|
This website is so ass-backwards it's funny (pg. 13)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| arctic |
| 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 :p)?
My god, you truly are brainwashed. You're a disgrace to our age. ;) |
|
|
| DaveSZ |
| 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 |
|
|
| Sand Leaper |
^^
that's a joke right? :nervous: |
|
|
| tathi |
| 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 |
|
|
| DrUg_Tit0 |
| 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! |
|
|
| nic01445 |
| 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 |
|
|
| paranoik0 |
| quote: | Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0
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! |
if Santa Claus can do it, why not Noah? come on its in the bible :p |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
Damn I love yankin’ people’s chains!
| quote: | Originally posted by WhoaNellie1487
You will only ignore it,So why should I even bother? |
I have not ignored one thing you’ve said up to this point. Quite the contrary – I’ve read and researched every source you’ve given thus far. So I would only ask the same favor from you in return, okay? So please read and try to understand the material I’ve given you.
| quote: | | 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.) |
Then what is the point of our conversation if you continue to refuse to consider the scientists’ point of view? Those links explain what scientists know of the observed, tested, and falsifiable evidence, which conclusively points to evolutionary processes taking place. If the evidence of the observed, tested, and falsified pointed towards a creationist theory, then it would show as much. This is not the case. But since you are unwilling to listen to anything that the vast majority of researchers all around the globe agree on, I guess there’s really very little point on trying to talk logic with you then.
That’s quite unfortunate.
| quote: |
I was hoping maybe you'd get get it through your thick skull.^_^ |
I tell you what will get through my thick skull better – evidence of creationism. Observed, tested, and falsified evidence that creationism explains biological nature much better than the existing evolutionary “idea”. So no, repetition does little to convince me, an empiricist.
| 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. |
Remember what I said about repetition, dear? Please cease from this habit now. You haven’t proved “macro-evolution” to be false yet with any supportive evidence, and the evidence you’ve given so far has been disputed and debunked quite easily by myself and others. So stop repeating that which you have not claimed with supporting evidence.
And once again, the fact that there are holes in the fossil record is undisputed. It’s incredibly physically difficult to be able to have preserved specimens of critters hundreds of millions of years old. It’s just a darn problem with organic chemistry. It’s also a darn problem with predation during that given period for that given organism. But what we do have so far has filled those “gaps” quite nicely, with more and more “gaps” continuing to be filled. Here’s some more “gaps”:
| quote: | Transition from amphibians to amniotes (first reptiles)
The major functional difference between the ancient, large amphibians and the first little reptiles is the amniotic egg. Additional differences include stronger legs and girdles, different vertebrae, and stronger jaw muscles. For more info, see Carroll (1988) and Gauthier et al. (in Benton, 1988)
•Proterogyrinus or another early anthracosaur (late Mississippian) -- Classic labyrinthodont-amphibian skull and teeth, but with reptilian vertebrae, pelvis, humerus, and digits. Still has fish skull hinge. Amphibian ankle. 5-toed hand and a 2-3-4-5-3 (almost reptilian) phalangeal count.
•Limnoscelis, Tseajaia (late Carboniferous) -- Amphibians apparently derived from the early anthracosaurs, but with additional reptilian features: structure of braincase, reptilian jaw muscle, expanded neural arches.
•Solenodonsaurus (mid-Pennsylvanian) -- An incomplete fossil, apparently between the anthracosaurs and the cotylosaurs. Loss of palatal fangs, loss of lateral line on head, etc. Still just a single sacral vertebra, though.
•Hylonomus, Paleothyris (early Pennsylvanian) -- These are protorothyrids, very early cotylosaurs (primitive reptiles). They were quite little, lizard-sized animals with amphibian-like skulls (amphibian pineal opening, dermal bone, etc.), shoulder, pelvis, & limbs, and intermediate teeth and vertebrae. Rest of skeleton reptilian, with reptilian jaw muscle, no palatal fangs, and spool-shaped vertebral centra. Probably no eardrum yet. Many of these new "reptilian" features are also seen in little amphibians (which also sometimes have direct-developing eggs laid on land), so perhaps these features just came along with the small body size of the first reptiles.
The ancestral amphibians had a rather weak skull and paired "aortas" (systemic arches). The first reptiles immediately split into two major lines which modified these traits in different ways. One line developed an aorta on the right side and strengthened the skull by swinging the quadrate bone down and forward, resulting in an enormous otic notch (and allowed the later development of good hearing without much further modification). This group further split into three major groups, easily recognizable by the number of holes or "fenestrae" in the side of the skull: the anapsids (no fenestrae), which produced the turtles; the diapsids (two fenestrae), which produced the dinosaurs and birds; and an offshoot group, the eurapsids (two fenestrae fused into one), which produced the ichthyosaurs.
