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.