lfnetwork.com mark read register faq members calendar
View Poll Results: Do you believe evolution or intelligent design occured?
Evolution 26 55.32%
Intelligent design 19 40.43%
Don't have a clue 2 4.26%
Voters: 47. You may not vote on this poll


Thread: The History of the Universe
Thread Tools Display Modes
Post a new thread. Add a reply to this thread. Indicate all threads in this forum as read. Subscribe to this forum. RSS feed: this forum RSS feed: all forums
Old 01-21-2003, 06:38 PM   #41
Murtaugh
 
Murtaugh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Alaska
Posts: 18
Aliens created the universe, just like they created earth!
http://www.rael.org/int/english/index.html
All hail Rael!!!


mmmmmm vanilla coke.
Murtaugh is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 01-22-2003, 01:09 AM   #42
TheWhiteRaider
White as Snow.
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Somewhere in Idaho
Posts: 1,065
Oh boy here we go again.

BTW do you know why the bacteria are able to stand agains anti-biotics? I would like to see if you know.

And how accurate is you dating methods?


Just because I don't know something doesn't mean I'm stupid. It means you failed to tell me.
TheWhiteRaider is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 01-22-2003, 01:57 AM   #43
C'jais
Spicy Viking Boy
 
C'jais's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Soviet Scandinavistan
Posts: 4,345
Quote:
Originally posted by TheWhiteRaider
BTW do you know why the bacteria are able to stand agains anti-biotics? I would like to see if you know.
Natural selection. Out of a huge bunch of bacteria, a select few have the right mutation to withstand the applied anti-biotic. They'll survive, and pass on the gene when they multiply afterwards.

Quote:
And how accurate is you dating methods?
Pretty accurate. So accurate, in fact, that they're able to predict where the fossils are, how deep they're buried and that we're not supposed to find human fossils in strata from the Jurassic period. If we ever did that, our dating methods would be way off, but this hasn't happened yet. The mere fact that they can predict fossil findings ought to be enough to ensure you that they aren't merely lucky numbers and wild pot-shots.


Better to be hated for who you are, than loved for who you're not.

Member of The Scandinavian Clique

My LiveJournal
C'jais is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 01-22-2003, 02:19 AM   #44
C'jais
Spicy Viking Boy
 
C'jais's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Soviet Scandinavistan
Posts: 4,345
Quote:
Originally posted by Reborn Outcast
My reasons that evolution is not true: THERE ARE NO TRANSITIONAL SPECIES FOSSILS IN THE WORLD. And don't go trying to tell me that Archaeopteryx is a transitional species because it is FAKE. Why are their only 6 fossils of Archaeopteryx in the world and why do ony 2 have feathers? Because its fake.
Creationist conspiracy theory yet again. The 6 Archeopteryx fossils aren't fakes. The first one was excavated in the bloody 19th century. At that point, no one had got the slightest idea of dinosaurs being related to birds. It was this fossil that turned it upside down, not an attempt to convince the non-creationists at that point.

And it is plain false to state they were all excavated in Bavaria, Germany - they have been found deep in Asia as well.

Presuming we'd be able to find millions of transitional fossils if it wasn't a forgey only shows how little they know of fossilization and the theory of evolution. And using this one example gives you no right at all to dismiss the countless other transitional fossils. How about Lucy, the Neanderthals, Homo Erectus, Homo Habilis and the several transitional fossils found, showing a smooth transition between fish and land living creatures?

Quote:
When evolving into a bird, the leg of a reptile would become a bad leg long before it became a good wing.
Again more bullsnot. The first flyers came from forest dwellers, leaping from tree to tree, like the flying snakes and squirrells today. Tiny creatures, which spread their limbs and glided from the treetops. Natural selection would at first select the ones with increasingly more skin stretched out between their arms and legs, so as to make for better gliding. Once this had reached a comfortable stage, tiny feathers began to appear, and it'd instantly help these gliders. Now comes the fine tuning - from being a mere assist in gliding, these feathers slowly grew to the whole body and began to form wings which the creatures would need to steer with.

Quote:
How could the eye evolve for example?
Imagine that you're one of the very first many celled fish living at the beginning of evolution in water. You have no eyes. The water is incredibly dark. You cannot distinguish the water surface from the water bottom. Now, light sensitive cells begin to evolve. You still can't see anything, but now your new light sensitive cells react when confronted with light, allowing you to see the surface. An immense aid. The rest is fine tuning - these light sensitive cells grew more and more specialized and accurate, allowing you to make crude patterns in the terrain and thus making sure you don't bumb into anything etc.

And one last thing regarding fossils:

Fossilization takes time. It has been proven. If all animals lived alongside each other (not that there'd be any space for them), how come we're only able to find fossils of the old ones, dated with our seemingly useless radioactive isotope dating methods?


Better to be hated for who you are, than loved for who you're not.

Member of The Scandinavian Clique

My LiveJournal
C'jais is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 01-22-2003, 04:09 AM   #45
ShadowTemplar
Heathen
 
ShadowTemplar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Denmark
Posts: 1,068
Quote:
Originally posted by Reborn Outcast
My reasons that evolution is not true: THERE ARE NO TRANSITIONAL SPECIES FOSSILS IN THE WORLD. And don't go trying to tell me that Archaeopteryx is a transitional species because it is FAKE. Why are their only 6 fossils of Archaeopteryx in the world and why do ony 2 have feathers? Because its fake.
You cannot say, based on one forgery (if your source is even remotely credible (big if, incredibly big if)). As for the rest of the crap in your post: READ "15 ANSWERS TO CREATIONIST NONSENSE"! You will find everything beutifully explained there. Once you have adressed everything in it, you can come back and talk about facts... Until I rip your arguments apart, and burn the remains (and every mean, yes, all fifteen, capice?).

Quote:
Originally posted by Reborn Outcast
So there are the hard facts that evolution is not true.
Well, newsflash. That's roughly what we've been telling you all the time. Nothing is true, only more or less wrong.

Oh, and BTW: Do you know anything about either Biology, Chemestry, or Physics? Avogadro's constant? Planck's constant? Freeman's constant?

ShadowTemplar is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 01-22-2003, 04:16 AM   #46
ShadowTemplar
Heathen
 
ShadowTemplar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Denmark
Posts: 1,068
Quote:
Originally posted by Murtaugh
Aliens created the universe, just like they created earth!
http://www.rael.org/int/english/index.html
All hail Rael!!!
Remember "Independence Day"? UFOs should not unconditionally be welcomed. Besides: There is a reason why ET hasn't dropped by yet: There are probably incredibly few civilized planets in the galaxy (if you browse www.sciam.com you may of may not be able to find the Sceptic article in which this is explained, but the basic point is that L is too small).

ShadowTemplar is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 01-22-2003, 04:41 AM   #47
BCanr2d2
Chief B*log Man
 
BCanr2d2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In the nursery, changing a nappy
Posts: 1,977
Quote:
according to historical documents it is exactly accurate.



