "ignore" it to begin with, what's the harm in posting your evidence to satiate our desires? Furthermore, not one single argument or source that you have posted HAS been ignored. Each and every one has been analyzed and criticized to expose the underlying weaknesses that detract from their credibility. If you disagree with the analysis we have provided, why don't you argue the EVIDENCE rather than baselessly reasserting your premise that "macroevolution is false", "creationism is correct", "God did it", etc., etc., etc.

Secondly instead of resorting to the jeuvenille argument that nothing he says can EVER convince you that macroevolution is true, why don't you attack the meat of his argument? You said that there are no transitional fossiles. MisterOpus then provided a long list of transitional fossils. So why don't you discredit his case by going over his list of transitional fossils and TELL us why they are not transitional fossils at all?

I don't know what kind of arguments you won in the past, but the "covering your ears and closing your eyes" defense is not one that will win you any arguments here unless you count utterly frustrating your opponent by being irrational as a win.

quote:

I'm not the one having the issue here. I'm not referring to any particular link, what I'm talking about is this theory is so full of holes that it's ridiulous. They aren't getting smaller,and they aren't getting found because Macro evolution is completely false. One species cannot morph,or cannot evolve into the next.

Once again, MisterOpus provided a long list of transitional fossils. Please discredit them if you can. And you cannot make an argument by arguing backwards. The fossil evidence supporting the theory of evolution is not false because the premise is "known" to be false. Show us the overwhelming evidence that establishes the falsehood of evolution on its own. The book you listed has been discredited, the links you provided have been discredited ... what is your evidence of the growing "holes" in the theory of evolution? So far not ONE of your sources has withstood peer review. Whether it's because you CAN'T defend your sources or because you simply choose not to, you cannot logically use them to support your case until you do so.

quote:

If they have these so called fossils of this crap then show me a picture. I've already read this stuff.

Sigh ... if you had bothered to look at my original posts on page 2, I included all sorts of pretty pictures of the fossil remains.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2684927.stm


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2664541.stm

Dino Family Tree Shows Birds are Related

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2036458.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1858574.stm


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2089873.stm

Now spent about 5 minutes of googling finding these transitional fossils and news articles about them in laymen's terms. If you would like, I can go MUCH more in-depth with scientific journals so you can analyze the data in its entirety yourself. Somehow, I get the impression that you would be uninterested in me providing this data however.

quote:

No, That's not my entire case.But, what I'm saying is Finches will throughout the future only be finches, they aren't going to evolve into something else.

Sigh, it appears you don't understand evolution. Species do not automatically evolve in order to survive as a rule of law. Evolution is the process whereby species that DO NOT adapt to survive are killed off. One example of such are our cousins the neanderthals ...

quote:

Me? Unfair? Naw. Who said I didn't read it? I've already read most the junk you've posted. I know what it's saying. ( there you go again with your condescending attitude. >_< ) I don't need to ask you questions,why would I? I'm not being dishonest. I can assure you.

If it's junk then demonstrate at how you arrived at that conclusion. And don't use the "it's junk because macro evolution is false" argument. If the theory is false, the evidence should point in that direction. So discredit the evidence ...

quote:

No no no, that's not what I'm talking about. Micro evolution, I already explain it but you aren't listening to me. Take your pinky...ok? Lick it...now,both ears! okies? Micro evolution is completely different than macro,and I guess I have to explain it once again. Lions,tigers,leppards,domestic cats, they are allllll a part of the feline family. All animals within the feline family are an example of micro evolution. They are all different kinds of cats,but they are all cats!

Of course they are all cats because they are all descendants from a common anscestral lineage that was feline. Let's just ignore the word "macro-evolution" for a second. You are not disputing that cats have "micro-evolved" from one species in the family to several correct? So there is a common ancestor correct? Well guess what, the Felidae common ancestor has been linked to the Miacis family of species some 20-30 million years ago. Therefore the Felidae family line "micro" evolved from the Miacis line (a tree climbing animal with retractable claws). Now the Miacidae family line had a number of species in it that had also "micro evolved" into a wide variety of species. Kind of like how lions, tigers, and tiny kitty cats all micro-evolved in the feline family right? Well it just so happens the Miacidae family had a wide variety of species of different sizes, and wouldn't you know it, but dogs, hyenas, weasels, etc., also "micro" evolved from that line as well. So now dogs and cats don't have an evolutionary link to each other but to the SAME COMMON ANCESTOR. I thought MisterOpus explained this already?

quote:

One word " Bible ". There's all the proof you need,and beyond. That and I know he didn't, don't be immature.No mocking either.

