Saturday, October 02, 2004

october 1

Remember if you like this and want to support it, I'm not accepting real cash ATM, but if you want to donate neopoints/items on neopets to THEKN, or gold/items on gaia forums to Kingreaper I won't turn it down

iidb

inquisitive01

Psalms 137 describes the constancy (or, faithfulness) of the Jews in captivity.

1 By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat down, yea, we wept, when we remembered Zion.
2 We hanged our harps upon the willows in the midst thereof.
3 For there they that carried us away captive required of us a song; and they that wasted us required of us mirth, saying, Sing us one of the songs of Zion.
4 How shall we sing the LORD's song in a strange land?
5 If I forget thee, O Jerusalem, let my right hand forget her cunning.
6 If I do not remember thee, let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth; if I prefer not Jerusalem above my chief joy.
7 Remember, O LORD, the children of Edom in the day of Jerusalem; who said, Rase it (make it bare), rase it, even to the foundation thereof.
8 O daughter of Babylon, who art to be destroyed; happy shall he be, that rewardeth thee as thou hast served us.
9 Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones (the Edomites apparently had done things considered just as bad to the Jews while taking the Jews into captivity).

Just a note about what Psalms 137 was written about

Rapture Ready

The Believer

What I also believe this so called Pedophile Protection Act will help NAMBLA which I have predicted it would and will most likely give them the opportunity to practice "Man-Boy" love in my life time.

First we were forced to accept homosexuality with open arms.
Then we were forced to accept adoptions for homosexuals.
Next we are supposed to accept "Gay Marriages".
Then they moved towards "Gay Marriage Benefits".
Now Transgenders wants rights.
Homosexuals want medical insurance for sex changes and consider it to be a medical neccessity.
NOW they want to enforce acceptance in "Man-Boy" love without giving the child any rights.
What next, Man & Animal?

Though this is all so very disturbing, it is happening today in our lifetime.
Please..... I urge everyone to fight this tooth and nail.
We can love the sinner, but we must never give in to their sin.

The Believer

Rapture Ready

joshuacaleb1949 ((paragraph free post alert)

we are running a great, GREAT risk,of not DISCERNING the times in which we live..let me clarify :"the were hundreds of prophecy concerning His FIRST coming,litterally hundreds,starting with Genesis 3:15...all the way to Malachi and also Jesus forerunner John the baptist,the last old testament prophet announcing HIS coming and guess what? THEY( the generation alive then ) didn't RECOGNIZE HIM!!!(except those who believed in Him)..actually He called them "a perverse " generation,with an emphasis on the hypocritical sect of the Pharisees and Sadducees...not to mention that in HIS triumphal entry in Jerusalem He entered (riding a donkey)on THE EXACT day prophesied by Daniel( see the seventy weeks of Daniel)...and HE WEPT over Jerusalem for the fact that they didn't understand the time of their visitation...and predicted their desolation and destruction of the temple and the coming diaspora(dispersion worldwide) of the nation..thing that happened on the year 70 a.d. by hand of the roman legion led by Titus..."(dramatic stuff,not a stone of the temple was left upon an other, litterally fulfilling His word) Jesus Christ,Prophet,Priest and King..)so? well ,Israel had THE OLD TESTAMENT scriptures...but....but...THEY DIDN'T BELIEVE THEM as Paul explains later in the epistles.THEY MISSED HIS FIRST COMING!!!!because of UNBELIEF..do you get it? We have THE SCRIPTURES ,the ENTIRE 66 books (old and new testaments) and WE DON'T BELIEVE THEM...!!!!!Why? because of the false ,I REPEAT FALSE GOSPEL of Kingdom now,Prosperity and NAME IT and GRAB IT ,a gospel WITHOUT JESUS,without the cross,a gospel that in reality as Paul says is ANOTHER GOSPEL,SATANIC to the core,the gospel of PRIDE,of man worship,a watered down gospel,a weak gospel for whimps..a generation of the HERE and NOW,earth dwellers...man do they love it here...GIMME GIMME gospel... THE PRIDE GOSPEL ...in fact WE ARE THE FINAL GENERATION...and I base my declaration on the scriptures even though I will never set dates ,days,month,year etc..I wouldn't dare but I firmly believe that we are that generation....and at the least I want be aware continually that THE RAPTURE is nearer than ever..WHY? because of ISRAEL!!!!that's why!! and of the six days war ( THE MIRACLE WAR) of 1967..I am 55..I was a witness of what Moshe Dayan did..of better of what THE LORD did to the enemy of ISRAEL....and also for what is going on NOW in ISRAEL...camon..are we BLIND? Has the media managed to CONTROL our minds to the point that we can think that THE LORD will let this going on for ever? DO WE KNOW THE LORD? YES HE IS A GRACIOUS GOD...but also a CONSUMING FIRE..and when HIS wrath will be unleashed ..well, the coming great TRIBULATION speaks ..it is also called a time of GREAT AFFLICTION..JACOB'S TROUBLE...after THE RAPTURE ,the great GREAT TRIBULATION..so?IT IS BETTER TO FIND SHELTER IN JESUS and QUICK......there is not time to fool around anymore,we are living in BORROWED time..LORD HELP US TO COUNT OUR DAYS!!! GOD BLESS US ALL

IIDB

spanner365

This is an argument over nothingness. It's not a theory that paper comes from trees, its a fact (although we can never be absolutely sure.)
I think what you are trying to say is that evolution is as much a fact as the law of gravity etc. This is far from the truth of course. We have no empirical evidence that new species are formed through natural selection. Its a great theory with no really serious problems. However, it is just a theory.

iidb

Iacchus (fundie points for thinking time only exists in a material universe, and for incoherence)

Time is wholy contingent upon the fact that a material Universe exists. Meaning, if there is no physical distance by which to measure the rate of change, there would be no time. However, that isn't to say there wasn't an immaterial universe that existed prior to this, otherwise where would the pre-existing structure (blueprint) exist to give rise to the Big Bang and set the whole material Universe into motion? And what would be the difference between that and say, "rolling out the carpet" (so to speak) with its inherent design? Isn't that in effect what DNA does, the inherent blueprint or code that tells the body what to do? So, if all we have is the immaterial dimension -- ever wonder where we go in our dreams? which, are merely an extension of thought and of the same dimension -- then the only possible thing we can have in the physical sense is stillness which, is an expression of the moment and, extended unto Eternity.

Dionysus Forums

Iacchus32 (maybe I shouldn't even bother with this fundies, just let you google thuis name :-) Nah )

Do you know why you're here? Except that "mama evolution" tells you so? That would be pure speculation if, in fact everything "stems" from nothing.

Well, what I want to know is who got mama pregnant? Could it be that we're all bastards, of some "grand idea" we don't know about? Indeed, it's much easier to blame the woman in that respect isn't it? Why? Because she's the one who has the direct proof.

Of course if we understood that we do in fact have a father, maybe we would try and stop bastardizing everything else?

Gaia online

GreenVI

Um... right.

I don't have enough faith to be an Atheist.
I find it extremely hard to believe something as complex as the Universe began without a God.
What caused the Big Bang? What caused the event that caused it? What caused that event?
I'm sick of this "we just don't know enough" cop-out answer.

GreenVI

What I'm saying is that I'm tired of you saying that "God is too complex for the human mind to comprehend" is a cop-out answer when "we just don't know enough but we're trying to figure it out" is a cop-out answer as well

GreenVI (begginning to notice a pattern?)

No proof that God exists? *disgusted sigh*
You know about termites? They have little organisms in them that help digest wood. These little organisms die if exposed to the outside enviroment. Without the little organisms, termites wouldn't be able to digest their food.
The Theory of Evolution doesn't seem to fit with this.

GreenVI ( I wonder who's next?)

So you're saying if people start swallowing mice, we'll eventually develop a symbiotic relationship?

What about life itself? How did it begin? It seems kind of odd that the right conditions just happened to be present long enough to complete the process? DNA is only part of what is essentail for life, yet it is so complex that mankind has only begun to understand its basics, even after being around for thousands and thousands of years.

man with the golden gun (well, guess you were wrong, BTW this one wins not just for formatting but also for implying there was no free will before Jesus, and no evil)

the thing is when jesus came, God gave us free will, and let us bee unles we seek Him He will work in our lives and so on. But with the free will comes sickness evilnes in the world, we are comeing close to the end times, The world is starting to come apart and Jesus will soon come back and fix things, and the Revelation thin comes in, but the point is IMO that When God sent Jesus to earth he gave us free will to do what we whant and bad things will happen, he whants us to bee free and happy and chose him but he cant he gave us free will. If He wanted to right now with the snap of his finger he could make us all worship Him and make us bow down and say we are worthless siners, but no, he gave us free will to do as we want

Rapture-ready

mochamom (translation=religious restrictions are fine as long as they don't apply to christians)

Ok, so you can't marry more than one person at a time, marijuana/peyote is still illegal, you can't make the state adhere to kosher guidelines...

Can you tell people they are going to hell if they don't repent?

These rulings make sense to us, in the extreme cases...but these laws are made, and can apply to US, as CHRISTIANS. I see these rulings as very scary...

Rapture ready

watchdogR63

The spirit of deception is everywhere.... I can feel it all the time. Doctrines of demons are getting more entrenched in different facets of this country. Jesus warned us of this...I feel like as Christians we HAVE to be ready to cut ourselves off from worldy influences. I don't even listen to secular music anymore AT ALL. I am not just talking gang banger stuff(never listened to that anyway), but even stuff like classic rock. It's not that I am devevoping a "holier than though attitude." But I can feel my spirit man inside me groaning against it. I guess some of it comes from a fear of giving into deception. I don't want to give in. But sometimes I can feel my mind drifting into a lower, more depraved state. The WORD pulls me back as does worship.
This really concerns me. Sometimes I have little problem getting outraged at what goes on. But other times I have to fight a descent into an acceptance of sorts. This is my first year on a college campus, so I can understand why to some extent. The liberal school of thought is rampant, so I am constantly under asault. But I feel that there is more to it than that. My parents have said that every generation has their problems, their quams, etc. I think it is more than that. The battle is getting fierce in the heavens. Violent. And it is spilling over into our physical realm.

*And I have a feeling that some of the older Christians on this board (who have seen the 60's and 70's) can still say that this time is like no other.*

watchdogR63

Oh yeah that reminds me. A local church in my town is sponsoring a Christian Muslime dialogue... "After all, shouldn't we celibrate diversity?"