The other major line of reptiles developed an aorta on left side only, and strengthened the skull by moving the quadrate bone up and back, obliterating the otic notch (making involvement of the jaw essential in the later development of good hearing). They developed a single fenestra per side. This group was the synapsid reptiles. They took a radically different path than the other reptiles, involving homeothermy, a larger brain, better hearing and more efficient teeth. One group of synapsids called the "therapsids" took these changes particularly far, and apparently produced the mammals.
Some transitions among reptiles
I will review just a couple of the reptile phylogenies, since there are so many.... Early reptiles to turtles: (Also see Gaffney & Meylan, in Benton 1988)
•Captorhinus (early-mid Permain) -- Immediate descendent of the protorothryids.
Here we come to a controversy; there are two related groups of early anapsids, both descended from the captorhinids, that could have been ancestral to turtles. Reisz & Laurin (1991, 1993) believe the turtles descended from procolophonids, late Permian anapsids that had various turtle-like skull features. Others, particularly Lee (1993) think the turtle ancestors are pareiasaurs:
•Scutosaurus and other pareiasaurs (mid-Permian) -- Large bulky herbivorous reptiles with turtle-like skull features. Several genera had bony plates in the skin, possibly the first signs of a turtle shell.
•Deltavjatia vjatkensis (Permian) -- A recently discovered pareiasaur with numerous turtle-like skull features (e.g., a very high palate), limbs, and girdles, and lateral projections flaring out some of the vertebrae in a very shell-like way. (Lee, 1993)
•Proganochelys (late Triassic) -- a primitive turtle, with a fully turtle-like skull, beak, and shell, but with some primitive traits such as rows of little palatal teeth, a still-recognizable clavicle, a simple captorhinid-type jaw musculature, a primitive captorhinid- type ear, a non-retractable neck, etc..
•Recently discovered turtles from the early Jurassic, not yet described.
Mid-Jurassic turtles had already divided into the two main groups of modern turtles, the side-necked turtles and the arch-necked turtles. Obviously these two groups developed neck retraction separately, and came up with totally different solutions. In fact the first known arch-necked turtles, from the Late Jurassic, could not retract their necks, and only later did their descendents develop the archable neck. Early reptiles to diapsids: (see Evans, in Benton 1988, for more info)
•Hylonomus, Paleothyris (early Penn.) -- The primitive amniotes described above
•Petrolacosaurus, Araeoscelis (late Pennsylvanian) -- First known diapsids. Both temporal fenestra now present. No significant change in jaw muscles. Have Hylonomus-style teeth, with many small marginal teeth & two slightly larger canines. Still no eardrum.
•Apsisaurus (early Permian) -- A more typical diapsid. Lost canines. (Laurin, 1991)
GAP: no diapsid fossils from the mid-Permian.
•Claudiosaurus (late Permian) -- An early diapsid with several neodiapsid traits, but still had primitive cervical vertebrae & unossified sternum. probably close to the ancestry of all diapsides (the lizards & snakes & crocs & birds).
•Planocephalosaurus(early Triassic) -- Further along the line that produced the lizards and snakes. Loss of some skull bones, teeth, toe bones.
•Protorosaurus, Prolacerta (early Triassic) -- Possibly among the very first archosaurs, the line that produced dinos, crocs, and birds. May be "cousins" to the archosaurs, though.
•Proterosuchus (early Triassic) -- First known archosaur.
•Hyperodapedon, Trilophosaurus (late Triassic) -- Early archosaurs.
Some species-to-species transitions:
•De Ricqles (in Chaline, 1983) documents several possible cases of gradual evolution (also well as some lineages that showed abrupt appearance or stasis) among the early Permian reptile genera Captorhinus, Protocaptorhinus, Eocaptorhinus, and Romeria.
•Horner et al. (1992) recently found many excellent transitional dinosaur fossils from a site in Montana that was a coastal plain in the late Cretaceous. They include:
1.Many transitional ceratopsids between Styracosaurus and Pachyrhinosaurus
2.Many transitional lambeosaurids (50! specimens) between Lambeosaurus and Hypacrosaurus.
3.A transitional pachycephalosaurid between Stegoceras and Pachycephalosaurus
4.A transitional tyrannosaurid between Tyrannosaurus and Daspletosaurus.
All of these transitional animals lived during the same brief 500,000 years. Before this site was studied, these dinosaur groups were known from the much larger Judith River Formation, where the fossils showed 5 million years of evolutionary stasis, following by the apparently abrupt appearance of the new forms. It turns out that the sea level rose during that 500,000 years, temporarily burying the Judith River Formation under water, and forcing the dinosaur populations into smaller areas such as the site in Montana. While the populations were isolated in this smaller area, they underwent rapid evolution. When sea level fell again, the new forms spread out to the re-exposed Judith River landscape, thus appearing "suddenly" in the Judith River fossils, with the transitional fossils only existing in the Montana site. This is an excellent example of punctuated equilibrium (yes, 500,000 years is very brief and counts as a "punctuation"), and is a good example of why transitional fossils may only exist in a small area, with the new species appearing "suddenly" in other areas. (Horner et al., 1992) Also note the discovery of Ianthosaurus, a genus that links the two synapsid families Ophiacodontidae and Edaphosauridae. (see Carroll, 1988, p. 367)
|
The same reference link can be used from my previous post. These references came from scientific journals, with nice juicy pictures for the slow-learning folk like yourself. I highly suggest you go to your nearest college library and look up a few for yourself.