So you, a mere mortal, knows what God would and would not do??? My, my, my, we must think very highly of ourselves to be able to tap into and understand the unlimited boundlessnes of what God would choose to do.

quote:

No one gave you the right to criticize me,Or anyone. That's the point.

The whole purpose of this forum is to criticize, debate, and argue. If you're looking to keep a journal of your thoughts you've come to the wrong place.

quote:

Let's see, Noah..You remeber the happening of Noah? Scientists found fossils of animal and prey sitting together,WAY WAY up there on a mountain,they were trying to avoid the flood. I keep wanting to say paul,I have no idea why(wathing way to much Dune.) But, Sampson..you do know the story of Sampson and Delilah(sp?) Right? Well, when Sampson pushed over the pillars, they found the area that happened. The pillars are pushed over. You remeber when Jesus was hung on the cross, the sky went dark..scientists back in the day recorded that happening,they also recorded the great earthquake too. Maybe that isn't all about evolution,but that is proof the Bible isn't lying.

Sources please? I would very much like to see this "scientific" evidence.

quote:

Not physically,no he didn't. Man physically wrote it down, but God wrote it through man. (actually unicorns existed,but God took them off the earth because he knew man would covet their horn,Just like a rhino,or the Narwhal).) I can't remeber where it was said... They weren't all magical and junk like fairytales say though. The Bible is not the weakest source known to show that God exists.

YOu've got to be kidding me ... unicorns??? Well, now I've heard it all. So if God took them off the Earth because man would covet their horns why didn't he take rhinos or elephants?

quote:

Impossible. God has always been and always will be.

"Me fail english? That's unpossible!"

quote:

ooh,Methodist,So strict. :/ so it's college that did it to you then? That happens to a lot of people. :/ Infact,I know a few friends that happened to. (God and Allah are the same person.Just different names.)

Yup ... you see what happens when you get an education? What a tragedy.

quote:

Yea, it can. Scientists are working with it now.

Oh? So what's their progress?


Essentially Nessa, your arguments have consisted of extremely basic refutations that carry almost no weight behind them. When provided with evidence to back a claim, you respond with a simplistic "No I know that that's false", "Macro-Evolution is false", "No it's not", etc. without backing up your claims in any way what's so ever. When prompted to show us your evidence you refuse to do so because we would "ignore" so what would be the point? Frankly it's a tactic that boggles the mind and belies your age/maturity.

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus damn and I thought the Scottish folk just didn't make sense when they spoke on TV

You do realise that sentance is actually gramaticly incorrect? Besides I wrote that at 4am or something give me a little slack! While jacked up on Coke. Coca Cola that is.

quote:

Originally posted by WhoaNellie1487 I've always had a belief in God. I've been raised around it,and I eventually had to make my own choice and I have.

Which is your choice and I think people should actually respect that. I know I kinda took the piss a bit too (if you could understand my ramblings).

# Leviticus 24:17 "And he that killeth any man shall surely be put to death."

Does the guy who kills the guy who killed the other guy get killed by some other guy. Then who kills that guy? Not gonna be a whole lot of guys left because the guy who kills the guy for killing has to be killed himself then. Leading on to the question of does the guy who kills the guy who killed the other guy get killed by some other guy. Then who kills that guy? Not gonna be a whole lot of guys left because the guy who kills the guy for killing has to be killed himself then. Leading on to the question of does the guy who kills the guy who killed the other guy get killed by some other guy. Then who kills that guy? Not gonna be a whole lot of guys left because the guy who kills the guy for killing has to be killed himself then.

Definatly not gonna be a whole lot of guys left then is there?

But in the end what the fuck has this got to do with an ass backwards website???

