Site hosted by Angelfire.com: Build your free website today!

FEBRUARY 28 2004 

ViRuS
Since 06/13/2003



Off Topic Discussion  

Halo.iBonk.com Forums » Off Topic Discussion »

The Facts

ViRuS
Member

  Posts: 170
  Joined: 06/13/03

Posted: Feb 26, 2004 6:52 AM

Go ahead, Greg, you asked for it, and now I'm giving it to you.

Go ahead, try to porve creation wrong, because the fact is, you can't. If evolution is so write then hocome it's still called a theory? BECAUSE IT'S STILL GUESSWORK. The fact is, any evidence that supports evolution can actually also support creation.

The theory of Creation is alive and kicking. Even most nonreligious scienintist will admit for it being possible.
I'm telling you, in the next 25 years, the Theory of Evolution will be dissolved.

So here we go. The great debate begins.


_sig________________________________________________________
Nysa - The New Beginning

99octane
Member

  Posts: 434
  Joined: 05/21/03

Posted: Feb 26, 2004 11:49 AM

"Now I'm going to give it to you".
Fighting words there virus.
I will only engage you with the facts, and logic.
I will not be drawn into any immaturity here.
Agreed? I respect your intelligence, but your position is incorrect, and I will demonstrate how in this thread.
I do hope you have the ability to admit when you're wrong,
because you will need it in this thread or you will look like any other dogmatic closed-minded person.
If I sense that you are, then this thread ends in a stalemate, and all I can hope for is to educate those that read it ASIDE from you and people with your mindset.

So far, you have offered no evidence of any kind.
You said: "Go ahead, try to porve creation wrong, because the fact is, you can't." Wrong. I can't "prove" it to YOUR satisfaction perhaps, but I CAN demonstrate that the Biblical explaination of creation is impossible and is not in keeping with many laws of physics, thermal dynamics, chemisrty, geology, paleontology, astronomy, or just about any other dicipline that is well understood.
If you then choose to turn a blind eye to the facts I will present here, then my young friend the only logical conclusion is that you are incorrect and refuse to accept it. A very human trait.
NO ONE is debating that humans can make mistakes, and you are an excellent example of that.
Though highly intelligent, you have convinced yourself (or your parents / teachers have). I will explore how the human psyche and emotional response plays into religion and theology.

Virus, you typed: "If evolution is so write then hocome it's still called a theory? BECAUSE IT'S STILL GUESSWORK."
Wrong again. It is not certainly NOT guesswork. It is a science, carefully studied and updated as new evidence comes to light. That evidence comes in not one, not two, but THREE major areas of study today, only ONE of which was plentifully available to Charles Darwin.
1. The similarities both physically and behaviorally of LIVING animals AND human beings. (This is primarilly what Darwin had to go on).
2. The ever-growing, and better understood than ever before fossil record. (Very few fossils had been found, let alone properly identified by Darwin's time).
3. DNA and genetic evidence of species divergence.
I will explain this in detail later on, and it may well be "above" you, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt and give it a shot.

(CONTINUED BELOW)


_sig________________________________________________________
MASTERING HALO UNTIL THE SEQUEL *FINALLY* ARRIVES

99octane
Member

  Posts: 434
  Joined: 05/21/03

Posted: Feb 26, 2004 11:59 AM

(CONTINUED FROM ABOVE)

Virus wrote: "The fact is, any evidence that supports evolution can actually also support creation."
Nope, wrong yet again. The two are in direct contradiction in several key areas. I have heard the comment "who is to say a day is to God what a day is to us?" before. Many times. But no matter how long you are willing to stretch the 6 Biblical days of creation and the 1 day of rest God took after that, you can not account for such things as the RATIO of necessary hydrogen gravitational compression to form the first stars, then the depletion and destruction of those first stars in the universe, and then the formation of 2nd generation solar systems with planets (of which we are a part), planetary formation and cooling, stellar bombardment of asteroids and comets and other fragments,
TO THE TIME OF LIFE. It simply can not be done.
This Universe is no less than 15 Billion years old.
If you ask me how do I know that, I will refer you to the speed of light, which is a constant. We can now see Galaxies 15 Billion light years away, ergo, their light has been traveling for 15 billion years. They are AT LEAST 15 billion years old.
THIS planet is 4.6 Billion years old. And although life may have existed in it's simplest, RNA and DNA formations as far back as 3 billion years, it did not advance into multicellular organisms until roughly 500,000 Million, or one half billion years ago.
Now you have a ratio of at least 15 billion to 1/2 billion.
That's 30 to 1.
For the stroy of creation to be true, you'd have to have God creating life of any kind in the final hours of day six, and that is NOT what it says. So no matter how far you stretch the Biblical account of 6 days of creation and one of rest, it doesn't cover the reality of how long we KNOW it took for an absolute fact.
On to my next point.
(CONTINUED BELOW)


_sig________________________________________________________
MASTERING HALO UNTIL THE SEQUEL *FINALLY* ARRIVES


  Posts: 340
  Joined: 07/24/03

Posted: Feb 26, 2004 12:07 PM

I'm getting tired of hearing the same old "the Bible doesn't work with physics, thermal dynamics, yadayadayada." How can anyone explain 2 fish and 5 loaves of bread being turned into a feast for 5,000 people with physics. How can anyone explain water being turned into wine with chemistry? Oh yeah, I forgot, they're just make-believe stories some crack head wrote about to try and get attention. Now you guys can argue all day and all night about why creation isn't real or why evolution isn't real but I promise you no one will ever prove that the Bible or God anything associated with miracles of the Bible are wrong. The supernatural can't be applied alongside science..... that's why it's called "supernatural", it goes beyond the natural, that includes science. When will all of the atheists out there realize that?

_sig________________________________________________________
"Your best??? Losers always whine about doing their best. Winners go home and f*ck the Prom Queen!"
Check out our flame/spam free forums at http://s3.invisionfree.com/Silent_Shadows_Forum/index.php, administrated by your's truly.

I am Smoke_Dog_4ever, this is my new name.

99octane
Member

  Posts: 434
  Joined: 05/21/03

Posted: Feb 26, 2004 12:16 PM

(CONTINUED FROM ABOVE)

Virus, you said (regarding Creationism):
"Even most nonreligious scienintist will admit for it being possible." Wrong again. VERY few true scientists will say anything of the kind. If they do, they are not being true scientists; they are allowing their personal theistic viewpoints to get in the way. I am aware of no accredited scientists who say that "creationsim is possible".
Name one, and let's take this non-point of your from there, shall we? You have to be VERY careful Virus when you call someone a scientist, there are many wolves in sheeps clothing out there. MANY men and women who have tried to inject theistic faslehoods (or at the very least, counter productive illogic) into several scientific fields of study in the name of "God". True science examine evidence, and draws a conclusion based on the facts. It accepts ABSOLUTES only once they are proven beyond the shadow of any doubt.
I put it you you that for Science to still be calling evolution a "theory" is IN PART nothing more than a tip of the hat, a "nod" to religion. An aknowlegdement if you will of people's right to believe what they wish, and religion is BIG. Most people believe in God in one form or another.
The Judeo-Christian faith alone is held by millions upon millions worldwide. Whatever fraction of those people hold the Bible as fact word for word is still a huge number.
They put TREMENDOUS pressure on governments, schools, and individuals to call evolution a "theory" just because they don't want to accept it. or simply can't. So we'll give you all that one. Sure - it's a theory despite the proof. Fine.

(CONTINUED BELOW)


_sig________________________________________________________
MASTERING HALO UNTIL THE SEQUEL *FINALLY* ARRIVES

99octane
Member

  Posts: 434
  Joined: 05/21/03

Posted: Feb 26, 2004 12:22 PM

(CONTINUED FROM ABOVE)

Virus, you said:
"I'm telling you, in the next 25 years, the Theory of Evolution will be dissolved." I think not, and that is just foolish. Although, you might be on to something there for ONE good reason. People are stupid today. VERY stuipd. And they're getting dumber all the time. We have built a society, a whole world, based on science and technology, but have given so little priority to teaching it in schools that hardly anyone understands science and technology!
This is a recipie for disaster! Are governments trying to control information by depriving our children? If so WHY??
People on the street can't find countries on a map.
They don't know when the United States declared it's independance from England, becoming it's own nation.
History is lost, learning is lost, facts are buried,
and the concerns of life lose all meaning, boiling down to "I gotta earn some money, get laid, nice car, nice crib, eat good, hang with my homies, and do it all over again"
Higher learning is in danger in this country and indeed the whole world from TWO sources now.
1. The growing ignorance of the average person and
2. The growing influence of UNENLIGHTENED theistic dogma.
And yes Virus, that includes Christian Biblical Literalists who believe in Creationism, Adam and Eve, Noah's flood, and so on. These are theistic myths, not accounts of actual occurrances. I say again, EVERY HUMAN CULTURE that has EVER existed has creation myths, all wildly differnt.
Some believe that the earth rests in the shell of a giant tortise, afloat on a vast sea, held up by 4 elephants.
Why is your account of creation less valid than that one?
Or any of the dozens of creation myths man made up eons ago? We are a species that CAN wonder about such things as "where did we all come from", so we DO wonder it.
And until very recently, there were no real answers.
So the first medicine men, shaumans, and finally priests,
"answered" those questions with jibberish nonsense that made PERFECT sense to the primitive peoples that populated the ancient world. What amazes me is the consistency of human nature, the ability to reject truth to hold onto falsehood. The Nazis did it. The KKK does it. But you know what organization does it more often than any other?
THE CHURCH. And it's still doing it today.
You are living proof.

(CONTINUED BELOW)


_sig________________________________________________________
MASTERING HALO UNTIL THE SEQUEL *FINALLY* ARRIVES

99octane
Member

  Posts: 434
  Joined: 05/21/03

Posted: Feb 26, 2004 12:37 PM

(CONTINUED FROM ABOVE)

Virus, I've made some logical arguments to this point,
which is all that should normally be required.
But you will need specifics, won't you.
Ok, explain these things to me by way of creationism.

1. The Panda. It has a thumb-like nub protruding from it's wristbone to allow the animal to better grasp it's food. (Bamboo shoots). While it's skeleton reveals that it's TRUE thumb is fused to it's paw, making it useless for that task. What is more logical - that God made the creature this way, or the animal evolved in ONE direction early on,
distributing it's body weight on all it's metacarpal bones and digits evenly for faster propulsion in the pursuit of it's swift moving prey, (like bears) and then had to RE-evolve once again after the diet of it's ancestors focused exclusively on vegitation, and not meat?

(CONTINUED BELOW)


_sig________________________________________________________
MASTERING HALO UNTIL THE SEQUEL *FINALLY* ARRIVES

99octane
Member

  Posts: 434
  Joined: 05/21/03

Posted: Feb 26, 2004 12:38 PM

(CONTINUED FROM ABOVE)

2. The vision of the Octopus and Squid as compared to that of humans. In Octopus and Squid, the light collecting cells in the eyes are IN FRONT of several other structures of the eye, where primate eyes, which includes humans, have the photo-collecting cells (the retina) at the very rear of the eye, making them FAR less efficient at SEEING, which is the whole point of having an eye. Let's check the score: Mollusks; 400 Million years to adapt, evolve and improve their design by means of natural selection (I.E. Evolution). PRIMATES: 8 Million years.
400 to 8. or a ratio of 50 to 1. Mollusks have had 50 times the amount of time to evolve a better eye design than we have, and the fact is, they DO have better vision under ALL circumstances. Why did God make the eye of the Octopus superior in design in every way to that of a human being?
And why did he not give men any better eyesight than he did that of apes or chimps? In fact, our eyesight is WORSE.
Evolution doesn't go in only ONE direction.
Everyone seems to think it just makes creatures better and better suited for it's environments. There are MANY cases of creatures becoming LESS fit over time, and they eventually either diverge into other subspecies or they die off. THE VAST MAJORITY OF ALL SPECIES OF LIFE THAT HAVE EVER EXISTED IS NOW EXTINCT. We may very well be destined to join them, we are physically de-evolving, because there are fewer demands placed on our bodies than when we were hunter - gatherers. The weak and infirm no longer die out, they are kept alive by caregiving and NOW by advanced medicine. THEY REPRODUCE, advancing their defective genes into future generations. "Only the strong survive" no longer seems to apply to humans, and it may doom us all.
This planet can support a population of NO MORE THAN 9 Billion human beings. We're 2/3rds of the way there.


(CONTINUED BELOW)


_sig________________________________________________________
MASTERING HALO UNTIL THE SEQUEL *FINALLY* ARRIVES

99octane
Member

  Posts: 434
  Joined: 05/21/03

Posted: Feb 26, 2004 12:48 PM

Originally Posted by SmokeDogGSU
I'm getting tired of hearing the same old "the Bible doesn't work with physics, thermal dynamics, yadayadayada." When will all of the atheists out there realize that?


Smoke Dog, I can hear the frustration in your voice,
and I empathize with you. I truly do.
Did you EVER watch the tapes I sent you??
I'm guessing no, and i have to say, I am offended by that.
And if you HAVE, not a peep out of you, no comments about them at all. Which equally offends and frustrates me.
Your complaints about science are ill-founded, you are accpting myths over hard facts, and that's just plain wrong, meaning incorrect. Not passing judgement, I would accept is as a given that to deny fact in favor of myth is impropper logic, impropper thinking, wouldn't you?

And when you type things like "I forgot, they're just make-believe stories some crack head wrote about to try and get attention." you're attempting to diminish me and / or my evidence presented here by insulting it, demeaning it.
You will find no such language in MY posts.
I encourage you to hold yourself to that standard as well.

Let me explain something to you Smoke Dog that you will surely understand. The frustration that YOU feel and other IBONK vets feel when a "n00b" comes here and posts something achingly OLD or asks very basic questions that have been answered 1000 times here, THAT is the frustration I feel with all of you Biblical Literalists.
Baptists, Non-Denominational Christians, ANYONE who is so dogmatic (and I know you don't like that word, but it's apt here)that they CHOOSE to accept on pure faith these mythical accounts of miracles and creation that they somehow reject the facts of science that can be demonstrated over and over again.
Like I said to Virus, I could show you a dime and you'd say it was a quarter. IT IS HUMAN NATURE TO DO WHAT YOU ARE DOING. We ALL want to live forever, to believe that we will continue on after our death. NO SANE PERSON wants to die.
But we will, every last one of us.

_sig________________________________________________________
MASTERING HALO UNTIL THE SEQUEL *FINALLY* ARRIVES
99octane
Member

  Posts: 434
  Joined: 05/21/03

Posted: Feb 26, 2004 12:52 PM

I have typed enough for one afternoon.
And I haven't even got to the core of my evidence yet virus. I have barely scratched the surface.
But I'll give you this chance to respond and counter.
Please, present me with some specifics FROM YOUR OWN MIND,
as I have, don't come here with links to carefully constructed websites of pure theology masked as pseudo-science. I look forward to responding to your evidence that evolution is false, and that Creationism actually happened.
-99-


_sig________________________________________________________
MASTERING HALO UNTIL THE SEQUEL *FINALLY* ARRIVES

James
Administrator

  Posts: 13
  Joined: 02/17/03

Posted: Feb 26, 2004 2:04 PM

WOW, I must say 99, you have impressed me. Quite a bit too I might add. You made some excellent points, that I hope Virus at least makes an attempt to respond to. If not Ill glady throw my hat into the ring (even though I believe in the same things you do. Itd just all be for the sake of argument). But until then:

I promise you no one will ever prove that the Bible or God anything associated with miracles of the Bible are wrong.


The same goes for them being proven right. Its all faith based. So in order for them to be proven right or wrong, faith would have to be changed. Or some scientific evidence is gonna have to be shown. And seeing how people die for their faith Im gonna have to guess and say the later will be the first to happen.

_sig________________________________________________________
°Now Leaving Sanity°
BOBleader
Member

  Posts: 67
  Joined: 01/23/04

Posted: Feb 26, 2004 3:23 PM

99, my statement about you winning was said with much sarcasm. i meant that that sort of debate, hasnt gotten anywhere in the past, and it was interfering with the talk about passion. So no hard feelings!! and how does one scientifically explain a man working miracles?


_sig________________________________________________________
You guys have had No Life Since Halo.

BISHOP
Member

  Posts: 244
  Joined: 12/31/03

Posted: Feb 26, 2004 3:44 PM

No scientist, nor anyone else in recorded history for that matter, has ever observed the supposed process of evolution occurring. In 1981 the prestigious Natural History Museum in South Kensington, London, presented an elaborate exhibit in which evolution was presented as a theory, not a fact. The museum also published a brochure which included a statement that began with the words, "If the theory of evolution is true. . . ." This presentation of evolution as a theory instead of a fact angered some evolutionists. The leading science journal Nature ran an editorial entitled "Darwin's Death in South Kensington." The editorial said the exhibit and accompanying brochure must have been prepared without input from the museum's distinguished staff of biologists, and that surely those biologists would "rather lose their right hands than begin a sentence with the phrase, 'If the theory of evolution is true. . . ."

What happened next is something that few if any evolutionists ever mention in their writings: The editor received a letter signed by no less than twenty-two of the museum's staff of biologists in which they defended the museum's exhibit and literature. To the journal's credit, it published the letter. I quote from that letter:

Sir, as working biologists at the British Museum (Natural History) we were astonished to read your editorial "Darwin's Death in South Kensington" (Nature 26 February, p. 735). How is it that a journal such as yours that is devoted to science and its practice can advocate that theory be presented as fact? This is the stuff of prejudice, not science, and as scientists our basic concern is to keep an open mind on the unknowable. Surely it should not be otherwise?

You suggest that most of us would rather lose our right hands than begin a sentence with the phrase "If the theory of evolution is true. . . ." Are we to take it that evolution is a fact, proven to the limits of scientific rigor? If that is the inference then we must disagree most strongly. We have no absolute proof of the theory of evolution.







_sig________________________________________________________
"Black holes are where God divided by zero."
- Steven Wright

Just repeat this simple phrase-
NOOBS WHO THINK THEY KNOW EVERYTHING SUCK!!!!!!!!!

BISHOP
Member

  Posts: 244
  Joined: 12/31/03

Posted: Feb 26, 2004 3:50 PM

(CONTINUED...)
British biologist and evolutionist L. Harrison Matthews, in fact, has called the theory of evolution "an unproved theory" (Introduction to The Origin of Species, Charles Darwin, reprinted by J. M. Dent and Sons, Ltd., London, 1971, p. xi, reference from Duane Gish, Evolution: The Fossils Say No, San Diego, CA: Creation- Life Publishers, 1978, p. 2.

Evolution is not a fact.

When I say evolution is not a fact, let me be clear what I mean by "evolution" in this statement. I do not mean microevolution. Speciation and adaptation do occur. These are microevolutionary changes or developments. Microevolution consists of limited change and adaptation. Virtually no one disputes the reality of microevolution. What I mean by "evolution" is macroevolution, or evolution at the macro level, The complete theory of evolution is the idea that life arose spontaneously from non-life (or abiogenesis), that these "primitive" cells somehow developed into "simple" organisms that swam in the ancient ponds and seas, that these organisms evolved into fish, that some fish evolved into reptiles, that some reptiles then evolved into mammals, and that some mammals evolved into man. This is the full-blown theory of evolution, and it is this theory that creationists strongly dispute.

Some evolutionists protest strongly that the theory of evolution does not include abiogenesis, that evolution only deals with the origin of species, not with the origin of first life. Other evolutionists, however, have contradicted this denial. Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that evolution does not include abiogenesis, it most certainly does assume the occurrence of macro-level changes, such as a creature from one genus changing into a creature of a different genus. And evolution most certainly does posit that some "simple" organisms in the oceans evolved into fish, that some fish evolved into reptiles, that some reptiles evolved into mammals, and that some mammals evolved into man.





_sig________________________________________________________
"Black holes are where God divided by zero."
- Steven Wright

Just repeat this simple phrase-
NOOBS WHO THINK THEY KNOW EVERYTHING SUCK!!!!!!!!!

BISHOP
Member

  Posts: 244
  Joined: 12/31/03

Posted: Feb 26, 2004 3:52 PM

more for later. This takes a long time as you know!!!!!

_sig________________________________________________________
"Black holes are where God divided by zero."
- Steven Wright

Just repeat this simple phrase-
NOOBS WHO THINK THEY KNOW EVERYTHING SUCK!!!!!!!!!


  Posts: 340
  Joined: 07/24/03

Posted: Feb 26, 2004 3:53 PM

Octane, though you never said "they're just make-believe stories some crack head wrote" that's essentially the very thing you and everyone is saying. You're saying a group of people had alot of free time on their hands to write a bunch of stories that never happened.

This whole argument about animals having similarities proves nothing. It doesn't prove evolution. Squids need better eyesite cause they're under water. Any human who opens their eyes under water isn't going to be able to see clear. Why would a creature that has to live under the water have the same kind of eyesite as humans? They need better eyesite. That's not a big point in the battle of creation vs. evolution. None of this is. It doesn't provide proof of evolution, it provides evidence to support the idea that we evolved from 1 celled organisms, but it is far from enough to prove that evolution is a fact. Why can't any of you realize that?

I guess I'ma go through life believing a lie. Frankly, I don't care. I'd rather go through life believing in something I'll never see or touch and believing in the word of a book 2000 years old than to believe in something so theoritical as evolution. I didn't evolve from an ape and that's what I believe. I believe God did everything the Bible says He and Jesus did and nothing will ever change my mind.