I reiterate: according to Creationist Theory (or the one you adhere to, I’m assuming it’s Young Earth Creationism, or YEC), there should be NO fossil transitions. NONE whatsoever. But with these obvious physiological and genetic confirmations of transitions, we see conclusively that there are, in fact, transitions.
This is why a great many YECs have turned into OECs (Old Earth Creationists), because the facts are simply undeniable when they finally look at the data with a little maturity.
| quote: | | One species cannot morph,or cannot evolve into the next. |
I’ve just shown otherwise with the above “missing links”. Genetics have also proven this to be true as well. Care to discuss genetics with me now?
| quote: |
If they have these so called fossils of this crap then show me a picture.
I've already read this stuff. |
Now Occrider has shown you a few pictures already, and yet you continue to ignore him. So let me ask you something for the sake of brevity (and my own sake of sanity): If I show you some pictures of this stuff, would that honestly convince you any more? Considering the fact that you started this post out with the following statement:
| quote: | | 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 why would I post any pictures of what is quite obvious to everyone else but you, when you simply refuse to be convinced? Why would I waste my time then?
If, however, you honestly want to be convinced, I’ll be happy to oblige with some examples. Fair enough?
| 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. |
Exactly. Nice rationalization, and you’ve just proven one of the tenets of evolution that I just gave. Here it is again:
| quote: | | 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. |
So a finch will always be a finch. A bacteria will always be a bacteria. An alligator will always be an alligator. An ignorant 16 yr. old fundamentalist will always be an ignorant 16 yr. old fundamentalist, unless there’s selective pressures for that organism to evolve further. This is all about survival and competition. If the finch species has to compete with other organisms to survive, it may possibly evolve adaptive features that will entail it’s survival. Then again, it may not, depending on whether or not it’s species adapts well enough to survive. There are plenty of species that didn’t adapt well enough – hence extinction.
Now if you understood evolution as well as you say you have, you would have understood this tenet as well. Are you being dishonest again?
| quote: |
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. |
Let me skip over and post your question here:
| quote: |
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. |
Let me ask an alternative, parallel question, and you tell me if it makes any sense:
If a lemur were to evolve into a giraffe, at one point the neck will be stretched waaaay long, and at some point the rest of his body will be disproportionate to his loooong neck. The lemur will not be able to jump tree to tree with such a long neck, and the giraffe will not be able to eat leaves at the top of the tree, because among other things like falling off the tree with such a heavy neck (and probably dying from the impact), he won’t be able to reach the leaves because the rest of his body is too small down on the canopy. Therefore, it will be easy prey, or will die of starvation. Survival of the fittest can’t be used here, because it not fit as a lemur, or even as a giraffe.
Now let’s take your example aside for a moment, and I want you to examine closely what might be wrong with my example.
(I’ll give you a hint: something to do with missing a few steps in the evolutionary ladder, misunderstanding natural selection entirely, missing completely what the fossil record shows us, etc. ).
Now apply this to your example. I am glad though, that you are finally asking questions.
| quote: |
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. |
Good enough. But I hope you understand that evolutionists don’t hold a “belief” system in their research in a similar manner of religious faith. That’s the difference I was getting across.
| 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. |
It certainly appears to the layman that you are being dishonest. You commented only ONCE on the material I’ve posted, and what’s worse, you either completely misinterpreted the article, or you didn't read further on down past the introduction. So please, try again.
| quote: |
You'll have to wait your turn. |
Why? You haven’t given anything else for me to look at thus far, why are you having me wait? Stop playing games – play fair and allow your opponent to examine your “evidence” for Creationism.
| quote: |
Sure,that's your opinion. Keep thinking that,maybe one day it will come true. ;) |
I propose an idea: let’s take a poll here for readers who consider your version of life versus the evolutionary version I’ve shown thus far. If you wish, you can create another thread for this very purpose. I’d be very interested in who agrees with your interpretation so far. The ball’s in your court.
| quote: |
No more than you,my friend.^_^ |
Tit for tat. It’s becoming tedious.
| quote: |
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. |
Mmkay, now you see it. So be a “grown-up” and answer it, please. If you don’t have anything to say about it, I’ll assume that means you either must agree with your opposition or you aren’t knowledgable enough to refute it. Either case, your source has been refuted, and you need to come with more sources.
| quote: |
Then lets drop it. |
Okie-dokie.
| quote: |
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.)
-Micro evolution small changes within the species.
Yes, Macroevolution large changes from one species to the next.
I just pulled that from a link you sent me. |
I noticed you dodged my evidence of new species creation with the polychaete worms. It demonstrates clearly a new species evolving within a mere period of 40 years (i.e. it can no longer reproduce successfully with the original polychaete species). Your response, please.