^^^^^^^^^^^^
�������������������


Now THATS how to not make sence Yoepus.

quote:

Originally posted by Dervish Which is your choice and I think people should actually respect that. I know I kinda took the piss a bit too (if you could understand my ramblings). # Leviticus 24:17 "And he that killeth any man shall surely be put to death." Does the guy who kills the guy who killed the other guy get killed by some other guy. Then who kills that guy? Not gonna be a whole lot of guys left because the guy who kills the guy for killing has to be killed himself then. Leading on to the question of does the guy who kills the guy who killed the other guy get killed by some other guy. Then who kills that guy? Not gonna be a whole lot of guys left because the guy who kills the guy for killing has to be killed himself then. Leading on to the question of does the guy who kills the guy who killed the other guy get killed by some other guy. Then who kills that guy? Not gonna be a whole lot of guys left because the guy who kills the guy for killing has to be killed himself then. Definatly not gonna be a whole lot of guys left then is there?

Not to throw this thread even more offtopic, but ever heard of capital punishment?

quote:

Originally posted by occrider "Me fail english? That's unpossible!"

quote:

Originally posted by WhoaNellie1487 You know the story of Noah,I'm sure. But, I read it in a focus on the family article somewhere. (Still trying to find the one I read about gay marriage..)

Stop right there. Are you seriously suggesting that the story of Noah's ark is in fact true, and that there was indeed a global flood in the last six thousand years which wiped every living thing on the earth (Evidently excluding Noah and his animal friends )?

My god, you truly are brainwashed. You're a disgrace to our age.

quote:

FOF Principal Activities: Focus on the Family (FOF) is the largest international religious-right group in the United States, a multi-media empire that includes its own �campus� and zip code in Colorado Springs, Colorado. FOF provides �Evangelical Christian� self-help in a variety of forums, via radio and their publications, and by conducting seminars across the country to help evangelical Christians become involved in the political process. Focus on the Family uses its radio show and magazine, Citizen, to urge "pro-family" voters to become active in state and local primaries and caucuses. FOF is anti-choice, anti-gay, and against sex education curricula that are not strictly abstinence-only. Local schoolbook censors frequently use Focus on the Family's material when challenging a book or curriculum in the public schools. FOF also focuses on religion in public schools, encouraging Christian teachers to establish prayer groups in schools. FOF supports student-led prayer in public schools, although it points out that it doesn�t support teacher-led prayer for fear that a teacher would encourage Christian students �to pray to Allah, Buddha or the goddess Sophia against the wishes of the parents and/or students.� (�Religion in Public Schools,� February 1998.) FOF also supports private school vouchers, tax credits for religious schools, rejects education efforts that address multiculturalism or homosexuality, and recommends that Christian parents to withdraw from the Parents and Teachers Association (PTA) on the grounds that it has a liberal social agenda. FOF supports faith-based social services and �charitable choice.� FOF works against �special rights� for homosexuals, works against hate crime legislation, and supports �reparative therapy� for homosexuality, which has been widely discredited and rejected by the vast majority of doctors and physicians. FOF sponsors �Love Won Out,� monthly conferences held around the U.S. that claim to prove that �homosexuality is preventable and treatable,� where many of the speakers are �ex-gays.� �Love Won Out� is from the title of a book by John Paulk, an �ex-gay� who is the host of the conferences and is an employee of Focus on the Family. For those ex-gays who cannot change, FOF considers sexual celibacy another option. FOF regularly asserts the idea that there is a �homosexual agenda� and associates homosexuals with pedophilia and recruitment of children as sex partners.

http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=4257

^^

that's a joke right?

quote:

No,they weren't naive. But, the earthquake wasn't just in Israel,it was all over the world. Just as the darkness was.

So there is credible documented evidence from the four corners of the globe that this earthquake and solar eclipse occured at exactly the same time? Did Jesus' disciples send text messages around the world asking if the earth was shaking and it was dark?

Come on Nellie, this is embarrasing, your brain needs to macroevolve

quote:

Originally posted by WhoaNellie1487 If a fish were to evolve into a bird,at one point the fins will turn into wings,at some point the fins will not be good fins,and the wings will not be good wings. The fish will not be a good swimmer,or flyer,There it will be easy prey,or will die of starvation. Survival of the fittest can't be used here, because it's not fit as a fish,or even as a bird.