_sig________________________________________________________
"Your best??? Losers always whine about doing their best. Winners go home and f*ck the Prom Queen!"
Check out our flame/spam free forums at http://s3.invisionfree.com/Silent_Shadows_Forum/index.php, administrated by your's truly.

I am Smoke_Dog_4ever, this is my new name.

James
Administrator

  Posts: 13
  Joined: 02/17/03

Posted: Feb 26, 2004 4:13 PM

Bishop, even though it may come off as offensive you didn’t really tell us anything. All you did was just state something we already know. Evolution is a theory, that’s it. But the same is said for Creation. And you just backed that up with something that some museum did. Nothing was disproved or proved by what you said. Oh, and your comment about no one every observing evolution...it takes a lot longer for evolution to work than we have time on earth. So in order for someone to observe this process they’d have to live for thousands if not millions of years. What we see now in some animals could easily be evolution in the process.

Smoke, You and me, we've been down this road before. Conclusion, you believe in nothing but the Bible. There’s nothing else that could be right by what the Bible says to you. And yet you don’t want to defend your ideas, so I guess its kind of illogical to attack others.


_sig________________________________________________________
°Now Leaving Sanity°

ViRuS
Member

  Posts: 170
  Joined: 06/13/03

Posted: Feb 26, 2004 4:22 PM

First off, you misread me, for I did not say,\" Now I am going to give it to you. I stated,\".....Now I\'m giving it to you\", which cames from your dare to make a topic on this matter. Just thought I\'d like to point that out.

Now, My Dad had to work home today, so I was no able to reply until now. Forgive me, and I hope that My posts will be speedier in the future.

Ok, Now on to the topic at hand.

\"DNA and genetic evidence of species divergence.
I will explain this in detail later on, and it may well be \"above\" you, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt and give it a shot. \"

That right there is not The Theory of Evolution I am talking about, but \"microevolution\" which consists of minor changes through genetics. I am a full follower of mircoevolution. So don\'t change to that in the conversation from now on.

\"But no matter how long you are willing to stretch the 6 Biblical days of creation and the 1 day of rest God took after that, you can not account for such things as the RATIO of necessary hydrogen gravitational compression to form the first stars, then the depletion and destruction of those first stars in the universe, and then the formation of 2nd generation solar systems with planets (of which we are a part), planetary formation and cooling, stellar bombardment of asteroids and comets and other fragments,
TO THE TIME OF LIFE. It simply can not be done.\"

Ah, but who said I stretch it out? If God is God, then he CAN simply do that in 6 days and 6 nights.



_sig________________________________________________________
Nysa - The New Beginning

ViRuS
Member

  Posts: 170
  Joined: 06/13/03

Posted: Feb 26, 2004 4:22 PM

So any creationist sciencetist aren\'t really sciencetist? Don\'t you see where I\'m going with this? You call me closed-minded and say that you know that facts? My friend, that is what people call hypocrictism.

How come Human beings are the only intelligent forms of life out there? How come it only took(according to the theory of evolution) 1 million years for us to form, and fish have been around for 500 million years and haven\'t formed a intellgent life of there own? How come there still the lower forms of life, such as mollusks and plankton, and why haven\'t they evolved like the rest of there kind?

I didn\'t ask you to try and prove evolution right, because your right, I have my eyes set on creation as of now. I asked you to try and prove creation wrong. If you can, I might consider evolution again. But I don\'t think you can.

One last point. I\'m only 13 years old. I am not foolish enough to say that I can even begin to prove creation to you. That is why I will not try. But I can at least counter point the evidence that you think contradicts the bible.


_sig________________________________________________________
Nysa - The New Beginning

ViRuS
Member

  Posts: 170
  Joined: 06/13/03

Posted: Feb 26, 2004 4:54 PM

http://www.icr.org/creationscientists/biologicalscientists.html

Here's a list of those sciencetist that aren't true scientist. You know, the ones that are for creation. Funny thing is, most are probably more educated than yourself.

About that, what do you have degrees in?


_sig________________________________________________________
Nysa - The New Beginning


  Posts: 340
  Joined: 07/24/03

Posted: Feb 26, 2004 4:55 PM

Originally Posted by James
Smoke, You and me, we've been down this road before. Conclusion, you believe in nothing but the Bible. There’s nothing else that could be right by what the Bible says to you. And yet you don’t want to defend your ideas, so I guess its kind of illogical to attack others.


As I've repeatedly stated numerous times before, you can't test God. You can't take His blood and study it under a microscope, you can't test why we have a soul, you can't test anything about God. Religion is based on faith. The Bible doesn't go against science. Science goes against the Bible. It's as simple as that. Whoever says that the Bible goes against science is incredibly misinformed. Science tries in vain to prove that we evolved from a pile of dung (yes Octane, I said dung) that slowly sprouted legs over the course of a million years and walked off. People will believe that, but they won't believe that 2000 years ago a man died because he was believed to be the Son of God. Hmmm...... 2000 years against 500 million years..... is there something I'm not understanding here? Faith. It's all you'll ever need to understand God and his existence. You can't say you believe in God but believe 100% in evolution and call yourself a Christian or expect to go to Heaven. I'm not passing judgment, that's written in the Bible. You don't believe in the word of God, then you don't believe in God. Simple as that.

_sig________________________________________________________
"Your best??? Losers always whine about doing their best. Winners go home and f*ck the Prom Queen!"
Check out our flame/spam free forums at http://s3.invisionfree.com/Silent_Shadows_Forum/index.php, administrated by your's truly.

I am Smoke_Dog_4ever, this is my new name.
BISHOP
Member

  Posts: 244
  Joined: 12/31/03

Posted: Feb 26, 2004 4:56 PM

thats exactly what ive been doing the whole time, then after the facts are given, you can decide for yourself.

_sig________________________________________________________
"Black holes are where God divided by zero."
- Steven Wright

Just repeat this simple phrase-
NOOBS WHO THINK THEY KNOW EVERYTHING SUCK!!!!!!!!!

99octane
Member

  Posts: 434
  Joined: 05/21/03

Posted: Feb 26, 2004 6:26 PM

I am saddened to see the old rhetoric as the only reply to my posts. In short, it means you HAVE NO INTELLIGENT RESPONSE. Nothing that was said in this thread sicne my last post has offered a single shred of evidence to dispell the theory of evolution or to make it even slightly less logical. I am most certainly no hypocrite Virus.
If you can show me anything, ONE thing, that even begins to support your position that doesn't come back to "because the Bible says so", then I will isten with interest.
But neither you, nor Bishop, nor Smoke Dog has done that or even come close to it.

Until someone here can do that,
I feel we are at the historical deadlock between ideologies.
Those of you that chose to believe in God,
and the literal interpretation of the Bible as a factual
record of actual events are proving unwilling to accept anything else. (I'm speaking of most of the old testament and the occurances of "miracles" in the new testament).
THAT is hypocracy, it is dogmatism, and it is closed mindedness in it's purest form.
There's no getting through to you, and I am not here to create friction or "enemies", I came here to improve my skills at HALO, and then got caught up in all this.

You Christians think science is a bad thing?
The work of Satan perhaps?
Then why are you all playing this video game called HALO?
or ANY video game for that matter.
If you feel that science is all false, and "leads you astray", then REJECT IT ALL, don't pick and choose.
Go live with the Amish.
NO electricity. NO indoor plumbing. NO gasoline powered
vehicles of any kind. No technology beyond farm tools.
And I mean the kind you put behind an Ox or use by hand.
The science that has now advanced far enough to bring you
a video game like HALO walks hand in hand with other diciplines. Why is it so hard for you to grasp that
our understanding of our origins would be advanced and accurate as well?


_sig________________________________________________________
MASTERING HALO UNTIL THE SEQUEL *FINALLY* ARRIVES

BISHOP
Member

  Posts: 244
  Joined: 12/31/03

Posted: Feb 26, 2004 6:36 PM

i didnt say science was a bad thing octane. If you look over my last post, it does show some evidence that evolution might be a wrong theory. Actually, i very much enjoy science, but what i dont enjoy is people making assumptions about things that they dont know are true. Now you may be thinking that i cant make any assumptions because the Bible is supposedley not a historically proven and reliable text, but i am content to know that i believe what i believe, and i know you believe what you believe. All that truly matters is if you are a believer of the truth, which is God alone. Dont think i am passing judgement on you, but dont pass judgement on me either. Many people form an opinion about christianity, most of which are negative, but what will it hurt you to see what it is all about? What will it hurt you to read through the Bible regardless or whether or not you believe it to be true? Many of you are seeing THE PASSION. That came from the Bible. It offers some truth. And, i dont think posting about evolution v. creationism is going to help anything because it always has and always will end off in a stalemate.

_sig________________________________________________________
"Black holes are where God divided by zero."
- Steven Wright

Just repeat this simple phrase-
NOOBS WHO THINK THEY KNOW EVERYTHING SUCK!!!!!!!!!

99octane
Member

  Posts: 434
  Joined: 05/21/03

Posted: Feb 26, 2004 6:44 PM

"All that truly matters is if you are a believer of the truth, which is God alone."

No, "god" is NOT truth all alone by himself.
Religion is NOT ordianed by God,
it is created and forged by MEN.

How do you explain there being SO MANY differnt
theologies on this planet?
And they have involved such things over the millenia
as human sacrifice, cannibalism, rape, battery,
amputation, suicide, among other things?
Why are YOU right when every other religion on Earth is wrong?

Not only I, but many people who have the mid to see the big picture, see religion as a common expression of a universal need of humankind. The diversity of theistic ideologies over the history of our species is evidence that there is no true God. It is evidence that man creates God in his own image, to reflect the more moral or more revered aspects of the culture of which he is a part.


_sig________________________________________________________
MASTERING HALO UNTIL THE SEQUEL *FINALLY* ARRIVES

99octane
Member

  Posts: 434
  Joined: 05/21/03

Posted: Feb 26, 2004 6:46 PM

Forgive the typo,
that's "mind to see to the big picture", not "mid".


_sig________________________________________________________
MASTERING HALO UNTIL THE SEQUEL *FINALLY* ARRIVES

BOBleader
Member

  Posts: 67
  Joined: 01/23/04

Posted: Feb 26, 2004 7:10 PM

How many religions do you know of whos founder sacrificed his life for the sake of the human race, so that we dont parish, but have everlasting life? I only know of one, Jesus Christ. Whether you have heard his name and refuse to believe it, or you have some other sick twisted freakish form of worship to a false god, the truth is there in front of your face. Everyone. What im trying to say is, there is a man(coincientaly theres a movie out about him right now,) his name is jesus, and he suffered pain unfathomable by the human mind. He did it for you, From IRapeClans to 99octane, to Bill Frickin Clinton. Creatism isnt the whole picture. Jesus is. Here is some facts for the literalist.
Historians have PROVEN, not theorised, have provn a man named Jesus Christ walked the earth 2004 years ago. Ok 2004 years ago he was like 3 months, but he was on the earth. Historians have PROVEN that he did work miracles. Not supernaturaly, but through the celestial power he holds being the son of mankind. The fact that he died and rose again is not arguable. Ocatane, your a scientist. People cant just walk out of tombs when they have been dead for 3 days. Even if he did, the roman guards place in front of his tomb would have stopped him and seen it happen. Jesus was a man, he walked the earth. He died for every person on this earth. Everyone. Weird huh? Not only that, but my sins caused his death. I dont care if you believe this, I dont care how much you argue this, all i know is, ive done my part. The truth is here.


_sig________________________________________________________
You guys have had No Life Since Halo.

99octane
Member

  Posts: 434
  Joined: 05/21/03

Posted: Feb 26, 2004 7:32 PM

BOBleader... (Shaking my head with a grin on my face)

Dying a HORRIBLE death for what you believe in
is not unique to Jesus.
It's been done, both before and after him, and
just today in Iraq.

Dying for what you believe in doesn't make it correct,
or "prove" that what you believe in is the "truth".
It simply means that you were willign to die for those beliefs.

Suicide Bombers come to mind.
The Kami-Kazi Japanese pilots during World War II.
Several Bhuddist Monks.
The Chineese college student who was run over in Tiennimen Square by a friggin commie TANK.
Martin Luther King.
John F. Kennedy.

Are you saying anyone who is willing to die
for their beliefs, of in the "best" case,
to save the lives of others, is "God"?


_sig________________________________________________________
MASTERING HALO UNTIL THE SEQUEL *FINALLY* ARRIVES

99octane
Member

  Posts: 434
  Joined: 05/21/03

Posted: Feb 26, 2004 7:54 PM

Virus, (or anyone else),
please explain to me in Creationist terms
why Human males have nipples.


_sig________________________________________________________
MASTERING HALO UNTIL THE SEQUEL *FINALLY* ARRIVES

BOBleader
Member

  Posts: 67
  Joined: 01/23/04

Posted: Feb 26, 2004 8:07 PM

because theyre fun to play with, especially when its cold. and the thing with all the others who sacrificed theyre live for the sake of mankind. theyre blood means nothing. sounds more harsh than it is, but they didnt have the power to do so. i dont think they died so we could go to heaven. they didnt have to position to do so. its not so much willing to die for their belifs. none of the men youy named were the son of god. bottom line, thats what makes jesus the truth, the way, and the light.
p.s. cant wait to hear why we have nipples


_sig________________________________________________________
You guys have had No Life Since Halo.

BISHOP
Member

  Posts: 244
  Joined: 12/31/03

Posted: Feb 26, 2004 8:08 PM

Octane, you said that "religion is NOT ordained by God, it is created and forged by men." I would have to say that you hit the nail right on the head. Religion has been forged by men. Christianity is no religion. Religion implied that you must do things so that you benefit in the end. But, the truth is that Christianity is a relationship between Man and God. God established this relationship between man and God when he sent his son, God with flesh, into the world.

One thing I would like to also clear up is this. In the old testament, there are numerous prophecies referring to the Christ, that he would be born of a virgin, born in the town of Bethlehem, and be called Immanuel, or God with us. These all came true. Looking through the Bible, there are numerous prohecies which 100% of the time came true. 100% of the time, what someone said would happen actually happened. Even Notradamus was only correct in 3% of his predictions about the future, and when he was correct, everyone goes up in arms. If you are right 100% of the time, wouldent you believe as well.

After all these prophecies were made, an actual man named Jesus came into the world and walked among us, performing various miracles and teaching in the temple. But just what if we rewound time for a few hours and went back there to visit Jesus. If you were to have a conversation with him, what would you tell him. Would you tell him that he is a liar, which is absurd. Would you say that he is demon possesed, which is more absurd. How can a man demon possesed drive out evil spirits from men. If this is so, then satan must be divided against himself, and as we know, this cannot be. But what if he showed you one of those miracles. Would you then believe. Jesus said "blessed are those who believe without seeing, because theirs is the kingdom of heaven."

He also commanded us to do his work here on earth. Matthew 28:18-20 says that Jesus told the disciples to teach them everything he commanded them. One ironic thing is that this country was founded on religious principles and was centrally focussed around God. It just goes to show how tainted we have become in this world.


_sig________________________________________________________
"Black holes are where God divided by zero."
- Steven Wright

Just repeat this simple phrase-
NOOBS WHO THINK THEY KNOW EVERYTHING SUCK!!!!!!!!!

BISHOP
Member

  Posts: 244
  Joined: 12/31/03

Posted: Feb 26, 2004 8:13 PM

if anyone has any questions pertaining to what chistianity is all about, you can ask me what you want and i will answer it the best i can.

_sig________________________________________________________
"Black holes are where God divided by zero."
- Steven Wright

Just repeat this simple phrase-
NOOBS WHO THINK THEY KNOW EVERYTHING SUCK!!!!!!!!!

BOBleader
Member

  Posts: 67
  Joined: 01/23/04

Posted: Feb 26, 2004 8:17 PM

me too


_sig________________________________________________________
You guys have had No Life Since Halo.

99octane
Member

  Posts: 434
  Joined: 05/21/03

Posted: Feb 26, 2004 8:24 PM

BOBLeader - the "position" you BELIEVE Jesus was in, to die for our sins so that all men can go to Heaven if they've earned it when they die, is an ASSUMPTION BASED ON FAITH.
That is NOT evidence. The prophecies you spoke of existed among hundres of others that didn't come true.
If you make 100 predictions, and 3 come true, you're god?
Sorry, but no.
And about them coming true... very much open to interpretation. Born of a Virgin. Impossible. Period.
Show that it can be done, repeat this miracle.
You can't. No one can. But EVERYTHING I have stated as supporting evidenvce of evolution is demonstrable, repeatable, it can be shown to you, tested and tested again. The religious refusal to accept it is based on human pride, and our ability for "selective thinking".
Hearing what you want to hear. Don't feel too bady about this, you're certainly not alone. And you won't be the last.

Bishop: "Christianity is no religion." ?!?! Say WHAT??
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"the truth is that Christianity is a relationship between Man and God. God established this relationship between man and God when he sent his son, God with flesh, into the world." NOPE. Christianity is mankind's interpretation of the life and death of one man who stood in contrast to the turmoil of the day, in contrast against Rome. The events of his life were written FIRST by those who shared his life, but strangely, some FORTY YEARS after Jesus' death.
Ask your Grandfather what he remembers from 40 years ago.
No matter HOW memorable, his recounting of those events will differ slightly from the actual truth, as men we see the SAME things DIFFERENTLY, and that is intensified by the age of the viewer. So although the books of the Apostles were written by men who walked with Jesus, I do NOT accept them as word for word truth. To do so would be assuming too much.


_sig________________________________________________________
MASTERING HALO UNTIL THE SEQUEL *FINALLY* ARRIVES

99octane
Member

  Posts: 434
  Joined: 05/21/03

Posted: Feb 26, 2004 8:29 PM

PS - I'm STILL waiting for someone to
give me an intelligent answer as a Creationist
as to why human males have nipples.

Though they may well be fun to play with
when they're cold, so are FEMALE nipples,
but their biologic purpose is to allow milk to pass from the mother's mammary gland into the infant's mouth by sucking. The male version can't do that. So why do they exist?


_sig________________________________________________________
MASTERING HALO UNTIL THE SEQUEL *FINALLY* ARRIVES

BOBleader
Member

  Posts: 67
  Joined: 01/23/04

Posted: Feb 26, 2004 8:39 PM

this is going to be really childiss, but you say evolution takes place over time. so technically, beliving in evolution takes faith too. if you want to go by firsthand experience, way more people saw what happend to christ, during that time, than then amount of people who have seen something evolve. because no one has seen anything evolve. by seeing something ievolve, i mean, look at the omeba, 2 days later o wow, its a small mammal, 1 year later, cool, its my new baby brother. doesnt happen. still takes faith to believe. no arguing that fact. no one person has seen something evolve.

_sig________________________________________________________
You guys have had No Life Since Halo.

ViRuS
Member

  Posts: 170
  Joined: 06/13/03

Posted: Feb 26, 2004 8:40 PM

"How do you explain there being SO MANY differnt
theologies on this planet?
And they have involved such things over the millenia
as human sacrifice, cannibalism, rape, battery,
amputation, suicide, among other things?
Why are YOU right when every other religion on Earth is wrong? "

Ech...When will you learn Greg? Evolution is just as much a religion as Christianity is. The fact that there is no actual living evidence today that says evolution exists. So yours requires just as much as faith as Christianity does, even less.

Christianity isn't a blind faith...Far from it infact.

"You Christians think science is a bad thing?"

Again you resort to putting words in our mouth....Never...NEVER will I say that. Science is for christianity and creation 100%!


_sig________________________________________________________
Nysa - The New Beginning

Toxicity
Member

  Posts: 20
  Joined: 05/11/03

Posted: Feb 26, 2004 8:50 PM

The theory of Creation

Interested you say that ViRuS.. When your argument was..

If evolution is so write then hocome it's still called a theory? BECAUSE IT'S STILL GUESSWORK

Fuckin hypocrit...


_sig________________________________________________________

[[ - The dumb here is overwhelming - ]]
99octane
Member

  Posts: 434
  Joined: 05/21/03

Posted: Feb 26, 2004 8:52 PM

Originally Posted by BOBleader
you say evolution takes place over time. so technically, beliving in evolution takes faith too. if you want to go by firsthand experience, way more people saw what happend to christ, during that time, than then amount of people who have seen something evolve.


No. Flawwed logic. Here's where you're incorrect;
Believing in evolution does NOT take faith.
If it does, it's faith in the facts that lead to that conclusion. Faith that the fossils we've unearthed are the remains of long dead animals, and not some amazing rock formations. Faith that DNA is correctly understood.
Faith that species in transition exist today.
The Mudskipper; a fish with fleshy fins that can leave one pool of water, cross the mud, extract oxygen from the air without lungs, and enter another separated pool of water to continue it's life.
The Cormorant; a bird that is in the evolutionary process of giving up flight, and joining the ranks of Penguins as underwater fish chasers. But unlike a Penguin, it can STILL fly, but barely, and not very well uphill, only downhill.
It prefers to swim, and will thus continue to evolve to be more like a Penguin and less like a Pelican.
You do not need to live millions of years to see millions of years worth of hard evidence.
When you compare that to the teachings of the Bible,
only 2000 years old by comparison, you KEEP MISSING THE POINT. The evidence for evolution was written by nature, in the fossil record, in the genes of living animals and in us. Those records can't be faked, and their information is constant and unbiased.

The record, the ONLY record there is of the life and death of Jesus was written by MEN, not God, not nature.
MEN have motives, agendas. Political and otherwise.
Nature does not. Nature has nothing to hide, to lose or gain by the information it yeilds. Men DO.