Second: okay, I found what you might be referring to here:
| quote: | | Microevolution, or change beneath the species level, may be thought of as relatively small scale change in the functional and genetic constituencies of populations of organisms. That this occurs and has been observed is generally undisputed by critics of evolution. What is vigorously challenged, however, is macroevolution. Macroevolution is evolution on the "grand scale" resulting in the origin of higher taxa. In evolutionary theory it thus entails common ancestry, descent with modification, the genealogical relatedness of all life, transformation of species, and large scale functional and structural changes of populations through time, all above the species level (Freeman and Herron 2004; Futuyma 1998; Ridley 1993). |
from http://talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
Is this is what you are referring to? If it is, then this is the last time I’m going to do the homework for you. In the future, please cite on your own the specific quotes.
Okay, so the article lays out from the very beginning what the “criticisms” are from creationists. But I wonder, did you by chance read any further? It distinctly shows step by step all the observed evidence for what you call “macro-evolution”. Could you please comment on that? I’m glad we finally got past the first paragraph of my source. Let’s go a little further now, please.
| quote: |
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? |
If I didn’t explain what you mean above, then yes, you’re going to have to explain it again. If I did explain it correctly, disregard this statement and let’s move on.
| 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? |
What a cute gesture. I’ve got a better idea where to put my pinkie, but I’ll reserve that thought for the future.
| quote: | | 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! |
Nessa, guess what? You just described “macro-evolution”. They are all different species within a family.
And as always, Occrider did a nice job down the post road explaining this as well. Do you have any rebuttal to his answer?
Define “kinds” for me, please. I have yet to see a good answer from a Creationist whenever they use the word “kinds”.
| quote: |
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. |
Considering your arguments so far, it’s pretty easy to conclude the contrary.
| quote: |
One word " Bible ". There's all the proof you need,and beyond. |
Where in the Bible does it say he didn’t say that to me? What are you talking about? Be specific.
| quote: | | That and I know he didn't, don't be immature.No mocking either. |
You misunderstand me. This is not mocking. It is a logic test to see how you can prove to me logically whether or not God told me that “it was the wisest thing you said so far.” Show me logically how God couldn’t have told me that.
| quote: |
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?) |
Then why not “turn the other cheek”, and take a little banter like a good Christian?
| quote: |
No one gave you the right to criticize me,Or anyone. That's the point. |
Then you’re missing the point of this entire forum.
de•bate (d -b t )
v. de•bat•ed, de•bat•ing, de•bates
v. intr.
n.
1. A discussion involving opposing points; an argument.
2. Deliberation; consideration: passed the motion with little debate.
3. A formal contest of argumentation in which two opposing teams defend and attack a given proposition.
4. Obsolete. Conflict; strife.
Now this directly implies the right to criticize one’s opposing viewpoints when you are in disagreement with those specific viewpoints. I disagree strongly with your viewpoints, as you are mine, and we are thus having a debate about them.
And as Occrider mentioned, if you want to write down a diary for your thoughts, this is not the appropriate forum. You might try the Chillout Forum in the future for such random thoughts. You have a controversial viewpoint on things, and you’ve shared us that viewpoint in the DEBATE forum. Kindly debate or leave.
| quote: |
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.) |
Exactly. Hence the point of debate.
| quote: |
I'm defending what I understand to be the truth,and I do have evidence and I have presented it. I haven't failed. |
Other than 1 website that’s already been refuted, a book which I already went over (and showed other criticisms), and a couple of badly worded claims about finches and we’ll soon get to the Flood, what else have you given as evidence? Please, I’m absolutely begging you for something new. Please be honest and present newer material that hasn’t already been refuted so far.
BTW, please respond once again to the refutations on the website you gave, as well as my refutations to Strobel’s books.
| quote: |
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. |
How is that evidence? Please explain. How does that satisfy you? Be specific with details.
| quote: | | I guess not for you,seeing as you are completely ignoring faith here. |
BINGO!!!!!!!!!
Show the lady what’s she’s won!!!!!!
Wow. It only took 11 pages for you to finally understand this simple concept: science does not use faith, i.e. the supernatural, whatsoever. Now I told you earlier what methodological naturalism is, and why it is used in science. But here, have a look at it’s definition:
http://www.infidels.org/library/mod...letic/ntse.html
Now keep in mind, MN does NOT by definition entail the supernatural’s (i.e. God for you, Great Cookie Monster for me) nonexistence. However, it simply cannot test and observe the supernatural, so it is therefore discarded. Science implicitly entails testing, observing, and falsifying natural phenomena. Anything outside of this does not fall into the scientific realm.
In essence, it was how we came from understanding that women who were called “witches” did not give diseases to others. It is how we came to understand that the world was not flat. It was how we came to understand that the earth is not the center of the universe, and that the earth does indeed revolve around a star (you did know this, right? Just checking). It deductively cuts away from all those “powers” that have some supernatural force on nature, and concisely explains the actual phenomena around us. Thus has been the case for evolution: decisively cutting away all those “supernatural” powers that have supposedly shaped our natural world, and deducing down to observed phenomena which explains nature in the most simplistic manner (i.e. Occam’s Razor).