You need to get your facts straight.
So, you think three generations removed from the actual events isn't enough? When not every person has easy access to record everything that they see or hear. They can't put a story in the news without a direct source, yet people will change their lives and beliefs to some "someone told someone who told someone" written book. If you went to anywhere with this kind of disassociation from the source, they would think you are nuts...

Hindsight is great, I agree that the Bible fits in with many, but not all events in it. The Romans did not have a census that forced Mary and Joseph to go to Jerusalem. Explain this so called pivotal event that forced them to move from one town to another? If the most advanced civilisation at the time didn't do it, who did?
It is also contentius the ay that certain key words have been interpreted. Of where the Bible states things were meant to be based, the languages are very similar, and to interpret in the wrong language makes a mockery of what is said in the Bible. Jesus is not actually named in the Bible, since it wasn't written in English, I think it is more likely to be Emmanuel that is the name that is stated....

Quote:

Many people then believed it as many of us do now, some of the Bible is literal and some is metaphorical.

That is why so many people study it. And thats why we have pastors at churches, to study and teach the congragation.

And Constantine had done that before any Pope existed, by the way, the Pope is Catholic and the Catholic Bible has two added books to it, so the Bible he was talking about was a bit faulty.
BTW its ROMAN Catholicism - The East Roman Empire, ie Byzantine Empire took it as their official religion. When the Byzantine Empire existed, it took in approx 2/3rds of the original Roman Empire, which was approx 80-90% of the known civilised world at the time.
Some love to talk about Christianity and all the different denominations, does anyone bother to really look up as to when they actually were formed?
Lutheran - Middle Ages, bordering on Reniassance. I think you will find that the doctorine taught in many of these denominations are about 1200-1500 ingrained from Catholicism, due to the influence of the Roman Empire. So when the Pope said it was literal, more than a fair share of the world had to go along with interpretation.

You also state the evolution is not a fact, none of us deny that, but how can you prove that the Bible is fact too? All we have is people who will try to debunk evolution, well science actually, using stories from texts that are 20-40 years old.


I ask you this:

If the Bible is able to be read differently by everyone, then wouldn't you tend to agree that it was actually written as parables, rather than actual fact? The Jews writing style was that of parables, and they were the ones who wrote it. Why would they change one text?


Any resemblence to intelligence in my posts is purely coincidental and accidental..

No posts were harmed in the creation of this post!

B*log....
BCanr2d2 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 01-22-2003, 04:13 PM   #48
C'jais
Spicy Viking Boy
 
C'jais's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Soviet Scandinavistan
Posts: 4,345
None of you exist.

I am all that is. None of you exist.

The world began with me. Time was created when I were born. History before my birth has no meaning, because I am all that is.

My environment is a world desperately pulled over my eyes to blind me from the truth - that I am alone. The names I see on my screen before my eyes are nothing. Merely electric impulses interpreted by my brain. The air I breathe is Me myself. Everything revolves back to me, and the world will cease to exist when I die. But I will never die. The concept of time and death are mine, and mine alone. The universe will crumble and everything will be erased when I am no longer here. There will be no history beyond my death and birth, for I am all that is.

You are but figments on my eyes. Nothing. Everything is a mirror of Me. Everything exists on my perception, and mine alone. I am All. You are Nothing.

Prove. Me. Wrong.


Better to be hated for who you are, than loved for who you're not.

Member of The Scandinavian Clique

My LiveJournal
C'jais is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 01-22-2003, 04:27 PM   #49
Reborn Outcast
Easy Company
 
Reborn Outcast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 2,873
Re: None of you exist.

Quote:
Originally posted by Cjais
The world began with me. Time was created when I were born. History before my birth has no meaning, because I am all that is. Prove. Me. Wrong.
If you are trying to be God... he was never born, he always has been there. I proved that you are not God.

If you are trying to be Jesus then time did not start when he was born. And the time before he was born had a great meaning because it was setting the stage for his birth. I just proved that you are not Jesus.
Reborn Outcast is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 01-22-2003, 04:31 PM   #50
Master_Keralys
Forumite
 
Master_Keralys's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Writing orchestral music.
Posts: 612
Cjais - that's philosophy now for one thing. For another, if that's the case, then you're the same nothing, and I am everything. "If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, does it still fall?"

If you're all that exists - you are all and everything else in the universe is subject to your perceptions - then where did you come from? If nothing else exists, then where did you come from? If uyou have existed eternally, then you could be what we call God. Except that I know you're not, given that god exists outside of spacetime, and you say its simply one of your illusions.


Master_Keralys is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 01-22-2003, 04:33 PM   #51
Master_Keralys
Forumite
 
Master_Keralys's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Writing orchestral music.
Posts: 612
Exactly Reborn. Nicely stated.


Master_Keralys is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 01-22-2003, 04:33 PM   #52
C'jais
Spicy Viking Boy
 
C'jais's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Soviet Scandinavistan
Posts: 4,345
Re: Re: None of you exist.

Quote:
Originally posted by Reborn Outcast
If you are trying to be God... he was never born, he always has been there. I proved that you are not God.
That is a postulate. I can see that I'm all that is. I can see that everything is but a reflection of my perceptions.

Quote:
If you are trying to be Jesus then time did not start when he was born. And the time before he was born had a great meaning because it was setting the stage for his birth. I just proved that you are not Jesus.
The concept of religion, time and Jesus were not created until my birth. There is no history before my birth. Prove it.

And no, I'm not trying to be God, and neither Jesus. I am all that is, and nothing has any relevance except for me.


Better to be hated for who you are, than loved for who you're not.

Member of The Scandinavian Clique

My LiveJournal
C'jais is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 01-22-2003, 04:37 PM   #53
C'jais
Spicy Viking Boy
 
C'jais's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Soviet Scandinavistan
Posts: 4,345
Quote:
Originally posted by Master_Keralys
Cjais - that's philosophy now for one thing.
Everything is philosophy. Prove the opposite.

Quote:
then where did you come from?
The concept of time did not exist before I.

I am not God. God is an omnipotent concept. I am not omnipotent.

Everything exists the way I perceive it. Everything revolves around Me.


Better to be hated for who you are, than loved for who you're not.