You're looking at it from the wrong perspective. Animals don't evolve into other animals because one day they may become more efficient, they evolve only if the transitional period of their evolution is also more suited to the environment than was their original form. If a need for efficient fins is greater than a need for lousy fins which can also serve as lousy wings, then a fish that evolves such fins will most likely not survive and wings will never appear. But if there is such a need, and the trade-off is a positive one, then wings will evolve. Each time a species brings forth offspring, they are slightly different. If they can adapt to the environment, they'll survive, if they can't they will not. If they are forced to modify themselves in a certain direction, they can do that in a very short period of time. Just look at what happened to dogs when they were forced to develop for specific purposes. They evolved from St Bernard to Chiuaua in several thousand years.

Now, take this hypothetic scenario: A species of fish lives in murky shallow waters. Since the waters are shallow, sometimes rocks and small barriers protrude from the water. When fish is chased by a prey, sometimes it can escape by jumping over small rocks and getting lost in the murk. Those fish with larger fins are able to push themselves a bit further and are therefore more capable of escaping their predators. Eventually those fins become large enough that the fish can flap with them through the air and jump even further. Finally, those fins become too large to effectively push the fish through the water, but are strong enough to make the fish fly 50 meters. You do have a flying fish, a species of fish with fins that have become more or less useless under water but serve as somewhat functional wings. That fish can fly for tens of meters, which is usually enough to escape most predators. Species evolve only if each of their "micro"-changes is beneficial and better suited for the environment than a previous one.

Now, about Noah's ark. It was a ship with a volume of 140*23*13.5 meters (43470m^3). Now, god told Noah to put a pair of every species on board. Well, guess what, even if you took only 1 member of each land-dwelling creature that is not capable to survive the 40 day flood, the volume would be vastly greater. Also, you might note that considering the amount of time it took Noah to upload the species and the amount of species currently living on earth, the influx of creatures should be about 100 species/second. And what about the dinosaurs? Were they on the ship? The fossile record shows they existed, so most likely he had to put them aboard. Yet there are none living around now. Well, since the fossile record shows millions of different extinct species, and Noah's ark story took place several thousand years ago, it seems like species have been dying off by thousands each year without being replaced by new ones! Now why the hell would god create something like that? And just imagine how the world was crowded back then! Oh and another thing, how did Noah get the Kangaroos, Koalas, Jaguars...? Did he sail to America and Australia prior to the flood? Damn, we should get the designs for that ship. In only a few months it managed to be built, to sail all around the world, and it's cargo capacity was unimaginable! Bye-bye oil tankers and aircraft carriers. Wooden arks are a way to go!

quote:

Originally posted by tathi http://www.ffrf.org/lfif/contra.html Killing # Exodus 20:13 "Thou shalt not kill." # Leviticus 24:17 "And he that killeth any man shall surely be put to death." vs. # Exodus 32:27 "Thus sayeth the Lord God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, . . . and slay every man his brother, . . . companion, . . . neighbor." # I Samuel 6:19 " . . . and the people lamented because the Lord had smitten many of the people with a great slaughter." # I Samuel 15:2,3,7,8 "Thus saith the Lord . . . Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass. . . . And Saul smote the Amalekites . . . and utterly destroyed all the people with the edge of the sword." # Numbers 15:36 "And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the Lord commanded Moses." # Hosea 13:16 "they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with children shall be ripped up." Stealing # Exodus 20:15 "Thou shalt not steal." # Leviticus 19:13 "Thou shalt not defraud thy neighbor, neither rob him." vs. # Exodus 3:22 "And ye shall spoil the Egyptians." # Exodus 12:35-36 "And they spoiled [plundered, NRSV] the Egyptians." # Luke 19:29-34 "[Jesus] sent two of his disciples, Saying, Go ye into the village . . . ye shall find a colt tied, whereon yet never man sat: loose him, and bring him hither. And if any man ask you, Why do ye loose him? thus shall ye say unto him, Because the Lord hath need of him. . . . And as they were loosing the colt, the owners thereof said unto them, Why loose ye the colt? And they said, The Lord hath need of him." etc etc etc, thats just a part of thousands of contradictions and errors found in the bible by scholars.

i was kidding

but thanks for the verses

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.