Until a Creationist theory comes around that can decisively do the same and has observed, tested, and falsifiable data to support itself, evolution will continue to be the best explanation for understanding the natural world.
| quote: | | 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. |
Again, logical fallacy: leap of logic. The burden is on you to show me direct evidence how I am living proof that God exists. And if your answer is, “because the Bible says so”, then it simply won’t do. You have to believe in the Bible for it to be true – I am no longer a follower of the Christian Bible, so how can this philosophically be true for my case?
Furthermore, show me direct PHYSICAL evidence that God made me. Simply showing me passages that are man-made that show “God said so” is not enough. I want direct actual evidence that Goditit. Is there a nametag on my molecules that say, “Made from God”. Give me actual physical evidence, and I’ll consider it.
Stop playing games and tell me specifically how this is possible.
And finally, I already mentioned that I read the Bible, a great many number of times throughout my life. I’m willing to bet you that I know it a little better than yourself. But I don’t want to sway too far off topic, so if you want to start a Bible debate, I suggest you start another thread and we’ll take it from there. Again, the ball’s in your court.
| 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. |
Okay, I’m going to assume this is your means of more evidence. Nessa, do you understand Geology well enough to go into a discussion about this? Do you understand plate tectonics very well? Judging by this statement, I have my serious doubts. It would do you more credit to study the field first before trying to refute it.
Are you claiming that animals ran to the mountains to avoid the flood? Are you claiming that they then all died together, WAY WAY up there on the mountain, and that all their bones have been found together? Just out of curiosity, why wouldn’t their bones wash down the mountain when the flood water receded?
Amazing. Just simply amazing how far you’re trying to go with this. I suggest you either reword what you are asking, or post a link to support your stance, because I simply cannot understand the logic you are using here. In the meantime, I do want to post a link for you that may answer somewhat the strange question you are referring to:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH570.html
Note it also gives you a reference to look up more information on the bottom. Again, I suggest you do a little more research before you ask any further. But seriously, I can’t wait to hear more of your Flood Theory. I anticipate a great discourse here soon!
| quote: |
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’re actually referring to this? So how can it be proved that Sampson’s strength was his hair? I seriously thought God was his strength? Did they find evidence of Sampson’s hair strength in the excavation? Oh yeah, he then killed 3,000 men AND WOMEN by knocking down the pillars, thanks be to God. Nice guy you chose as an example.
| quote: | | You remember 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. |
I see the sky darken all the time. Here in Kansas between March and July, the weather can seemingly change instantaneously when wall clouds roll through. Is that supernatural magic? Nope, just a bad thunderstorm coming. And I think you can talk to a Californian about a great earthquake.
And as Tathi pointed out, science has come quite a long ways in explaining events of “fire and brimstone”. So besides the fact that the events can be easily explained by today’s standards, do you have any other documentation outside the Bible that shows these events occurring?
| quote: |
Maybe that isn't all about evolution,but that is proof the Bible isn't lying. |
Try again.
| quote: |
Not physically,no he didn't. Man physically wrote it down, but God wrote it through man. |
Please provide evidence that God was behind it all. Stop playing games and show me that God was the culprit.
| quote: | | (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. |
I’m going to leave this one out there for all to see. It really doesn’t need a comment from me at all………..
Okay, I lied:
HOLY !!! THAT’S F$CKING SENSATIONAL!!!!! FAN-F$CKING-TASTIC!!!!!!! WHAT IN THE ?!?!?!?!? UNF$CKING BELIEVABLE!!!!!
*****gets off the floor*****
Okay, I’m done now. Just had to get that off my chest. Aside of that, I have no further comment.
| quote: |
Muslims follow the same God Christians follow. |
You haven’t read the Koran, have you? Not too many Muslims would agree with that assessment.
| quote: |
Don't know much about Buddha. |
It would do you some good to study other religions.
| quote: |
Impossible. God has always been and always will be. |
I reiterate: It would do you some good to study other religions. And you didn’t answer my question: What is the evidence to support your God over the Hindu God? Simply answering, “Impossible”, does not support your case very well. Please respond.
| quote: |
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. |
Again you are presumptuous, and again you are being quite ignorant of what I write. I told you I was an avid devout Christian for the first 19 years of my life. You imply that I wasn’t devout, and that my beliefs weren’t steadfast. Who are you to know how strong my beliefs were? How would you know? I will tell you that much of what you’ve argued so far was the very same arguments I’ve held with researchers in my own right. I really didn’t have to try to prove anything wrong with the Bible. It really kinda did that all on it’s own, once I started understanding the natural world a little better through an education, and once I began listening and UNDERSTANDING those researchers that were arguing against me. Things fell into place quite well after that.
| 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. |
You mean that they received a higher education? Wow, I guess that is scary, isn’t it? Those poor souls.