(Continued)

_sig________________________________________________________
MASTERING HALO UNTIL THE SEQUEL *FINALLY* ARRIVES
99octane
Member

  Posts: 434
  Joined: 05/21/03

Posted: Feb 26, 2004 8:58 PM

Virus: "When will you learn Greg? Evolution is just as much a religion as Christianity is. "

Wrong yet again Virus. The point is, I HAVE learned.
Humanity HAS learned. But you refuse to see it.
The question is, when will YOU learn?
Evolution is not a religion. It is a science.
It is studied, there is evidence for it,
and the passing of time brings more snd more of that evidence to our scrutiny. All you can do with theology
(including Christianity) is to anylize what was recorded by the hand of men several generations ago.

Virus, you just typed:
"The fact that there is no actual living evidence today that says evolution exists."
Please read my post just above this one.
EVERY living creature has within it evidence for evolution.
It's called DNA.
This next part is very important, so please read it carefully.
There are only FOUR nucleotides involved in the creation and replication of ANY strand of
RNA or DNA - that means there are exactly FOUR different building blocks that are NOT,
in and of themselves, alive, but it is they that create the RNA and DNA molecules that create
all life on this planet; all life that ever was, is, or ever will exist.
This is true today and was true 3 billion years ago.
Every living thing on Earth, plant or animal, even viruses, have genetic codes
composed of only these 4 nucleotides.
Guanine, Cytosine, Adenine, Thymine, (G C A T).
The comparison of genetic material, the genome map,
of two creatures will demonstrate how recently or distantly they shared common ancestry. Please respond to that before I go on.



_sig________________________________________________________
MASTERING HALO UNTIL THE SEQUEL *FINALLY* ARRIVES

BOBleader
Member

  Posts: 67
  Joined: 01/23/04

Posted: Feb 26, 2004 9:04 PM

"Believing in evolution does NOT take faith.
If it does, it's faith in the facts that lead to that conclusion. "

your first mistake, before stating any fact to support your argument, you already contradicted yourself.


_sig________________________________________________________
You guys have had No Life Since Halo.

99octane
Member

  Posts: 434
  Joined: 05/21/03

Posted: Feb 26, 2004 9:08 PM

Originally Posted by BOBleader
"Believing in evolution does NOT take faith.
If it does, it's faith in the facts that lead to that conclusion. "

your first mistake, before stating any fact to support your argument, you already contradicted yourself.


I don't think so. Please explain why you typed this.
What you just said suggests to me that you misread the above quote.

_sig________________________________________________________
MASTERING HALO UNTIL THE SEQUEL *FINALLY* ARRIVES
99octane
Member

  Posts: 434
  Joined: 05/21/03

Posted: Feb 26, 2004 9:18 PM

When non-biologists talk about biological evolution they often confuse two different aspects of the definition. On the one hand there is the question of whether or not modern organisms have evolved from older ancestral organisms or whether modern species are continuing to change over time. On the other hand there are questions about the mechanism of the observed changes... how did evolution occur? Biologists consider the existence of biological evolution to be a fact. It can be demonstrated today and the historical evidence for its occurrence in the past is overwhelming. However, biologists readily admit that they are less certain of the exact mechanism of evolution; there are several theories of the mechanism of evolution.
Let me try to make crystal clear what is established beyond reasonable doubt, and what needs further study, about evolution. Evolution as a process that has always gone on in the history of the earth can be doubted only by those who are ignorant of the evidence or are resistant to evidence, owing to emotional or theistic (religious) blocks or to plain bigotry. By contrast, the mechanisms that bring evolution about certainly need study and clarification. There are no alternatives to evolution as natural history that can withstand critical examination. Yet we are constantly learning new and important facts about evolutionary mechanisms. Would you like specifics?


_sig________________________________________________________
MASTERING HALO UNTIL THE SEQUEL *FINALLY* ARRIVES

99octane
Member

  Posts: 434
  Joined: 05/21/03

Posted: Feb 26, 2004 9:22 PM

You guys simply MUST read this!
"Transcribed from The American Biology Teacher, March 1973 (35:125-129)

As recently as 1966, sheik Abd el Aziz bin Baz asked the king of Saudi Arabia to suppress a heresy that was spreading in his land. Wrote the sheik:

"The Holy Koran, the Prophet’s teachings, the majority of Islamic scientists, and the actual facts all prove that the sun is running in its orbit . . . and that the earth is fixed and stable, spread out by God for his mankind. . . . Anyone who professed otherwise would utter a charge of falsehood toward God, the Koran, and the Prophet."

The good sheik evidently holds the Copernican theory to be a "mere theory," not a "fact." In this he is technically correct. A theory can be verified by a mass of facts, but it becomes a proven theory, not a fact. The sheik was perhaps unaware that the Space Age had begun before he asked the king to suppress the Copernican heresy. The sphericity of the earth has been seen by astronauts, and even by many earth-bound people on their television screens. Perhaps the sheik could retort that those who venture beyond the confines of God’s earth suffer hallucinations, and that the earth is really flat.

Parts of the Copernican world model, such as the contention that the earth rotates around the sun, and not vice versa, have not been verified by direct observations even to the extent the sphericity of the earth has been. Yet scientists accept the model as an accurate representation of reality. Why? Because it makes sense of a multitude of facts which are otherwise meaningless or extravagant. To nonspecialists most of these facts are unfamiliar. Why then do we accept the "mere theory" that the earth is a sphere revolving around a spherical sun? Are we simply submitting to authority? Not quite: we know that those who took the time to study the evidence found it convincing.

The good sheik is probably ignorant of the evidence. Even more likely, he is so hopelessly biased that no amount of evidence would impress him."
Taken from: http://www.2think.org/dobzhansky.shtml

Remind you of anyone VIRUS? BOBLEADER? BISHOP? SMOKEDOG?


_sig________________________________________________________
MASTERING HALO UNTIL THE SEQUEL *FINALLY* ARRIVES

laagmatt
Member

  Posts: 90
  Joined: 07/22/03

Posted: Feb 26, 2004 9:30 PM

(CONTINUED FROM ABOVE)
too much


_sig________________________________________________________
.
....^^the sign of the vets
.. take a break from halo its good for you.

laagmatt
Member

  Posts: 90
  Joined: 07/22/03

Posted: Feb 26, 2004 9:31 PM

(CONTINUED FROM ABOVE)
its crazy!

the bible is real. dont believe me? whatever. go watch mel gibsons new movie. it depicts parts of the bible very well.


_sig________________________________________________________
.
....^^the sign of the vets
.. take a break from halo its good for you.

99octane
Member

  Posts: 434
  Joined: 05/21/03

Posted: Feb 26, 2004 9:32 PM

The historical reality of evolution is that is is a demonstrable fact, it is not a theory.
It is a fact, as surely as the fact of the earth's revolution about the sun.
Like the heliocentric solar system,
(Sun at the center)
evolution began as a hypothesis, and achieved "facthood" as the evidence in its favor became so strong that no knowledgeable and unbiased person could deny its reality. No biologist today would think of submitting a paper entitled "New evidence for evolution;" it simply has not been an issue for a century.

Only the doggedly religious will reject the evidence on the baisis of theology. This by it's vary nature makes such a person biased against the overwhelming evidence of the reality of evolution as an actual and on-going process in the natural world.

To be "biased" in FAVOR of a conclusion after reviewing overwhelming data that supports it, NOT refutes it,
is to be EDUCATED or INFORMED.
To be "biased" AGAINST a conclusion that is supported by overwhelming evidence in support of it is to be IGNORANT.

Virus, when you once told me that you "believed" in evolution prior to accepting Creationism,
I suspect that you did not understand it.
You were simply told that it occured, and the mechanisms
by which it occured, or the hard evidence of it had not be demonstrated to you. You accepted evolution because you were told to, not because you were allowed to explore it yourself. And you have a mind that CAN.
Now, however and unfortunately, you have embraced Creationism because of your community and parents beliefs.
While rejecting or rationilzing away a vast ammount of evidence to the contrary.
And you DARE call ME a hypocrite?
I think not, my 13 year old friend.


_sig________________________________________________________
MASTERING HALO UNTIL THE SEQUEL *FINALLY* ARRIVES

99octane
Member

  Posts: 434
  Joined: 05/21/03

Posted: Feb 26, 2004 9:36 PM

Thanks Matt, I'll take that as a compliment. LOL

When I am challenged by someone supporting a conclusion that I KNOW is flawwed, biased, or just plain incorrect,
I will type as long as it takes.

I may never reach any of the Biblical literalists here,
but I am enjoying this debate, and look forward to some real substance from the "Creationist side".
Dissappointing so far...

I'm STILL waiting to hear from Virus as to why
Human Males have nipples, as explained by a Creationist.
WHY DID GOD GIVE MEN NIPPLES, HUH VIRUS?


_sig________________________________________________________
MASTERING HALO UNTIL THE SEQUEL *FINALLY* ARRIVES

BISHOP
Member

  Posts: 244
  Joined: 12/31/03

Posted: Feb 26, 2004 9:38 PM

Originally Posted by 99octane


The events of his life were written FIRST by those who shared his life, but strangely, some FORTY YEARS after Jesus\' death. Ask your Grandfather what he remembers from 40 years ago. No matter HOW memorable, his recounting of those events will differ slightly from the actual truth, as men we see the SAME things DIFFERENTLY, and that is intensified by the age of the viewer. So although the books of the Apostles were written by men who walked with Jesus, I do NOT accept them as word for word truth. To do so would be assuming too much.


Funny you should say that. Have you ever encountered someone who was in world war 2. Well i have, my granfather was actually in the Phillipines in Guadlecanal, if thats how you spell it. His depiction of what happened the day they took tht island was full detailed, without anything missing. Once you expirience something like that, you never really forget what took place.

O and by the way, your statement about a virgin giving birth being impossible is impossible unless we are influenced by the Holy Spirit, or the third part of the trinity. The truth is that Mary was a person who was probably only 13 years old when she gave birth to Jesus, evidence points toward this. Mary also wasnt on anyones A list to begin with because she had a reputation for running away from marriage to Joseph, which was not good at those times.

Heres another thing. A woman named Sarah gave birth at the age of 99. Is that possible? We would say no because we have never seen it happen. But the truth is that it did happen, the geneologies in the Bible prove it. The same goes with Jesus. The geneologies in the Bible prove that he is not only the Son of God, but also the rightful King on earth who decended from David.

Octane you will never understand unless you open your mind to what we have to say. The fact is that the Bible makes it clear that no virgin will ever give birth again. It was a one time thing because God only came one time. But the truth is that he is coming again. Read through revelation in the end of the Bible and you will see what is going to happen.



_sig________________________________________________________
"Black holes are where God divided by zero."
- Steven Wright

Just repeat this simple phrase-
NOOBS WHO THINK THEY KNOW EVERYTHING SUCK!!!!!!!!!
BISHOP
Member

  Posts: 244
  Joined: 12/31/03

Posted: Feb 26, 2004 9:39 PM

(continued....)
You are just like the Pharisees. Continually they knew of his mirales, yet they didnt believe. Jesus said blessed is he who has believed, but not seen. What disturbs me about you octane is the fact that you wont believe. You are so quick to believe evolution, but beyond that, believe in the Lord period and the Bible for one. You cant be a christian if you dont believe in the Bible.


_sig________________________________________________________
"Black holes are where God divided by zero."
- Steven Wright

Just repeat this simple phrase-
NOOBS WHO THINK THEY KNOW EVERYTHING SUCK!!!!!!!!!

laagmatt
Member

  Posts: 90
  Joined: 07/22/03

Posted: Feb 26, 2004 9:45 PM



hey you fucking prick what the hell is wrong with you. prick.

why does it matter if males have nipples? it doesnt!

WHY THE HELL IS IT CALLED GRASS? IT DOESNT FUCKIN MATTER YOU FUCKING PRICK!

WHY DO YOU EXIST? I DONT KNOW YOU HOMO.


_sig________________________________________________________
.
....^^the sign of the vets
.. take a break from halo its good for you.
BISHOP
Member

  Posts: 244
  Joined: 12/31/03

Posted: Feb 26, 2004 9:46 PM

With this understood, let's continue. Not only has evolution not been observed, but scientists have been unable to change one genus into another genus even in sophisticated breeding experiments. This casts great doubt on the idea that one genus could change into another genus as a result of mutations. For that matter, there is doubt that mutations are capable of producing a new unambiguous species. Jewish scholar Lawrence Keleman observes:

Another theoretical flaw grew out of Darwin's incomplete understanding of genetics. Darwin assumed that any species could slowly evolve into any other species through a series of small changes. But scientists now know that genes have mutability limits. A DNA chain will stretch only so far from its original form before breaking or snapping back.

Keleman goes on to discuss the results of tests on the Drosophila melanogaster fruit fly:

The fly naturally grows about thirty-six bristles, but Mayr was able to breed otherwise normal flies with as few as twenty-five and as many as fifty-six bristles. When Mayr pushed the fly's genetic material beyond these limits, samples became sterile and died out. When allowed to breed normally, though, even the most mutant strains returned to almost normal bristle counts within five generations. Similarly, scientists have changed the famous peppered moth (Briston betularia) from speckled to silver, silver to black, and black back to speckled. But the moth never became green, purple, or blue; and it always remained a moth.

In 1982 Francis Hitching reported, "Every series of breeding experiments that has ever taken place has established a finite limit to breeding possibilities." He cited a remarkable series of tests in which mutant genes were paired to create an eyeless fly:

"When these flies in turn were interbred, the predictable result was offspring that were also eyeless. And so it continued for a few generations. But then, contrary to all expectations, a few flies began to hatch out with eyes. Somehow, the genetic code had a built-in repair mechanism that reestablished the missing genes. The natural order reasserted itself."









_sig________________________________________________________
"Black holes are where God divided by zero."
- Steven Wright

Just repeat this simple phrase-
NOOBS WHO THINK THEY KNOW EVERYTHING SUCK!!!!!!!!!


  Posts: 340
  Joined: 07/24/03

Posted: Feb 26, 2004 9:46 PM

Originally Posted by 99octane
PS - I'm STILL waiting for someone to
give me an intelligent answer as a Creationist
as to why human males have nipples.


Why does a dog have a tail? Why do fish have scales? Why do trees have bark? Why do squids have tenticles instead of arms and hands? Why do oppossums hang from their tail in from a tree? Why do monkeys eat food, regurgitate it, and then eat it again? Why do bugs crawl around in crap? Why do plants take it CO2 but we take in O2? Why are sunflowers yellow? Why does a male have one less rib that a woman? Why does my butt itch sometimes? Why is Earth the only planet that supports 5 kingdoms of life? Why are humans the only species that can reason? Why do humans have 5 fingers instead of paws? Why are you asking questions that are irrelevant to this whole argument?

Science goes against the Bible, not the other way around.

_sig________________________________________________________
"Your best??? Losers always whine about doing their best. Winners go home and f*ck the Prom Queen!"
Check out our flame/spam free forums at http://s3.invisionfree.com/Silent_Shadows_Forum/index.php, administrated by your's truly.

I am Smoke_Dog_4ever, this is my new name.
laagmatt
Member

  Posts: 90
  Joined: 07/22/03

Posted: Feb 26, 2004 9:46 PM

(CONTINUED FROM ABOVE)
YOU FUCKIN PRICK WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU?


_sig________________________________________________________
.
....^^the sign of the vets
.. take a break from halo its good for you.


  Posts: 340
  Joined: 07/24/03

Posted: Feb 26, 2004 9:47 PM

Yes, there are many fossils lying around. That means a lot of plants and animals died and we can find their fossilized remains. Someone who believes in evolution would have you believe this happened over time. Think logically—if a rat died in an open field today, or a deer died in the woods, would either become fossilized? Would they stay put and untouched on the ground long enough to be covered by dirt eventually and become fossilized? No. They would be eaten by other animals and blown around by the winds and rains until a complete skeleton was no longer available. The reality is that there is no evidence that fossils were formed continually (or are being formed continually) as the theory of evolution predicts.

On the other hand, what would happen if there were a worldwide flood, causing everything to drown, including the rat and the deer? They might float for awhile, but would eventually sink to the bottom of the water. Next, the sediment on the bottom of the water would cover the remains (since it is very mobile compared to dirt on land—especially if there is a flood going on at the time) starting the process of fossilization.

There is no question that the large number of fossils testifies to the accuracy of the creation model rather than the theory of evolution model.


_sig________________________________________________________
"Your best??? Losers always whine about doing their best. Winners go home and f*ck the Prom Queen!"
Check out our flame/spam free forums at http://s3.invisionfree.com/Silent_Shadows_Forum/index.php, administrated by your's truly.

I am Smoke_Dog_4ever, this is my new name.

99octane
Member

  Posts: 434
  Joined: 05/21/03

Posted: Feb 26, 2004 9:47 PM

"Heres another thing. A woman named Sarah gave birth at the age of 99. Is that possible? We would say no because we have never seen it happen. But the truth is that it did happen, the geneologies in the Bible prove it. "

No, they do NOT. They are recorded records, WRITTEN records,
not DNA evidence. THAT would be proof,
not more antiquated writing.
Nice try, but no.


_sig________________________________________________________
MASTERING HALO UNTIL THE SEQUEL *FINALLY* ARRIVES

BISHOP
Member

  Posts: 244
  Joined: 12/31/03

Posted: Feb 26, 2004 9:47 PM

continued...
The fact that neither Darwin nor any subsequent biologist has ever succeeded in causing or even witnessing the evolution of one species into another cannot help but disturb those who would like to believe in the theory of evolution. (Keleman, Permission to Believe: Four Rational Approaches to God\'s Existence, Southfield, MI: Targum Press, 1990, pp. 57-5

Dr. Dean Kenyon, a professor of biology at San Francisco State University and co-author of a standard textbook on chemical evolution, Biochemical Predestination, and Percival Davis, a professor of science at Hillsborough Community College and the author of several college-level biology texts, likewise point out that studies of mutations have failed to produce evidence of evolution and in fact strongly tend to refute it:

As the central mechanism of evolution, mutations have been studied extensively for the past century. The fruit fly has been the subject of many experiments because its short life-span allows scientists to observe many generations. In addition, the flies have been bombarded with radiation to increase the rate of mutations. Scientists now have a pretty clear idea what kind of mutations can occur.

Mutations do not create new structures. They merely alter existing ones. Mutations have produced, for example, crumpled, oversized, and undersized wings. They have produced double sets of wings. But they have not created a new kind of wing. Nor have they transformed the fruit fly into a new kind of insect. Experiments have simply produced variations within the fruit fly species. . . .

The changes observed in the laboratory and the breeding pen are all limited. They represent microevolution, not macroevolution. These limited changes do not accumulate the way evolutionary theory requires in order to produce macro changes. The process that produces macroevolutionary changes must be different from any that geneticists have studied so far. . . .



_sig________________________________________________________
"Black holes are where God divided by zero."
- Steven Wright

Just repeat this simple phrase-
NOOBS WHO THINK THEY KNOW EVERYTHING SUCK!!!!!!!!!

laagmatt
Member

  Posts: 90
  Joined: 07/22/03

Posted: Feb 26, 2004 9:49 PM



HEY YOU FUCKING IDIOT I JUST TOLD YOU. IT DOESNT MATTER! IT DOES NOT FUCKING MATTER YOU PRICK!

_sig________________________________________________________
.
....^^the sign of the vets
..
take a break from halo its good for you.
99octane
Member

  Posts: 434
  Joined: 05/21/03

Posted: Feb 26, 2004 9:49 PM

Originally Posted by BISHOP
(continued....)
You are just like the Pharisees. Continually they knew of his mirales, yet they didnt believe. Jesus said blessed is he who has believed, but not seen. What disturbs me about you octane is the fact that you wont believe. You are so quick to believe evolution, but beyond that, believe in the Lord period and the Bible for one. You cant be a christian if you dont believe in the Bible.


So very sorry that I disturb you Bishop,
but you want to know what disturbs me about you?
Your willingness to accept things that are illogical,
irrational, have no evidence supporting them,
and dictate how you THINK, ACT, and judge other people.

_sig________________________________________________________
MASTERING HALO UNTIL THE SEQUEL *FINALLY* ARRIVES
99octane
Member

  Posts: 434
  Joined: 05/21/03

Posted: Feb 26, 2004 9:53 PM

Originally Posted by SmokeDogGSU
Originally Posted by 99octane
PS - I'm STILL waiting for someone to
give me an intelligent answer as a Creationist
as to why human males have nipples.


Why does a dog have a tail? Why do fish have scales? Why do trees have bark? Why do squids have tenticles instead of arms and hands? Why do oppossums hang from their tail in from a tree?


Before you went into the realm of ridiculous there SmokeDog, you were answering your own question and proving MY point. Thank you for that.
The answer to your quoted examples above is that EACH OF THEM SERVES A BIOLOGIC PURPOSE.
The male nipple in primates does not.
Do you not see the difference?

_sig________________________________________________________
MASTERING HALO UNTIL THE SEQUEL *FINALLY* ARRIVES
BISHOP
Member

  Posts: 244
  Joined: 12/31/03

Posted: Feb 26, 2004 9:54 PM

Sorry Greg, Wrong Again. It feels funny saying that. Are you suggesting that The City OF ATLANTIS never existed because we have no physical evidence of the city. We know it did exist because of historical records indicating that it existed, and the Bible is also a historical record.

_sig________________________________________________________
"Black holes are where God divided by zero."
- Steven Wright

Just repeat this simple phrase-
NOOBS WHO THINK THEY KNOW EVERYTHING SUCK!!!!!!!!!