Gaia

Yukamina


It's impossible to predict the end of the world. It will be when we least expect it(though God spoke though someone at church a couple weeks ago saying that it would be 'soon', as if it would be in our life time.

blizzforums

Doriath22

It is very hard to justify religion to an Atheist. Most of them, unless they find God through a physical means, such as an encounter of some kind, have no desire to believe in a God, and are altogether too modernistic to believe that such an antiquated concept can possibly be true when there are such perfect answers from science, physics, and Darwin. Any appeals to a higher being or desires thereof can be appeased by reading a little philosophy, be it Aristotle, Nietzsche, etc. However, a Christian will also tell you that they know God exists because he answers prayer. Things just seem to happen to allow Christians under adverse circumstances to survive, prosper, and continue life, often better than before. It's all a bit too regular to be written off to coincidence, especially when these events are usually preceded by a prayer for a successful resolution. With this, and the reasons cited in my above posts, it can be justified with certainty that there Is a God. Even so, some will still say that it is all a quaint old myth, and I have pity on them. To those, I ask: When a loved one dies, how do you cope? When a tragedy strikes, what prevents extreme depression, unhappiness, suicide, and the like? I have always felt sorry for those who disbelive in The Lord, as when such things happen, they do not have His comforting presence to turn to, they do not have a hope that their relatives are living in paradise, but rather know with certainty that said relatives are completely "dead" and nonexistant. Atheists have good reason to fear death, from their point of view, because they know that they will be completely dead. They try to build monuments and riches on earth so that they will be remembered, as a legacy to their existence. From the Christian point of view, they also ought to fear death, because no matter their beliefs, they will still have to face The Lord on the day of judgement, and The Lord doesn't subscribe, according to Church teaching, to such modern concepts as "tolerance" and "differing beliefs." I always cringe when someone makes light of hell with an attitude of "I know it doesn't exist, so I'm not going there, but if I do, then oh well, it's just a place with fire and darkness, can't be too bad." Hell is held to be infinitely worse than the greatest pains we on earth could imagine, suffered for eternity with no relief or respite. There's no "second chance" or pardons after serving time. It's permanent. A Christian, on the other hand, has no reason whatsoever to fear death, as he knows and trusts in The Lord's great mercy, and while he may sin, he has the opportunity to expiate his sins in temporary Purgatory, rather than full-blown hell. Eternity is a long time.

I realize that the above isn't as together as I woud like it to be, and is rather general, not addressing individual posts, but it's the best I can do without writing a treatise on the topic.

With regards to the post questioning my logical flaw, the last post on page the twelvth of this thread, I noticed that flaw too, as I wrote my prior post on Islam. I ignored it at the time. Perhaps I should have best worded my thoughts as such: "I don't have a shred of evidence to indicate that Islam is any more valid than Christianity, and I have much evidence (see pretty much every one of my posts on this thread) to indicate that Christianity is valid. As Christians believe that Islam is a great heresy, I hold to this view, for lack of evidence to the contrary.

SinX


my freind CRAP FACE(poo_on_you)listen you will see one day when you are in eternal HELL beleive me if you dont save yourself you will be but when we get resectud through christ when people start disapearing will you believe then or not?

Gaia
Princess_Irene

What's wrong with you people?! Prostitution should NEVER be legal!!! Women are SO MUCH MORE THAN SEX SLAVES!!!!!! I wouldn't want ANYONE to think of me as a "sex toy," no matter how well it paid!! People are just worth so much more than that!!!!

And besides, sex is suppost to be something special--something you share with someone you truly love and who means the world to you. If it was something you did with just anyone, than it's not special anymore--it's meaningless!

Don't you see what you're saying?! You're saying that YOU, yes YOU, and all other women are nothing but sex machines designed for men's pleasure!!! And that's just so untrue!!! Women are valuable, strong, special creatures!!!! Please reconsider your desision, as you are insulting all of us by saying that prostitution should be leagal.



Evolutionism: the denial of absolutes


Evolutionists like to explain non-utilitarian aspects of life (we shall use beauty as the chief example in this thread), in terms of utility.
They do this because it provides for them an escape route when confronted with absolute purpose.

For example, they will tell you that the reason a male human is attracted to a woman's pelvic shape, is because he discerns that such form facilitates child-bearing, and thus, preservation of ourselves (they like to use "species" here - makes them feel scientific - but we will stick to less high falutin language).




The reason a man is attracted to a woman's shape, is not found in utility (many men like large breasted women, others small breasted women, but breast size has nothing to do with milk production anyway; many men like large/wide female hips, others like the 'Beau Derick' ('10') look).
The reason is necessarily tautological: he is attracted to her, because he is attracted to her.




This then brings up the issue of just what the object/focus/platform of attraction is: what is the substance/essence of 'attractiveness'?: what does attractiveness comprise of itself? Concisely: "what is beauty?"

Beauty is an absolute, as is utility. This is easy to prove: when we attribute beauty to an item, we call it "beautiful" (full of beauty). Thus we have described the subjective (most differ on what they consider beautiful) with the objective "beauty": we may differ on what is beautiful, but not on the existence of beauty.

Christian forums

Colossians

The evolutionist will at this point, realising his need to divorce his real-world perception (reality) from the debating table, attempt to point out that beauty is simply a grouping term for the phenomenon which attracts.
We shall of course thank him for his definition, but point out that, in order to have a definition, must must first of all have that which it defines.

Beauty is an absolute. And being an absolute, cannot be attributed to the utility-based production which is 'evolution': it has come from Someone else.

Someone who understands the beauty of it.


Colossians

Arikay,

Thank you for reiterating what is posited in the OP.
0/10 for reading and comprehension.

Colossians

Jet Black,

"Then why do I think Britney Spears is Ugly?"
Probably the same reason you haven't understood the OP.

Colossians

Jet Blck,

You really need to go back and read the OP properly: it will save you typing all your high falutin words past the point.

Colossians

I tend to spend most of my time in the theology areas (prefer to deal with reality: afterlife, sin, righteousness, love, faith etc).

Every now and again I like to take a little wander and have some fun with you guys. If I could put it down to one difference between the 2 areas, it would be this:
You guys like to bluff when you don't have answers, or don't understand the issue.

Colossians

Ampoliros,

I dont know how to put this, but "you haven't read the OP".
That is probably why it baffles you.

Colossians

Nathan Poe,

Your argument reduces to "You're wrong!"
(You should save such winners for when the going gets tough.)


Good night.

Colossians

Ampol..,

"Beauty is by no means an absolute"
Of course it is: it cannot be defined in terms of anything else. This makes it an absolute. Similarly utility is an absolute.

"Beauty isn't something attached to an object, its someones individual assessment and what every person finds beautiful varies from person to person."
All subjective assessments are underpinned by the existence of the objective substance of the same. Without an objective base, the subjective could not exist.
This is shown forth at the generic level in the relativity of subjective to objective: "subjective" has no meaning if objective does not exist.

christian forums

awstar

So man evolved from some other kind of animal because of mutation? hee hee hee. ri-i-i-ght!!!

"Mutations result when the DNA polymerase makes a mistake, which happens about once every 100,000,000 bases.


Actually, the number of mistakes that remain incorporated into the DNA is even lower than this because cells contain special DNA repair proteins that fix many of the mistakes in the DNA that are caused by mutagens. The repair proteins see which nucleotides are paired incorrectly, and then change the wrong base to the right one. " -- http://gslc.genetics.utah.edu/units.../mutationbg.cfm

Christian Forums

bluejeans

I place my trust 100% in Jesus Christ and the holy word,amen.
In the beginning,God!
Radical liberals are dangerous to the United States and the freedom
and safety of our nation. They are a group who is never satisfied,and they
cause the deaths of all the unborn and they keep Pornography legal.
Porn kills,and and destroys.
Evolution is an ancient pagan religion rising back up!
Henry Morris's book "The Long War Against God' prove it,and it is so well researched
that no one can argue against the facts. Evolution is not science at all,and it has no
proof.

Christian Forums

bluejeans

Evolution is a pagan religion,and an end times fable.
Yes,atheist slash evolutionists have an agenda,and
they know they do. Don't listen to their sob stories.
They cannot accept the truth about God simply
because they don't accept the truth about themselves.
It's not what they don't understand in the bible that
bothers them so much,it's what they do understand that
chaps their hide the most. They cannot stand what the
bible says about the lost.They also don't realize that when
they denie the truth,that they have cursed their lives.
Please read: 2nd Cor.10:5

Christian Forums

bluejeans

The earth is young. It cannot possibly billions of years old,amen.
There are also many scientists who believe the earth is young too,
and no matter what you say or claim,you cannot change the truth.
Homosexuals say that they are born gay,and they try to get Doctor's
to find evidence to support their agenda,yet it is simply not true.
The earth is young no matter what any liberal says.

Christian Forums

bluejeans

Personally,what do you both think about TOE?
It should be kicked with foot,right?
I think so. It's so obviously a fairytale,and so easy
to realize is fake that no wonder people believe it's
part of a conspiracy against the freedom of The USA
and the world.

christian forums

Rowell

I won't give you people fodder to attempt to get me kicked, but I know of many a Christian who thinks like that. Now, the idea that we shouldn't be "judgemental" and should instead question our own status with God is nice thinking, but people don't do that -- everybody thinks they're fine with God in their own mind, others might not. Sorry, that's how it is. It may be judgemental, but isn't society so in general?

And yes, I do know the majority of Christians are thiestic evolutionists. Just an example of the saddness of how theory and other faith masquerading as scientific fact can affect so many. But if you don't believe what the Bible says in one book, how can you be sure that anything else that author says, like Moses, is a lie? And furthermore how do you decide what is truth in the Bible and what is not? It becomes pick and chose religion. How can you really trust in Christianity if you don't believe the fundamentals and leaders that first enlightened the world to it? Can you be Christian?

Many great ideas, maybe better for the theology section, but that's my point.

Christian forums

Rebel4Dios


Hey, this is Rebel4Dios. I'm relatively new here, but I have scientific evidence God is real. Anyone who wants to debate me is welcome to. I have proof that the Big Bang, Evolution, etc. is PROOF of God! Contact me if you want to know my theory and how I arrived at it.

Rebel4Dios


No one? Alright this may shock you, but the Big Bang is Proof of God. Let me elaborate. God appears to be an all knowing, all seeing, supreme entity that exists beyond the limits of time and space. When the Bible speaks of God it says that he created the universe, literally spoke it into existence. "And God said let there be light and there was light and God saw that it was good." Think about that verse. There was nothing at the time "and the earth was void and without form" until a giant burst of light erupted out from the emptiness. Think about it. If the Bible was right, then there really was a giant burst of light and heat energy that caused the creation of such elements as hydrogen, helium, etc. in the first few seconds. I do not deny the Big Bang at all. Picture this, there is a plain match sitting on a table. There is no doubt that if striken it will release, light, energy, and a variety of gasses and elements as a chemical change occurs. However, it cannot strike itself, there has to be one to strike that match before it can even get warm. The fire cannot sponateously erupt without cause.
The Bible even gives evidence of universal expansion. "For God made the heavens AND STRETCHED THEM OUT." I have much more evidence to anyone else who would like to challenge me on ANY issue concerning God.


Rebel4Dios


Good question iconoclast, here is your answer, God was not created. It may seem odd, but picture this... an entity not bound by time, space, or matter can always exist even before the creation of ten dimensions of space and the one of time. Think of this, if there is a mouse in a maze, he is restricted to the walls and must go through the maze, with all of it's physical limitations. However, say the mouse was being held above the maze, he would not be at all restricted to the physical limitations of the structure. So assuming that God exists oustside of our boundries, what makes you think he himself would have to abide by our laws of creation in order for his life to exist? If he exists outside our realm of sight, matter, space and time, he could just as well have existed forever. My best regards to Kingreaper. Interesting statement. Let me ask you, how does the Big Bang theory disagree with the Bible? GIVE ME THE PROOF I HAVE GIVEN YOU.