Member of The Scandinavian Clique

My LiveJournal
C'jais is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 01-22-2003, 08:44 PM   #54
Psydan
 
Psydan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Colorado Springs, CO
Posts: 47
But Cjais I can see, for a fact, beyond doubt, that I am here. Though you may not believe this it is quite obvious to me. Of course from my perception all of that may be true for me, and you can't prove me wrong either. This is because you have created for yourself an effective lie that turns everything we say into nothing because it might just be your perception that causes you to think that we're saying this, and this can't be proven wrong, or are you even still waiting for a clever argument, you know as well as I that this is pointless, and now, go ahead and continue to assult my religion, I know that that is the point your trying to bring home, well I don't care. If you choose to reject God's gift then that is a tragically bad mistake, and I wish you would reconsider, but I'm not going to keep up this charade of you trying to be clever, and trying to prove us wrong. The question was how you thought the universe began. Can we at least have a good session of creative opinions instead of proving each other wrong, because apparently none of the arguments are even affecting the other side. As for Christianity the Bible says(KJV 2 Corinthians 5:7)
7(For we walk by faith, not by sight: ) <----(Not a smilie)

I've decided that I don't need to argue, you don't care, and I don't need to disprove you, because always by your perception you will be right (And I will always be equally right, at least in my perception), so let's stop trying to prove each other wrong, I know you're going to disagree, (of course, it wouldn't be in any of our nature to actually agree) but I don't think we should argue every point, because I will always believe in God as the creator of the universe.


~Dan
Psydan is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 01-23-2003, 12:55 AM   #55
TheWhiteRaider
White as Snow.
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Somewhere in Idaho
Posts: 1,065
Quote:
Originally posted by Cjais
[B]Natural selection. Out of a huge bunch of bacteria, a select few have the right mutation to withstand the applied anti-biotic. They'll survive, and pass on the gene when they multiply afterwards.




You sort of dodged the question. I mean do you know what is the machine is not what made it.

Quote:
Pretty accurate. So accurate, in fact, that they're able to predict where the fossils are, how deep they're buried and that we're not supposed to find human fossils in strata from the Jurassic period. If we ever did that, our dating methods would be way off, but this hasn't happened yet. The mere fact that they can predict fossil findings ought to be enough to ensure you that they aren't merely lucky numbers and wild pot-shots.
Oh realy? Then I guess you would not know that Half-lives can be changed would you? It has been proven. And some of the methods are based on so little proof?

Quote:
The East Roman Empire, ie Byzantine Empire took it as their official religion
Not realy.


Just because I don't know something doesn't mean I'm stupid. It means you failed to tell me.
TheWhiteRaider is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 01-23-2003, 05:19 AM   #56
C'jais
Spicy Viking Boy
 
C'jais's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Soviet Scandinavistan
Posts: 4,345
Quote:
Originally posted by Psydan
This is because you have created for yourself an effective lie that turns everything we say into nothing because it might just be your perception that causes you to think that we're saying this, and this can't be proven wrong, or are you even still waiting for a clever argument
You finally got my point. Good.

Now apply this to every point you have made.

There's a trick though. Instead of whining, postulating bullcrap, you could dish up some testable evidence that the earth is older than my current age. Books and statements are not going to help you. You cannot prove these are older than me. On the other hand, if you carbon-14 date something to be 10.000 years old, you'll have proved without a doubt that I'm lying. Because I can test this myself. And so can you. Only testable, empirical evidence is going to help you. B!tching that I can't possibly bring philosophy into an already philosophical debate is not going to further this.

Quote:
because I will always believe in God as the creator of the universe.
And that is called blind faith. No matter what damning evidence we dig up, you'll apparently always blindly believe in the biblical creation. Fundementalism is a disease of the mind, and if you're that cornered and skewed, I'm not even going to try to change your views on this.

Now I ask you: Are you willing to change your interpretation of the Bible if presented with damning proof? If you're not, get the hell out. I mean it. I'm not going to waste my time.

If you are, tell me why it's so important for you to take the Bible that literally. God can still exist if you "believe" in evolution. God can always be there, and I'm not even trying to disprove Him.


Better to be hated for who you are, than loved for who you're not.

Member of The Scandinavian Clique

My LiveJournal
C'jais is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 01-23-2003, 05:25 AM   #57
C'jais
Spicy Viking Boy
 
C'jais's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Soviet Scandinavistan
Posts: 4,345
Quote:
Originally posted by TheWhiteRaider
You sort of dodged the question. I mean do you know what is the machine is not what made it.
And you sort of dodged the answer.

It's not relevant what does the genetic change (mutations eh?) - fact is, it happens. Evolution (or adaptation, if you prefer) so obviously happens, and I frankly don't care if it's God who is doing it all, or nature itself.

Quote:
Oh realy? Then I guess you would not know that Half-lives can be changed would you? It has been proven. And some of the methods are based on so little proof?
Oh really? I don't care, it's worked so far that it cannot plausibly be mere luck that did the predictions. Could God have made the predictions, the isotopes, the fossils? No matter. It works, with or without God.

Quote:
Not realy.
Would you be so kind as to explain just what religion it was, if it wasn't Catholicism?


Better to be hated for who you are, than loved for who you're not.

Member of The Scandinavian Clique

My LiveJournal
C'jais is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 01-23-2003, 06:30 AM   #58
Reborn Outcast
Easy Company
 
Reborn Outcast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 2,873
Quote:
Originally posted by Cjais
And that is called blind faith. No matter what damning evidence we dig up, you'll apparently always blindly believe in the biblical creation.
I would rather have blind faith and believe that there is something after death, than not have any faith at all.
Reborn Outcast is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 01-23-2003, 06:48 AM   #59
BCanr2d2
Chief B*log Man
 
BCanr2d2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In the nursery, changing a nappy
Posts: 1,977
Quote:
Originally posted by TheWhiteRaider
Not realy.
This being in reference to the Byzantine Empire not having Catholicism as their religion.....

Then answer me this, why is the Byzantine Empire also known as the East Roman Empire or the HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE? It was the Western Roman Empire that did not take catholicism with them, they are the ones who continued to persecute the Catholics....
Religion is one thing that split the Roman Empire in two....

St Sophia's in Istanbul wasn't built as a mosque, it was a Catholic Church, which is in sight of the Blue Mosque. Why would the Byzantines spend relatively a lot of money to build a large Church on top of the Hill in the Topkapi region, the Ottoman Palace is in this area as well, which is the highest region on the European side of Istanbul, IF Catholicism wasn't their main religion?


Naturally occuring isotopes - now lets discuss this term if you want to pick on science once again. What kind of extreme laboratory conditions have to exist for these isotopes to change half life? Then tell me if you can replicate them naturally on this earth?
It's like me saying I can make your head explode, now explain to me where on this Earth will it happen naturally? Personally, it'd happen if it was in a vacuum, but they don't occur on Earth, and space isn't one either......

Cjais,

Love the way you made your point there.

Reborn,
he never said he was God, he was suggesting that he was a god. Why has christianity just used a noun, spell it with an uppercase letter and hijack the word? I am sure this was a term that came from other languages and religions before Christianity came along.

Let everyone wonder when the Gulf Stream Atlantic Ocean Current is interupted by the freshwater melt from the Arctic ice, where their god is, and why this severe change in world climate has occured.
Did their god create fossil fuels (Hmm, if you don't believe evolution, then why bother with science at all and the time to create deposits of oil, coal etc) to force a hole in the ozone layer, and then to create the Arctic ice to melt to bring one what could potentially be the beginnings of the next Ice Age?