  Posts: 340
  Joined: 07/24/03

Posted: Feb 26, 2004 9:54 PM

The earliest examples of “mainstream” Neanderthal findings were discovered at Saccopastore, Ehringsdorf, and Krapina and dated in the Riss-Wurm Interglacial period. Interestingly, scientists found fully “modern” human fossil (Homo Sapiens) remains of the same geologic age at Fontechevade. One of the earliest (if not the earliest) “Neanderthal” fossils was discovered at Steinheim, and dated in the Riss-Mindel Interglacial period. However, they also discovered a fully modern human fossil of the same age at Swanscombe. Again, we have evidence that modern humans existed at the same time, and Neanderthal man could not possibly be a missing link to modern men. Although beyond the scope of this message, many scientists now believe that the “Neanderthal” fossils were modern men that suffered from rickets, arthritis, and other diseases that alter bone structure.

There are additional problems with Neanderthal man as a possible “ancestor” of modern humans. The Neanderthal fossil skulls are typically as large as a modern man’s skull. Some are slightly larger—an indication of “greater brain capacity.” Since the brain capacity of Neanderthal is the same as or larger than modern man, it is unreasonable to assume that this is an ancestor of modern man. After all, if the theory of evolution is correct, why should brain capacities (which presumably get larger as humans “evolve”), suddenly become smaller after Neanderthal? The reality is that the scientific community is trying to force the actual evidence to agree with an incorrect theory and has to contradict itself occasionally to make the theory of evolution seem rational.


_sig________________________________________________________
"Your best??? Losers always whine about doing their best. Winners go home and f*ck the Prom Queen!"
Check out our flame/spam free forums at http://s3.invisionfree.com/Silent_Shadows_Forum/index.php, administrated by your's truly.

I am Smoke_Dog_4ever, this is my new name.

99octane
Member

  Posts: 434
  Joined: 05/21/03

Posted: Feb 26, 2004 9:55 PM

Bishop,
I can see you're doing your best,
keep reading and exploring the evidence you just uncovered.
Read between the lines.
Understand what you quote to me from websites you've never seen before today, before you try and prove me wrong.


_sig________________________________________________________
MASTERING HALO UNTIL THE SEQUEL *FINALLY* ARRIVES

BISHOP
Member

  Posts: 244
  Joined: 12/31/03

Posted: Feb 26, 2004 9:58 PM

continued from above......
How likely is it that random mutations will come together and coordinate to form just one new structure? Let's say the formation of an insect wing requires only five genes (a very low estimate). Most mutations are harmful, and scientists estimate that only one in 1,000 is not. The probability of two non-harmful mutations occurring is one in one thousand million million. For all practical purposes, there is no chance that all five mutations will occur within the life cycle of a single organism. (Of Pandas and People: The Central Question of Biological Origins, Dallas: Haughton Publishing Company, 1989, pp. 11-13)

Professors Kenyon and Davis also point out there is no evidence of the "prebiotic soup" from which evolutionists claim life somehow came into existence:

It is worth noting also that we have no geological evidence of any massive pre-life (prebiotic) accumulation of organic matter. The clay deposits of the time, found in abundance, would have retained large amounts of hydrocarbons and nitrogen-rich compounds from the prebiotic soup. The surface of the clay has tiny cavities that would have imprisoned these molecules where they would still be evident today. Thus if the "prebiotic soup" had really existed, we would expect to find such surviving traces of it in the oldest rocks, but we do not. (Of Pandas and People, p. 50)

Lynn Margulis, a professor of biology at the University of Massachusetts, said history will judge neo-Darwinism as "a minor twentieth-century religious sect within the sprawling religious persuasion of Anglo-Saxon biology," adding that "Neo-Darwinism, which insists on (the slow accrual of mutations) is in a complete funk" (in Science, 1991, vol. 252, pp. 378-381, from Michael Behe, Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, The Free Press, 1996, p. 26).

2. No Genuine, Clear-cut, Undisputed Transitional Form Has Ever Been Found in the Fossil Record.










_sig________________________________________________________
"Black holes are where God divided by zero."
- Steven Wright

Just repeat this simple phrase-
NOOBS WHO THINK THEY KNOW EVERYTHING SUCK!!!!!!!!!

laagmatt
Member

  Posts: 90
  Joined: 07/22/03

Posted: Feb 26, 2004 9:58 PM

what disturbs me about you OCTANE is that you are a fukin 38 year old man!

_sig________________________________________________________
.
....^^the sign of the vets
.. take a break from halo its good for you.

99octane
Member

  Posts: 434
  Joined: 05/21/03

Posted: Feb 26, 2004 9:59 PM

Originally Posted by BISHOP
Sorry Greg, Wrong Again. It feels funny saying that. Are you suggesting that The City OF ATLANTIS never existed because we have no physical evidence of the city. We know it did exist because of historical records indicating that it existed, and the Bible is also a historical record.


Ah Atlantis. This could be the subject of a whole other post. In fact, I have reviewed some evidence that it did exist, and I am inclined to believe it did in at least one form. But the evidence for the existence of Atlantis is circumstantial, and scattered across maps and shipping records hundreds of years old. There is no HARD proof, but a few mpas show a land mass that could be Atlantis,
where there is no land mass today.

And where YOU thought I was "wrong" deserves some scrutiny.
Explain yourself.

_sig________________________________________________________
MASTERING HALO UNTIL THE SEQUEL *FINALLY* ARRIVES
laagmatt
Member

  Posts: 90
  Joined: 07/22/03

Posted: Feb 26, 2004 10:00 PM

look i made a chat that you guys can go into to talk about this like an instant messenger. just go into the chat and start arguing. i made the chat with an html editor. you dont need a password. just make up a username.

CLICK HERE TO ENTER THE CHAT


_sig________________________________________________________
.
....^^the sign of the vets
.. take a break from halo its good for you.

99octane
Member

  Posts: 434
  Joined: 05/21/03

Posted: Feb 26, 2004 10:02 PM

"Lynn Margulis, a professor of biology at the University of Massachusetts, said history will judge neo-Darwinism as "a minor twentieth-century religious sect within the sprawling religious persuasion of Anglo-Saxon biology," adding that "Neo-Darwinism, which insists on (the slow accrual of mutations) is in a complete funk" (in Science, 1991, vol. 252, pp. 378-381, from Michael Behe, Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, The Free Press, 1996, p. 26)."

Yeah, and my Uncle Dick says that Christianity will be the cause of world war 3.
Who cares what someone over here said or someone over there? You're speaking of individual interpretation of PIECES of data, not the big picture.
I want to hear from YOU, not from the website you just found trying to discredit me.


_sig________________________________________________________
MASTERING HALO UNTIL THE SEQUEL *FINALLY* ARRIVES

ViRuS
Member

  Posts: 170
  Joined: 06/13/03

Posted: Feb 26, 2004 10:08 PM

Ah...your mistakes have reached it's climax my friend.

You do not know my personal lfe at all, and yet you pretend to? Fine, I will give you information on my personal life.

Both my parents are devoted atheiest. Neither believe the bible, nor do they live morally. I do not go to church execpt when I am invited by friends. . Then guess what greg? A friend once told me about Jesus Christ. Amazed at his understanding of the world, I got into a bible he gave me. Slowly, I figured out that Jesus was the way. I got saved and started a new life with him in control. Then started with the progressive creationist idea, that god created evolution to make us. Then i looked on the internet on creation vs evolution sites....guess what? these ppl no what they are talking about. and Greg, they were making the same points they said you would. No, I will not give you the evidence myself for fear that I will say it in a wrong way.

But please, you need to see creationism from the experts. I mean, How do you expect a 13 year old who is in the 8th grade to compete in a debate over things that I won't learn until college? its illogical..

So, Since I cannot prove this to you myself, I will no longer try.

In conlusion, I say that both of us have closed minds and think that each other are blind to the truth. Neither of us will change, me because i already knew what it was like to be atheiest( and didnt have a good life), and you, well you think are too smart for God, and that anything that hasnt been proven with modern science in the last 200 years cannot exsist.

Go to www.icr.org


_sig________________________________________________________
Nysa - The New Beginning


  Posts: 12
  Joined: 08/27/03

Posted: Feb 26, 2004 10:08 PM

i am just wondering why a 35 year old guy is on a dominatly kid website pertaining to a game dominated by kids and he feels he has to defend his beliefs about evolution. if i were you i wouldn't feel so obligated to write frikin 30 pages to say what i believed.


_sig________________________________________________________
pats sister is hott

99octane
Member

  Posts: 434
  Joined: 05/21/03

Posted: Feb 26, 2004 10:09 PM

Smoke Dog wrote:
"Although beyond the scope of this message, many scientists now believe that the “Neanderthal” fossils were modern men that suffered from rickets, arthritis, and other diseases that alter bone structure."

It is foolish to think that an entire identifiable group of human ancestors can be dismissed as modern men having medical conditions. The SAME conditions across dozens of fossilized individuals affecting the skeletal structures the same way? Preposterous.

Neanderthals were an offshoot on the family tree of man.
It is now thought that they were descended from a divergent group of hominids, NOT the same brancgh on the tree, if you will, that we are from. But VERY IMPORTANTLY, they were genetically compatible enough with Homo Sapien Sapiens (US) that we could interbreed.
Much as a blue eyed, fair skinned German man or woman
can produce a viable offspring with an Aboriginal Australian man or woman.
Or a Great Dane and a Chihuahua.
VERY different in appearence, but the same species,
as defined biologically as the ability to interbreed.


_sig________________________________________________________
MASTERING HALO UNTIL THE SEQUEL *FINALLY* ARRIVES

halohippy
Member

  Posts: 36
  Joined: 02/19/04

Posted: Feb 26, 2004 10:10 PM

ok who cares theres ur reason for the bandwidth problem ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ shut up go talk about science in a lab or somethin

_sig________________________________________________________
hey everyone i got my name back

99octane
Member

  Posts: 434
  Joined: 05/21/03

Posted: Feb 26, 2004 10:13 PM

Originally Posted by jerbearisapimp9
i am just wondering why a 35 year old guy is on a dominatly kid website pertaining to a game dominated by kids and he feels he has to defend his beliefs about evolution. if i were you i wouldn't feel so obligated to write frikin 30 pages to say what i believed.


I've asked myself that before.
The truth is, I am many things, but one identity I hold dear to the core of my being is an EDUCATOR. A teacher.
And I saw a LOT of misinformation here, masked as it so often is, in theology.
I will NEVER run from an opportunity to educate,
especially about things I know about.
My focus is in the sciences (can you tell? LOL)
and I had something to say, so I said it.

_sig________________________________________________________
MASTERING HALO UNTIL THE SEQUEL *FINALLY* ARRIVES
laagmatt
Member

  Posts: 90
  Joined: 07/22/03

Posted: Feb 26, 2004 10:17 PM

hi. i was just checkin in to see how the topic was goin. this is spam. lol

_sig________________________________________________________
.
....^^the sign of the vets
.. take a break from halo its good for you.

99octane
Member

  Posts: 434
  Joined: 05/21/03

Posted: Feb 26, 2004 10:23 PM

Virus,

You're right about one thing - I DID assume that your strong theistic beliefs were the result of parents or upbringing. I apologize.
While I thought you did, you did not come from that traditional mold.
However, your description of yourself DOES fit
another well known pattern for "finding religion".
Feeling lost, unloved, unappreciated, unwanted.
Coming from a dysfunctional or broken home is going
to lead to only one of two things, repeating those conditions with your own children or wife / girlfriends,
or falling into a group of agressive evangelical folks,
who will show you the path to all the positive emotions you were lacking, the support you craved.
That's the perfect setup for (and don't get mad at me) brainwashing. It is a state of being BROKEN or nearly so.
This is the state of mind interrogators will reduce you to before asking any real questions. It is where we are most succeptable to suggestion. You were, shall we say, "receptive" to the Non-Denominational Church of Christ at that time in your life, and because of your age.
Would it surprise you to know that my best friend growing up is a member of that same Church now? He came from a broken home too. I swear to you this is the truth.
His Father is an ex-navy man, a real hardass.
His mother a flowerchild, a hippy. (Not to be confused with halohippy LOL) They divorced UGLY when he was 11.
He was never quite the same since. He began abusing alcohol and drugs at 15, and I nearly went down that path with him.
It was I who got him clean though - hardest thing I ever had to do in my life to that point.
After high school, he moved to California, and was so alone. I cried for him, I felt so bad I couldn't be there for him. Well... in that state of mind, he found...or chould I say, the CHURCH found HIM.
You would see the rest of the story as a positive thing,
but I know what it did to our friendship, his relationship with his family, and how his personality changed.
I sincerely hope your fate is brighter.
Peace, I'm all for calling it quits too for one night,
if not for good. Friends? That goes for everyone. -Greg


_sig________________________________________________________
MASTERING HALO UNTIL THE SEQUEL *FINALLY* ARRIVES

halohippy
Member

  Posts: 36
  Joined: 02/19/04

Posted: Feb 26, 2004 10:43 PM

Flood control is enabled on this board, please wait 255 seconds before replying or posting a new topic

Flood control is enabled on this board, please wait 255 seconds before replying or posting a new topic

Flood control is enabled on this board, please wait 255 seconds before replying or posting a new topic


_sig________________________________________________________
hey everyone i got my name back

laagmatt
Member

  Posts: 90
  Joined: 07/22/03

Posted: Feb 26, 2004 11:00 PM

Originally Posted by halohippy
Flood control is enabled on this board, please wait 255 seconds before replying or posting a new topic

Flood control is enabled on this board, please wait 255 seconds before replying or posting a new topic

Flood control is enabled on this board, please wait 255 seconds before replying or posting a new topic


_sig________________________________________________________
.
....^^the sign of the vets
.. take a break from halo its good for you.
99octane
Member

  Posts: 434
  Joined: 05/21/03

Posted: Feb 26, 2004 11:13 PM

Originally Posted by SmokeDogGSU
Yes, there are many fossils lying around. That means a lot of plants and animals died and we can find their fossilized remains. Someone who believes in evolution would have you believe this happened over time. Think logically—if a rat died in an open field today, or a deer died in the woods, would either become fossilized? Would they stay put and untouched on the ground long enough to be covered by dirt eventually and become fossilized? No. They would be eaten by other animals and blown around by the winds and rains until a complete skeleton was no longer available. The reality is that there is no evidence that fossils were formed continually (or are being formed continually) as the theory of evolution predicts.

On the other hand, what would happen if there were a worldwide flood, causing everything to drown, including the rat and the deer? They might float for awhile, but would eventually sink to the bottom of the water. Next, the sediment on the bottom of the water would cover the remains (since it is very mobile compared to dirt on land—especially if there is a flood going on at the time) starting the process of fossilization.

There is no question that the large number of fossils testifies to the accuracy of the creation model rather than the theory of evolution model.


I feel compelled to respond this this post from Smoke Dog,
but to do so I will need space, so...
(CONTINUED BELOW)

_sig________________________________________________________
MASTERING HALO UNTIL THE SEQUEL *FINALLY* ARRIVES
99octane
Member

  Posts: 434
  Joined: 05/21/03

Posted: Feb 26, 2004 11:25 PM

That DOES sound logical, doesn't it?
But it's not true, and here is why.
Fossils are NOT bone. They are the minerals that
took the place of where the bones WERE that displaced the surrounding sediment (or Tar, or Amber, or Lava, or any number of other things that create ideal condistions for fossilization).

Also, fossils have been found in many different strata of rock that correlate to periods of Earth's history spanning MILLIONS of years, not one cataclismic event like a worldwide flood. Sediments from ONE event would create fossils in ONE layer, not all of them.

Another thing, you have to understand that different parts of animals fossilize differently. Hard outer shells like those of crabs, Trilobites, insects, etc fossilize easilly, because they are NOT edible parts of the animal.
Bones of larger animals fossilize well, scavengers would pick a large skeleton clean, but the skeleton would remian relatively intact, ripe for fossilization.
Even IF the boes are scattered, they will be fossilized scattered.
Soft tissue is VERY rare in the fossil record, but it HAS been found. Conditions have to be just right; an animal has to die and be covered by sediments or tar etc quickly, before scavengers get at it, scattering it's remains.

The sea floor was a fantastic fossil factory, and still is.
Soil is not. But MUD is. So is the arid environment of the desert and it's sands. It naturally mumifies a corpse.
As does the frozen wastelands of Siberia, and at the poles.
Land animal fossils are much rarer, but we DO have them.
Conditions for fossilization were right in enough circumstances to create the fossils we have today.
To suggest that ALL or even "most" of the fossils we have were laid down during the biblical flood of Noah is beyond egocentric assumption, it's fabrication and most certainly incorrect. Demonstrably, and provably incorrect.
I hope you see that Smoke Dog.



_sig________________________________________________________
MASTERING HALO UNTIL THE SEQUEL *FINALLY* ARRIVES

laagmatt
Member

  Posts: 90
  Joined: 07/22/03

Posted: Feb 26, 2004 11:26 PM

heh...

_sig________________________________________________________
.
....^^the sign of the vets
.. take a break from halo its good for you.

99octane
Member

  Posts: 434
  Joined: 05/21/03

Posted: Feb 26, 2004 11:29 PM

One last point:
You have to remember that many species of animals
then AND now come to watering holes to drink.
That's where there is mud.
They have to cross rivers to migrate.
There's mud there too.
When watering holes concentrate predator and prey animals in one place, creatures die quickly and fall into the mud.
They may live the vast majority of their lives in areas not suitable for fossilization, but many DIED where such conditions exist.


_sig________________________________________________________
MASTERING HALO UNTIL THE SEQUEL *FINALLY* ARRIVES


  Posts: 340
  Joined: 07/24/03

Posted: Feb 27, 2004 12:55 AM

Originally Posted by 99octane
"Heres another thing. A woman named Sarah gave birth at the age of 99. Is that possible? We would say no because we have never seen it happen. But the truth is that it did happen, the geneologies in the Bible prove it. "

No, they do NOT. They are recorded records, WRITTEN records,
not DNA evidence. THAT would be proof,
not more antiquated writing.
Nice try, but no.


Hmmmmm....... so let me understand this..... a man is born, gets a birth certificate and all those written records. One day, he falls into a volcano and is completely melted and utterly destroyed by the intense heat of the lava. Nothing remains of him. No DNA or anything. The only proof of his existence is written records. Ah... but you've just stated written records hold no proof, so the man obviously never existed. Those records aren't "proof" that he existed, so I guess he never did. Regardless of what YOU think Greg, written records hold just as much as proof as anything else and it doesn't matter if it's 5 years old or 20,000 years old. Cave drawings by primitive man...... surely they can't be evidence of how man once lived. I mean, they're the same thing as written language because that was their language, but written records aren't proof, like you said, so I guess those cave drawings are just something someone 100 years ago drew with a crayon to make people think primitive man drew them. Who would have thought......

_sig________________________________________________________
"Your best??? Losers always whine about doing their best. Winners go home and f*ck the Prom Queen!"
Check out our flame/spam free forums at http://s3.invisionfree.com/Silent_Shadows_Forum/index.php, administrated by your's truly.

I am Smoke_Dog_4ever, this is my new name.
99octane
Member

  Posts: 434
  Joined: 05/21/03

Posted: Feb 27, 2004 1:51 AM

Smoke, you are not responding to me withing the propper context. You just said:
"Regardless of what YOU think Greg, written records hold just as much as proof as anything else and it doesn't matter if it's 5 years old or 20,000 years old."
No, that's not true at all.
If your ONLY evidence of an event is the written word,
and before that there was oral tradition (the spoken word),
then you DO have to take into account the tendancy of a skewed view put forth by it's author. Not to mention how an accounting of even ACTUAL events alters from one teller or translation to another over time.
5 years ago is MUCH more likely to be closer to the truth than is a re-told, re-translated story that is 2000 or 20,000 years old.
Tell a story to one person in a school, and have it spread by word of mouth only. By the time it gets back to you, the originator, you'll be receiving a very different story.
Much of what is written in the Bible is from oral tradition, and even the first hand accounts of the Apostles was written some 40 years after Jesus' death. FROM MEMORY.
And I question the motivations of the authors.
I question the motivations of the first publishers of the bible. Were there Political motives? I suspect there were and I could build a strong case for that.
To understand how the ancient world worked is difficult today, but try. Few educated literate people.
Information travels very slowly. Rome is in power.
The population of the "holy land" is deeply opressed.

Your example of the man falling into the volcano is an extreme case, constructed to illustrate your point.
OF COURSE written records are a FORM of evidence to be examined, but only ONE form. This is my point.
Your entire ideology is based on the written word,
with very little coroborating evidence.
Your volcano victim (reminds me of one of my favorite movies, Joe vs. The Volcano starring Tom Hanks)
has an existence that could be corroborated by other sources.

I have never ONCE denied the existence of Jesus.
But I DO question his being a living God, or his ability to perform miracles outside the laws of physics.
To doubt the contentions of theology is to think for yourself. Not to be told what is, because they say so.


_sig________________________________________________________
MASTERING HALO UNTIL THE SEQUEL *FINALLY* ARRIVES

99octane
Member

  Posts: 434
  Joined: 05/21/03

Posted: Feb 27, 2004 2:22 AM

Smoke, please respond to my post above that one,
to where I addressed your suggestion that perhaps all the fossils (or most) are victims of one event, i.e. the Biblical great flood of Noah.

Also, your reply about why Human males have nipples.
No creationist answer for that has appeared here
that has any credence at all.
Your response, as I said, started out by listing FUNCTIONAL aspects of other creature's anatomies.
Another non-functional part of OUR anatomy I'd like explained by a creationist is the appendix.