Rebel4Dios


Very amusing Kingreaper. Quite the contrary. Nowhere does the Bible give an estimate of the age of the earth. In fact it is theologians and zealots who equate the six days of creation with six thousand years. The sheer age of civilization is stressed 8,000 t0 25,000 years BEFORE the flood (you can check this by counting the number of years and generations before the flood in genesis). In fact the Bible stresses that "To God one day is as one thousand years." Considering this, the six days were probably not six consecutive 24 hour periods but rather possilbly 60 million years or more! The bible also gives evidence of universal cooling! The theory here is that as matter expands it rapidly decays and cools until it ultimately collapses. Genesis 2 and 3 talk about a painful and long creationic period both before adam and eve. Such ongoing slavery and decay only proves the second law of thermodynamics. In turn, the Bible also talks about in many places how the earth and the heavens are constantly going under rapid decline. Concerning evolution, I do not believe that man originated from apes. If that were possible, then today we would be seeing rapid changes in monkeys DNA as time went on. Not only that but there is a great difference between universal and biological evolution. According to biological evolution, there must have been an infinite number of 'dice throws' in order for life to evolve by chance anywhere in the universe. steadily expanding forever and because of this it is an infinite entity capable of 'an infinite number of dice throws'. However, recent COBE satellite findings of back radiation prove the rapidly expanding universe suffered a massive 'big bang' explosion. To back this up once more lets take a look into the sky. Now if you look into the heavens you will see the right amount of stars. not too little to not leave us in pitch blackness with no light and not too much to blind us. Considering that all the stars in the sky are each spaced an equal amount apart from each other and are shining at a near equal intensity we can determine if the universe is finite or not. If there is an infinite universe, there is an infinite number of stars. So if there is an infinite number of stars, all spaced equally from each other, their light would make night on our planet as bright as day. Seeing as how the night sky is not as bright as day, we can safely assume that the universe had a beginning and is finite. With that said, there could NOT have been an infinite number of throws for life in such great quantities to exist on one planet. Therefore we can safely come to one conclusion. LIFE BY CHANCE IS FALSE. THERE MUST HAVE BEEN AN INTELLIGENT CREATOR. I have much more proof of this. Now tell me how the Koran stresses this.


Rebel4Dios


Yes, you are right, I believe the Bible. Jesus said if you don't believe what I say, believe for my works that I do. How can you deny over 4 to 5 thousand years of continuous miracles and accurate acts of salvation upon the part of Israel and the Christians. Have you noticed how many prophecies spoken of in the Bible have been fulfilled? This is not only a matter of science but a matter of faith. God be with you.

Rebel4Dios


OK lets talk about such 'selection'. You know, I have tried just to open a friendly debate over this issue, and what I get is slapped in face a hundred times over! I have several scientists and professors who agree with my theories. Hugh Ross, PH.D. being my lead inspiration! I realise that maybe I got my facts mixed up in the first part of the debate. (ex. the stars glowing at equal intensity at equal length) But I am not guilty of lying! I am presenting a theory that should be looked upon with an unbias viewpoint, but the most frequent response I am getting is "SHUT UP THE FANATICAL ZEALOT!" I could quote word for word, provide stacks of evidence, have many other renound scientists and philosophers back up my theory. I thought that maybe this website would be a place where we could forget our differences and bilateraly discuss our theories to come to a unilateral agreement. However, seeing the anti-religious bias and closed minidedness of such an immature group of people has utterly sickened me(ex: false,false,false,inacurate, wrong, unreliable). I AT LEAST WAS OPEN MINDED ABOUT YOUR THEORIES! Because of this I will withdraw my argument from this travesty. I do thank this forum. Now after seeing the closed minded skepticism of this group I will work HARDER on my theories and work toward having them PUBLISHED! Please note that had it not been for your irritating judgementalism I would have further elaborated and this could have been a much more fun and interesting debate.

Gaia Online

joeymybitch

I think that Atheism is a religion because a religion is basically what you believe in considering the start of the world or the supernatural being of god, jesus, buddha, or anything. So if you are atheist you believe there is no god but you do still believe. I, my self, am buddhist and believe in buddha.

Gaia Online

Mitsumi-chan
And if it's really "pro-choice" then why doesn't the kid get a choice as to whether or not he lives?

monkey toaster

Abortion is wrong since it is killing a potential human being; however, if having the baby will threaten the mother's life, the doctors give her a choice to kill the baby and let her live, or deliver the baby and die.

Tarenya_Starblazer

alright... i know i just got here but.... personaly all those people who say that abortion in a three month period is fine and dandy are plain idiotic and retarded peopl. sry to put this but its true. once the sperm hits the egg and fertilizes it its a human being and a baby now. even in three months ur killing a live being and SHOULD be arrested and put in jail cuz ur murdering someone. even tho the baby doesnt start looking like a baby till lik 5, 6 months its still a human being and its still living.... i mean it can breath it eats and it moves..... whats the problem with people understanding that even tho the mother gets raped and all, and if she doesnt want the baby then she should give it up for adoption that she should still give birth to it and NOT KILL IT!!! People out there say that its good but its actually wrong and people say that "oh but the mother was raped and she should hav the right to decide to go through the pain or not".... she still should hav the baby and if not wanting it give it up for adoption giveing the baby at least a chance to live longer then three months or weeks or w/e. Abortion is killing nothing more and people say it is ok lik Kerry.... he says that its the mothers choice if she should let the baby supposedly "live" or not outsid eher womb.... when technically she is killing the baby even tho they say she isnt.

Page 30 of this thread

Double_Sins

Someone may have already said this, but I think abortion is like murdering....you had the choice to have sex, but to have an unborn child die and pay for your poor decision??? Its wrong.

Dionisius
(not because I disagree, I can't work out what I would have to disagree with, just the formatting)

you never had the chance to decide if you wanted it or not, a women getting raped and then having an abortion i think is wrong, but i think is ok. The woman might have never wanted the child, or isnt able to have the child, should the woman have to suffer becauwse some perverted punck couldnt keep his dick in his pants {i despise rapest}. if a child is going to take the life of his or her mother when he or she is born then it should be ok for that mother to get an abortion, a mother as being, any age. There are sick minds out there that would rape 14 year old girls, is it right that that girl should have to live with it for the rest of her life? the child being the constant reminder? and how would that child feel when he or she finds out that they were born because of the act of a rapest?

brother_edward (non-sequitur award)

abortion is murder, and a tragedy. I don't understand how abortion can be defended. In science class in sixth grade, we learned what a living thing had to have in order to be living. An unborn child has all of those. To say that the child isn't fully developed is a cop out too, because I am twenty one years old and I still am not fully developed.
Unwanted children can be adopted quite easily, and birth control has progressed to the point where its quite easy to prevent unwanted children in the first place. Remenber: abortion stops a beating heart.

Christian forums

Intrepid99

Watermelons and Clouds.


Often, (almost all the time) Evolutionists argue relationship between humans and chimps. They point out towards the DNA sequence of both the organisms saying that DNA shows similarity and thus, the latter evolved from the former.
If that is true, Is a cloud mde up of almost 100% water somehow related to a watermelon which is 98% water?

Gaia Online

Lucky~9~Lives

I disagree. An agnostic is one who believes we (as humans) can ever know for sure if God does or does not exist. It is technically impossible for one to 'not believe He doesn't [exist], and not believe He does [exist]', as you put it - as I stated, the argument is binary. At any particular moment, one either believes in God or one does not believe in God - there is no 'half-belief' in God.

Lucky~9~Lives

I don't believe he exists...which, incidently, is identical to saying I believe he doesn't exist. It is a binary argument - by saying I don't believe he exists I am automatically implying that I do believe he doesn't exist.

Lucky~9~Lives

Galwraith wrote:
Why do you think that there needs to be a belief in the negative in order for there to be a no belief in the positive?


Because it's binary - 'either/or', only two states.

Galwraith wrote:
There's nothing you don't care about, one way or the other? Nothing that you're entirely apathetic about?


That's beside the point; whether or not I care about something doesn't change the fact that I either believe in it or I don't. I don't care whether Spurs won last week or not, but I believe they did not.



Lucky~9~Lives

Galwraith wrote:
Either you believe in God or you don't- that's binary.

Roll a die. Either it's a 3 or it isn't. However, if it isn't, that doesn't mean it's a 2, does it?


So...?

A die has six faces; belief in the existence of God is binary - there are only two outcomes/positions. There is no such thing as 'half-belief' - one either believe God exists or one must believe God does not exist. Even if one believes 'God exists here, here and here but not here,' one is still conceeding the existence of God.

Lucky~9~Lives

The fact that there may be 'different facets' (I assume you mean different reasons) for not believing in God is not the issue - essentially, one either believes in the existence of God (theism) or one believes, by default, in the non-existence of God (atheism). That is the primary criteria of ones fundimental beliefs - 'do you believe in God?' A secondary criteria may be: 'do you believe you have knowledge of God's existence/non-existence?' This would then further divide individuals into agnostic theists, non-agnostic theists, atheists and non-agnostic atheists.

Lucky~9~Lives

Galwraith wrote:
Do you currently have opinions on things you haven't heard about yet?


No, because I don't believe they exist. I am 'atheist' towards them - I believe I have knowledge that they do not exist (I have not heard of them) and I don't believe they exist

Gaia Online

Okomikeruko

Rome fell, Egypt fell, Greece fell, Japan fell, All of these accepted Homosexuality as a mainstream concept only a few generations prior to their fall. History repeats, failure to learn from it is not "homophobia", it's reason. Besides, do you honestly think it won't? It's so much easier for guys to get along with guys and girls to get along with girls then to cross the genders. If homosexuality becomes taught as a valid option to heterosexuality, how many more people who now live in their closets will choose that road?

Barahumet

procreation.. Gays cannot procreate. thus as the years go on and on and the number of gay marriages increase the species that is humanity dwindles. We would slowly die out... I like the pet marriage argument though. next you people are going to want to give people in Alabama the right to marry there sisters......

christian forums

Crispie

Macro Evolution goes against the Bible big time. You my friend need to at least read the genealogy of Jesus and read Genesis!

Gaia Online

Dark_God_Amarande

Abortion is absolutely wrong...plain and simple, it is a waste of good human resources. A percentage of anti-Abortionists are probably anti-animal-slaughter-for-human-consumption and care about starving orphans in third-world, i mean underdeveloped, i mean developing nations (its hard to keep up with the politically correct euphemisms nowadays) as well...I will addres both of this issues quite frankly. Why kill babies before they are born, when you can eat them afterwards? Pre-natal destruction of potential babies is a careless waste of what could essentially be a valuable resource. I propose an organisation devoted to feeding impovershed and famined regions of the world without killing the oh-so-precious animals your God put on this earth. If a mother does not want a baby (unless of course she's raped [I don't want to offend everyone in this post, just most of you] in which case this suggestion doesn't apply (i suggest an egg-beater in this case), obtain her consent, and get the baby to sign a liability release form (and just like immigrants who can't sign their own name or read english, we can have an 'interpreter' do-it for the infant), and after 3 to 18 months, ship it off to a poor country and have them eat it...Babies are much more easy to transport than cattle or chicken, (they are usually smaller and easier to keep fresh). Anyway, send me hate mail, or praise for all you fellow f**ked up minds out there...

brokencloud

Quote:
And maybe you can hear the heartbeat from 12 weeks on; I consider this unlikely without a source presented, but so? Why is a heartbeat the fundamental of life? We don't consider people who need artificial hearts dead, we use the brain as the fundamental criterion.