Explain, if Evolution isn't true, therefore giving the Earth a lot shorter time span, explain how the fossil fuels burnt to provide you the electricity you use, and the fuel for the car you drive?


Any resemblence to intelligence in my posts is purely coincidental and accidental..

No posts were harmed in the creation of this post!

B*log....
BCanr2d2 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 01-23-2003, 09:57 AM   #60
C'jais
Spicy Viking Boy
 
C'jais's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Soviet Scandinavistan
Posts: 4,345
Quote:
Originally posted by Reborn Outcast
I would rather have blind faith and believe that there is something after death, than not have any faith at all.
And I would rather believe I'm the be all, end all of everything rather than having no faith at all.

It's a nice thought. It makes you feel good. But it is an empty illusion.

Listen guys, have you heard about the Old viking myths? They're called myths, but they were in reality a religion once. Their "Genesis" is even more funked up than yours - it involves carving the meat of a giant into earth, and swetting out humans from its armpits.

Or, how about the Raelian religion? Aliens created all life on earth with DNA manipulation?

I'm sure you'd all like to see Creationism taught as an alternative to evolution in schools.

I can "prove" all of the above myths with the same technique you're applying to evolution. Trying to debunk science and telling us that on the one hand, you have a God that has apparently planted major evidence for a non-Biblical creation theory, and on the other hand seemingly "likes" to bend reality's laws to suit his follower's views on things.

Here's how it goes. If you should ever succeed in debunking evolution (and science), I'll immediately step in from the left and use my very own viking religion (it's a religion now that its myths are "true") instead of the biblical Genesis. Then we can argue over which religion is hotter.

But I warn you, I already have my facts straight: The viking myths haven't even caused a 1/10 of the murders that the Christian ones have.


Better to be hated for who you are, than loved for who you're not.

Member of The Scandinavian Clique

My LiveJournal
C'jais is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 01-23-2003, 10:38 AM   #61
C'jais
Spicy Viking Boy
 
C'jais's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Soviet Scandinavistan
Posts: 4,345
Quote:
Originally posted by BCanr2d2
Explain, if Evolution isn't true, therefore giving the Earth a lot shorter time span, explain how the fossil fuels burnt to provide you the electricity you use, and the fuel for the car you drive?
Very good point, but I'm afraid I can already answer for my fellow Creationists on this one:

It has not been proven that fossilization takes time. Our dating methods are inherently wrong when it comes to these matters. Even though scientists act like they know what they're talking about, when it comes to determining if fossils indeed do create fossil fuels over a very long time, they don't know anything.

And even though they still insist we will run dry of fossil fuels because we're burning it faster that it's being created (from where? Fossils? Cannot be), they're just talking out of their ass. Nevermind, we will see when the time comes and God no doubt will create a huge extra surplus of fossil fuels for us to burn. Then they'll know their failure.

Good point again.


Better to be hated for who you are, than loved for who you're not.

Member of The Scandinavian Clique

My LiveJournal
C'jais is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 01-23-2003, 05:48 PM   #62
Master_Keralys
Forumite
 
Master_Keralys's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Writing orchestral music.
Posts: 612
Quote:
why is the Byzantine Empire also known as the East Roman Empire or the HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE?
It's not. The Holy Roman Empire is the area occupied by Germanic tribes united under Charlemagne and his successors in the latter half of the dark ages. Get it straight man.

Quote:
And that is called blind faith. No matter what damning evidence we dig up, you'll apparently always blindly believe in the biblical creation.
Nonsense. Blind faith is accepting something without questioning it. I question, often daily, the validity of my faith. Something tells me it's true though. Point 1: it's the only view on life that offers any hope. If there's no hope, no reason to live, why don't we just lie down and die now? But I don't see anyone doing that.

Point 2: Every piece of information in the Bible that can be verified with current archeological evidence - is right. Example - the date of the worldwide flood. The oldest tree in the world is ~ 4400 years old - exactly the age it would be if it started growing immediately after the end of the Biblical flood. The Grand Canyon could have been created at the same time, and probably was, if you ask some more objective archologists. Also, every culture in the world has a flood legend. Coincidence? I don't hink so.

Jesus - a clearly historical figure. Aristotle - we accept his historicity, correct? Well, the first manuscript we have of his works is from 1400 years after his death. But he's still viewed as real, correct? Okay, the first manuscript of the gospels are less than 80 years after his deat [and resurrection]. Aristotle - around 15 early manuscripts. Jesus - around 25000. The Bible is true in every other respect, why wouldn't it be regarding God.

Finally, I state that if one could conclusively prove the existence of God - there would be no need for belief or faith, everyone would know the same thing, that He exists. Here's the thing - let's stick to science in this post, and I'll start another one on theology.

As far as fossil fuels go, Cjais was right. The other thing is, given the pressures and the like - the fossil fuels couldn't be more than 10-14000 years old. More proof that the Biblical timeline is correct.

Evolution doesn't explain why human nature is inherently corrupt and power hungry. In actuality, it would be more profitable to have a nature that benefits the society and thereby benefits and protects the individual. Next, the process of natural selection doesn't prove evolution. Nor does it prove a Designer. It actually doesn't prove anything, except that living creatures have the ability to adapt.


Master_Keralys is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 01-23-2003, 06:06 PM   #63
Reborn Outcast
Easy Company
 
Reborn Outcast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 2,873
Quote:
Originally posted by BCanr2d2
Religion is one thing that split the Roman Empire in two....
No it was split into two parts because the Empire was falling apart. The new ruler (can't remember his name) Decided it would make the empire easier to rule if it were in two parts. He still had control over everything but he had a lower "king" working on the western half. Religion had nothing to do with it. Economy and the state of the empire did.

Quote:
Originally posted by Cjais
I'm sure you'd all like to see Creationism taught as an alternative to evolution in schools.
The only reason its not taught in public schools is because of the law that states there is to be no crossing of the government and the church.

Quote:
Originally posted by Cjais
Our dating methods are inherently wrong when it comes to these matters.
Ah an dcorrect you are. I'll look it up but I heard a story about some scientists who did a carbon date on a piece of paper that had just been made 10 minutes earlier and it dated it at 10,000 years old... the oldest tree known is around 4400 and we dont use fossilised things for paper..
Reborn Outcast is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 01-23-2003, 07:49 PM   #64
Psydan
 
Psydan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Colorado Springs, CO
Posts: 47
Quote:
Originally posted by BCanr2d2
Did their god create fossil fuels (Hmm, if you don't believe evolution, then why bother with science at all and the time to create deposits of oil, coal etc) to force a hole in the ozone layer, and then to create the Arctic ice to melt to bring one what could potentially be the beginnings of the next Ice Age?