Keep this respectful please.
Peace, -99-


_sig________________________________________________________
MASTERING HALO UNTIL THE SEQUEL *FINALLY* ARRIVES

99octane
Member

  Posts: 434
  Joined: 05/21/03

Posted: Feb 27, 2004 2:34 AM

One last thing.
Smoke Dog, your comment:
"There is no question that the large number of fossils testifies to the accuracy of the creation model rather than the theory of evolution model."

That is perhaps the most faulty, mistaken conclusion you could possibly draw from the available evidence.
Life becoming more and more complex and diversified over hundreds of millions of years, fossils found in strata (rock layers) as old as 550 Million years, and as recent as 200,000 years, continual fossil beds with common animals that stretch across continents that are today separated by 4000 miles of ocean, but were once connected (plate tectonics) but due to continental drift are now 4000 miles apart, a process that ALSO takes millions of years,
and YOU think it supports the creationism model??


_sig________________________________________________________
MASTERING HALO UNTIL THE SEQUEL *FINALLY* ARRIVES

BOBleader
Member

  Posts: 67
  Joined: 01/23/04

Posted: Feb 27, 2004 10:52 AM

whebn the disciples wrote the bible, it wasnt from memory, they were showed again what happend through angels. God showed them visions of what happend, then they wrote it down. So technically, it wasnt written 40 years after jesus' death. It was more like 5 minutes.

_sig________________________________________________________
You guys have had No Life Since Halo.


  Posts: 340
  Joined: 07/24/03

Posted: Feb 27, 2004 11:58 AM

You've made valid points, Greg, but the Bible isn't the only record of Christianity. The Dead Sea Scrolls are one example of the many artifacts that corroberate (sp?) with the Bible.

I was actually going to post about the appendix, but I forgot exactly which body part is was that a human could live without.

I can't honestly answer why males have nipples. It doesn't, however, prove evolution. Males have one less rib than a female. What functionality does this serve?

If you examine a tree of life, you will observe something surprising—no species on one branch changes into a species on another branch. In each case the species is distinct. There are no links where one species changes into another. Yes, you can line up a dog and a cat and a person, but where is the transitional form that split into the two species? You are only shown a gap where the change was to have taken place. It does not take a Ph.D. to realize that no true transitional forms have been found, and the tree is trying to illustrate a principle that does not actually exist.

Now Greg, I'd like to ask you a couple of questions that I'd like for you to answer if you wouldn't mind doing so. I'm not trying to put you in a corner, I just want you to think about these really hard before you actually post. Completely disregarding evolution, without posting anything about evolution, I'd like for you to tell me exactly every possible reason you have (outside of evolution) why creationism is wrong. As for the second question, completely disregarding religion and the Bible, I'd like for you to tell me exactly why evolution is wrong. One thing we're all quick to do is say why our own beliefs are right, but we won't say why they're wrong either. You post your answers and I'll post mine.

I'll be gone through Sunday to Gatlinburg, TN on a Christian retreat, so I won't be able to post again until Monday. When I come back, I hope to have more to post. Have a great weekend everybody!


_sig________________________________________________________
"Your best??? Losers always whine about doing their best. Winners go home and f*ck the Prom Queen!"
Check out our flame/spam free forums at http://s3.invisionfree.com/Silent_Shadows_Forum/index.php, administrated by your's truly.

I am Smoke_Dog_4ever, this is my new name.

99octane
Member

  Posts: 434
  Joined: 05/21/03

Posted: Feb 27, 2004 1:54 PM

Hello all,
It is my intention to respond to all who have posed questions since my last post yesterday.
In this case, only BOBleader and Smoke Dog.
Since Smoke Dog will not be around this weekend,
and out of respect for peace and friendship here,
I will NOT offer a deluge of posts today.
I will simply address what is said, and at this moment,
I have only 2 posts to address.

I will begin with this from BOBleader:
"whebn the disciples wrote the bible, it wasnt from memory, they were showed again what happend through angels. God showed them visions of what happend, then they wrote it down. So technically, it wasnt written 40 years after jesus' death. It was more like 5 minutes."

If this is your answer, you must realize it's flaw;
it is once again dependant on accepting supernatural,
inexplicable phenomena. "Angels". You also allude to a sense of time warp. The ability to manipulate time MAY indeed be possible in the Universe, as may entities existing outside of time or corporial form. (Bodies).
But the possibility of something does not indicate it as evidence. There is no evidence for your answer, only faith. And what you are purporting as "what happened" flies in the face of all logic, and understood limitations of the human organism, not to mention physics.
But because these physical laws may be outside of your ability to comprehend them, you are able to dismiss them in favor of a much more comforting scenario dependant on the supernatural. The truth is often unpopular with humans.

I have never said faith was a "bad" thing.
But it CAN prevent other, FAR more demonstrable truths from being accepted by the faithful.
We live in a physical world, a world governed by laws of physics. Graviy. Linear Time. Biology. Genetics. Mortality.

To accept things OUTSIDE of those laws which govern all matter here on Earth, living or dead, brings us back to the core of our argument in the first place.
Said with respect.


_sig________________________________________________________
MASTERING HALO UNTIL THE SEQUEL *FINALLY* ARRIVES

BISHOP
Member

  Posts: 244
  Joined: 12/31/03

Posted: Feb 27, 2004 2:11 PM

greg, you said it yourself that you are going to see the passion of the christ. Before you say something you will terribly regret, go see the movie because it speaks out on what we believe. After seeing it, i realized that no man can undergo such brutal punishment. Just watch what waits ahead.

_sig________________________________________________________
"Black holes are where God divided by zero."
- Steven Wright

Just repeat this simple phrase-
NOOBS WHO THINK THEY KNOW EVERYTHING SUCK!!!!!!!!!

99octane
Member

  Posts: 434
  Joined: 05/21/03

Posted: Feb 27, 2004 2:17 PM

Now I find myself addressing the last post by Smoke Dog.
This is perhaps my favorite post in this thread thusfar.
Smoke, either knowingly, or intuitively,
you've just challenged me to one of the classic exercises of any "debate class" in school.
For the two opposing sides to switch positions.
Excellent idea, and I'm willing to play along,
but before I do, I need to point out two potential problems with doing so:

1. I dare say with much respect that I am a better debator than you, perhaps only because of age or experience, not necessarilly intelligence. But as such, should I take the mantle of your position and argue it with the same ferocity that I have instilled into my ACTUAL position,
many here, including you, might misinterpret the whole point and say that I just caved and proven myself wrong.
It is important to understand that by taking your position,
FOR Creationism and theology, I would have to make the same assumptions of faith that you do, which I do not actually share. I would also have to ignore evidence that I am aware of, and can not dispell via the theistic viewpoint.

2. You say you were not trying to box me into a corner.
I accept that you mean that, but that is exactly the effect with wil have. For example, if I agree to take up the "pro" creationist ideology, and assuming I make points you find valid, you will then ask me to dispell (or "prove" wrong) those notions when I revert back to my actual position against Creationism. I feel I am quite capable of doing so, but you\'re essentially asking me to offer evidence for your actual position - to do your job for you, so to speak.
I appreciate that you feel I am worthy of doing so,
but I have to say that I do not feel you could offer any viewpoints supporting evolution that I have not already addressed.

Put simply, the pro-creationist supporters here will get more out of this "swapping sides" idea of yours than will me and my position. In the long run, I'll only hurt my credibility here, while yours is likely to be strengthened.

(CONTINUED BELOW)


_sig________________________________________________________
MASTERING HALO UNTIL THE SEQUEL *FINALLY* ARRIVES

99octane
Member

  Posts: 434
  Joined: 05/21/03

Posted: Feb 27, 2004 2:24 PM

(CONTINUED FROM ABOVE)

I do agree with you that this argument is becoming circular. Here in this post I mean, and on this website.
Although it seems circular in all of it's incarnations.
But the key difference between the two opposing ideologies
is FAITH. Faith allows the religious, the Creationist, to accept as fact that which has absolutely no factual evidence. I KNOW you have repeatedly said there IS "factual evidence" to support Creationism, but so far, none has been produced here or anywhere else. The few "facts" you and other Creationists come up with are errantly drawn conclusions by mis-interpretating evidence.
(IE, your own contention that all or most fossils were caused at one time, but a cataclismic flood, like the Biblical flood of Noah - VERY mistaken conclusion based on a string of seemingly linear logic, but it ignored the flaws in that logic, and other data that strongly refutes your position). Other than that, your arguments always fall back on faith - "because God said so" or "it's in the Bible, therefore it must be true". This is not nearly enough evidence. It is a FORM of evidence, but it can and must be challenged - tested.
But we've agreed that it can't be tested, and YES,
that is important. You cite as evidence of your position miracles and myth, neither of which can be explained or accepted by science. And science by the way, is how we DO understand the world, life, and the entire Universe functions. To act outside of the laws of time and space, outside of the laws is physics, is simply not possible.
It is faith and faith alone that you fall back on every time, faith to believe in what can not be explained,
and THAT is where science differs, and in fact, often PROVES mythology and theistic teachings as incorrect.
(CONTINUED BELOW)


_sig________________________________________________________
MASTERING HALO UNTIL THE SEQUEL *FINALLY* ARRIVES

99octane
Member

  Posts: 434
  Joined: 05/21/03

Posted: Feb 27, 2004 2:31 PM

Originally Posted by BISHOP
greg, you said it yourself that you are going to see the passion of the christ. Before you say something you will terribly regret, go see the movie because it speaks out on what we believe. After seeing it, i realized that no man can undergo such brutal punishment. Just watch what waits ahead.


Bishop,
I reject what you just said, and here is why.
(This is NOT a personal attact, I want to show you why what you just said is in error).
YES, I said I intend to see that movie.
To be better informed when discussing that MOVIE.
That MOVIE with actors who PLAY Jesus and Mary and everyone else. But since I said that, so long ago in this thread,
I have not been speaking about the MOVIE "The Passion of the Christ", have I? No. I've been speaking about evolutuion vs. creationism.

Bishop, you speak as though you feel this is a video recording of the actual Jesus. Do you feel this movie was ordained by God?
While Mel Gibson has been called a "God" before,
it was usually by teenage girls after seeing Leathal Weapon. LOL

And I am not worried ONE BIT about "saying something I will terribly regret". My words are my own, my thoughts my own, and they are carefully constructed.
The ONLY place in this ENTIRE thread where I said something I regret is my errant assumption of how Virus (the board member) came to have such a strong faith and held Creationist views.
While my assumption of the first most common scenario of parental upbringing as the explaination was refuted by Virus humself, his own story is in line with the second most common scenario of how a young man will be "evangelicized".
Other than that one incident, I stand behind every word I've typed here (or mis-typed! LOL Dang typos)

_sig________________________________________________________
MASTERING HALO UNTIL THE SEQUEL *FINALLY* ARRIVES
99octane
Member

  Posts: 434
  Joined: 05/21/03

Posted: Feb 27, 2004 2:35 PM

Oh, by the way Bishop,
SEVERAL human beings have endured FAR WORSE deaths than did Jesus.

The Jews at the hands on the Nazis, for example.
Individual test subjects boiled alive to see how long they would survive and in what temperature.
Fed poisons slowly to see how long they would tolerate them, and them how long it would take them to die.
Vomiting blood and bile, hemmoraging internally,
bleeding from the eyes.
Starved to death. Which takes MUCH longer than crucifixion.

You said no man could undergo such brutal punishment.
I have just proven you wrong. What is your response to that?


_sig________________________________________________________
MASTERING HALO UNTIL THE SEQUEL *FINALLY* ARRIVES

BOBleader
Member

  Posts: 67
  Joined: 01/23/04

Posted: Feb 27, 2004 3:04 PM

"Do you feel this movie was ordained by God?"

Absolutley without a doubt. I guess the reason this debate could go on for years, with thousands of posts is because you as a scientist have to see something to believe it. Me as a christian, i have faith. Seeing what others cant, believing in what i dont see. These are the true characteristics of a christian. To believe in something you cant see, with god, i can see him. My recovery from drugs, good health, these are things that can physically be seen. Same with death, this is all associated with Jesus Christ. Nothing about science has to do with faith? Im not questioning your knowledge, i am asking if anything you believe about science requires faith. I know it does because a lot of science is theory. Theory is theory because it isnt fact. Until a theory is proven right, it is not a fact. So, your backround in science has openly admited that due to significant historical records, a man named jesus christ walked this earth and did extrordinary things. Miracles. No man can do miracles by themself. Miracles are the link that connects us to god. they are absolute proof for sceptics like yourself to see that their is a God, and a Christ. Honestly, we are gaining knowledge about eachothers ground while doing this, but as you can see, we arent really getting anywhere. its time to think of a new approach.
Cory,
(BOBleader)


_sig________________________________________________________
You guys have had No Life Since Halo.

BOBleader
Member

  Posts: 67
  Joined: 01/23/04

Posted: Feb 27, 2004 3:12 PM

"SEVERAL human beings have endured FAR WORSE deaths than did Jesus"

I dont think so, watch the movie. You will see, an innocent man, the only perfect man ever to walk on this earth. Have you read harry potter? Kinda dumb that im am using harry potter in this analogy. Jesus was a Unicorn, in harry potter hagrid talks that if you kill a unicorn, your screwed for life. Unicorns are the only pure creatures on the earth. (according to hagrid) haha dont remeber exactly how he said it, but jesus was a unicorn, perfect, perfection does not deserve murder. Since perfection does not deserve murder, there has been no recorded death that has been far worse. This was the absolute punishment, actually jesus endured all three of the worst punishments for the time period that he was alive. He did it for you.


_sig________________________________________________________
You guys have had No Life Since Halo.

James
Administrator

  Posts: 13
  Joined: 02/17/03

Posted: Feb 27, 2004 3:32 PM

BOB, you really are tryin to use you OPINIONS as facts. Its annoying. It really is. Jesus wasnt perfect. And he wasnt innocent of the crimes he was convicted for.

_sig________________________________________________________
°Now Leaving Sanity°

99octane
Member

  Posts: 434
  Joined: 05/21/03

Posted: Feb 27, 2004 3:41 PM

BOBleader,
I appreciate your faith and where you're coming from,
but I'd like to point out 2 flaws in your previous 2 posts.

You said:
"a lot of science is theory. Theory is theory because it isnt fact. Until a theory is proven right, it is not a fact."


Evolution's critics (among other diciplines) cry foul over the word "theory" as if "theory" meant lack of evidence, as if it were some kind of guess. Scientists, however, use the word theory in a very different sense than the general public does. Theories are the solid ground of science, that of which we are most certain. Few of us doubt the theory of gravity because it is "just a theory." The mechanism by which gravity works is NOT known. Is it a particle, or a wave, or BOTH light light? This keeps it a theory, but it's existence and effects are measurable, predictable, and the results are repeatable. This is also the case for evolution. It is NOT the case for Creationism, which is based on millenia old mythology, long before humankind had any grasp on modern science. If we knew then what we know now, NO ONE would have dared try to convince anyone that the Earth was created in six days, or that one entitly is capable of willing the behavior of every subatomic particle in the Cosmos. It's laughable in light of what we know today.

Second, you said:
"Miracles are ... absolute proof for sceptics like yourself to see that their is a God, and a Christ."
ONLY IF YOU CAN DEMONSTRATE AND PEPEAT THEM AT COMMAND, UNDER MONITORABLE CONDITIONS. Your statement is false.
Hearing about a "miracle" is not proof it occured.
Seeing a videotape of it might seem more compelling,
but neither does that prove it.
Firsthand accounts do not prove it, no matter HOW many people saw it. Every year, thousands of people "see" such illusionists as David Copperfied appear to make elephants or the Statue of Libert dissappear. They all saw it with their own eyes. But did he actually do it?
No. Your perception of an event can be either intentionally or UNintentionally misdirected to a false conclusion.
This is NOT the case in science.



_sig________________________________________________________
MASTERING HALO UNTIL THE SEQUEL *FINALLY* ARRIVES

BOBleader
Member

  Posts: 67
  Joined: 01/23/04

Posted: Feb 27, 2004 3:41 PM

How was he not innocent? What did he do? Please tell me , becuase i guess my studying of the bible is wrong. I guess the words i read, and the words i live by are wrong.

_sig________________________________________________________
You guys have had No Life Since Halo.

BOBleader
Member

  Posts: 67
  Joined: 01/23/04

Posted: Feb 27, 2004 3:43 PM

Octane, jesus could commit jesus on command. There are some who can.

_sig________________________________________________________
You guys have had No Life Since Halo.

99octane
Member

  Posts: 434
  Joined: 05/21/03

Posted: Feb 27, 2004 3:46 PM

One last thing BOBLeader,
which James just addressed,
JESUS WAS NOT PERFECT.
He was HUMAN. He may very well have been one of the most moral Humans to ever live, he may even be THE most pure, THE most kind... but maybe not.

Here's some EVIDENCE, as you would see it...
from guess where?
THE BIBLE.

Jesus' angry, violent tantrum in the temple where he overturned the carts of merchants and spilled the coins on the ground. Give unto Ceasar that which is his. Give unto God that which is HIS. Something like that ring a bell?

Also, the Bible records that his second to last uttered sentence was "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"
Translated, why have you forgotten me? Implicit meaning:
"and allowed me to suffer like this?"

These two small examples show anger, moral indignation, dispair, doubt, anguish...
Hardly the attributes of a "perfect" entity.


_sig________________________________________________________
MASTERING HALO UNTIL THE SEQUEL *FINALLY* ARRIVES

99octane
Member

  Posts: 434
  Joined: 05/21/03

Posted: Feb 27, 2004 3:47 PM

Originally Posted by BOBleader
Octane, jesus could commit jesus on command. There are some who can.


Huh??

_sig________________________________________________________
MASTERING HALO UNTIL THE SEQUEL *FINALLY* ARRIVES
James
Administrator

  Posts: 13
  Joined: 02/17/03

Posted: Feb 27, 2004 3:55 PM

Originally Posted by BOBleader
How was he not innocent? What did he do? Please tell me , becuase i guess my studying of the bible is wrong. I guess the words i read, and the words i live by are wrong.


Well wait, you claim to be the one who knows a lot about the Bible yet you dont know why Jesus was sentenced to death? Come and ask me when youve found the answer yourself. (Hint: It involved some things claimed)

_sig________________________________________________________
°Now Leaving Sanity°
ViRuS
Member

  Posts: 170
  Joined: 06/13/03

Posted: Feb 27, 2004 4:03 PM

Amazing we have at least three different conversations here?

Well, I'm am responding to greg's responce to my post, so don't look at it chronologically.

First off, Greg, We know each other well enough for you to call me by my first name, John. We don't need to hide behind the various idenities.

Who said my home was dysunctional? My parents love me, just as much as parents should. I meant that they would never support me being christian. And actually had a great life going. You know, I had loads of girlfriends, was extremely popular and got good grades.

And then III, NOT the church, went looking. My friend was just caring for my soul when he gave me his bible. There was no brainwashing to it! he let me find the junk on my own, and I did. Now even if I dropped couple of levels in poularity, and have been labled "boring" by girls. So what? I have learned that all those things were trivial in the long run. Praise God I became a christian before i lost my virginity.


_sig________________________________________________________
Nysa - The New Beginning

ViRuS
Member

  Posts: 170
  Joined: 06/13/03

Posted: Feb 27, 2004 4:04 PM

He claimed to be the son of God....But he was, so that wasnt wrong......

_sig________________________________________________________
Nysa - The New Beginning

99octane
Member

  Posts: 434
  Joined: 05/21/03

Posted: Feb 27, 2004 4:06 PM

Originally Posted by BOBleader
How was he not innocent? What did he do? Please tell me , becuase i guess my studying of the bible is wrong. I guess the words i read, and the words i live by are wrong.


I'm going to be VERY careful and specific here in addressing this rather snyde, sarcastic comment of yours.
Please read this carefully.

Yes, you are "wrong".
NOT for chosing to adopt Christ's message of love, peace and forgiveness, but for not understanding that as recored as historic fact, Jesus was guilty of the crime of insurrection and defiance of the recognized government in power at the time, Rome.
But UNDERSTAND, I agree with standing against Rome.
Rome was opressive, corrupt. Self-serving.
I also agree with doing so PEACEFULLY.
So in practical theory, I agree with Jesus' MESSAGE, AND METHODS. That doesn't mean I believe he was the Son of God.
That means I believe he started a grassroots movement to stand against the opression of Rome, and how to improve the quality of life, living your lives on Earth by means of moral conscience, and because of a belief that you will continue after death in paradise if you live as he outlines.

Jesus was put to death because he was a disruptive influence. If you incite opposition against the establishment (IE; Rome,)
and against ALL forms of religion at the time,
(there was no "Christianity" before Jesus, after all)
you were both a true insurrectionist and heretic.
Yes, you heard me, Jesus was indeed by definition a Heretic. He started his own religious sect outside of Judism. While the Jewish faith held a belief that God would send a Messiah, his Son, the establishment did not recognize Jesus AS that Messiah. He was either the Messiah, or a Heretic.
They decided Heretic, and both the powerful Jews and Rome put Jesus to death.
That does NOT mean I believe he WAS or WAS NOT a God or an insurrectionist. It is the historical account of what happened. My own judgement of the SUPERNATURAL implications of Christianity is reserved for a later time, and I am trying to keep an open mind, but will admit to doubting any theistic involvement at all, ever.