When does the fetus first exhibit significant brain activity, hm?
wow. hahaha. the idea of an artificial heart makes it obvious that a heart is essential in life. thats what pumps all the blood and keeps it oxygenated so life can be carried out. anyway.

and i don't know when "signifigant" brain activity occurs or what exactly you'd mean by that.

kagome~higurashi04

My mom and I were talking about this on the way home from church...[she also shared a REALLY kool story w/ me 2...] Anyway...I believe that it is wrong, yes. It would b very difficult to decide what to do if u were very young and got pregnant...i mean...it's murder. I was crying when i thought about the babies who r being killed because of some1s stupid mistake[or mayb that was something else i was crying about... ] and i wish that it never happens...but the fact is...it does...

greenmouthwash

*hahaha... laughs at you because you continue to make no sense!*
all you say is "you are wrong" why don't you put some facts on here? anaogies and thoughtless words mean nothing! your analogies are bogus! sure they are examples of taking small risks... (by the way having sex is a much bigger risk than walking down the street or eating food) but yup... they are the worst analogys i have ever seen!
read the dictionary if you will... a fetus is an unborn baby...
I can't understand why people would want to kill a baby!... we have the right to life!
Abortions are even less safe than any operation to try and save the baby!
Why do you call her a mother if the fetus is "not a person?"
The mother made a choice to have sex (in all most all cases) So just because the "mother" doesn't want the baby she has the right to kill it? Thats bologna the baby has a right to live!!!!
So when does the baby become a human to you?

greenmouthwash

actually we have a right to life. Sure... if its a good reason kill someone... ... makes sence... only not! sometimes i forget pro-choice is pro-murder. everyone dies eventually... but that doesn't mean we can kill everyone!

Neko123

yes it is wrong cuz no matter how you see it its murder

Bunnyangel

i donot think abortions are wrong unless you were raped

Gaia online

LAW of gravity. Not theory. Laws cannot be proven wrong. Period. Theories on the other hand are theories for a reason. They are not yet fully proven or they are incomplete.

Gaia Online

Emiko Kiyomi

Verse: Exodus 23:7, Psalm 82:3-4, Romans 8:28

As a Christian, I believe that abortion is wrong. Life is a gift, and to me, a blessing from God. I do not believe that, as humans, we have the right to decide who gets to live and who doesn't. Abortion is just legal murder... It's selfish and cruel. Many people usually ask me at this point, "But what if a girl gets raped?? Is abortion still wrong?" Yes, I believe it is. It's still murder. Technically, murder is the destruction of life. When a woman aborts a baby, that's exactly what she is doing, because it's more "convenient." That is selfish. Humans should not have the right to control the fate of an unborn child. And just because the baby begins in the fetus doesn't mean it's "just a part of the mother's body." This is a passage from my Bible that talks about this:

"Every human being throughout history has had a unique, individual genetic code stamped on every cell in his or her body. Both the mother and the fetus she carries have a genetic code stamped on their genes and chromosomes. Are they the same? No. The fetus's genetic code is different from the mother's. To say a woman can do whatever she wants with her own body may be true. But it is not true that a fetus is merely a part of the mother's body."

Rapture Ready

Angel Trinity 3

I found this to be very helpful! We all want our loved ones to have a knowledge of what happened to us, so once the rapture occurs a Rapture Letter will be e mailed to them for you! If many of you are trying to witness to those who just dont want the gift of Salvation, maybe this last attempt on your part will definately open their eyes!

Please take the time to add all your friends and families e mails to this site that will forward a Rapture Letter to all that have been Left Behind! It takes seconds to complete! Time is short, make use of this tool for all of those who deserve to know!

billiefan2000

angel,I think we should have letters send it to emails at churches as well (just in case

And we also should have these letters send to famous people and people of Influence where we live as well. I am having one sent to Michael Moore

Charity4Ever

I did some.

Although, it would be really embarrasing to be left behind yourself and have all those letters go out. So, before you all send them out, make sure you'll be right with God first at that time.

billiefan2000

say,if we are gone how will the letters be sent automatically

billiefan2000

I sent one to Michael Moore and Kate garven already

Tried finding his email but no luck on how to send one to Bill Maher (who by the way knows what the rapture is)


everyone listed at:

http://www.100megsfree4.com/csministries/who.html

who dont know Jesus yet for sure needs a letter sent to them.

Also several radio show hosts I can think of

Matt Drudge
Michael Medved
Michael Savage
Lionel
Howard Stern

to name a few

also send one to ever local radio show host and reporter you can think of also


also school staff members and school board members and city leaders and state politicians should get a letter too

Charity4Ever

That's what I was wondering....I guess, some good unsaved people have agreed to send them out if many people all over went missing

there is an email address there

elfuddo

I think this is a great idea,with one caveat: What guarantees do we have that this website will keep all these e-mail addresses private except when the rapture is upon us?

jody49285

Hello all,
just a question here. Don't you think the sattelites and electricity will be messed up for awhile after the rapture? And then there could be tracking devices on all comp. for the goverment to track this info and then they would go to these people and torture them. We should print out letters for people to read. I know I am a consperecy (sp) freak.. but just my 2 cents worth..
YSIC
Jody

SemperSpes06

Just curious, are we 100% sure that they send these letters out AFTER the rapture??? How does the computer or whatever know that it's happened? It's a wonderfuly idea, but I would feel silly if it was sent out beforehand.

Angel Trinity 3

You know what folks?!?!? I wouldnt even worry about those things, if it wasnt possible to send out those Rapture letters, they wouldnt have this in place, obviously God gave someone this idea, and God will direct it as time will allow! Leave the worry up to God, dont stress, everything will be ok!

Just get out your e mail addresses and fill in the blanks and let God get the job completed!!! Amen !?

Maranatha everyone!

Christ is coming back, dont waste a minute!

Andrew L.

Great, I sent one to Paul Wolfowitz, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and of course our friend George W. Bush!

nooneuno

I wrote the site today and asked them HOW they would get these out if the site managers are believers!! When and if I find out, I will let you know...it's a wonderful wonderful idea.

I only wish they would talk about NOT taking the mark of the beast and not to believe him.

inretire

I mean no offense to this topic's originator and this sounds like a great idea but call me skeptical of the intentions of the web site. I am very uncomfortable putting loved one's e-mail addresses into somebody's database with no protections at all. I think a better idea is to witness to them now personally and when the rapture occurs they will definitely remember their conversation with you. I think that will have more impact since they heard it directly from you before it happens. Tell them now and don't assume some server is going to send them an e-mail in an extremely chaotic world. My thoughts and opinions only. Thanks

Angel Trinity 3

I am not worried, and many ppl that I am witnessing to are turning a deaf ear to me, so I send them e mails of really good websites, including RR, and plus everyone I have in contact with me, dont live close to me, so this is my only way of witnessing! When these e mails are sent out, my name will appear in there inbox, so they wont be weirded out from this incoming e mail with a strange name!

I am only doing my part and hope that you will do yours, God will bless you for remembering the Lost in this world!

Keep up the good work everyone, remember what I said before, God allowed this tool to be available to us, we have to trust Him that all will run smoothly with this project, and to those who e mailed them asking how will the emails be sent out if they arent there, let us know your responses, and thank you everyone!

God bless you all!

Maranatha!

YSIC,

Elaine

ps ~ remember tic, tic, tic

SemperSpes06

I also tried emailing the site and the mail box was full...hmmm...I might just take a leap of faith and do it anyways....yeah...sure why not?!

Angel Trinity 3

Way to go, a leap of faith, I like to hear that! SemperSpes06!!!

Maranatha everyone!

Are you ready?

architectlink

For those of you who have your left behind letters done, now is the time to add another letter to your local newspaper.

I am also pinning $1 on the corner of each letter with the hopes that the person who is mailing them for me needs the money...

There are several in my family who doubt the rapture and are reliable and will mail my letters for me. Praying that they aren't here to mail them but that someone reliable will...

I also got a lot of great CD's out of the trash that will go with the packages...
(they were thrown away because they weren't perfect, but that doesn't matter to me...I hate throwing away the word of God...

architectlink

I've been praying that my letters get sent and there is no reason for me to think that God will not answer my prayers.

I believe that some people are going to have to experience being left behind to believe and for the scales to fall off. Satan is going to be busy all over the earth after the rapture, but he cannot be everywhere...I pray that many in my family will be scrambling to find our bibles, our letters, our tapes, our books, and our left behind things...they will suddenly believe us and want to find out everything they can.

This is the primary reason I am so adamant about keeping up with the earthquake signs, the volcano signs, the weather signs, etc...because of those left behind who do not yet believe...

inretire

I respect your right and willingness to do this, I am only saying what safeguards are in place to protect the e-mail addresses of the people you are providing to unknown people. Since there will be zero Christians on earth after the rapture what prevents those left behind from attaching their own letter to the addresses you provide? This all sounds great on it's face but Satan is the Angel of Light, the great deceiver and liar. I'm still skeptical. Guess that's my nature.

A_AmericanSaint

well, it's a crazy idea to believe that right after you are raptured that e-mail will function. Imagine it, not only that, but there will be riots, street gangs, a wave of crime, im betting that the internet will be down for at least some time. I would suggest leaving physical copies of your letters in personal belongings where people will find them. Plus, the guys website waid it was a personal ministry. Where is he gonna be after the rapture? How will he send out the e-mails? Just curious.

Angel Trinity 3

Like I said earlier folks, God provided this tool, so I suggest we use it! I have Faith in the Almighty God in Heaven, and He will get these Rapture letters out!

Keep the Faith, believe that God will get His work and Word out to His ppl that are left behind and that more Souls for Christ will be Saved!!!

I say, just do it, and in the name of Jesus, pray about it if you arent sure!

God bless you all!

Maranatha !!!

YSIC,

Elaine

ps ~ I am so glad to know that I had a part in something like this and to know that my friends and family will have this little glimmer of hope come their way when they so badly will need it on that day God allows it to get to them! Have FAITH!!!!

Modern atheist

LN

i dont know...evolution could be true...it wouldnt necesarily go against my beliefs. i mean, the events in genisis are almost in the same order as the events in evolution...and we dont know how long a week was in the beggining of time. i just think that, whatever happened, God started it, made it happen, and made it work, made it how he intended...instead of it all happening by chance

LN ( translation= I was happy as an atheist, but now I'm a christian I know I must have been depressed, so I just thought I was happy, but I wasn't I WASN'T)

i have been an atheist before...and it was the most depressing period of my life because i knew my life was basically worthless and i didnt have a soul. but i denied my depression and somehow made myself believe that i was happy because i had figured it out. looking back, i dont ever want to think that agian.

LN

ANYWAY (in case you took me seriously about you being gay i was kidding lol..unless you are...hmmm..whatever)...ok lateralis i have question for you. you say that you will continue to be convinced of God's nonexistence until logical evidence indicates otherwise right?

ok...that doesnt make sense. because how can you leave it to the laws of nature to put forth evidence that there is something out there that is "super"natural? shouldnt you look elsewhere beyond this natural world for that kind of proof?? or else you are being extremely short-sighted

its like this quote that i really love but i have no idea who said it: the eye only sees what the mind is prepared to comprehend.

(maybe its just me but that sounds a little creapy, huh?)

LN

Capurconis*sp* was being unscientific when he said the Sun was the Center of the universe not the Earth, Scientic and Unscientifc are only measured in current belife

the current belife is Evolution, thus creation is unscinetifc

Darwanism used to be "scientific" but it has been proven faluty now its "unsceitnif" yet its still evolution

Thus only with the slow decay of man for we all know the age of phliosphy is over, all shall perish to hypothesis, For evolution isn't a theory because there is no test

we have never tried to evolve a fish

a monkey

we havenever seen it

it is only a Hypotheises to rule out the fact that you are not in controll of anything
...says coldtears

and we dont know if xianity is a myth...its called faith hun

and ive already said this a couple times. i dont question the ways of God. i am not God and therefore cannot think like him. YOU do not think like God. there is cause and effect, remember, for everything, so something horrible could happen but the effect could ultimately work out perfectly. make sense?

rapture ready

architectlink

Ron Reagan's kids remind me of what can happen from generation to generation...they can be totally lost if they aren't brought up right...somewhere along the lines Nancy or Ron let little Ronnie get away with his little homosexuality perversion thing and now it has the best of him...running rampantly against what his father spoke.

chinaann

Don't be too hard on the kids, their father was into the occult along with his wife, Nancy. What else would you expect?