Explain, if Evolution isn't true, therefore giving the Earth a lot shorter time span, explain how the fossil fuels burnt to provide you the electricity you use, and the fuel for the car you drive?
Just to let you know, they found an iron pot,(it is very obviously not natural)buried in layers of coal! Now, if we find pots made by humans, buried in coal, that kind of shows that it doesn't take so long for coal to be formed as some people think.
(just found this today) Very good website: http://www.creationevidence.org/cemframes.html
shows a lot of proof for creation, though I'm sure somebody could cause endless debates on the information, as many seem to want to.
Also, Cjais, I just wanted to say that using your theory I could just say that the carbon testing is only a perception of my reality, and that they don't prove anything. Also you have yet to give any "proof" that all life came through evolution, go ahead, show me how science has proved beyond reasonable doubt that humans came from a freak event, and millions of years of accidental changes, and you'll have some proof, or let some scientist use whatever non-organic things he can to try to produce life. If you can reproduce the same results every time, then that is good proof that life could have come without a creator, but I've never seen any "proof" of random events producing life.


~Dan
Psydan is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 01-23-2003, 08:13 PM   #65
Reborn Outcast
Easy Company
 
Reborn Outcast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 2,873
Cjais explain this... How were those first bacteria formed? I have not heard you talk about that once.
Reborn Outcast is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 01-24-2003, 01:12 AM   #66
TheWhiteRaider
White as Snow.
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Somewhere in Idaho
Posts: 1,065
Quote:
Then answer me this, why is the Byzantine Empire also known as the East Roman Empire or the HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE?
MAby you should get some facts straight. The Holy Roman Empire was where Germany is now(somewhere around there.

The East part has the Orthodox church ok? There is a huge difference between the two.

Quote:
And you sort of dodged the answer.
No you misunderstood the question.

Quote:
Naturally occuring isotopes - now lets discuss this term if you want to pick on science once again. What kind of extreme laboratory conditions have to exist for these isotopes to change half life? Then tell me if you can replicate them naturally on this earth?
FIRST I AM NOT PICKING ON SCIENCE!
I am questioning your theory ok? You get nowhere in science without questions.

You real want to know how?

RA=radioactive(below)

Scientist have done it by just putting non-RA iron next to RA Iron. The non-RA iron became RA with it's RA clock reset to 0 and the first RA iron lost about 300 years on it.

Also they have found that pressure, water, and heat will change the rate of decay. Here is a quote from geologist Wakefield Dort, Jr., found in the Antarctic Journal(September-October 1971):211

"The apparent radiocarbon age of the Lake Bonney seal known to have been dead for no more than a few weeks was determined to be 615 +/- 100 years. A seal freshly killed at McMurdo had an apparent age of 1,300 years."

Quote:
I'm sure you'd all like to see Creationism taught as an alternative to evolution in schools.
You know that even some evolutionist are for teaching Creation is schools? As Richard D. Alexander points out.

"No teacher should be dismayed at efforts to present creation as an alternative to evolution in biology courses; indeed, at this moment creation is the only alternative to evolution. Not only is this worth mentioning, but a compairison of two alternatives can be an excellent exercise in logic and reason. Our primary goal as educators should be to teach students to think, and such a comparison, particularly because it concerns an issue in which many have speacial interests or are even emotionally involved, may accomplish that purpose better than most others."

Quote:
Cjais explain this... How were those first bacteria formed? I have not heard you talk about that once.
In the last E vs. C debate it was Gonk that mainly talked about it. But Cjais will.

Quote:
How about Lucy
Oh you mean the fossel that it's bones were found 50 miles apart and they were not of the same host?


Just because I don't know something doesn't mean I'm stupid. It means you failed to tell me.
TheWhiteRaider is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 01-24-2003, 02:44 AM   #67
RpTheHotrod
LFN Staff Emeritus
 
RpTheHotrod's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 2,798
LFN Staff Member 10 year veteran! Forum Veteran 
eh... let me say one thing..because debating this is pointless other than the following:

Evolution is NOT a fact.

THEORY of evolution anyone? Not to mention the guy who made it up said it was FALSE and NEVER meant to be taken seriously (just a thought, he said).

Yet, the school system teaches it's a fact. In FACT....most of the "facts" on evolution have been proven FALSE...yet those are still taught in school as facts. False Facts...there's evolution for you.

Want to know something cool? Last year, a scientist team were doing experiements with quarks.. and as time goes by, they multiply (or something along those lines). They took the rate (which never changed) and decided to go backwards in time until the quarks would be so "un-multiplied" and few, the universe would cease to exists (due to "falling apart"). Guess how many years it was where that point was found?

Roughly 6000 years ago.

This was proven and put on the news, but many people freaked out and buried it right after it was released.


Just FYI (and this is true, done by a NORMAL scientist)


and...

using the "soandso begot soandso"s from the Bible, and other "time events" recorded in the Bible, after years of study, they were able to put together how long ago the Earth was created (according to the Bible)....guess how many years?

Rougly 6000 years ago.

Pretty interesting, eh? BTW, this is old news. It's been around for several years. I have a chart I made if you want to see a timeline of "The Eye of Time"


Current in-game name is #include
RpTheHotrod is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 01-24-2003, 06:26 AM   #68
Tyrion
nothing is real
 
Tyrion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: no one I think is in my tree, I mean it must be high or low
Posts: 6,917
LF Jester Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally posted by RpTheHotrod
eh... let me say one thing..because debating this is pointless other than the following:

Evolution is NOT a fact.

THEORY of evolution anyone? Not to mention the guy who made it up said it was FALSE and NEVER meant to be taken seriously (just a thought, he said).
False.

http://www.public.coe.edu/department...arwin_bio.html

"Darwin was not an atheist. He described himself as an agnostic, and it is likely that he retained a belief in some kind of personal God, although not a diety who, like some master puppeteer, took a direct and continuously intervening role in the evolutionary process and in human affairs. Throughout his life Darwin maintained a sense of deep humility and a concern for his fellow man, fully aware of the limits of science. Darwin was deeply affected by the death of his older brother Erasmus ("Ras") in August 1881, and it is conjectured that his grief may have exacerbated the seriousness of his own poor health. In early 1882 he had several minor heart attacks. His condition worsened and on April 19, 1882, at 73 years of age, he died at Down House, after several hours of nausea, intense vomiting and retching, symptoms of a chronic illness that bedeviled him for the last 40 years of his life. At his bedside, and attending to his needs, were his wife Emma, his daughter Henrietta and his son Francis. A widespread rumor circulated -- facilitated by an evangelist by the name of Lady Hope who preached in Downe during the last years of Darwins life -- that on his deathbed Darwin renounced evolution and declared himself a Christian. This story, totally contradictory to the nature of the man himself, is a falsehood, denied by his daughter Henrietta and those who knew him best and who were actually at his bedside during his last weeks. Darwin's last words, spoken to his wife Emma, were in actuality, "I am not in the least afraid to die." "

Edit- And if the Universe wasnt here 6000 years ago,why could god be here? If he could be in nothing,then maybe something else could be here in nothing? Not neccisarliy god.