_sig________________________________________________________
MASTERING HALO UNTIL THE SEQUEL *FINALLY* ARRIVES
James
Administrator

  Posts: 13
  Joined: 02/17/03

Posted: Feb 27, 2004 4:11 PM

And 99 wins the prize.... Glad to see Im not the only one who knows things about Jesus' life outside of the Bible.

_sig________________________________________________________
°Now Leaving Sanity°

99octane
Member

  Posts: 434
  Joined: 05/21/03

Posted: Feb 27, 2004 4:16 PM

Hello John (Virus), welcome back.
I will not presume to psychoanylize your life,
I don't know nearly enough about it.
But you DID offer up clues about yourself that reminded me
very much of the painful experience I had with my own best friend that I described briefly in one of my posts.
You have every right to live your live as you see fit so long as you do no harm to yourself or others.
My only contention in this entire issue is that it CAN be harmful to deny demonstrable fact in favor of supernatural faith. But if it works for you, I wish you well and a happy life. I will state that it DOES diminish my assessment of your ability to reason, since embracing the theology that you do dictates many of the aspects of how you live your live, affect others, how YOU judge the actions and opnions of others, and how you become an instrument of obstruction to higher learning.
To enbrace Creationism is to deny the crystal clear evidence of science. In other words, to reject observable truth for unobservable truth.
This is what allows young Islamic fundamentalists to commit suicide, taking as many innocent people with then as they can, because they JUDGE them as NOT innocent, based on their theology. THAT is why religion rejecting fact is dangerous. Now I'm not calling you a terrorist, understand this - I am saying you posess the EXACT kind of mind that terrorist recruiters are looking for.
That is the danger in embracing theology over science,
when there is clear understanding og the science.
It is a denial of truth, in favor of an unprovable truth that fits your personal agenda better. Please be careful.
Peace John, I wish you wisdom and compassion.


_sig________________________________________________________
MASTERING HALO UNTIL THE SEQUEL *FINALLY* ARRIVES

ViRuS
Member

  Posts: 170
  Joined: 06/13/03

Posted: Feb 27, 2004 4:47 PM

Thanks man, but you were sort of crontadicting yourself there on that first message.

"I agree with Jesus' MESSAGE, AND METHODS"

He message was that he was the Son of God, not a prophet, and not just a good man. He himself did not stand against Rome, for God himself placed the government authorites there. It was not Rome that Hated him, But the Jews. He was rejected by his own people and he was crucified because of there opinions. Pilate didnt care either way. As long as he made the people happy and no riots started, he was fine with it.


_sig________________________________________________________
Nysa - The New Beginning

99octane
Member

  Posts: 434
  Joined: 05/21/03

Posted: Feb 27, 2004 4:51 PM

Originally Posted by ViRuS
Thanks man, but you were sort of crontadicting yourself there on that first message.

"I agree with Jesus' MESSAGE, AND METHODS"

He message was that he was the Son of God, not a prophet, and not just a good man. He himself did not stand against Rome, for God himself placed the government authorites there. It was not Rome that Hated him, But the Jews. He was rejected by his own people and he was crucified because of there opinions. Pilate didnt care either way. As long as he made the people happy and no riots started, he was fine with it.


No Virus (John), no contradictions at all.
Jesus by the very principle of his views stood against Rome. How can you possibly deny that?
And I agree it was his own people that rejected him,
please remember Rome appointed Governers and their aides
were from the province. Many of the highest ranking members of the local government WERE Jews, appointed to do Rome's will in Judea.

_sig________________________________________________________
MASTERING HALO UNTIL THE SEQUEL *FINALLY* ARRIVES
ViRuS
Member

  Posts: 170
  Joined: 06/13/03

Posted: Feb 27, 2004 4:58 PM

Just call me John...No ViRuS
I wasn't refering to that Greg, I was refering to that fact that you said agreed with Jesus' message, yet his message is that he is the son of God. Don't Deny that he said THAT.


_sig________________________________________________________
Nysa - The New Beginning

99octane
Member

  Posts: 434
  Joined: 05/21/03

Posted: Feb 27, 2004 5:03 PM

Also,
when I say I agree with Jesus' message,
I am speaking of the core message of love,
peace, and forgiveness.
Of which tolerance is a part.
YOUR particular sect of Christianity professes,
and YOU YOURSELF, have professed a "justified"
lack of tolerance or forgiveness
towards people who embrace a different faith than your own.
Again, this is proof positive of my point as to the dangers of theistic thinking. Your non-denomination church of Christ is something I have a HUGE problem with philosophically, aside from any theology.
Their methods and practive of agressive evangelicism offends me. I caution you STRONGLY as a friend to put your focus on the core of Christ's message.
Love, peace, and forgiveness.
To live morally, and love thy neighbor.
That doesn't mean bashing them over the head with theology until you "break" them and "convince" them you're right.
I like you John, I really do.
I have no problem with you personally,
and at 13, even if I did, I could not in good conscience hold YOU responsible.
Again, I caution you to focus on the message of love professed in the Bible, NOT what the human beings (with a CLEAR agenda) in your specific sect.
Again I wish you peace,
I can't sit here all night and neglect the rest of my life, to respond to every post here.
I think I've made my points, said my piece.
It's like talking to a wall trying to convince Biblical Literalists of something like evolution.
And I'm sure you feel the same way about talking to an agnostic or a scientist about Creationism.
Just keep in mind what the difference is; theology and creationism requite NO PROOF, no evidence of any kind.
Science does, and we have collected more than enough to draw clear conclusions that refute creationism.
Faith may be right, it IS possible to be right without a shred of evidence. But if it walks like a duck... and sounds like a duck... and swins like a duck...


_sig________________________________________________________
MASTERING HALO UNTIL THE SEQUEL *FINALLY* ARRIVES

ViRuS
Member

  Posts: 170
  Joined: 06/13/03

Posted: Feb 27, 2004 5:39 PM

No...Jesus himself said that he was the only way to heaven. That is not tolerent.

_sig________________________________________________________
Nysa - The New Beginning

99octane
Member

  Posts: 434
  Joined: 05/21/03

Posted: Feb 27, 2004 6:56 PM

Originally Posted by ViRuS
No...Jesus himself said that he was the only way to heaven. That is not tolerent.


I reject that, and there is more than one way to interpret the original gospel from which that quote is taken.
Not to mention the fact that it's accuracy AS a quote is legitimately questioned by the thinking person.


_sig________________________________________________________
MASTERING HALO UNTIL THE SEQUEL *FINALLY* ARRIVES

  Posts: 83
  Joined: 08/6/03

Posted: Feb 27, 2004 8:33 PM

Originally Posted by 99octane
Originally Posted by ViRuS
No...Jesus himself said that he was the only way to heaven. That is not tolerent.


I reject that, and there is more than one way to interpret the original gospel from which that quote is taken.
Not to mention the fact that it's accuracy AS a quote is legitimately questioned by the thinking person.


where do u get all of this. how dou kno that evolution is fac. ok this is the part where i cut in i can stay on the sidelines reading these posts nemore i have to butt in. give me proof that evolution is real i mean ur best proof everything that can make us beleive u. post it now and i will see what i can do to defend the Bible. im doin (well i should say we) this because i realy beleive the Bible can defend whever u say.(o yeh and the reason were not attacking evolution right now is because we wanna see what it can throw at us)

_sig________________________________________________________
ummm munkeys are in halo...... right?
wear shorts, i heard hell is hot


the battle for halo2
lock and load

99octane
Member

  Posts: 434
  Joined: 05/21/03

Posted: Feb 27, 2004 8:39 PM

Wrong attitude.
But ok, here's some stuff for you to consider.
Why to male mammals have nipples?

In the century since Darwin proposed the Theory of Evolution, Mr. Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection has become nearly universally accepted by biologists, but has proven controversial among the general public. Darwin's critics raise five principle objections to teaching evolution:

1. Evolution is not solidly demonstrated.

"Evolution is just a theory,"

Darwin's critics point out, as if theory meant lack of knowledge, some kind of guess. Scientists, however, use the word theory in a very different sense than the general public does. Theories are the solid ground of science, that of which we are most certain. Few of us doubt the theory of gravity because it is "just a theory."

2. There are no fossil intermediates.

"No one ever saw a fin on the way to becoming a leg,"

critics claim, pointing to the many gaps in the fossil record in Darwin's day. Since then, however, most fossil intermediates in vertebrate evolution have indeed been found. A clear line of fossils now traces the transition between whales and hoofed mammals, between reptiles and mammals, between dinosaurs and birds, between apes and humans. The fossil evidence of evolution between major forms is compelling.

3. The intelligent design argument.

"The organs of living creatures are too complex for a random process to have producedthe existence of a clock is evidence of the existence of a clockmaker."

Biologists do not agree. The intermediates in the evolution of the mammalian ear can be seen in fossils, and many intermediate "eyes" are known in various invertebrates. These intermediate forms arose because they have valuebeing able to detect light a little is better than not being able to detect it at all. Complex structures like eyes evolved as a progression of slight improvements.


(CONTINUED BELOW)


_sig________________________________________________________
MASTERING HALO UNTIL THE SEQUEL *FINALLY* ARRIVES

99octane
Member

  Posts: 434
  Joined: 05/21/03

Posted: Feb 27, 2004 8:40 PM

(CONTINUED FROM ABOVE)

5. Proteins are too improbable.

"Hemoglobin has 141 amino acids. The probability that the first one would be leucine is 1/20, and that all 141 would be the ones they are by chance is (1/20)141, an impossibly rare event."

This is statistical foolishness you cannot use probability to argue backwards. The probability that a student in a classroom has a particular birthday is 1/365; arguing this way, the probability that everyone in a class of 50 would have the birthdays they do is (1/365)50, and yet there the class sits.

Another objection:
Natural selection does not imply evolution.
"No scientist has come up with an experiment where fish evolve into frogs and leap away from predators."

Is microevolution (evolution within a species) the mechanism that has produced macroevolution (evolution among species)? Most biologists that have studied the problem think so. Some kinds of animals produced by man-made selection are remarkably distinctive. If future biologists only had Chihuahuas, dachshunds, and greyhounds from the fossil record, they would surely consider them to be different species, perhaps even different genera. While all dogs are in fact the same species and can interbreed, laboratory selection experiments easily create forms that cannot interbreed and thus would in nature be considered different species. Thus production of radically different forms has indeed been observed, repeatedly. To object that evolution still does not explain really major differences, like between fish and amphibians, simply takes us back to point 2these changes take millions of years, and are seen clearly in the fossil record.



_sig________________________________________________________
MASTERING HALO UNTIL THE SEQUEL *FINALLY* ARRIVES

99octane
Member

  Posts: 434
  Joined: 05/21/03

Posted: Feb 27, 2004 8:41 PM

The irreducible complexity argument.

The intricate molecular machinery of the cell cannot be explained by evolution from simpler stages. Because each part of a complex cellular process like blood clotting is essential to the overall process, how can natural selection fashion any one part?

What's wrong with this argument is that each part of a complex molecular machine evolves as part of the system. Natural selection can act on a complex system because at every stage of its evolution the system functions. Parts that improve function are added, and, because of alter changes, become essential. The mammalian blood clotting system, for example, has evolved from much simpler systems. The core clotting system evolved at the dawn of the vertebrates 600 million years ago, and is found today in lampreys, the most primitive fish. One hundred million years later, as vertebrates evolved, proteins were added to the clotting system making it sensitive to substances released from damaged tissues and so greatly increasing its sensitivity. Fifty million years later a third component was added, triggering clotting by contact with the jagged surfaces produced by injury. At each stage as the clotting system evolved to become more complex, its overall performance came to depend on the added elements. Mammalian clotting, which utilizes all three pathways, no longer functions if any one of them is disabled. Blood clotting has become "irreducibly complex"as the result of Darwinian evolution.

Darwin's theory of evolution has proven controversial among the general public, although the commonly raised objections are without scientific merit.

(Continued)


_sig________________________________________________________
MASTERING HALO UNTIL THE SEQUEL *FINALLY* ARRIVES

99octane
Member

  Posts: 434
  Joined: 05/21/03

Posted: Feb 27, 2004 8:45 PM

GERMS. Disease causing bacteria and viruses.
Evolution has been proven in this case. Yes, PROVEN.

This is of great concern to medical science: the evolution of disease organisms. The virus-killing medicines in use currently use are losing their potency. The theory of evolution explains why: The reproduction of all living things is governed by the properties of DNA. Any given population of a species contains a range of survival capabilities among its individuals. When a medicine is introduced into these populations, it destroys only those individuals whose DNA is vulnerable to that medicine, leaving individuals whose DNA happens to be immune to the medicine unaffected and able to increase their population. As a consequence, scientists have realized one of the most paradoxical aspects of medicine: It is guaranteed, over time, to destroy its own efficacy.

Workers in medical science literally cannot function in a world controlled by evolution if they don't believe in it. What would a Creationist researcher say if his family contracted the new tuberculosis strain raging in Russia for which there is no treatment whatsoever? I hope he would realize that his stubborn refusal to accept the facts of evolution and the evidence of science constitutes a great danger to society. Only then could he function as a true scientist.

I'll pause there for now, and see what you have to say.
Keep it respectful please, I will not respond to flamming.
Peace, 99


_sig________________________________________________________
MASTERING HALO UNTIL THE SEQUEL *FINALLY* ARRIVES


  Posts: 83
  Joined: 08/6/03

Posted: Feb 27, 2004 9:00 PM

Originally Posted by 99octane
GERMS. Disease causing bacteria and viruses.
Evolution has been proven in this case. Yes, PROVEN.

This is of great concern to medical science: the evolution of disease organisms. The virus-killing medicines in use currently use are losing their potency. The theory of evolution explains why: The reproduction of all living things is governed by the properties of DNA. Any given population of a species contains a range of survival capabilities among its individuals. When a medicine is introduced into these populations, it destroys only those individuals whose DNA is vulnerable to that medicine, leaving individuals whose DNA happens to be immune to the medicine unaffected and able to increase their population. As a consequence, scientists have realized one of the most paradoxical aspects of medicine: It is guaranteed, over time, to destroy its own efficacy.

Workers in medical science literally cannot function in a world controlled by evolution if they don't believe in it. What would a Creationist researcher say if his family contracted the new tuberculosis strain raging in Russia for which there is no treatment whatsoever? I hope he would realize that his stubborn refusal to accept the facts of evolution and the evidence of science constitutes a great danger to society. Only then could he function as a true scientist.

I'll pause there for now, and see what you have to say.
Keep it respectful please, I will not respond to flamming.
Peace, 99


ok.......sorry i just turned 13 2 weeks ago and.....well what did all of that have to do with evolution. i mean put it in a perspective that i will kno what u are saying......and please....make it short.yes i am saying that in a respectful way.

_sig________________________________________________________
ummm munkeys are in halo...... right?
wear shorts, i heard hell is hot


the battle for halo2
lock and load

ViRuS
Member

  Posts: 170
  Joined: 06/13/03

Posted: Feb 27, 2004 9:07 PM

Mistakes, Mistakes....We are not talking about microevolution. I myself believe in microevolution. The Theory Of Evolution is the conbination of abiogenesis and macroevolution. So from now on, you can leave out the DNA work, as it deals with mircoevolution. So, you have no proved anything with that matter.

First point, anyone can observe remarkable variation in biology. All bro's and sis's are different. Even identical twins have different fingerprints and behaviors. The Chihuahua(type of dog) is not a different species. Speciation and microevolution are attempts to appropriate the immense variability of biology. All Chihuahuas are different but not one will ever evolve to a cat or a raccoon or anything else. So too macroevolution as an extension of microevolution is a fraudulent misrepresentation that has never been seen because it is an inverted fantasy like grass eating a cow.

As anyone can observe, the Primordial Law of Biology is minor vita ex vita, life arises only from life and always with less vitality. Biology is under the jurisdiction of the laws of the universe, the propaganda of evolution notwithstanding. The Primordial Law of the Universe is natura semper scalas descendet, nature always descends, that is, devolves. Therefore, devolution, never evolution, is the relentless, inescapable law of the universe. The true nature of the universe, and therefore biology, is devolution, the exact opposite of masquerading evolution interloping in public school and university biology textbooks as science.

The history of each individual in each generation is the same as for the population, but on a smaller scale. The individual is conceived with its greatest vitality and progressively devolves that vitality until death. Just as no individual can live forever, so no population can live forever. All life forms individually and collectively are fixed and mortal.

Continued....



_sig________________________________________________________
Nysa - The New Beginning

ViRuS
Member

  Posts: 170
  Joined: 06/13/03

Posted: Feb 27, 2004 9:13 PM

Taking a different point of view. Remember about saying that Evolution isn't a religion. Take a look at this.

The fact is that evolutionists believe in evolution because they want to. It is their desire at all costs to explain the origin of everything without a Creator. Evolutionism is thus intrinsically an atheistic religion. Some may prefer to call it humanism, and New Age evolutionists may place it in the context of some form of pantheism, but they all amount to the same thing. Whether atheism or humanism (or even pantheism), the purpose is to eliminate a personal God from any active role in the origin of the universe and all its components, including man.

The core of the humanistic philosophy is naturalism—the proposition that the natural world proceeds according to its own internal dynamics, without divine or supernatural control or guidance, and that we human beings are creations of that process. It is instructive to recall that the philosophers of the early humanistic movement debated as to which term more adequately described their position: humanism or naturalism. The two concepts are complementary and inseparable.4

Since both naturalism and humanism exclude God from science or any other active function in the creation or maintenance of life and the universe in general, it is very obvious that their position is nothing but atheism. And atheism, no less than theism, is a religion! Even doctrinaire-atheistic evolutionist Richard Dawkins admits that atheism cannot be proven to be true.

Of course we can't prove that there isn't a God.5

Therefore, they must believe it, and that makes it a religion. The atheistic nature of evolution is not only admitted, but insisted upon, by most of the leaders of evolutionary thought. Ernst Mayr, for example, says that:

Darwinism rejects all supernatural phenomena and causations.6

A professor in the Department of Biology at Kansas State University says:

Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such a hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic.7

Continued....


_sig________________________________________________________
Nysa - The New Beginning

99octane
Member

  Posts: 434
  Joined: 05/21/03

Posted: Feb 27, 2004 9:14 PM

LOL , ok, I apologize.
Put simply, evolution is the process by which populations of life forms mutate and adapt, over vast periods of time,
and the changes that make that creature MORE successful in it's environment allow the overall popualtion to rise,
for that creature to be more "successful".
As environments change, so do the needs placed upon the creatures in that ecosystem to survive.
So they evolve more.

OVERSIMPLIFIED, evolution is how the genes (DNA) of a group of animals change slightly, and some of those changes make the creatures more able to thrive where they live.
So those changes are passed on to the next generations,
who may change some more, and only those changes that AID the natural success of those creatures are likely to be passed on to future generations.
But since the world's environments change too,
what is needed to survive there changes also.
That is the mechanism that drives evolution.

Whales were once were something similar to Elephants.
The ancestors of whales lived on land.
But like modern day Sea Lions, they became dependant on the sea for food, and protection from land predators.
The more time spent in the sea, the more important it was to be able to swim well. To be protected from the thermal properties of water as compared to air.
(Water will rob your body heat faster than air will of the same temperature).
So they adapted, blubber and flippers instead of skin ,paws or legs, and they spent much of their lives in the water.
Whales and Dolphins took it one step further than Sea Lions or Seals. They COMPLETELY Gave up on land, they now have only ONE connection to it; they breath AIR with lungs.
Why the HELL would a creature that was designed to live in the sea not respirate (breathe) as a fish does?
Or a squid? Or a Clam? (With gills). It has lungs like US


_sig________________________________________________________
MASTERING HALO UNTIL THE SEQUEL *FINALLY* ARRIVES

ViRuS
Member

  Posts: 170
  Joined: 06/13/03

Posted: Feb 27, 2004 9:14 PM

It is well known in the scientific world today that such influential evolutionists as Stephen Jay Gould and Edward Wilson of Harvard, Richard Dawkins of England, William Provine of Cornell, and numerous other evolutionary spokesmen are dogmatic atheists. Eminent scientific philosopher and ardent Darwinian atheist Michael Ruse has even acknowledged that evolution is their religion!

Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. . . . Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today. 8

Another way of saying \"religion\" is \"worldview,\" the whole of reality. The evolutionary worldview applies not only to the evolution of life, but even to that of the entire universe. In the realm of cosmic evolution, our naturalistic scientists depart even further from experimental science than life scientists do, manufacturing a variety of evolutionary cosmologies from esoteric mathematics and metaphysical speculation. Socialist Jeremy Rifkin has commented on this remarkable game.

Cosmologies are made up of small snippets of physical reality that have been remodeled by society into vast cosmic deceptions.9

They must believe in evolution, therefore, in spite of all the evidence, not because of it. And speaking of deceptions, note the following remarkable statement.

We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, . . . in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated commitment to materialism. . . . we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.10

The author of this frank statement is Richard Lewontin of Harvard. Since evolution is not a laboratory science, there is no way to test its validity, so all sorts of justso stories are contrived to adorn the textbooks. But that doesn\'t make them true! An evolutionist reviewing a recent book by another (but more critical) evolutionist, says:

Continued...