By all means, you should avoid learning at all costs too!!!!! Be careful, we certainly don’t want your bubble world to burst!!!
| quote: | | (God and Allah are the same person.Just different names.) |
Please refer to my statement above about the Koran.
| quote: |
Yea, it can. Scientists are working with it now. |
Please cite sources. All the creation “scientists” I’ve seen so far have been easily refuted. Strangely, many of the creationist evidence doesn’t even come from scientists. I wonder why that is? If you have any new sources, please show them. And you still haven’t answered the following question:
If creation science is actual science, why is there not one peer-reviewed creationist paper in any science journals? Please respond.
| quote: |
You must really enjoy my name,you use it quite often. I'm not ignorant, no more than you are my friend. |
Indeed you are, Nessa.
| quote: |
I'm not playing games, must I remind you so often? |
Yes you are. Please stop it and answer my questions directly with specific evidence. Anything less at this point is a waste of my time.
| quote: |
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. |
I reiterate once again:
| quote: | | 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. |
No evidence = nothing to support your stance.
Are we having fun yet, folks?!?!?!? YEEEEEEEEHAAAAAAWWWWWW!!!!!!!!!!!! |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
Oh wow, I just came across another article by this David Skjaerlund guy, one of many sources from Nessa:
http://www.forerunner.com/forerunne..._Evolution.html
Wow. All I can say is wow. Evolution and abortion? That's just wonderful. I think my favorite blatant false statement is the following:
| quote: | | Abortion has been justified as a natural part of the struggle for existence and the survival of the fittest. Evolution propagates the notion that the world is overpopulated and that one must struggle to exist and compete against others. |
That's quite an impressive deduction. Simply impressive. |
|
|
| WhoaNellie1487 |
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
I have not ignored one thing you’ve said up to this point. Quite the contrary – I’ve read and researched every source you’ve given thus far. So I would only ask the same favor from you in return, okay? So please read and try to understand the material I’ve given you. |
I haven't ignored everything. I've read what you've posted,but that doesn't mean I believe in it.
| quote: | | Then what is the point of our conversation if you continue to refuse to consider the scientists’ point of view? Those links explain what scientists know of the observed, tested, and falsifiable evidence, which conclusively points to evolutionary processes taking place. If the evidence of the observed, tested, and falsified pointed towards a creationist theory, then it would show as much. This is not the case. But since you are unwilling to listen to anything that the vast majority of researchers all around the globe agree on, I guess there’s really very little point on trying to talk logic with you then. |
I listen to broadcasts from Focus on the family, I watch Fox news, I watch the 700 club, I read my biology,and physical creation book. I read articles in magazines and books my mother gets. That's where I find my scientific views.
| quote: | | I tell you what will get through my thick skull better – evidence of creationism. Observed, tested, and falsified evidence that creationism explains biological nature much better than the existing evolutionary “idea”. So no, repetition does little to convince me, an empiricist. |
Even if I posted it, I know you wouldn't care. I've seen how you people act. Just have faith, that's all you need.
| quote: | | Remember what I said about repetition, dear? Please cease from this habit now. You haven’t proved “macro-evolution” to be false yet with any supportive evidence, and the evidence you’ve given so far has been disputed and debunked quite easily by myself and others. So stop repeating that which you have not claimed with supporting evidence. |
Yes, I remeber what you said about repetition,Dear. You aren't listening, I have no other choice except to repeat.
| quote: |
The same reference link can be used from my previous post. These references came from scientific journals, with nice juicy pictures for the slow-learning folk like yourself. I highly suggest you go to your nearest college library and look up a few for yourself.
I reiterate: according to Creationist Theory (or the one you adhere to, I’m assuming it’s Young Earth Creationism, or YEC), there should be NO fossil transitions. NONE whatsoever. But with these obvious physiological and genetic confirmations of transitions, we see conclusively that there are, in fact, transitions. |
I'm not a slow learner. If I were, how else would I be doing what I do now? ( Musician producing/teaching.)
| quote: |
I’ve just shown otherwise with the above “missing links”. Genetics have also proven this to be true as well. Care to discuss genetics with me now? |
Nope,because I've been reading up on evolution for a while now. There aren't any missing links that have been discovered, because I've read it in articles coming from scientists. There are missing links,and they will always be missing links.
| quote: | | Now Occrider has shown you a few pictures already, and yet you continue to ignore him. So let me ask you something for the sake of brevity (and my own sake of sanity): If I show you some pictures of this stuff, would that honestly convince you any more? Considering the fact that you started this post out with the following statement: |
Yea, I look at them right after I posted back to your reply.
| quote: | | Now why would I post any pictures of what is quite obvious to everyone else but you, when you simply refuse to be convinced? Why would I waste my time then? |
If you don't want to,that's your choice.