(P.S.,this conversation also seems pointless,as none of us can prove who is right and who is wrong just because our minds just arent powerful enough to even fathom our beginnings.)



Tyrion is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 01-24-2003, 10:11 AM   #69
C'jais
Spicy Viking Boy
 
C'jais's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Soviet Scandinavistan
Posts: 4,345
Quote:
Originally posted by Master_Keralys
It's not. The Holy Roman Empire is the area occupied by Germanic tribes united under Charlemagne and his successors in the latter half of the dark ages. Get it straight man.
True, the Holy Roman Empire had nothing to do with the Empire of Constantinople. His other points remain valid enough though - They were decidedly Christian. If you don't believe they were, give proof of something else.



Quote:
Point 1: it's the only view on life that offers any hope.
So other religions don't count on that, eh? I'm sure Muslims have just as much hope as you.

And if I don't believe in anything at all (meaning I have no hope), how come I don't lay down and die? It is a biological imperative that we don't just "lay down and die". It has nothing to do with religion. By the same argument, every non-human race should simirarily commit suicide.

It is false reasoning. Unfounded claim.

Quote:
Point 2: Every piece of information in the Bible that can be verified with current archeological evidence - is right.
Not.

Quote:
The oldest tree in the world is ~ 4400 years old
Not exactly. There have been found plant life dated to be well over millions of years old.

Quote:
Also, every culture in the world has a flood legend. Coincidence? I don't think so.
Not true. Blatantly false, even.

Quote:
As far as fossil fuels go, Cjais was right. The other thing is, given the pressures and the like - the fossil fuels couldn't be more than 10-14000 years old.
Not true. Even if it happened that way, it'd require that more plant life had existed at your start of the world than had ever grown on the earth.

Quote:
Evolution doesn't explain why human nature is inherently corrupt and power hungry.
It does not intend to. Does astronomy explain economic growth? I don't think so.

If you think humans are bestial savages when it comes to survival, you're absolutely right, thought.

Quote:
In actuality, it would be more profitable to have a nature that benefits the society and thereby benefits and protects the individual.
I agree. But we don't. And never have we had one.

Quote:
It actually doesn't prove anything, except that living creatures have the ability to adapt.
And this adaptation couldn't possibly lead to new species? Unthinkable? Nevermind, it has already been proven on existing specimens, so that point is invalid anyway.


Better to be hated for who you are, than loved for who you're not.

Member of The Scandinavian Clique

My LiveJournal

Last edited by C'jais; 01-24-2003 at 03:28 PM.
C'jais is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 01-24-2003, 10:21 AM   #70
C'jais
Spicy Viking Boy
 
C'jais's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Soviet Scandinavistan
Posts: 4,345
Quote:
Originally posted by Psydan
Also, Cjais, I just wanted to say that using your theory I could just say that the carbon testing is only a perception of my reality, and that they don't prove anything.
Oh, you could say that? You are all doing this.

Read this, and remain forevermore silent about evolutionaty dating methods.

And this as well.

And while you're at it, better read this to avoid further blunders.

Quote:
Also you have yet to give any "proof" that all life came through evolution
It doesn't matter. I don't care if God created the first bacteria or if nature itself did. No matter. What does matter is that the earth is immensely old, that humans evolved through a freak accident (or God manipulating) and that we are not the be all, end all of life.

Quote:
but I've never seen any "proof" of random events producing life.
You and I both know full well that it's downright impossible to re-create the scenario of life developing from inorganic materials. It'd require conditions on this earth that does not exist anymore, and a few billion years. I don't have that.

But neither can you re-create any miracle to prove God.


Better to be hated for who you are, than loved for who you're not.

Member of The Scandinavian Clique

My LiveJournal

Last edited by C'jais; 01-24-2003 at 11:24 AM.
C'jais is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 01-24-2003, 10:47 AM   #71
C'jais
Spicy Viking Boy
 
C'jais's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Soviet Scandinavistan
Posts: 4,345
Quote:
Originally posted by Reborn Outcast
Cjais explain this... How were those first bacteria formed? I have not heard you talk about that once.
Run a search for the second evolution vs creationism debate in the swamp: Evolution vs Creationism - a reasoned debate (I believe it was called).

I made a lengthy post about it in that thread, somewhere along the end.

But this doesn't matter at all, really. As before, I don't give a flying funk if God made the first single celled life, or if it's indeed God that's doing all the evolution proved in countless experiments.

Read this, and remain silent about the probability of "random" life originations.

I don't require you understand it, though. Just read it. And stop making these silly assertions.


Better to be hated for who you are, than loved for who you're not.

Member of The Scandinavian Clique

My LiveJournal

Last edited by C'jais; 01-24-2003 at 03:24 PM.
C'jais is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 01-24-2003, 10:56 AM   #72
C'jais
Spicy Viking Boy
 
C'jais's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Soviet Scandinavistan
Posts: 4,345
Quote:
Originally posted by TheWhiteRaider
No you misunderstood the question.
What is doing the adaptation? You want to know what exactly is making them immune to anti-biotics? Is that the question?

I already gave the answer.

Quote:
You real want to know how?

[Snip]
And I present this, again.

Weird non-recurring results does not prove anything at all. It proves that the dating methods alone can sometimes give unexplainable results. Big news. But combine all the radioactive dating methods, remove the sporadic unexplainable results and they never deviate.

Quote:
You know that even some evolutionist are for teaching Creation is schools? As Richard D. Alexander points out.
Do you have a source for that? I'd like to see it in context.

Regardless, it looks more like he's referring to his students picking the unproven theory of Creationism apart with lab experiments. Nothing wrong with that.

Quote:
Oh you mean the fossil that it's bones were found 50 miles apart and they were not of the same host?
You mean this?


Better to be hated for who you are, than loved for who you're not.

Member of The Scandinavian Clique

My LiveJournal

Last edited by C'jais; 01-24-2003 at 03:25 PM.
C'jais is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 01-24-2003, 11:07 AM   #73
C'jais
Spicy Viking Boy
 
C'jais's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Soviet Scandinavistan
Posts: 4,345
Quote:
Originally posted by RpTheHotrod
Evolution is NOT a fact.
But can you prove it?

Creationism cannot be proved wrong, and it cannot be proved right - just as Rael's "science-religion" and the old Viking myths.

You can only try to disprove evolution. Once that is done, what will you do? Automatically assume YOUR theory is the right one?

I give you a small task, one that you no doubt will quickly complete: Present to me proof of the earth being created by God as written in the Bible.

Some people will probably noticed I posted the same thing a while back, but that's because no one responded to it, and proceeded to do what's logically unsound: State their theory is true, because ours is wrong. False reasoning.