_sig________________________________________________________
Nysa - The New Beginning

ViRuS
Member

  Posts: 170
  Joined: 06/13/03

Posted: Feb 27, 2004 9:16 PM

We cannot identify ancestors or \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"missing links,\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" and we cannot devise testable theories to explain how particular episodes of evolution came about. Gee is adamant that all the popular stories about how the first amphibians conquered the dry land, how the birds developed wings and feathers for flying, how the dinosaurs went extinct, and how humans evolved from apes are just products of our imagination, driven by prejudices and preconceptions.11

A fascinatingly honest admission by a physicist indicates the passionate commitment of establishment scientists to naturalism. Speaking of the trust students naturally place in their highly educated college professors, he says:

And I use that trust to effectively brainwash them. . . . our teaching methods are primarily those of propaganda. We appeal—without demonstration—to evidence that supports our position. We only introduce arguments and evidence that supports the currently accepted theories and omit or gloss over any evidence to the contrary.12

Creationist students in scientific courses taught by evolutionist professors can testify to the frustrating reality of that statement. Evolution is, indeed, the pseudoscientific basis of religious atheism, as Ruse pointed out. Will Provine at Cornell University is another scientist who frankly acknowledges this.

As the creationists claim, belief in modern evolution makes atheists of people. One can have a religious view that is compatible with evolution only if the religious view is indistinguishable from atheism.13



_sig________________________________________________________
Nysa - The New Beginning

ViRuS
Member

  Posts: 170
  Joined: 06/13/03

Posted: Feb 27, 2004 9:17 PM

Once again we emphasize that evolution is not science, evolutionists\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\' tirades notwithstanding. It is a philosophical worldview, nothing more. Another prominent evolutionist comments as follows:

(Evolution) must, they feel, explain everything. . . . A theory that explains everything might just as well be discarded since it has no real explanatory value. Of course, the other thing about evolution is that anything can be said because very little can be disproved. Experimental evidence is minimal.14

Even that statement is too generous. Actual experimental evidence demonstrating true evolution (that is, macroevolution) is not \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"minimal.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" It is nonexistent!

continued


_sig________________________________________________________
Nysa - The New Beginning

ViRuS
Member

  Posts: 170
  Joined: 06/13/03

Posted: Feb 27, 2004 9:17 PM

The concept of evolution as a form of religion is not new. In my book, The Long War Against God,15 I documented the fact that some form of evolution has been the pseudo-rationale behind every anti-creationist religion since the very beginning of history. This includes all the ancient ethnic religions, as well as such modern world religions as Buddhism, Hinduism, and others, as well as the \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"liberal\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" movements in even the creationist religions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam).


As far as the twentieth century is concerned, the leading evolutionist is generally considered to be Sir Julian Huxley, primary architect of modern neo-Darwinism. Huxley called evolution a \\\\\\\"religion without revelation\\\\\\\" and wrote a book with that title (2nd edition, 1957). In a later book, he said:

Evolution . . . is the most powerful and the most comprehensive idea that has ever arisen on earth.16

Later in the book he argued passionately that we must change \\\\\\\"our pattern of religious thought from a God-centered to an evolution-centered pattern.\\\\\\\"17 Then he went on to say that: \\\\\\\"the God hypothesis . . . is becoming an intellectual and moral burden on our thought.\\\\\\\" Therefore, he concluded that \\\\\\\"we must construct something to take its place.\\\\\\\"18

That something, of course, is the religion of evolutionary humanism, and that is what the leaders of evolutionary humanism are trying to do today.

In closing this summary of the scientific case against evolution (and, therefore, for creation), the reader is reminded again that all quotations in the article are from doctrinaire evolutionists. No Bible references are included, and no statements by creationists. The evolutionists themselves, to all intents and purposes, have shown that evolutionism is not science, but religious faith in atheism.


_sig________________________________________________________
Nysa - The New Beginning

ViRuS
Member

  Posts: 170
  Joined: 06/13/03

Posted: Feb 27, 2004 9:22 PM

Evolutionists are desperate in their search to find transitional or intermediate forms to validate their theory of evolution. If, as they believe, millions of species of plants and animals have evolved during hundreds of millions of years, many billions times billions of transitional forms would have lived and died during those hundreds of millions of years, and thus there should be no difficulty in finding fossils of a very large number of these transitional forms. In fact, our museums, among the 250,000 different fossil species in their collections, should have tens of thousands of transitional forms. One would not have to be an expert paleontologist and anatomist to recognize, for example, a structure halfway between a forelimb and a wing, or something halfway between an ordinary jaw of a reptile and the bill of a duck-billed dinosaur. Much to the dismay of evolutionists, however, when it comes to these coveted transitional forms, they must do much with little or nothing.

This situation is strikingly true concerning the origin of whales, dolphins, and other marine mammals.

In one of Romer\\\'s concluding statements in his discussion of the sub-ungulates (conies, elephants, sea cows), he says, \\\"conies, proboscideans, and sirenians were already distinct groups at the time when they first appear in the fossil record.\\\"[1] Olson states that if we seek the ancestries of the marine mammals we run into a blank wall as far as intermediate stages between land and sea are concerned. [2] His remark included the seals, dolphins, and whales.



_sig________________________________________________________
Nysa - The New Beginning

99octane
Member

  Posts: 434
  Joined: 05/21/03

Posted: Feb 27, 2004 9:22 PM

Virus,
you're copy / pasting again.
You wouldn't want to be accused of plagurism, would you?
:P

Virus, none of that 4 or 5 replies you (AHEM, "you")
just made hold a single shred of evidence to conradict anything I've said.
Do you see that?


_sig________________________________________________________
MASTERING HALO UNTIL THE SEQUEL *FINALLY* ARRIVES

ViRuS
Member

  Posts: 170
  Joined: 06/13/03

Posted: Feb 27, 2004 9:25 PM

Speaking of whales, Colbert said, \\\\\\\"These mammals must have had an ancient origin, for no intermediate forms are apparent in the fossil record between the whales and the ancestral Cretaceous placentals. Like the bats, the whales (using the term in a general and inclusive sense) appear suddenly in early Tertiary times, fully adapted by profound modifications of the basic mammalian structure for a highly specialized mode of life. Indeed, the whales are even more isolated with relation to other mammals than the bats; they stand quite alone.\\\\\\\" [3]

In their eagerness to produce evidence to bridge this enormous gap, and in doing so not only to verify their expectations but also to enhance their reputations and their careers, we do not question the honesty of evolutionists. We do question their objectivity and their conclusions, based on scanty and questionable evidence. In 1983, headlines in newspapers all over the world, based on an article published by Gingerich and coworkers, [4] trumpeted the discovery of a so-called primitive whale which established a link between whales and their hypothetical land-mammal ancestor, the hoofed mammalian carnivore, Mesonyx. The fossil material consisted solely of the posterior portion of the cranium, two fragments of the lower jaw, and isolated upper- and lower-cheek teeth. The creature was given the name Pakicetus inachus.



_sig________________________________________________________
Nysa - The New Beginning

99octane
Member

  Posts: 434
  Joined: 05/21/03

Posted: Feb 27, 2004 9:27 PM

Originally Posted by ViRuS
Evolutionists are desperate in their search to find transitional or intermediate forms to validate their theory of evolution. If, as they believe, millions of species of plants and animals have evolved during hundreds of millions of years, many billions times billions of transitional forms would have lived and died during those hundreds of millions of years, and thus there should be no difficulty in finding fossils of a very large number of these transitional forms. In fact, our museums, among the 250,000 different fossil species in their collections, should have tens of thousands of transitional forms. One would not have to be an expert paleontologist and anatomist to recognize, for example, a structure halfway between a forelimb and a wing, or something halfway between an ordinary jaw of a reptile and the bill of a duck-billed dinosaur. Much to the dismay of evolutionists, however, when it comes to these coveted transitional forms, they must do much with little or nothing.

This situation is strikingly true concerning the origin of whales, dolphins, and other marine mammals.

In one of Romer\'s concluding statements in his discussion of the sub-ungulates (conies, elephants, sea cows), he says, \"conies, proboscideans, and sirenians were already distinct groups at the time when they first appear in the fossil record.\"[1] Olson states that if we seek the ancestries of the marine mammals we run into a blank wall as far as intermediate stages between land and sea are concerned. [2] His remark included the seals, dolphins, and whales.



Haha, and you think I"ve made mistakes. Funny.
Listen, intermediate fossils HAVE been found.
The transition of smaller goat-like creatures into the Horse is well doccumented in the fossil record.

And you never addressed the examples I've given you already.
Explain the Archeopteryx. (The first bird found in the fossil record, complete with feathers, but with TEETH,
(NO modern bird has teeth) a bony skeleton,
AND a bony tail, segmented as a reptiles' tail is,
whereas NO modern bird has bone in it's tail.

Please address that before you make another 5 pages of copy-paste from your favorite creationist websites.

_sig________________________________________________________
MASTERING HALO UNTIL THE SEQUEL *FINALLY* ARRIVES
99octane
Member

  Posts: 434
  Joined: 05/21/03

Posted: Feb 27, 2004 9:29 PM

You're reaching Virus, you're reaching,
I smell death on you...


_sig________________________________________________________
MASTERING HALO UNTIL THE SEQUEL *FINALLY* ARRIVES

ViRuS
Member

  Posts: 170
  Joined: 06/13/03

Posted: Feb 27, 2004 9:34 PM

This fossil material was found in fluvial red sediments, or river-produced deposits colored by material leached from iron ores. This formation is thus a terrestrial or continental deposit. The fossil remains associated with Pakicetus are dominated by land mammals. Non-mammalian remains include other terrestrial remains such as snails, fishes (particularly catfish), turtles, and crocodiles. This evidence indicates a fluvial and continental, rather than a marine environment, as would be expected for a whale or whale-like creature. It is highly significant that the auditory mechanism of Pakicetus was that of a land mammal, rather than that of a whale, since there is no evidence that it could hear directly under water, nor is there any evidence of vascularization of the middle ear to maintain pressure during diving. The authors stated that the teeth resemble those of the mesonychids, which possibly fed on carrion, mollusks, or tough vegetable matter. On the basis of this evidence, the idea was challenged that Pakicetus was anything other than a land mammal, with no relationship to marine mammals.[5]

Thank you www.icr.org for posting these peices of truth.
I will personally email the site for coping the articale, but I really don't think they will mind since this is only a small debate on a videogame website.

Of course I had to copy and paste, that's the only way I can know that you've read it. And what better way to get it from the experts themselves?

But I think I just showed you that evolution is an religion just as much as christianity.

So...How come there aren't any transistional fossils around? Can you prove that these Ph.D's that they are blind and that their beliefs suck? I do not think so.


_sig________________________________________________________
Nysa - The New Beginning

ViRuS
Member

  Posts: 170
  Joined: 06/13/03

Posted: Feb 27, 2004 9:35 PM

Ok..I have the articale on that right here...Let me take a look at it..give me 5 minutes...

_sig________________________________________________________
Nysa - The New Beginning

ViRuS
Member

  Posts: 170
  Joined: 06/13/03

Posted: Feb 27, 2004 9:48 PM

Ok Here we go....This is directly from the articale, and I have made no changes and make no claims on it....Totally theres..

There is a growing consensus that Archaeopteryx, a bird whose fossils have been found in the Solnhofen Plattenkalk of Franconia (West Germany), was indeed capable of flight. The claim, however, that Archaeopteryx was a transitional form between reptiles and birds simply won\'t fly.

Recent fossil discoveries and recent research on Archaeopteryx argue strongly against the suggestion that it is transitional between reptiles and birds. The rocks in which fossils of Archaeopteryx have been found are designated Upper Jurassic, and thus are dated at about 150 million years on the standard evolutionary geological time scale. Ninety years ago, with reference to Archaeopteryx and to two other ancient birds, Ichthyornis and Hesperornis, Beddard declared, \"So emphatically were all these creatures birds that the actual origin of Aves is barely hinted at in the structure of these remarkable remains.\"1 During the years since publication of Beddard\'s book, no better candidate as an intermediate between reptiles and birds has appeared, and so, in the eyes of its beholders, Archaeopteryx has become more and more reptile-like until it is now fashionable to declare that Archaeopteryx was hardly more than a feathered reptile. In 90 years, Archaeopteryx has thus evolved from a creature so emphatically bird-like its reptilian ancestry was barely hinted at into a creature some evolutionists declare to be nothing more than a reptile with feathers!



_sig________________________________________________________
Nysa - The New Beginning

ViRuS
Member

  Posts: 170
  Joined: 06/13/03

Posted: Feb 27, 2004 9:48 PM

What is the true status of Archaeopteryx? Was it a transitional form between reptiles and birds? First, the general nature of the evidence: The sudden appearance, fully formed, of all the complex invertebrates (snails, clams, jellyfish, sponges, worms, sea urchins, brachiopods, trilobites, etc.) without a trace of ancestors, and the sudden appearance, fully formed, of every major kind of fish (supposedly the first vertebrates) without a trace of ancestors, proves beyond reasonable doubt that evolution has not occurred. Quarrels about disputable cases such as Archaeopteryx are really pointless. Furthermore, there are three other basically different types of flying creatures—flying insects, flying reptiles (now extinct), and flying mammals (bats). It would be strange, indeed, even incomprehensible, that millions of years of evolution of these three basically different types of flying creatures, each involving the remarkable transition of a land animal into a flying animal, would have failed to produce large numbers of transitional forms. If all of that evolution has occurred, our museums should contain scores, if not hundreds or thousands, of fossils of intermediate forms in each case. However, not a trace of an ancestor or transitional form has ever been found for any of these creatures!

Archaeopteryx had an impressive array of features that immediately identify it as a bird, whatever else may be said about it. It had perching feet. Several of its fossils bear the impression of feathers. These feathers were identical to those of modern birds in every respect. The primary feathers of non-flying birds are distinctly different from those of flying birds. Archaeopteryx had the feathers of flying birds,2 had the basic pattern and proportions of the avian wing, and an especially robust furcula (wishbone). Furthermore, there was nothing in the anatomy of Archaeopteryx that would have prevented it being a powered flyer.3 No doubt Archaeopteryx was a feathered creature that flew. It was a bird!



_sig________________________________________________________
Nysa - The New Beginning

ViRuS
Member

  Posts: 170
  Joined: 06/13/03

Posted: Feb 27, 2004 9:49 PM

It has been asserted that Archaeopteryx shares 21 specialized characters with coelurosaurian dinosaurs.4 Research on various anatomical features of Archaeopteryx in the last ten years or so, however, has shown, in every case, that the characteristic in question is bird-like, not reptile-like. When the cranium of the London specimen was removed from the limestone and studied, it was shown to be bird-like, not reptile-like.5 Benton has stated that \\\\\\\"details of the brain case and associated bones at the back of the skull seem to suggest that Archaeopteryx is not the ancestral bird, but an offshoot from the early avian stem.\\\\\\\"6 In this same paper, Benton states that the quadrate (the bone in the jaw that articulates with the squamosal of the skull) in Archaeopteryx was singleheaded as in reptiles. Using a newly devised technique, computed tomography, Haubitz, et al, established that the quadrate of the Eichstatt specimen of Archaepoteryx was double-headed and thus similar to the condition of modern birds,7 rather than single-headed, as stated by Benton.

L.D. Martin and co-workers have established that neither the teeth nor the ankle of Archaeopteryx could have been derived from theropod dinosaurs—the teeth being those typical of other (presumably later) toothed birds, and the ankle bones showing no homology with those of dinosaurs.8 John Ostrom, a strong advocate of a dinosaurian ancestry for birds, had claimed that the pubis of Archaeopteryx pointed downward—an intermediate position between that of coelurosaurian dinosaurs, which points forward, and that of birds, which points backward. A.D. Walker, in more recent studies, asserts that Ostrom\\\'s interpretation is wrong, and that the pubis of Archaeopteryx was oriented in a bird-like position.9 Further, Tarsitano and Hecht criticize various aspects of Ostrom\\\'s hypothesis of a dinosaurian origin of birds, arguing that Ostrom had misinterpreted the homologies of the limbs of Archaeopteryx and theropod dinosaurs.10

A


_sig________________________________________________________
Nysa - The New Beginning

ViRuS
Member

  Posts: 170
  Joined: 06/13/03

Posted: Feb 27, 2004 9:50 PM

.D. Walker has presented an analysis of the ear region of Archaeopteryx that shows, contrary to previous studies, that this region is very similar to the otic region of modern birds.11 J.R. Hinchliffe, utilizing modern isotopic techniques on chick embryos, claims to have established that the \\\"hand\\\" of birds consists of digits II, III and IV, while the digits of the \\\"hand\\\" of theropod dinosaurs consist of digits I, II, and III.

Scales are flat horny plates; feathers are very complex in structure, consisting of a central shaft from which radiate barbs and barbules. Barbules are equipped with tiny hooks which lock onto the barbs and bind the feather surface into a flat, strong, flexible vane. Feathers and scales arise from different layers of the skin. Furthermore, the development of a feather is extremely complex, and fundamentally different from that of a scale. Feathers, as do hairs, but unlike scales, develop from follicles. A hair,, however, is a much simpler structure than a feather. The developing feather is protected by a horny sheath, and forms around a bloody, conical, inductive dermal core. Not only is the developing feather sandwiched between the sheath and dermal core, it is complex in structure. Development of the cells that will become the mature feather involves complex processes. Cells migrate and split apart in highly specific patterns to form the complex arrangement of barbs and barbules.12

Philip Regal attempts to imagine how feathers may have developed from scales.13 Regal presents a series of hypothetical events whereby the elongation of body scales on reptiles, as an adaptive response to excessive solar heat, eventually produced feathers. What we are left to believe is that a series of genetic mistakes, or mutations, just happened somehow to result in a sequence of incredible events that not only converted a simple horny plate into the tremendously complex and marvelously engineered structure of a feather, but completely reorganized the simple method of development of a scale into the highly complex process necessary to produce a feather. What an incredible faith in the blind forces of evolution! Regal's paper simply adds another "Just-so" story to evolutionary scenarios, completely devoid of empirical support.



_sig________________________________________________________
Nysa - The New Beginning

ViRuS
Member

  Posts: 170
  Joined: 06/13/03

Posted: Feb 27, 2004 9:52 PM

Recent events cast even further doubt on Archaeopteryx as a transitional form. If the claims of Sankar Chatterjee prove to be valid, then certainly Archaeopteryx could not be the ancestral bird, and dinosaurs could not be ancestral to birds. Chatterjee and his co-workers at Texas Tech University claim to have found two crow-sized fossils of a bird near Post, Texas, in rocks supposedly 225 million years old—thus allegedly 75 million years older than Archaeopteryx and as old as the first dinosaurs. Totally contrary to what evolutionists would expect for such a fossil bird, however, Chatterjee claims that his bird is even more bird-like than Archaeopteryx! In contrast to Archaeopteryx, this bird had a keel-like breastbone and hollow bones. In most other respects, it was similar to Archaeopteryx.14 If evolutionary assumptions are correct, this bird should have been much more reptile-like than Archaeopteryx. In fact, he shouldn't even exist!

The conclusion which appears to be most reasonable is that Archaeopteryx was a true bird, remarkably isolated from any alleged reptilian progenitor and other birds. A discussion of other features of Archaeopteryx, such as its teeth and clawed wings, may be found in Evolution: The Challenge of the Fossil Record.18

there you go....try and break it down Greg....


_sig________________________________________________________
Nysa - The New Beginning

99octane
Member

  Posts: 434
  Joined: 05/21/03

Posted: Feb 27, 2004 9:53 PM

Ok, whoa!!

Virus - John, stop cold for a moment and listen to me.
There's another proble arising here.
MY LIFE. LOL
While you and several other VERY enthusiastic young men here may have the time to bombard me with with all the nonsense from every creationist website, and there's a lot of them, I simply do not have the time to spend my life on this board debating you for all eternity.

Would not this time be better spent with loved ones?
Or for that friggin matter, PLAYIN' HALO??
LOL

Listen, I'm afraid we're going to have to agree to disagree. Nothing, and I mean NOTHING that has been presented here for the Creationist viewpoint would stand the tests of scrutiny. All you have is my word on that, because you won't even look at my evidence.
Your mind is closed. And while you'll be quick to accuse me of the same, I can assure you that it is not.
I look forward to learing alongside my peers in scientific diciplines, and I can only hope that I myself will make a few discoveries of my own.

As judged as a pure debate, I commend you and every other respondant on your passion and conviction, but you've failed to demonstrate that evolution didn't happen, let alone isn't the logical explaination of the origins and diversity of life on Earth.

(CONTINUED BELOW)


_sig________________________________________________________
MASTERING HALO UNTIL THE SEQUEL *FINALLY* ARRIVES

99octane
Member

  Posts: 434
  Joined: 05/21/03

Posted: Feb 27, 2004 9:56 PM

You all can make another 100 posts if you like,
but know this, if I don't respond, it most CERTAINLY does NOT mean that you've "won".
We're going in circles here kiddies. You're not even willing to examine small chunks of evidence I've put forth.
No one addressed my question about male nipples, not in any meaningful way. No one will examine Archeopteryx.
No one will admit to the gross illogic of saying the Earth is 10-20 thousand years old. You offer me a book,
I offer you fossils, DNA evidence, simple and complex logic, and you reject it all in favor of that book.
Virus, you're wrong. You're just plain wrong.
I can't make you see it, so I'm going to stop trying.

I wish you all much satisfaction in your personal relationships with that invisible man in the sky.
And if you're offended by that and cry foul,
I direct you to Smoke Dog's words. "Dung, yes I said DUNG, crawling out of the sea" and eventually becoming humans.
Not dung, not shit - life.
Because you are incapable of understanding the process does not mean it didn't happen. Some of us do understand it.
Too bad you can't grasp it.
Virus, I just read your pseudo-response about Archeopteryx.
Oh man, you Creationists will come up with anything in order to dispell the growing evidence that you're all wrong, won't you! wow.