| quote: |
So a finch will always be a finch. A bacteria will always be a bacteria. An alligator will always be an alligator. An ignorant 16 yr. old fundamentalist will always be an ignorant 16 yr. old fundamentalist, unless there’s selective pressures for that organism to evolve further. This is all about survival and competition. If the finch species has to compete with other organisms to survive, it may possibly evolve adaptive features that will entail it’s survival. Then again, it may not, depending on whether or not it’s species adapts well enough to survive. There are plenty of species that didn’t adapt well enough – hence extinction. |
You were 16 yourself,my friend. Anyway,age doesn't always matter. But,I'm not ignorant, you want to keep this a clean debate? Then quit with the personal insults.
| quote: | | Now if you understood evolution as well as you say you have, you would have understood this tenet as well. Are you being dishonest again? |
Totally honest here.
| quote: | Let me ask an alternative, parallel question, and you tell me if it makes any sense:
If a lemur were to evolve into a giraffe, at one point the neck will be stretched waaaay long, and at some point the rest of his body will be disproportionate to his loooong neck. The lemur will not be able to jump tree to tree with such a long neck, and the giraffe will not be able to eat leaves at the top of the tree, because among other things like falling off the tree with such a heavy neck (and probably dying from the impact), he won’t be able to reach the leaves because the rest of his body is too small down on the canopy. Therefore, it will be easy prey, or will die of starvation. Survival of the fittest can’t be used here, because it not fit as a lemur, or even as a giraffe. |
How did I know you were going to ignore it? Mine isn't incorrect in any way, That's a perfect example of how it would happen. Proving it's not possible for an animal to survive.[/quote]
| quote: | | Good enough. But I hope you understand that evolutionists don’t hold a “belief” system in their research in a similar manner of religious faith. That’s the difference I was getting across. |
I know they don't have a belief in evolution.
| quote: | It certainly appears to the layman that you are being dishonest. You commented only ONCE on the material I’ve posted, and what’s worse, you either completely misinterpreted the article, or you didn't read further on down past the introduction. So please, try again.
|
That's not true, I've read everything you've sent. sometimes I don't have anything to say.
| quote: | I propose an idea: let’s take a poll here for readers who consider your version of life versus the evolutionary version I’ve shown thus far. If you wish, you can create another thread for this very purpose. I’d be very interested in who agrees with your interpretation so far. The ball’s in your court.
|
I don't want to create another topic for a debate, That's to much to follow.
| quote: | | Tit for tat. It’s becoming tedious. |
Then again,Let's drop it.
| quote: | | Mmkay, now you see it. So be a “grown-up” and answer it, please. If you don’t have anything to say about it, I’ll assume that means you either must agree with your opposition or you aren’t knowledgable enough to refute it. Either case, your source has been refuted, and you need to come with more sources. |
If I don't have anything to say, I'm not going to answer. I have no comments to make.That is being mature.
| quote: | | I noticed you dodged my evidence of new species creation with the polychaete worms. It demonstrates clearly a new species evolving within a mere period of 40 years (i.e. it can no longer reproduce successfully with the original polychaete species). Your response, please. |
Again, If I have nothing to say,I don't say anything. I have no comments to make.
| quote: | | Is this is what you are referring to? If it is, then this is the last time I’m going to do the homework for you. In the future, please cite on your own the specific quotes. |
Do as much work as you please, It's no skin off my nose.
| quote: | | Okay, so the article lays out from the very beginning what the “criticisms” are from creationists. But I wonder, did you by chance read any further? It distinctly shows step by step all the observed evidence for what you call “macro-evolution”. Could you please comment on that? I’m glad we finally got past the first paragraph of my source. Let’s go a little further now, please. |
I've already read all that bull on the page friend,lol I'm tired of reading it.
| quote: |
What a cute gesture. I’ve got a better idea where to put my pinkie, but I’ll reserve that thought for the future. |
Yes, I learned it while in band class. Yea, you can keep that comment to yourself,I'm sure many of us would prefer it to be that way.
| quote: | | Nessa, guess what? You just described “macro-evolution”. They are all different species within a family. |
::nods:: that's the most ridiculous thing I've heard all day. They are alllllll felines! Feline is a "species",ya following me? They are ALL felines, I will repeat that. That's MICRO not MACRO, MACRO is like cat to dog, THAT's TWO different species.
| quote: |
Where in the Bible does it say he didn’t say that to me? What are you talking about? Be specific. |
Oh just drop it.
| quote: | | You misunderstand me. This is not mocking. It is a logic test to see how you can prove to me logically whether or not God told me that “it was the wisest thing you said so far.” Show me logically how God couldn’t have told me that. |
I don't misunderstand you.
| quote: | | Then why not “turn the other cheek”, and take a little banter like a good Christian? |
To receive respect,you must show it. That's the rule. God says love your enimies, But don't be a doormat.
| quote: | Then you’re missing the point of this entire forum.
de•bate (d -b t )
v. de•bat•ed, de•bat•ing, de•bates
v. intr.
n.