Quote:
Yet, the school system teaches it's a fact. In FACT....most of the "facts" on evolution have been proven FALSE...yet those are still taught in school as facts. False Facts...there's evolution for you.
And which facts would this be? That new species of fruit flies and bacteria have already evolved due to their high breeding rate, and quick mutation rates?

Quote:
Want to know something cool? Last year, a scientist team were doing experiements with quarks.. and as time goes by, they multiply (or something along those lines). They took the rate (which never changed) and decided to go backwards in time until the quarks would be so "un-multiplied" and few, the universe would cease to exists (due to "falling apart").
And how does this disprove radioactive dating? You lack the proper timescale to state this. Can you give a source for this, though?

Quote:
using the "soandso begot soandso"s from the Bible, and other "time events" recorded in the Bible, after years of study, they were able to put together how long ago the Earth was created (according to the Bible)....guess how many years?
Can you give a source?

Quote:
Pretty interesting, eh?
Not really. By carefully observing my garden over the course of half a year, I can deduce that since my plants are all withering, the world must only be around half a year old, otherwise all plants would have been dead a long time ago. Pretty interesting, eh?


Better to be hated for who you are, than loved for who you're not.

Member of The Scandinavian Clique

My LiveJournal
C'jais is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 01-24-2003, 01:56 PM   #74
C'jais
Spicy Viking Boy
 
C'jais's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Soviet Scandinavistan
Posts: 4,345
Now that we've asserted radioactive dating methods beyond a doubt so far have been proven correct, this presents a dillema.

First, read this.

And read this, if you're unsure of what evolution really means.

Answer at least some of these questions, and I'll be mightily impressed.

Remember, God could have started it all. God could have sparked the big bang, could have seeded the first single celled life on earth, and could have guided the evolution to his wishes. He can exist alongside with evolution. No harm in believing that.


Better to be hated for who you are, than loved for who you're not.

Member of The Scandinavian Clique

My LiveJournal
C'jais is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 01-24-2003, 04:12 PM   #75
Master_Keralys
Forumite
 
Master_Keralys's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Writing orchestral music.
Posts: 612
Quote:
But can you prove it?
No but neither can you prove it. Here's the thing Cjais - in either argument, most of the evidence is negative for the other side. There's simply too much we don't - and can't know. Unless someone invents a time machine.

As far as fish eyes go - there is no reason to believe that the light-sensitive cells would start to evolve in the first place. For one thing, functioning light-sensitive cells only exist in groups; single cells are useless in that case. so the only way those cells could possibly come into existence is by an extremely improbable mutation.

As far as Archeopteryx goes - why is it that you first say that finding transitional species is extremely improbable, then say that we've found six Archeopteryxes. Does it just somehow luckily defy the odds? Furthermore, the evolutionary path you described for Archeopteryx would never happen, and you should know that. The evolution would occur so slowly that there would actually not be anything to select for. We're talking millimeters of skin at a time, nothing that would be helpful for a really long time. So it couldn't get chosen by natural selection: it wouldn't help the creature mate or survive, so, it wouldn't get selected. Next, there would come a point when the skin would be a hindrance and would cause the creature to be easy prey for predators while not helping the creature enough to make a difference. At which point the trait would be selected against, and birds would never exist.


Master_Keralys is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 01-24-2003, 04:39 PM   #76
C'jais
Spicy Viking Boy
 
C'jais's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Soviet Scandinavistan
Posts: 4,345
Quote:
Originally posted by Master_Keralys
No but neither can you prove it.
Radioactive dating, experiments with live specimens, observed DNA changes, the fossil record, and one unifying theory is what can be proven for evolution. It can be proven.

Quote:
Here's the thing Cjais - in either argument, most of the evidence is negative for the other side. There's simply too much we don't - and can't know.
Here's what we know:

The earth is 4.5 billion years old.

Mankind has only recently existed.

The fossils show a gradual transition between the different species of life that ever existed. And this happened over great period of time, with some species becoming extinct, and others evolving to fit niches in nature.

Quote:
As far as fish eyes go - there is no reason to believe that the light-sensitive cells would start to evolve in the first place. For one thing, functioning light-sensitive cells only exist in groups; single cells are useless in that case.
Why would they be useless in a single celled form? Why would it be a supposedly "improbable" mutation?

Quote:
As far as Archeopteryx goes - why is it that you first say that finding transitional species is extremely improbable, then say that we've found six Archeopteryxes.
I never said finding transitional fossils would be improbable. I said that with your reasoning, every transitional fossil we dig up you'll immediately classify as an independent species with no relation to other species. Even though DNA tests have proved that they're very much related.

Quote:
At which point the trait would be selected against, and birds would never exist.
Take a close look at this monstrosity recently dug up.

Does that look like remniscient of a flying squirrel to you?

Your understanding of natural selection is limited. You forget to include in that equation that we have several million years to mutate our forward to this. Each little millimeter of skin would be carefully passed on to the next generation and natural selection would make sure that it happens simultaneusly on each of these creatures. Now, we have several thousand of these dino squirrels slowly evolving their way forward to better gliding ability - at the same time. It isn't improbable at all once you factor in a few million years.

But yes, you touched on a subject that hasn't been completely satisfactory answered with evolutionary evidence yet. But the other facts remain: 4.5 billion years old earth, DNA changes in offspring that culminate in other species and real observances of the theory in action by insects and bacteria.

Present empirical evidence of the biblical genesis. Now. None of you have done it yet.

1. Is there any reason to believe in your theory rather than some other version of creationism?

2a. Is there any observation which was predicted by your theory? (I'd like to see you present evidence of this. I'd very much like it, actually)

3. Is there any comprehensive and consistent statement of your theory?

4. Why is there the remarkable coherence among many different dating methods -- for example: radioactivity, tree rings, ice cores, corals, supernovas -- from astronomy, biology, physics, geology, chemistry and archeology?

4a. Explain the distribution of plant and animal fossils. For example, the limited distribution of fossils of flowering plants.

6. Why is there the present distribution of animals and plants in the world? How is it that marsupials are restricted to Australia and nearby islands and the Americas, monotremes to Australia, and few placental mammals are native to Australia? Why are tomatoes and potatoes native to the Americas only? (This is not a question merely of how they could have arrived there, it is also of why only there.)

9. What did all of the carnivores eat after leaving the Ark? (This is not a question about what they ate on the Ark.) In other words, explain how the food chain worked before the present ratios of a few predators to many prey.

Explain how the degree of genetic variation in contemporary animals resulted from the few on the Ark.

10. Is it possible to fit the pairs (male and female) of all kinds of land animals and birds on the Ark? The answer must give a detailed calculation. Remember to include all invertebrates as well as vertebrates, food and water, and neccesary environmental controls. Remember to include all kinds of cattle. Explain the meaning of the word "kind".

10c. Explain how there were pairs, male and female, of social (forming colonies), parthenogenic (female only) and hermaphroditic (both sexes in one individual) animals.