Monday, September 20, 2004

September ender

IIDB
(this thread is nominated for the incoherent thread of the month award)

Iacchus


So, how do we in fact get something from nothing, when in fact nothing is all there is? ... Nay, nor even the slightest potential for something. Wouldn't there at least have to be some sort of basic structure or matrix already there? If so, then how did that get there? Sounds to me like we're speaking about some basic structure which has always been, indeed, a highly intelligent structure. Which is to say, how else could it not be intelligent if, in fact it was the basis for all there is?

Hey, did you know that consciousness is merely the end-result of that which is highly structured? Think about it. How could we possibly do anything, let alone think, without a tremendous amount of structure in our lives? Whereas if these immutable laws that govern this structure have always been, what might it possibly suggest? That the Universe has always been self-aware, and was designed specifically as an outcropping of this?

Well, that certainly dispells any need to ask who created God now doesn't it?


lulay

we think and feel dualistically. you feel warm and cold right, and think those abstract terms to

understanding this we also see that you cannot have one without the other. for if you did there would be no sense of anything. example, try and imagine only having 'hot'.....HOW would you KNOW 'hot' withOUT 'cold'. you NEED cold or hot to know the opposite of that. otherwise it wouldn't make sense. obviously between the abstracted terms 'hot' 'cold' there are infinite variations also

so it is the same with all other polar related extremes of experience, including 'something' 'nothing'. HOw can you have nothing without something? try it

Aeromaxis

That's a relatively easy question to resolve. (funny how he manages not to then)

Causal laws, surely, can only have a properly justified application when considering that which exists inside the world. ie. with regard to contingent substance. God, who by nature is transcendent and independent of the world, needs no cause and it is wildly improper to ask "to what cause can I atttribute him?"

God transcends laws of cause and effect, by virtue of existing outside the world.

In any case, even if your point was valid, then the hypothesis of an intelligent, creator God is a manifestly superior hypothesis than that of a non-intelligent cause, when puzzling over the design and complexity of the world.

Blizzforums

Pizza

I know I'm getting a bit off topic here, but I ask, if you agree with allowing gays to marry, why don't you agree with letting children of all ages marry?

Gaia online

A Lost Iguana ( may be sarcasm)

It is not the case whether they are alive or not, that is not under debate, but whether they are sentient. Of course, that makes eating animals immoral (or at least eating humans must be moral if eating animals is).

Gaia online

Noroya

I have a teacher who is a lesbian and has gotten suspended many times for accuses of sexual harrasment to girls. (Flirting, touching...etc. Nothing too serious) I dont think they should be allowed to work in schools that has students under the age of 18 because some of the students may be uncomfortable with the thought of having a gay teacher. But this is my opinion. What do you think?

much further in the thread

Godchild

replying to "Red_Dreamer wrote:
Homosexuals are just like human beings." (not included as I assume it is merely a grammar error)


And therein lies the danger, my dear. These 'people' (and I use that term lightly) are a menace to society at the best of times. But now, we have them in our schools, teaching our children their faggish ways. This insidious thret has to be stopped, and only Lord Jesus knows how we'll do it.

IIDB

Odemus

can god make a rock so big he can't lift it? ( I consider this to be the atheists version of pascals wager)

Gaia Online

RachelDaigle

Is technology really helping us?

My answer : no. It seemed like a good idea but everyone got along just fine without it. Most of accidents happened since the invention of work machines. Computers make children under 12 over weight. Don't you agree?

noauthority62

you'll probably all flame me but whatever, medicine and machines to keep people alive shouldn't even exists. I think people live for a certain amount of time for a reason, if someone was to live instead of dying like they were supposed to, it unbalances everything. And why do you think buildings don't grow out of the ground? It's cause they're not supposed to be there.

noauthority62

The reason is because it's their time to die, you prolong it, then it screws up the balance. That's what I'm trying to get at.

noauthority62

(in reply to a post aking if we should just let people die in childbirth etc.)

*is actively thinking* Yes, if that is Gods will

IIDB

Questioner

It seems to me that most of the people here grant the following points:

1. Nothing is absolutely knowable, everything is doubtable.

2. Nothing really has any value other than that which we assign to it.

3. Even for the things we think we know, there is no reason to think they will remain the way we think they are.

Okay, then I say:

If #1 is true, why should I try communicating my viewpoint to anyone? I can't be sure they're right and I'm wrong. What's more, if #2 is true, their view really is just as valuable as mine (that is, it really has no value). Thus, it doesn't matter whether I change their minds, and even if I do their view hasn't improved, since its no better than it was before. On top of that, even if my view were somehow better than yours (i.e. it corresponds closer to reality as we both observe it or whatever), reality could change in the next ten seconds, so it really is still utterly useless.

In short, why should I bother talking to you at all?

IIDB

spanner365

I realized something that may seem obvious to most of you. If there is no God than evolution has to be true. Since we didn't appear in our complex state we must have evolved somehow from lower life forms. Thus if evolution can ever be falsified (probably not likely) then God must exist.

spanner365

Ok, what I meant to say was that if evolution is completely falsified. I don't understand how else you can explain the existence of a physical human being in physical terms without evolution or something like it. Can someone cue me in?

spanner365

See, now I was expecting a plausible physical explanation from you people. When you sight aliens and whatnot you run into the exact problem I stated with man. They evolved or were created. Give me some mundane and prosaic explanations for the origin of man. If man did not appear by magic
in his present form than how else could he have appeared but from simpler forms. The only way to move from point a to point b is to appear there instantaneously or to progress there in time..

spanner365 (never heard of infinite regress hey)

Are you people not reading my post right? Think out a little further. Replace aliens with man. Now these aliens must have evolved or been created.

spanner365

The point was that IF evolution is ever proven false God exists.

Gaia online

Miko Aelita

the way we were created was by God, he created the Heavens and the Earth, and he made man from dirt from the earth and he made woman from a rib of the man, that also explains why guys have one less rib bone than girls. but God spoke and Bang it was so.

SailorMetallica

Well I don't know about you but I agree with God.

FirstLooser


ok first off lets seperate the 2 kinds of evoultion (yes 2) mircoevoultion wich is proven (a dog being able to give birth to a dog of a diffrent type) macro evoultion has not been proven ( a dog given birth to a bird) your turn

FirstLooser

Evoulttion is also a hypothesis(spelling?)
some say its even a religion(me being one)
christians belive in the begining god created all
evoultionists belive in the beginging all the nothing of the univers gathererd together an blew up.... i choose the first one

FirstLooser

i also like to kick this dog when ever i pass it
y is a theory in the books at schools i personaly think it should be taken out sense its not proven yet

Zebeth


Sotek, is God a living God, or a dead God? Was the sun around first, or was the earth? The Bible says that it was a dark place, that is, before God created the light. How does this make sense? If the sun is around, but the Bible says that there was no sun until the fourth day, then how does it work? That's some explaining I'd like to see from you. So, the Creation has an absence of light, whereas there was a sun before the earth, correct?

About Adam. Though he was created from the dust, it says that God "breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being." Life gave life, not the other way around. Unless you are saying that God is the God of the dead, and not of the living. Did Lazarus ask Jesus to raise him from the dead? Or did Jesus, the One who gives eternal life, bring Lazarus back from the dead? The dead cannot speak or act.

Sotek, about the civilization, does it not say in the Bible that Cain went out to build a city? It does not say that he went out to build a hut! It says a "city." Also, I would like to point out that Adam was the first zoologist, naming the animals. The first landscape architect, taking caring of the Garden. Do you think farming is easy? Go out and take a course on it, will you?

About man getting better. I thought that man was becoming better. You know, evolving. The longest living man in the Bible lived up to be 969 years old, that is, close to 1,000 years. When the Flood came, the life span of men began to descrease. Today, we only live up to be about, oh say, 70 to 80 years. If we are even lucky, we live longer. What I see here is that man is degenerating, not getting better.

Man bringing death, if the Bible is brought in as a metaphor, and you are saying that death brought man, then there were many deaths in the past, thus, I really don't know why God would call His Creation, "good," seven times.

phoxxhx


Fact. I don't think I'm an evovled gorrilla.

gaia online

SoldierofLight

However, just for the sake of argument, let's suppose that after several billion years of mistrials, life was finally created in the early earth. There's only one problem: there are over 80 so-called "geochronometers" which we can use to find the age of the earth. These "earth clocks" are natural processes that continue at a constant rate throughout history, and by running the process in reverse, we can see how old the earth is. Well, guess what? The vast majority of these geochronometers point to a young earth. An example:

Interplanetary Dust:
Cosmic dust is always falling. The vast majority of it that comes toward Earth is burned up in its atmosphere. However, as the moon has no atmosphere, the dust is free to collect. There is also no water and no hydro-erosion there, so the dust should be undisturbed (except for our landing crafts!) since the beginning of time. Scientists have calculated the average amount of dust that collects every year.

"NASA scientists were very concerned about their landing mission to the moon. Some estimated there would be a one-hundred-foot thick layer of dry cosmic powder all over the moon. Even conservative estimates expected a layer 54 feet thick. With fears of losing the astronauts in a poof of deep powder, NASA did everything possible to make a very gentle landing. That's why the huge saucer 'pods.' They even built sensing rods extending about three feet straight down under those saucer-like landing pads to measure the subsurface temperature of the lunar dust. But what did the astronauts actually find when they got there? About one eighth to three inches of dust was all that was there! How long would it take to gather that much dust? About 8,000 years MAX! (Dennis R. Petersen. Unlocking the Mysteries of Creation. El Dorado, California: Creation Resource Publications, 2002. Bold emphasis mine.)

JamieJMRs

I totally believe in creationism. Anyways, listen, there is no proof of evolution, and the "evidence" is either false or completely flawed. You think the over 3 million different species of insects, thousands of species of mammals, reptiles, and birds could have developed by random chance mutations from microorganisms and stuff in the ocean and that those microorganisms were somehow created by chemicals and stuff in a prebiotic soup?
That is way crazier than belief in a creator.

Look:
THE SIMPLEST CELL...is not not simple AT ALL. "A cell is an enormously complex structure that is far more complicated than a computer. The smallest of cells is composed of over fifty billion atoms arranged into one hundred different proteins, together with the staggering amount of information encoded in the DNA and RNA that govern its activites, nutrition, repair, and replication. The problem for evolution is that it takes all of the above to function at all. You can't start with part of this material because everything is necessary to function as a whole," -Grant R. Jeffrey, The Handwriting of God.

Okay, so now we know how complex ONE SINGLE CELL is to have been created by random chance. How hard do you think it would be to create a combonation of cells to make up lets say A PERSON...
Inconcievable. There is no way that it is possible that we weren't designed.

By the way...of the mutations that do occur...Evolutionary scientists admit 999 out of 1000 are harmful or fatal to a being...so mutations are NOT good things that help progress or whatever.

Nine of the 12 "missing links" have been proven to be apes...look it up.
The remaining 3 are proven to be modern humans. Someone mentioned the Cro Magnon Man earlier. That was a human fossil found by primitive cave drawings! there was no difference between its fossil and ours!

I can't go through everything that's wrong about evolution and everything that's right about creationism cuz i don't wanna be here forever. I'll just say Read The Handwriting of God, by Grant R. Jeffrey.