Exactly. Hence the point of debate. |
Personal insults are not part of a debate. If you think I'm ignorant,THat's your beef but keep it to yourself because your " repetition " isn't getting you anywhere. ( Hmm,sound familiar? )
| quote: |
BTW, please respond once again to the refutations on the website you gave, as well as my refutations to Strobel’s books. |
^Read above.
| quote: |
BINGO!!!!!!!!!
Show the lady what’s she’s won!!!!!!
Wow. It only took 11 pages for you to finally understand this simple concept: science does not use faith, i.e. the supernatural, whatsoever. Now I told you earlier what methodological naturalism is, and why it is used in science. But here, have a look at it’s definition: |
And you think I didn't know what you wanted from me the whole time? Wow, you must not be sleeping enough.:/ But, I don't agree with what you've just said.
| quote: |
Okay, I’m going to assume this is your means of more evidence. Nessa, do you understand Geology well enough to go into a discussion about this? Do you understand plate tectonics very well? Judging by this statement, I have my serious doubts. It would do you more credit to study the field first before trying to refute it. |
Yes I do, Have your doubts I don't care.
| quote: | | Are you claiming that animals ran to the mountains to avoid the flood? Are you claiming that they then all died together, WAY WAY up there on the mountain, and that all their bones have been found together? Just out of curiosity, why wouldn’t their bones wash down the mountain when the flood water receded? |
No the bones didn't wash away. They are still up there, frozen I do believe. Yes,they died together.
| quote: |
You’re actually referring to this? So how can it be proved that Sampson’s strength was his hair? I seriously thought God was his strength? Did they find evidence of Sampson’s hair strength in the excavation? Oh yeah, he then killed 3,000 men AND WOMEN by knocking down the pillars, thanks be to God. Nice guy you chose as an example. |
Sampson's strength wasn't his hair, It was God. God didn't murder anyone through him.
Sampson asked for God's strength one more time, and God gave him strength.
| quote: | | I see the sky darken all the time. Here in Kansas between March and July, the weather can seemingly change instantaneously when wall clouds roll through. Is that supernatural magic? Nope, just a bad thunderstorm coming. And I think you can talk to a Californian about a great earthquake. |
No thanks,I've already had an earthquake here in VA. This wasn't a "thunderstorm " or just a "night time dark " I was speaking of. It was the middle of the day and it got dark, like really dark. It wasn't just a bunch of clouds gearing up for a storm. (Trust me,I know thunderstorms aswell,I spent 5 years in Florida.)
| quote: | | And as Tathi pointed out, science has come quite a long ways in explaining events of “fire and brimstone”. So besides the fact that the events can be easily explained by today’s standards, do you have any other documentation outside the Bible that shows these events occurring? |
Again, the earthquake wasn't just in Israel,It was all over the world.
| quote: | You haven’t read the Koran, have you? Not too many Muslims would agree with that assessment.
|
Muslims believe in the God of Isaac and Abraham. Christians believe in the God of Isaac an Abraham. It's the same God.
| quote: | | Again you are presumptuous, and again you are being quite ignorant of what I write. I told you I was an avid devout Christian for the first 19 years of my life. You imply that I wasn’t devout, and that my beliefs weren’t steadfast. Who are you to know how strong my beliefs were? How would you know? I will tell you that much of what you’ve argued so far was the very same arguments I’ve held with researchers in my own right. I really didn’t have to try to prove anything wrong with the Bible. It really kinda did that all on it’s own, once I started understanding the natural world a little better through an education, and once I began listening and UNDERSTANDING those researchers that were arguing against me. Things fell into place quite well after that. |
Again,knock it off with the personal insults they don't get you anywhere. But hey,If you'd like I can be immature like you and go about insulting you back?
Who are you to judge my beliefs then? who are you to tell me I'm ignorant? Who are you to tell me I'm incorrect? You see, it's not so fun when the shoe is on the other foot. But,God says to judge them by your fruits,and pal that's what I'm doing.
| quote: | You mean that they received a higher education? Wow, I guess that is scary, isn’t it? Those poor souls.
By all means, you should avoid learning at all costs too!!!!! Be careful, we certainly don’t want your bubble world to burst!!! |
My education is much higher than a normal public schools is. When I tested at the end of the school year last year, My test came back and on the top it said that I had test 69% higher than the average people in my grade do. (My younger sister tested 72% higher.)
| quote: |
Indeed you are, Nessa. |
Such immaturity,and you said you were how old?
:rolleyes: |
|
|
| St_Andrew |
Nellie, so your theory is that god created all the families and micro evolution did go from that point? :rolleyes:
you haven't thought of that the longer back in time you go the more close the families get? and once upon a time there was a even a micro evolution that did the difference between the different families? it wasn't like a bird enveloped to an elephant! |
|
|
| Cyrus King |
| Once again nellie.. you have no coherent arguments... all you do is reply back with meaningless responses that dont have to do with the argument at hand. But im not surprised, creationists dont have an argument...its a bunch of bull. |
|
|
|
|