Better to be hated for who you are, than loved for who you're not.

Member of The Scandinavian Clique

My LiveJournal
C'jais is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 01-25-2003, 01:30 AM   #77
TheWhiteRaider
White as Snow.
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Somewhere in Idaho
Posts: 1,065
Quote:
You want to know what exactly is making them immune to anti-biotics?
Yes I want exact anwsers not just "it is a mutation".


Quote:
The earth is 4.5 billion years old.
Realy? I got to hear how you know.

Quote:
It isn't improbable at all once you factor in a few million years.
No it still is. Random chance does not remember previous results! It is like saying that because a coin turned up heads it is going to be tails next. It is not true. It is still 1/2 chance every time you filp

Quote:
The fossils show a gradual transition between the different species of life that ever existed
Not quite. Let's just say for a second that the flood did happen. Now if it is true. Would not the slower one not be able to make it to higher ground? Would not humans be able to get to high places before they died? Would not the ones that could not climb be near the bottum? Also did you know trees have been found verticaly in the ground?

Quote:
But combine all the radioactive dating methods
When ever all the radio active methods are used at the same place you get an error of 1.5 - 15 bliion years.


I think evolutionist tend to prove the wrong things.

If Jimmy eats poison Jimmy will die. True
Jimmy died so that means Jimmy ate poison. False

That tends to be the logic behind alot of what you said. You tend to go proving more that it could rather than it did.

BTW, What observed DNA changes may I ask?


Just because I don't know something doesn't mean I'm stupid. It means you failed to tell me.

Last edited by TheWhiteRaider; 01-25-2003 at 01:42 AM.
TheWhiteRaider is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 01-25-2003, 10:42 AM   #78
C'jais
Spicy Viking Boy
 
C'jais's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Soviet Scandinavistan
Posts: 4,345
Quote:
Originally posted by TheWhiteRaider
Yes I want exact anwsers not just "it is a mutation".
But it is a mutation that is the cause of the genetic change.

Out of a bunch of bacteria, a very select few will have a genetic change from the rest that enables them to code for a different protein than the others. This protein makes them immune. Then, after all the others have been wiped out, the ones with the genetic change will replicate and ensure the survival of the gene.

It's been tested on humans as well - due to a genetic change, we're now immune to the plague.


Quote:
Realy? I got to hear how you know.
Half-lives of radioactive isotopes. I don't expect you to understand it though, and you'll probably whine about the inaccuracy once more.

Reply after you've read this.

Quote:
No it still is. Random chance does not remember previous results! It is like saying that because a coin turned up heads it is going to be tails next. It is not true. It is still 1/2 chance every time you filp
Reply after you've read this. Note that it's not sequential, but simultaneus.

And read this to understand that evolution does not depend on chance.

Quote:
Not quite. Let's just say for a second that the flood did happen.
I don't really care aobut the flood anymore. Massive evidence is against it.

Here.

And here.

Quote:
Would not humans be able to get to high places before they died?
With the rate of the downpour, every human would be vaporized or liquified in a matter of hours.

Quote:
When ever all the radio active methods are used at the same place you get an error of 1.5 - 15 bliion years.
Source, please.

An interesting example is the formation of ice on Greenland. Every year, a new layer is added. If you go backwards, you can count several thousands of years (about 40.000), and you can correlate the changes in the ice with natural phenomena.

Quote:
BTW, What observed DNA changes may I ask?
When mutations occur, the DNA is changed. So far so good.

These DNA changes are recorded in nucleic chain. It has been proven on live specimens altering and mutating to fit the changed environment. Thus, you can prove how much time has passed since the mother species evolved into the examined one. This theory has been tested on dogs as well as several other living animals with living, provable species.


Better to be hated for who you are, than loved for who you're not.

Member of The Scandinavian Clique

My LiveJournal
C'jais is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 01-25-2003, 10:50 AM   #79
C'jais
Spicy Viking Boy
 
C'jais's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Soviet Scandinavistan
Posts: 4,345
And just for good measure:

1. Is there any reason to believe in your theory rather than some other version of creationism?

2a. Is there any observation which was predicted by your theory? (I'd like to see you present evidence of this. I'd very much like it, actually)

3. Is there any comprehensive and consistent statement of your theory?

4. Why is there the remarkable coherence among many different dating methods -- for example: radioactivity, tree rings, ice cores, corals, supernovas -- from astronomy, biology, physics, geology, chemistry and archeology?

4a. Explain the distribution of plant and animal fossils. For example, the limited distribution of fossils of flowering plants.

6. Why is there the present distribution of animals and plants in the world? How is it that marsupials are restricted to Australia and nearby islands and the Americas, monotremes to Australia, and few placental mammals are native to Australia? Why are tomatoes and potatoes native to the Americas only? (This is not a question merely of how they could have arrived there, it is also of why only there.)

9. What did all of the carnivores eat after leaving the Ark? (This is not a question about what they ate on the Ark.) In other words, explain how the food chain worked before the present ratios of a few predators to many prey.

Explain how the degree of genetic variation in contemporary animals resulted from the few on the Ark.

10. Is it possible to fit the pairs (male and female) of all kinds of land animals and birds on the Ark? The answer must give a detailed calculation. Remember to include all invertebrates as well as vertebrates, food and water, and neccesary environmental controls. Remember to include all kinds of cattle. Explain the meaning of the word "kind".

10c. Explain how there were pairs, male and female, of social (forming colonies), parthenogenic (female only) and hermaphroditic (both sexes in one individual) animals.


Take a close look at this yet again.

Remember what I wrote about a "flying squirrel dinosaur"? I, not even an expert by far, predicted this fossil discovery! Remarkable. It really is. And not mere luck - the theory of evolution was a clear indication that such a fossil would be found.

Now, let's see you creationist predict ANYTHING at all with your theory. Fossils, natural phenomena, geological excavations - I don't care. Just predict something, and you can stop looking stupid in the light of evolution.


Better to be hated for who you are, than loved for who you're not.

Member of The Scandinavian Clique

My LiveJournal
C'jais is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 01-25-2003, 05:14 PM   #80
Reborn Outcast
Easy Company
 
Reborn Outcast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 2,873
Cjais did you edit your post? Because I noticed before that you had a link to a hydrogen page I believe and now its gone. I would like to see that link again if you took it out. (I am in the process of getting info so I will post later I just want to see the link.)


Edit: Ah nevermind I found it. (It was in the isotopes section and it was helium)
Reborn Outcast is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Post a new thread. Add a reply to this thread. Indicate all threads in this forum as read. Subscribe to this forum. RSS feed: this forum RSS feed: all forums
Go Back   LucasForums > Network > JediKnight Series > Community > Senate Chambers > The History of the Universe

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:35 PM.

LFNetwork, LLC ©2002-2011 - All rights reserved.
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.