Those non-believers, even if I found out i was wrong, which i know i'm not, in the end...I HAVE NOTHING TO LOSE. If you were right and there is no creator, which there is, I am and will continue to live my life in a way to bring me happiness and will lose nothing in believing in God. But you people, have a draw back...WHEN you find out i'm right and God is real...you will have something to lose...you're life to an eternity of suffering most likely.

Taroto

There are many facts that prove creationism against evolutionism (and no, evolutionism is not fact. The scientific community has said that over the result of bs. You can't get something for nothing, less nothing for nothing.).

Firstly, the big bang is the most funny thing ever. nothing + nothing + time= matter plus hydrogen? You gotta be fudging kinding me. The laws of conversation of mass refutes that. Okay...lets guess that the law did not exist...hydrogen and helium flying everywhere at a speed unknown, massing into each other and compressing, forming stars. First of all, since the universe has not the same laws of gravity as earth, the matter would not have stopped and would have continued to infinite, thus incappacitating the result of the creation of stars (because there is no way that those clouds of gaz could have turned on their axis to create stars, in their own free will).

Secondly, the law of strata or something. Erroneous pile of bs that is. If slow progress would have made layers upon layers go up on each other, what would say that thousands of layers would have made each other. And also, why are the most complicated fossils on the bottom. Wouldn't they be on the top?

SoldierofLight

Once again, you destroy your own position. If you don't have a complete fossil records, you have NO EVIDENCE that natural selection occurred!! You haven't even been able to prove that it's possible!! Sorry, the Spotted Moth incident proves nothing...that's microevolution, folks, not macroevolution. Thus, as you have no evidence, you are operating only on assertions and blind faith (once again, the burden of proof rests with you)!! This is on par with me saying, "Hey, that Grand Canyon thing is pretty big...a giant must have made it 600 bazillion years ago, when none of us were here. I have no evidence of it, and it disobeys all the laws of science, but it sure sounds good, don't it!!"

Evolutionists have no proof. They have no evidence. All they have are assertions and blind faith. They are the ones proposing this weird theory. Show us some real proof or give up this ridiculous theory.

SoldierofLight

Macroevolution, on the other hand, deals with changes between the species. There is no proof of this process, nor will there ever be.

LegacyWeapon[L4rg0]

First and fore-most: Evolution is dead. No we did not evolve from animals. Our genetic structure is unique and throughout the history of earth there has been no evidence that we have evolved from any other core genus.

Until the 1970s the scientific theory of the origin of life claimed that billions of years passed on the newly cooled Earth during with inorganic elements randomly coupled and broke apart, coupled and broke apart, until finally after a myriad of these random trials, a self replicating molecule formed that led to primitive life.
The test of this theory was a search for fossils among the most ancient rock able to bear fossils (sedimentary rocks). To the amazement of the scientific community, fossils evidence was discovered that showed life started, not after the predicted billions of years, but immediately on the cooled Earth. The "Billions-of-years-to-produce-life" theory had been discarded. But how else other than gradually by a multitude of random reactions could have life started? Nobel laureates had waxed poetic in their treatises extolling the wonders of the random beginning of life as it gradually emerged from a primordial soup. They were wrong

[SNIP]

Now the knife gets closer to the throat...

According to the fossil record, gradual evolution has been found to be false at EVERY major morphological change.
First, one-celled life sprang into being as soon as water was presented, 3.8 billion years ago. One might have expected that complex multi-cellular organisms would then have developed in orderly successive stages. Such was not the case. Instead of a gradual steady thrust of life evolving complex structures, 3.2 billion years passed during which life remained confined to one-celled organisms, followed 650 million years ago by the simple globular forms of uncertain identity, known as Ediacaran fauna. Then, 530 million years ago in the Cambrian era, with no hint in earlier fossils, the basic anatomies of all life extant today appeared simultaneously in the oceans. The Cambrian explosion of life is one of the century’s greatest discoveries.

JamieJMRs

Hellooooo...we don't have infinity, the earth is a certain # of years old and i don't think it's that that many years...certainly not old enough for macroevolution, which is impossible anyway.

The_NinjaGod (I'm beginning to wonder if I should have just linked this thread, and left it at that)

jesus christ it is four billion years old every method of science has proved that but either way the bible say he made man in his image spiritually god doesn't have a physical form dipsticks he has a spiritual form all it means is that humans have conscience thought a soul if you will we can reason between wrong and right we can still evolve from some apelike creature or others the bible doesn't say we can't it just say god made adam and eve real smart

LegacyWeapon[L4rg0]
( MUST... LEAVE.... THIS.... IDIOC...CY...TO..YOU..BUT...CAN'T)

If your going to boil down to the fact that we share genetic material with another species than I might as well say we evolved from Trees, because they have (though different cell structure) the same parts we do, minus the requirements to use photosynthesis. Yes, there are speices that have evolved from previous but they retain the same basic structure. The type of evolution that goes from Ape to Human is known as Macro-evolution and there has no evidence to support such a HUGE [hence macro] change in DNA and morphology. BUT there are records of micro-evolutions within a species.

Also, Winged insects suddenly appeared with no fossils or evidence to support a slow change in genetic struture, they just....appeared!

As for these random mutations, its highly unlikely that one acctually produced what we all see today. Nature was allowed to take its course, and it seems doubtful that it did so through trial and error.

And yes I did ask for it, questions are good, you learn more thats the whole fucking point of being here so stop being such a condescending asshole and discuss!

EDIT: moving back, Of course we all share the same genetic structue, we were all made on the same goddamn planet! WHAT THE FUCK DO YOU EXPECT!?

SoldierofLight

I would be very interested in hearing specifics about any of these "hominid creatures," because last I knew, every one had been admitted to be a hoax, or just a plain old homo sapiens. I'm also curious how these biologists and geologists date these strata layers. Everybody knows that C-14 dating is inherently flawed, so I hope they're not using that.

[snip]

Ah yes, the flying dinosaurs...well, let's see. This archeopteryx (sp?) is a whole different species, correct? Therefore, it cannot be an inter-species life form. Creationists' demands are not unreasonable. Show us a life form that is BETWEEN two different species, such as a lizard with wing stumps, or a fish with the beginnings of legs. Legacy is right when he says that wings, etc. suddenly "appeared" fully developed. That's 'cause they were created. There are no "in-between" species.

Consider the Bombardier Beetle. This little bug, when threatened, can combine two chemicals and squirt them out it's rear end at attackers. These two chemicals, when put together, are highly explosive, yet the Bombardier Beetle doesn't blow itself to high-heaven. There are several things that need to happen for the beetle's defense mechanism to work. First, the chemicals have to be stored in two different chambers. There has to be an inhibitor that prevents the mixture from reacting inside the beetle when the two chemicals are first mixed. There has to be an anti-inhibitor that allows the chemicals to react just as they are squirted out. How many billions of years do you think it took for this poor beetle to figure it out? How many unfortunate beetles either blew up or were eaten over the years when their defense mechanism misfired? It's ludicrous to think that this beetle gradually began figuring out that it needed separate compartments, an inhibitor, and an anti-inhibitor.

How about the giraffe? Its long neck makes it difficult for its heart to pump blood up to it's head. When it bends down to drink, the vessels in its head should explode under the sudden pressure. But, the giraffe has a special mechanism that impedes the flow of blood to the head, keeping the animal safe. When it raises its head again, you'd think it would be really light-headed; it might even pass out. But no, the heart kicks in again, and gets the blood to its brain fast enough that the giraffe suffers no ill effects. How many billions of years do you think it took for the giraffe to figure out that it needed these special organs? How many times did this poor animal die from exploded vessels, or blacking out at the wrong moment? Again, it's ludicrous to think about the giraffe up in Giraffe Heaven thinking, "Hmm. That didn't work. Guess I'll try manipulating this gene here..."

LegacyWeapon[L4rg0] (In response to a post aking whether rocks share genetic material with us)


Sure they do watch. See children the three little spheres? Those are called Protons, Electrons, and Neutrons, the building blocks of matter. You have them, you pet cat has them, the rock you masterbate to has them, everything has them! Except gravity and the bible, no the Bible come of an alternate dimension of ignorance.

Little Boy "Ok but the bible is full of Wisdom, doesn't that make it usefull in some way"

Vryko Lakas: "NOOOOOOO *shoots little boy*"

JamieJMRs

Neanderthal Man is a fossil of a modern man that suffered from a vitamin D deficiency that produced the disease known as rickets which accounted for the ridges over the eyebrows and his curved leg bones. But this convinced scientists for a while also.

Hannity forums

Ex_Spy_Guy

This is called Darwinism... you learn to behave yourself and stay away from dangerous places or you die and therefore not reproduce. This is for the good of humanity!!!

Gaia online

Lady_Ikebana

Chicken.

I didn't know so many people thought the egg came first, neat. What took care of the egg? It wouldn't hatch without something to take care of it, it would die.

God is not Science people

Skeptic Times the most unbiased forum on the web ;)

tkster

Please make sure to follow the rules set forth in the rules forum for this area of the site. Also some rules for this:

1. No flaming
2. No personal attacks
3. No attacks against Creationist's sources
4. No making threads about what Creationists are talking about elsewhere here
5. No attacks against any Creationist website or book
6. No attacks against Christianity or Jesus in general
7. No lying
8. If a moderator doesn't like your post, he/she has the right to remove it and ban you or warn you.
9. No trying to entice Creationists

Thanks - The Administrator

Christian Forums

theotherguy

Can anyone give an example of non laborty gene mutation that is benefitical. Also how can you claim evolution is real when there has never been found in the fossil record a speciman undergoing change from one speices to another? (Don't give me **** about ape man)

3Amig(o)s

HEY peoples. You are all missing the point.

All this stuff about mutations doesn't prove that we evolved from apes. It just proves that "it is POSSIBLE (though very rare) that A small mutation CAN happen and that it MIGHT be slightly beneficial IF it happens without help. All you have are maybes, mights, coulds, and mays. It proves pretty much nothing. It does NOT prove Macro evolution. It does NOT prove that that is how we got here or how we evolved.

ALL it proves is that small INSIGNIFICANT changes COULD happen. The rest is a belief. Just like we creationists believe there is a God who created life, you believe that we evolved and there was a Big Bang that we created the world. Just like I was not there when God created the world, You were not there when matter first came into being. Or like you were not there to see us gradually evolve from apes.

Well, there's my input.

Rapture Ready

tommyg

Most politicians,farmers and weather forecasters leave out of the picture the one who controls the weather.They forget the creator God who intervenes in his creation from time to time to accomplish his purposes.Remember Noah's flood?Ofcourse not every thunderstorm is from God's direct intervention,Sometimes God allows Satan to control the weather Job 1:12-19,

When Ancient Israel turned aside from God,how did he respond? "I blasted you with blight and mildew[from to much rain] Amos 4:9.

cameron222

Hurricanes, earthquakes and other natural disasters are probably a result of a world under judgement that occured after the fall. After the worldwide flood of Noah's day, the earth's atmosphere changed and the earth was tilted on its axis due to the weight of all the water that rained down from the canopy, or protective covering. (This was probably what caused the death of the dinosaur. They simply drowned.) The earth now has a slight wobble.

During the tribulation, just before the millenium, the earth will be restored to its pre flood context and be as it was during the garden of Eden.

If God were to single out an area of the globe to be punished for sin and perversion I would think San Francisco and New Orleans would go down before Florida......buts thats just my opinion. We do not know the mind of God on these things.

Sonflower

Some of these storms are simply natural weather phenomena. Yet, I am convinced there is a demonic influence as well. As one who formerly was a ruling archangel before his fall, Satan obviously has power to manipulate weather patterns. Paul refers to Satan as the "prince of the power of the air" (Eph 2:2). And in his attack on Job, he caused "a great wind" to come "across the wilderness" and kill Job's children (Job 1:19). We have biblical evidence that the devil can stir up a storm or at least direct it and destructively use it against God's people.


At the same time, for those who are indwelt by Christ, nothing happens that God does not redeem and use. Thus, all Christians, not only those attending our In Christ's Image Training school, should consider this season as "test time." The Holy Spirit is requiring God's sons and daughters to stand in Christlike prayer, maturity and authority for Florida, the surrounding states and the Caribbean islands. God is using these challenges to perfect the faith of His elect.

Pendragon Those of you with sensitive eyse just scroll straight on past this section



With the Hurricanes happening Bush is becoming more popular then ever He is sending and following through with all the relief promised and people with their old material good are getting brand new ones. It is like a huge payday bonus getting ready to happen, at least for those who have insurance. I work in Retail and they are handing out hours and overtime left and right I work in the electronics field and there are people that are coming in getting their insurance qoutes and walking out just to come back and drop 5,10 and in some cases 20K dollars in all areas And each time one of the storms comes we have GWB here to let us know help is on the way and all the time prior,during and after Jeb bush is on the tv news and radios telling people what they need to do and where they need to go and spending meny sleepless hours doing so. If Jeb was running with GWB and maybe even against him I would vote for them/him in a heartbeat which I will do anyway. I see 2008 around the corner and Jeb is poised to run for President if our VP doesn't. I think we could have a Bush in the white house for at least 12 more years if not longer Not sure how old Jebs son is but he is not far from the right age to enter congress now and Who knows maybe Jrnna or Barbra Jr might run? GWB continues to gain ground just for the hurricanes not to mention who else is ready to take on Alqueda and the militant Freaks. Kerry couldn't even decide if he wanted to ask Osama to coffee to decided their differnces or chase him down in a black hawk just to scare him a little. Forbid we kill him becasue as we all know all he really wants is peace and his no vistors in his land. From what I hear Kerry may even give the Key to the country to the EU in exchange for them to come to Iraq and have coffee with him and Zaraqwi. I say the hurricanes here have been more a wake up call and a huge building experince here and Kerry has no clue he is busy windsurfing the waters and the issues which ever way they will blow best for him

architectlink

PS I do not think it is a coincidence that I began reading JOB (where I was in my bible read through) on Friday the 13th when Charley first hit Orlando.

I am still not through Job, and the more I read people's reaction that this is judgement from God, the more I think that people who make these statements need to re-read JOB again.

I believe God sent me first through this because HE always sends me first through things, and I am about to witness what the rest of the US and the rest of the world is about to experience...

The birth pangs may be here in Florida this month, but just watch, they are coming to a location near you! You will either be hit or you will be in the position to help someone else nearby. We are all about to get ready for the last and final birth pang, which is going to result in THE RAPTURE!

Amen, Lord Jesus! You've been preparing us for so many years...It is so exciting to know you are coming and to prepare...PLEASE LORD, LET ALL OF US READING THIS HAVE OUR LAMP OIL READY FOR OUR BRIDEGROOM WHEN HE COMES....LET NONE OF US BE LEFT BEHIND BECAUSE WE WERE NOT RIGHT WITH YOU, DEAR SWEET JESUS!

Gaia Online

Oh-mi-kaze

No, I think your parents should tell you what to believe.

They have every right to make you their personal bitch (excluding the sexual sense of the term, of course), especially in terms of personal beliefs. Why? Because half of you mewling little pissants are incapable of forming a rational thought, or making wise and sane decisions for yourself. It's the same reason why you're not allowed to, say, vote, drive a car, drink alcohol, smoke tobacco, or exercise fully your First Amendment rights.

You owe your parents your entire childhood, and if you don't think so, just think of how much happier they'd be if your mom aborted your sorry ingrate ass. They allowed you to live. Therefore, they are allowed to tell you when and what you eat, drink, sleep, shit, and profess. If they want you to be Catholic, you don't have a fucking choice. You get baptised, catechised, confirmed, and reconciled, just like a good little Catholic would. And if you don't like it, tough shit. Your parents have to deal with similar pressures, what makes you think that you're exempt from all of it?

Christian forums

mark kennedy

Actually there is only one alternative to evolution as Mayr defined it.

“Creation and evolution, between them, exhaust the possible explanations for the origin of living things. Organisms either appeared on the earth fully developed or they did not. If they did not, they must have developed preexisting species by some process of modification. If they did appear in a full developed state, they must have been created by some omnipotent intelligence.” (D.J.Futuyma, Science on Trial)

Evolution as an empirical science is absurd, its a philosophy based on a concept. You don't test natural selection or any naturalistic assumption. When I asked for the crucial demonstration that makes the hypothesis of evolution a theory I didn't get an answer. Invariably the naturalistic materialist will demand a testable hypothesis from the creationist. The fact is that a concept or a philosophy of history, even natural history, doesn't work like that.

Now lets look at each of the concepts of evolution in the modern synthesis using the scientific method suggested in the OP:

"Darwin founded a new branch of life science, evolutionary biology.

1.The first is the non-constancy of species, or the modern conception of evolution itself." (Ernst Mayr)

Now if it can be said that there are only two possible outcomes of a hypothesis then how do we test this in such a way as to eliminate one possibility and demonstrate the other? The only two choices are creation by an omnipotent God or evolution from a unicellular protoorganism. This should be very easy for the evolutionist to identify where the crucial demonstration occured, in history I mean. By the way, how do we judge the historicity of an event in natural science?

mark kennedy

Fine, where is your falsifyable hypothesis for the non-constancy of species? (where's our falsiable hypothesis to things sometimes moving towards earth)

mark kennedy

There is no identified mechanism of descent, and he had purposely distanced himself from the implications of single common ancestor. There is no real test here since he is describing factors that are simply being interpruted by a concept. Evolution is a concept, its a philosophy, its not a testable hypothesis, its not a theory, its certainly not a law...its a myth. Genetics on the other hand is science and this myth piggybacked into science after being ignored (for 100 years I might add) on the work of a creationist. Now the discerning mind must seperate the myth from the science, genetics is the science, naturalistic materialism is the myth.

mark kennedy

Real scientists agree with me as well. Evolution is not a theory because it is not based on a crucil demonstration in a series of tested hypothesis. Evolution is not falsifiable in any way shape or form and it is naturalistic materialism that is dragging science down, not creation science.

Geology is a hard science but there are various concepts that are used to interprute the evidence. The laws, observations and experiments that are used in physics and astronomy are inapproriate for evolutionary biology. Mayr himself said this and even asserted that laws and observations give way to concepts in evolution.

The real question is where does the concept stop and the empirical science begin? Its called the subjective\objective duality of scientific method, Darwin was the substantive subjective part and its naturalistic materialism, Mendel was the objective part with genetics and the laws of inheritance. This is an historical fact and there is very little room for speculation here.

mark kennedy

I'm not talking about gauging the supernatural, I'm talking about how we judge the historicity of an event. How do we 'know' that an event happened historically, how do we 'know' anything for that matter?

Gideonssword

In order for Evolution to be a science you have to be able to test it....And scince you can't test it, it will allways remain a theory. and thats all.

mark kennedy

Replying to: 1. Common decent dictates a universal genetic code. If the genetic code had been found to be based on "kind," then this would have been a powerful falsification of evolution.

The multiple common ancestory model does as well. The difference is that the multiple common ancestory model claims that the gene load was fully formed at creation. There is no reason to suppose that God would not have used the same basic genetics to produce the living systems of the created world. There is no falsification here, this is one concept verses another interpruting the existing knowledge of genetics.

Replying to: 2. Common Decent dictates that no species (extinct or living) have features of two (or more) different groups unrelated to each other. If we had found fossils of a creature with a mixture of mammalian and avian characteristics or amphibian and mammalian characteristics, this would be a powerful falsification of evolution.
Hmmm, this is puzzling since that is exactly what you look for in paleontology. You would think that this mixture would do more to substantiate common descent, a morphological change would be pretty clear then. You are offering no real falsification here.

{snip}

Going to the movies now, I'll check back when I get home and see if you guys can come up with a way of falsifying evolution as a hypothesis. Its fun to watch you try since its substantive rather then empirical. You guys really need to learn you philosophy of science before you try to defend it.

much further on

mark kennedy

[quote snipped]

By the same token there is no reason to suppose that we had a single common ancestor that developed into all living systems. Now if totally different base condons and cellular compositions were apparent then this would strongly support evolution from naturalistic mechanisms. What we have is uniform semetry and well organized living systems with a high degree of commonality. This is a mathmatical impossibility if they are developed as a result of random variations. Non-constancy of species doesn't support descent from a common ancestor, it destroys it.

[quote snipped]

A nested hierachy is nothing more then an organizational system, like the tree of life Darwin drew up to explain our origins. It is subject to the whim and caprice of the one useing it much as the comparisons and counting of your computer system is. Garbage in garbage out. If you organize everything on the premise that there is a single common ancestor then you hiearchy will reflect that intent, not the objective data.

brat2631


I've had to sit in a classroom quite a bit hearing a teacher discuss evolution. In my personal opinion, I don't think it's a science. I think basically all they can do with it is hypothesize at this point, because there's no proof to the connections. They have today's creatures, and the ones before, but there are no middle grounds that they have been able to find that prove anything for evolution. Dr Hovend has an entire collection of videos proving the problems with the evolution theory. For one, scientists say that the earth is 4.5 billion years old, where the bible says it's about 6000. Scientists say that a big boom occured where all the matter in the earth was contained in a small dot about the size of a period, when it blew up. It actually states this in children's textbooks! I don't know about any of you, but that seems a little toooo far stretched even for the largest imagination. I don't think that children should be FORCED to hear theories such as this, yet NOT be allowed to even talk about their beliefs as a christian without being told that they can't discuss it. If anyone wants to discuss this, I would be more than happy to. Feel free to PM me.

Christian Forums

spiced

Cross purposes on this stuff I read is based on Origins of universe as not happening by chance, but purposeful design.Different from evolution of course as I am often reminded on these boards.
In your diagram are you referring to say Dogs breeding more kinds of dogs for example and not dogs "speciating" (GW Bushism) into another form i.e Giraffe kind. Sounds silly I know.........But when I see dogs i see all kinds of dogs big dogs little dogs, fluffy dogs and dangerous dogs, but they all look like dogs.....

Gaia Online

DestineyzChild

This is what someone wrote that is very wrong and this person is blind:

Nope. Nope and Nope there wont be a black president. We live in a racial country. Hey some people still want slavery or segregation. I'm sorry but i don't really want a black person as president. Here are a few reasons, call me racists all you want but you have to admit black people are racists to, most of them i know are like 30x worse than most white people I know.

So here are the reasons i dont want a black president, some of this might not be true for all blacks but where i live its basically true.

A. The black president will probally do something to the white people because we put theyre ancestors in slavery. What i have to day to that is get over it we didnt do it our ansecstors put yalls in slavery and beat them, whoopidy do fuck i dont care.

B. He/she will give out wellfare to all the niggers who are like "Oh poor pitiful me, I just can't find a job, whatever would i do without wellfare, gee I'll sit on my fat ass and complain about how i cant find a job." but the thing is theyre to lazy! and yes i know white people do this to...

C. I just don't want a nigger to be president...i qould leave the country because it will be turned upside down. I'd rather let gays have a right to be married then have a black president.

Like i said call me racist i dont care...black people have treated me bad my whole life...so thats why i dont like them...so i dont give a fuck if you call me racist.

does anyone agree..i certianly don't..just beacuse this person has been treated badly by blacks does not mean all blacks are like that or any are like that in general...Blacks have done alot to make this country what it is..we have invented things that altered technology and change lives all over the world..i am not sayin whites are bad persidents infact Bill Clinton and Ronald Regan are good examples of outstanding presidents..i am saying a black would be a good president to if they picked the right one..i know some are like he said but one thing that he said about us feelin sorry for ourselves is very wrong...we are not lazy..we find jobs doin what ever we can to feed our family even if it means risking our lives or doing something illegal...mayb he fails to see the point is that we are not all like that and he has not met every black in this whole world..

Gaia online

Gaidin

But, I will attempt to give you some other reason anyway. inuyasha_n_kagome_rox142 mentioned something about evolution. Let me put it this way, even though I don't believe in evolution, two males, or two females, cannot reproduce. You could say it goes against the laws of nature. Whether or not animals have homosexual relations, they cannot produce offspring from it. Thus, a conclusion could be drawn that it is not meant to happen.

christian forums

Kasey (taste the fundy goodness)

I believe in Creation and I dont think nor believe that science is wrong. When concerning evolution, it determinely exactly what type of evolution your talking about. Since, obviously, you must be talking about billions and billions of years of evolving, I dont agree with that and I have my evidence.

There is a couple of things that I would use to disprove that mainstream evolutionist/existence theory and that is these.

1. Abiogenesis is a theory and unprovable. Textboot definition of that is that living matter comes from life-less matter. This is scientifically impossible. It is a fundamental law of the universe that all life comes from a source. Life begets life. Humans beget humans. Animals beget animals, plants reproduce in their own way. All life comes from a source. Non-living matter cannot replicate nor propogate itself. Its a proven fact that all reproductive entities within reality are already part of living matter, not life-less matter.

If you think that living matter can come from life-less matter, then make a hunk of plastic spring forth flowers, or an empty cup spring forther grass. It doesnt work. Therefore Abiogenesis is rediculous and un-scientific. Also, Abiogenesis doesnt define where the life-less matter initially came from, hence, this argument is destroyed instantly. Theories of existence need to be proven from all angles, not just one. All questions need to be answered and abiogenesis doesnt even begin to do so.

2. There are no missing links and you cant disprove a negative. People who state that they are going to find it and that its out there are constantly proven wrong time and time again.

3. When concerning the earth and the universe evolving over billions and trillions of years is rediculous in any sense of the word because where are all the half-mutants? I dont see a half-monkey/half-man walking around. Evolution, it it works in the long run, you would see short-term results as well. Human beings, in the past 1000 years have not evolved into a different species, we are the same. We have two eyes, ears, no nostrils, two hands, two arms, two legs. We are the same.

These are the reasons as to why I dont believe in long-term evolution such as what I have described to you. I do believe that evolution, short-term can happen, but even that depends specifically on what your talking about. Evolution, broadly defined is not a good thing.

christianforums

brightlights

Perhaps a refute of evolution?


there is a certain flower that looks almost exactly like a certain kind of bee. the bee and the flower have a relationship in that the bee, thinking the flower is its mate, tries to mate and procreate with the flower, then moves from flower to flower etc... thus polinating the flower. the question is: how can the flower, having no sense of sight, evolve to look exactly like the bee so this relationship can exist? certainly the bee did not evolve to look like the flower because this doesnt make any sense.


perhaps i'm wrong, but this seems like a worthy challenge.

brightlights

(In reply to: "A species appearance changes over time based on who reproduces, and the mutations that occur during that reproduction. This process led to a flower that resembled in someways the shape of a bee, which then became its niche as bees became attracted to it.")

i understand this point pretty well, but it seems incoherent to me. it seems to me that this goes to benefit creationism.

EvC forums

WILLOWTREE

I proved the GP was designed by God and when this was ascertained you led the chorus of instantly asserting that ALL my sourceS were engaged in conspiracy/fraud.
You found a safe place in ONE tiny claim but the whole of the remainder decimated your worldview.

I proved the existence of God. I am probably the only person in the history of the Internet to incorporate all the evidence and their correct explanations in proving the existence of God.

I have another topic all ready but whats the use if you are just going to assert fraud. I can prove from Petrie's own documentation.

But we both know the status quo in this Forum will not allow themselves to be trounced again as they were in "Proof of God".

WILLOWTREE

I posted all my evidence with multiple source cites.
For you to just say I posted a bunch of assertions lacking evidence is a known lie.

You can disagee with evidence but don't say I didn't post any.

I am still searching for the LLM documentation and am awaiting an email from other pyramidologists.

I want this topic because the neanderthals in charge could not handle the hit on their worldview so they invented a reason to close it.

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=95709

I am glad to hear that this is still fun for you. Sometimes I lose sight of that.

WT

WILLOWTREE

volutionists have admittedly pronounced as fact based upon a scant paucity of disputed evidence.

Your halloween movie prop picture can be and is asserted to be whatever you evos say it is. Its age is arbitrarily changed annually.

Common sense says nobody can objectively determine that a said object is millions of years old - that is a dead give away of bullshit.

Evos cannot even recognize Biblical evidence in the thousands of years in age yet they suddenly can matter of factly determine bits of bones to be in the millions.

Yet we have a physical structure in Egypt which decimates the atheist worldview (Great Pyramid) and its Divine intelligent design confirming the written word is winked at.

But you evos can declare as fact things to be thus and such millions of years old but the voluminous irrefutable physical see for yourself evidence of the GP is completely ignored.

Hominind evolution is based upon virtually nothing.

What we have is pure verified inconsistency:

Any paucity of evidence within the sweetheart realm of evolutionary myths is not a problem but the evidence of ancient Israel is treated differently.

The only evidence I need for the Exodus is the book of Exodus.

Exodus 32:4
and fashioned it with a graving tool, after he had made it a molten calf: and they said, These be thy gods



The authors of the Bible are honest reporters whereas the wizards of evolution are a ghoulish patchwork glueing together scraps of bones.

The evo god is quadrupeds/created things which is sin like the Exodus text above says. And we know from other passages that Satan incites sin/molten calfs/quadrupeds/animals.

Romans 1:
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.



That word "image" in the greek is the same word which we get "icon" from, hence the verse pinpoints the "icons of evolution"/corruptible anthropon (fossils), birds, quadrupeds, creeping things (animals).

How many evos have an avatar of an animal ? "these be your gods O' Darwinists"

The above was written 2000 years ago. Darwinism fulfilled this prophecy.

The "irony" of the text is inescapable - Divinely inescapable.

WILLOWTREE (responding to a point by point rebuttal of her last post)

I am ignoring the content of your post because you ignored the content of my post.

Anyone can produce a long word packed post just to distance themself from the original post and its uncomfortable arguments.

WILLOWTREE

You responded to chopped up quotes and evaded my points especially the initial quotes.
Anyone with a lick of God sense knows man could not evolved, that the pseudo evidence is the result of God senseless persons creating and manufacturing evidence because the alternative is not an option - God.

WILLOWTREE (following a non-directed comment from admin)

You had to summon Admin to bail you out.
I began this exchange with two quotes from evos. Nowhere To Go (Message 153)

Rei has evaded the quotes - fine.

That has been my only point - that and the facts in the quotes that admit a paucity of hominid fossil evidence.

Answer my points or snivel to Admin to further rescue you.

WILLOWTREE

Arach:
The jest of your reply simply asserts that the Bible is not evidence while claiming that you are a christian or whatever.

I am an atheist and I have the honesty to admit that we atheists create the phantom evidence of evolution out of thin air then we invoke our educational credentials to validate our creations.

A skull asserted to be as you want it is not evidence - it is fraud.

Anyone can glue skull fragments together and assert the end product to be transitional.

Your deceitful tactic of claiming christianity in order to legitimize your evo status demonstrates what every tyrant in the history of mankind did - invoke God then proceed to lie and kill. Thats exactly what Nazi's armed with your theory did.

I could actually respect you if you forsook the "I'm a christian" act and just be an evo faithful to your persuasion.



Christian forums

3Amig(o)s (with agood ol' randomness strawman)

I'd like to point out that you are saying that you are saying that something would be here because something could have happened! It doesn't make sense.

Not only that, but to believe that something like DNA or even RNA could have come up by chance is a WHOLE other story. It's simply perposterous. For instance, RNA is made up of 4 different bases:

-Adenine
-cytosine
-guanine
- and uracil

These bases are then arranged in an exact order. 17 of these bases in a row I believe. Now, since we are talking about RNA (which is one of the smallest nucleic acids) coming about by chance, the chance that the first base on the RNA strand to come out correctly is 1 in 17, since it is a strand of 17. However, the chance that the next base is correct also, is 17x17 which is 1 in 289. When we do this 16 more times the chance is 1 in 17 to the 17th power that all the bases will come out in the correct order. The number won't even fit into my calculator. Remember, the RNA molecule is one of the SMALLEST of the nucleic acids. We won't even go into trying to figure out the chance of the DNA molecule coming about randomly.

It's simply crazy to believe that things like our dna, rna, and functions of life can just happen randomly over time!

larry lunchpail

if you believe in evolution you believe we are perfectly suited to our environment.

HeDied4Me
(points for recognising, and admitting the God of the gaps argument though)

To get back to the original reason I posted in this thread: after looking at the evidence, I realized that much of the ID evidence is based on, as you call it, a "God of the gaps" type of answer. But I don't really see a problem with that type of an answer.

Christian forums

True_Blue (if I get the chance I will go back in time and warn Pascal about the perverse master

Your post really doesn't do much to contribute to the debate. But I thought your quote at the bottom was very, very interesting. In a nutshell, Creationism's goal is to get people closer to God and provide hope, not to win a scientific debate (though I really like the debate).

If you are an atheist debating a Christian, there are two possibilities being considered--that you will die and nothing will hapen to you, or you will die and go to Hell for eternity. Let's assume you are almost certainly right, and the probability that hell being real is 1/1,000,000. The probability of an empty void is 999,999/1,000,000. The outcome (cost or benefit) of Hell and Heaven is infinite pain as you are burned alive for the rest of eternity, or experiencing the infinite pleasure of living in Heaven. Now 0.000001 times infinity = infinity (either infinitely bad in the case of Hell, or infinitely good in the case of Heaven). That's the economic payoff a Christian can expect from the first possibility, and the corresponding economic loss to the atheist. The second possibility is that when you die, nothing results. The probability of nothing happening when you die is assumed to be 0.999999. Now 0.999999 times nothing = 0. So the economic result an athiest can expect from his/her beliefs of the second outcome = zero.

(In previous posts, people have said this argument is flawed because there are other possibilities. True, but if there are other possibilities, then feel free to do the math and stack Christianity against those other possibilities. The fact that other situations might exist does not change the argument vis a vis Christianity and atheism.)

nalibok

While its obviously possible for a Christian to believe in evolution, it is contradictory, and the person definitely does not know how to interpret the bible.
Genesis 1-11 is clearly written as a historical narrative and there's no way to get around that. Jesus quoted from Genesis numerous times and believed in a literal Adam and Eve:
4"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,'5and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh' ? 6So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."
- Matthew 19:4-6

{smip argument that it must be literal}

Besides all this, there's not one shred of evidence for evolution. All the evolutionists arguments have been soundly refuted by Answers in Genesis and other good creation scientists. If you're not too afraid it will change your life, you can find all you need to know at AnswersinGenesis.org. You don't even need to buy their helpful books or videos.