I'm sure you'll all keep beating this post to death and claim victory if I never post here again, but you'll hear the voice of 99octane in your head... claiming victory doesn't mean you've actually got it.
Peace, and bye fo awhile.
I'm gonna go have a life now. -Greg


_sig________________________________________________________
MASTERING HALO UNTIL THE SEQUEL *FINALLY* ARRIVES

99octane
Member

  Posts: 434
  Joined: 05/21/03

Posted: Feb 27, 2004 10:07 PM

Virus, before I go,
since you're eager to play the website game with me,
I'll direct you here to do some learning.
http://www.txtwriter.com/Backgrounders/Evolution/EVcontents.html

Let's see if you even read it, and if so, really understand it. Be sure to follow the topic links around the site.
I've done enough unappreciated free typing for one lifetime here. What possible motivation is there for me to continue in the face of such blind dogma? Peace out, C YA.
-Greg


_sig________________________________________________________
MASTERING HALO UNTIL THE SEQUEL *FINALLY* ARRIVES

ViRuS
Member

  Posts: 170
  Joined: 06/13/03

Posted: Feb 27, 2004 10:14 PM

If it's so crazy...THEN PROVE IT WRONG....Don't think you have won either, for you asked the big stuff, and I gave it to you, and then you leave? That is the answer to the question. You stay here until it becomes to hard for you to disprove.

Go ahead! try all you want. I am so open-minded in this is unbelieveably. If you can prove them wrong about the junk I'm posting, Then I will leave Jesus...It's that simple! If there was no creation, then whats the point? That would mean that Jesus was a liar and the bible is false. How openminded is that? Way more than you have been.

The male nipple thing, I never got around to that.
God created us in his image, so God gave males nipples. Then he created Females from males, so the nipples came from males. It's that simple.

So, I give you one last chance to disprove anything I said. I won't even care if you get stuff from evolution sites, I mean, Our knowledge isn't inlimited.

If you can't disprove the scientist that are supposely not true scientist, then yes my friend, you will end up losing.

Losing doesn't always mean you changing beliefs, but your unable to come up with to counter with. That's losing.
And so is leaving.

So please, Keep coming, or admit that you do not personally have the knowledge to defeat Ph.D's from nothing but your brain.

If this is it, this was an highly enjoyable debate, And it has given me alot of expirence on what to defend to the next time an evolutionist comes along.

So, In the End, Jesus does pull through again.


_sig________________________________________________________
Nysa - The New Beginning

99octane
Member

  Posts: 434
  Joined: 05/21/03

Posted: Feb 27, 2004 10:24 PM

Don't worry my friend,
I'm not leaving. It's too much fun to watch you post things like:

"The male nipple thing, I never got around to that.
God created us in his image, so God gave males nipples. Then he created Females from males, so the nipples came from males. It's that simple."

I don't need to pick apart your copy-paste of several webpages, all I need is that.
Do you realize how ridiculous that is??
GOD has nipples?
For WHAT? Sexual arousal? with WHOM?
Nursing? To nurse WHOM?
Oh man, that is the most absurd thing I have seen you type to this point. God has nipples.
Can you possibly tell me why?
(This oughtta be good)


_sig________________________________________________________
MASTERING HALO UNTIL THE SEQUEL *FINALLY* ARRIVES

99octane
Member

  Posts: 434
  Joined: 05/21/03

Posted: Feb 27, 2004 10:38 PM

Another thing.
"it has given me alot of expirence on what to defend to the next time an evolutionist comes along."

Yeah, you go right ahead and use the same arguments you've used here, and let me tell you what will happen.
Those that ALREADY believe in Creationism and other theistic principles as explainations for the nature of things, will think you're a genious.
You're the man. You win! You got it right! Yippie for you!

Those that know better will laugh at you,
if not to your face, silently to themselves.
The very notion is ridiculous John.
An invisible man in the sky created everything in six days.
Out of thin air. Oh yeah and he made the air too.
And countless billions of unused cubic light years of space, yeah that makes sense.
He can will the behaviour of every subatomic particle in the entire Universe. Throughout all of time. Uh-huh.
(Which, by the way, it at least 15 billion years old, and I have proven that right in this thread, remember? The speed of light?)

He creates man, ONE man named "Adam" (if there's only God and Adam at that point, why have a name at all? To distinguish yourself from whom?).
But Adam is lonely. God didn't get it right the first time. There's only one of us, after all. One man.
It's not paradise without someone to nag him night and day. So God yanks out one of Adam's ribs and creates a female human. Which raises ANOTHER question. If the first try was Adam and Adam alone, why make the ONE human a MALE?
Why any gender at all?
Ok, so we'll overlook THAT too.
Adam gets to have some pussy.
But pussy is BAD. (As most pussy is).
She wanders over to the ONE fruit tree that is FORBIDDEN in Paradise. ("Forbidden in paradise, hmmm, isn't that a contradiction in terms?)
She talks to a snake, who convinces her to eat the fruit of the forbidden tree, (often depicted as an apple),
gains the knowledge of shame and nakedness
and since we ALL know that knowledge is a BAD thing,
she freaks, and makes sure she's going to take Adam down with her. "Here, have a bite of this , honeyrib".
God comes along a bit later, and learns only THEN (not instantaneously, huh?) that they've eaten the knowledge fruit. Boom, original sin, outta paradise you go,
I'll send my Son a few thousand years from now so you can have a second chance.

Did I prove you wrong yet? No? Then Ok. I'm done trying.



_sig________________________________________________________
MASTERING HALO UNTIL THE SEQUEL *FINALLY* ARRIVES

ViRuS
Member

  Posts: 170
  Joined: 06/13/03

Posted: Feb 27, 2004 10:51 PM

lol....This is extremely funny because this has nothing to do with The Thoery of Evolution at all.

Of cousre, God may have nipples, or made adam with them. How? simply because he is God, and certain reasons are not presented to us. Of course, The evolutionary mind like yourself will not see this as a valid answer, so I must tell of another possiblty.

Here we go..Again, from the experts.

No, the design explanation for male nipples makes more sense. But even if male nipples had no known use, there is another important reason why they exist in today’ s males. That is, they are the result of an efficient plan of embryonic development. Human embryos are sexually dimorphic at first (i.e. contain characteristics of both sexes), because they all have basically the same genetic information, and this information is expressed as efficiently as possible as the embryo develops. This is design economy. For example, in all human embryos, at first both the müllerian duct system (female) and the wolffian duct system (male) develop, because both sexes have the genetic information for these structures. Incidentally, this refutes the urban myth that human embryos ‘start off female’. The subsequent differences are the result of designed chemical signals that control the expression of the information. E.g., a gene set usually found on the Y chromosome controls the levels of testosterone and dihydroxytestosterone (DHT) secretion. Above a certain level, these hormones suppress the development of the müllerian duct system and promote the wolffian duct system, so the embryo takes on masculine characteristics. Below a certain hormone level, the opposite happens, and the embryo takes on female characteristics.

Simple...


_sig________________________________________________________
Nysa - The New Beginning

99octane
Member

  Posts: 434
  Joined: 05/21/03

Posted: Feb 27, 2004 11:04 PM

A good try, but no cigar. Honeyrib. LOL
(I liked that one)

The genetic and embryonic evidence you cited
is more easilly interpreted as evidence of evolution, NOT creationism. You're seeing what you want to see.
(But you ARE getting SOME education out of this, aren't you? I can see that in your efforts to counter me,
you're picking up some ACTUAL science! That pleases me.)

You did not however respond to why God needs nipples.
For what purpopse?
The ONLY biologic purpose for nipples is to nurse the young, and this is true in all mammals and marsupials.
Sexual function is a SECONDARY characteristic,
and not just cause for the featur to exist in and of itself. Before you counter with the classic argument of the female clitoris being a "useless" feature for nothing more than pleasure, serving no function in sexual reproduction,
I say WRONG! It serves PLENTY purpose.
Making sexual copulation APPEALING and PLEASURABLE to femals is important to get the species propogated!
Also, it's stimulation DURING coitus (intercourse) induces both vaginal lubrication, and cervical mucus will change it's consistency, allowing for sperm to penetrate into the uterus more easilly.

So again, WHY DOES GOD HAVE NIPPLES.
(Your contention, not mine).


_sig________________________________________________________
MASTERING HALO UNTIL THE SEQUEL *FINALLY* ARRIVES

99octane
Member

  Posts: 434
  Joined: 05/21/03

Posted: Feb 27, 2004 11:15 PM

*Virus busilly hurrying to search all his favorite creationist websites for the answer, dang, not there either! Ok, so he e-mails his church elders, all huddled in a room, smoking furiously as they work to dispell every post of 99octane. They murmur and mumble amongst themselves, finally the eldest elder, who is 27,
stands up and says...*

Copy and paste it John! Hurry up! LOL!


_sig________________________________________________________
MASTERING HALO UNTIL THE SEQUEL *FINALLY* ARRIVES

ViRuS
Member

  Posts: 170
  Joined: 06/13/03

Posted: Feb 27, 2004 11:29 PM

This would be more convincing if you would quit changing topics....

Again, that was an microevolution topic, which I do support. Seem to be switching that alot don't you?

I did not say that God had nipples. I do not know and do not pretend to. I said that Adam was made in his image. this does not mean perfectly like God, but made like him.

But since you invited further information, I will gladly use it. it was the creationist breaking down a letter from evolutionist.

Why would God create male animals with nipples?

This sort of argument (‘Why would God have done X?’) is really a cheap rhetorical device rather than a real argument for evolution, although Darwin himself made frequent use of it. After all, even if a creationist could not think of a reason (not the case here), it proves nothing more than that a creationist doesn’t possess all knowledge of the Creator’s mind, which has never been a claim of creation theory! This appeal to pseudo-theology is a poor substitute for actually demonstrating that an organ arose by time, chance and natural selection.

Did Adam have nipples?

Quite possibly, since nipples are especially sensitive and are a source of sexual stimuli. Since they have a function, they are consistent with a design explanation. They do not seem analogous to the navel, which is simply a scar where the human was once attached via the umbilical cord to his or her mother. So Adam and Eve would probably have lacked navels because they didn’t have mothers.

Surely not, as Eve hadn’t even been thought about at that stage.

Not so — God by definition foreknew everything.

Genesis 1 states that the animals were created before Eve. Did the males of the animal species created by God for Adam’s amusement have nipples? I believe that the creation ‘theory’ cannot explain male nipples at all, without attempting to fathom the mind of an invisible, unknowable creator. Evolution theory on the other hand easily explains male nipples.

How so? The only explanations consistent with evolution are that humans evolved from an all-female species, or that males once helped to breast-feed (‘nurse’ to American readers their babies.



_sig________________________________________________________
Nysa - The New Beginning

ViRuS
Member

  Posts: 170
  Joined: 06/13/03

Posted: Feb 27, 2004 11:30 PM

Surely decent [sic] with modification from a common ancestor would necessarily mean that at a certain stage in evolution there was only one precursor to both males and females. Hence both males and females possess the same common genes some of which are expressed more in females others more in males due to survival pressure and natural selection. Evolution has split animal species into male and female having common ancestral genes. Your explanation actually supports the evolutionary explanation rather than any biblical one.

Not only does it seem that you are (willingly?) ignorant of creation, but also of evolution, I fear. According to evolutionary theory, the male/female differentiation evolved much earlier than mammals are supposed to have evolved from reptiles. That is, there were allegedly already males and females long before females evolved breast-feeding.

No, the design explanation for male nipples makes more sense. But even if male nipples had no known use, there is another important reason why they exist in today’ s males. That is, they are the result of an efficient plan of embryonic development. Human embryos are sexually dimorphic at first (i.e. contain characteristics of both sexes), because they all have basically the same genetic information, and this information is expressed as efficiently as possible as the embryo develops. This is design economy. For example, in all human embryos, at first both the müllerian duct system (female) and the wolffian duct system (male) develop, because both sexes have the genetic information for these structures. Incidentally, this refutes the urban myth that human embryos ‘start off female’. The subsequent differences are the result of designed chemical signals that control the expression of the information. E.g., a gene set usually found on the Y chromosome controls the levels of testosterone and dihydroxytestosterone (DHT) secretion. Above a certain level, these hormones suppress the development of the müllerian duct system and promote the wolffian duct system, so the embryo takes on masculine characteristics. Below a certain hormone level, the opposite happens, and the embryo takes on female characteristics.

Sorry, good try but scientifically and logically … no points!

You would, respectfully, need to carefully study both science and logic before we could be expected to take your assessment seriously.


_sig________________________________________________________
Nysa - The New Beginning

99octane
Member

  Posts: 434
  Joined: 05/21/03

Posted: Feb 27, 2004 11:43 PM

Dude, get off the creationist websites! LOL!
You just copy-pasted this:
"Why would God create male animals with nipples?

This sort of argument (‘Why would God have done X?’) is really a cheap rhetorical device rather than a real argument for evolution, although Darwin himself made frequent use of it. ." etc etc

I read that last night! It's not a cheap argument pal, that's a cop out.
SPEAK FOR YOURSELF. And first of all, yes you DID say God has nipples. Simple as that, remember?
And does God have a digestive system too?
How about an asshole? A penis?
Perhaps a vagina AND a penis.
Does he have any sexual organs of any kind, and if so, WHY?
Does God have lungs? If yes, why? To breathe WHAT?
And why didn't he suffocate if he is the one who created oxygen, and was around before it, but needed it to breathe?
Does he have a heart? To pump WHAT? Blood? Why?
How about eyes? Does he have eyes? To see WHAT??
After all, HE's the one who "let there be light".
Why have eyes BEFORE there ws light, light which YOU created as God but had eyes already?
A nose? To smell WHAT? In air that doesn't exist until you make it?
What about limbs? Arms and legs?
If yes, why? Legs to propell you across the surface of...WHAT? When you're God, you can be on Earth one moment, and in the next, Alpha Centuri, right?
So why have legs for walking or running?
And arms... for what? Hands with opposable thumbs like apes, for what? To grasp what?
To manipulate matter and create us in six days?
How can hands do that John? Wouldn't he need supernatural powers for that?
Answer, yes, he would.
So what organ is the source of those powers? His BRAIN?
Is it layered as our is, since we were made in his image?
Cerebrum, outer layer, cerebellum, then the primative brain beneath? Why does God need a primative brain?
Surely not to regulate the heart that isn't there, the lungs that aren't there, or a pituitary to govern growth or aging.

So let me get this straight -
we're created in the image of God,
who has nipples, but likely has no heart, lungs,
eyes, nose, limbs, sex organs, or digestive systems...
Doesn't look like any human I'd want to look like.


_sig________________________________________________________
MASTERING HALO UNTIL THE SEQUEL *FINALLY* ARRIVES

ViRuS
Member

  Posts: 170
  Joined: 06/13/03

Posted: Feb 27, 2004 11:47 PM

There you go...I answered your questions...Now will you answer mine?

why are there so few transistional fossils(which are really just canidates, and can be proven wrong) if , Based on the Thoery of Evolution, There should be scores of?

Why have you made no attempt to disprove the expert's statments on evolution being a religion and the disprovance of the evolution of whales?

And why did you call The experts crazy about their conclusions of the Archeopteryx, yet gave no evidence against their finds?

How come you ignore The Modern Human fossils that were in the same,acording to evolution, geological period?

Why do you continue to use mircoevolution as a sudject of debate?

How come you were so focused on the reason for male nipples, yet when it does not directly effect nor supply evidence for abiogenesis and macroevolution?

How come you try to attack me personally, when this is a debate on theorys?

Please, answer these questions....Since I have done enough about answering questions for you.


_sig________________________________________________________
Nysa - The New Beginning

99octane
Member

  Posts: 434
  Joined: 05/21/03

Posted: Feb 27, 2004 11:56 PM

Virus wrote: "You would, respectfully, need to carefully study both science and logic before we could be expected to take your assessment seriously.

"


You're funny when you try and insult me.
You do not have but a tiny fraction of the understanding I do of evolution, biology, physical law, cosmology, paleontology, genetics, ... and you think you can point ot my examples of mammaliam nipples on males as useless evolutionary leftovers, and because I didn't bother your already overtaxed mind with the fact that this is evident in reptiles as well, you presume to conclude that I need to study my sciences more? You're a fool for even suggesting that. Look John, you can try and belittle me, evolution and science all you want. You can try and convince me that God exists because it says so in the Bible, or because so many other people have the same need to believe that you do. I simply do not have that need.
I am above that, beyond it.
I have EVOLVED past the need for a belief in a theistic influence on or in my life in order to live that life.
You people are all the same. You want it both ways.
This "free will" and non-interference of God.
Yet you pray to him to ask for stuff.
Please help me get an A on tomorrow's test.
Please God, let Suzie like me.
Please God, make this stomach ache go away.
And you cite numerous instances OF direct dietic interference as evidence for his existence.
If God exists and created the Universe, why does he need to keep meddling in it? Why not make it right in the first place? Oh yeah, MAN's orignal sin. Sorry, doesn't add up.
ALL of the universe's physical law, ALL CONTLESS BILLIONS of unused cubic light years of the cosmos were created and changed to accomodate original sin.
Sorry, not buying.


_sig________________________________________________________
MASTERING HALO UNTIL THE SEQUEL *FINALLY* ARRIVES

ViRuS
Member

  Posts: 170
  Joined: 06/13/03

Posted: Feb 28, 2004 12:01 AM

What kind of God would my God be to try and convince you on your own timetable?

He is master of the supernatural, meaning that he can do pretty much whatever he wants and not have to answer to you for it.

No, I will never pretend to know the way God thinks, or how he does it. But he gave us the nessesary meterials to guide us: The bible and our brains. The combination of the both brings us tot he Theory of Creation. Anything that was not included in the bible God thought as unessesary for us to know. So no, God did not show us what he looked like, and only told us we were made in his image. And Praise God he at least gave us that.


_sig________________________________________________________
Nysa - The New Beginning

99octane
Member

  Posts: 434
  Joined: 05/21/03

Posted: Feb 28, 2004 12:11 AM

Aw hell, you want it all explained to you AGAIN huh?
ok.

You asked: "why are there so few transistional fossils(which are really just canidates, and can be proven wrong) if , Based on the Thoery of Evolution, There should be scores of?" No, not necessarilly scores of.
The theory of evolution grows, it changes as new evidence comes to light. Within the last 20 years, and much more so in the last 10, scientists have come to accept the liklihood of much faster changes between species than had been previously thought. Faster meaning ONE millon years or a few hundred thousand. Perhaps as short a time span as 20,000 years. (!) Massive occurances of genetic mutation,
possibly due to an increase in UV radiation or cosmic storms, or even Sun Spots, result in SEVERAL divergences within a population of several different species at the same time. The SMALL FRACTION of those changes that better enable the aminls to thrive in the changing environment pass the new genes on to the next generation, and this reapeats. In just a FEW generations, the mean (average) example of the living species bears striking differences from the starting point of this process. Often a whole new species. A Dog can not mate with a Sea Lion. And yet they share extremely similar DNA, skeletal sructures, and other features. It is logical to accept that one group of early canids (dog like animals) existed in a stable environment and had no genetic need to alter their bodies' functions.
Another group of canid ancestors DID, and fled to the sea for defense from predation, and for food. This set up a NEED for change. Plains Chimps and Savanna Chimps today are the same species, yet different. You will se this as micro-evolution, right? Adaptation. And it is. But it's the first step to something much greater. Time on the ground means more predation, so they have to be more agressive. And they are.
(CONTINUED)


_sig________________________________________________________
MASTERING HALO UNTIL THE SEQUEL *FINALLY* ARRIVES

ViRuS
Member

  Posts: 170
  Joined: 06/13/03

Posted: Feb 28, 2004 12:14 AM

FOOL, If you did as you say you did, you would realize that statement was part of the articule.

And AGAIN! Don't pretend to know everything. You don't and never will. And you are niether higher in intelligence as me nor are you supirior in any way. To think that just because you believe in atheiestism that you are better than me? THAT is WAY more closedminded than anything I have stated. You are actually more dangeous to soceity than Christians. You have no rules. At least those who live by Jesus actually do try to live there lives morally.

That fact that you continually strike my ways of debating down, you have not yet countered any points I made earlier. I am not losing this debate and are far from it. All you has done is to attack points that you know can't exist without faith. You think science supports evolution? Nay...


_sig________________________________________________________
Nysa - The New Beginning

99octane
Member

  Posts: 434
  Joined: 05/21/03

Posted: Feb 28, 2004 12:15 AM

(CONTINUED FROM Above)

They (the Chimps that live out in the opne now, and not in trees) fight back in packs against agressors, even Lions, and use sticks and rocks as weapons. they stretch themselves upright more often to watch for predators. To get the eyes up higher off the horizon. More time upright means taller.
And they are getting taller than tree chimps. 3 inches on average now.
And guess what else is happening? Vocal diversity.
Not language as we can measure it, but their vocal range is greater than tree chimps. Cranial blood flow seems to be increasing too. Fascinating stuff.
Transitional fossils are there in the record,
the horse, elephants, dogs, marine mammals...
the transition of reptiles to birds...
(though you tried to debunk it, it's FACT John, FACT)
they're rare, but even ONE transitional fossil flies in the face of creationism. And we have MANY.
Fossils are rare period. Transitionals are precious.
Orgamism populations IN transition don't stay that way long. Evolution seems tp happen in spurts as well as very gradulally.

Do I have to type all damn night to satisfy you?
I think you're just trying to torture me. LOL


_sig________________________________________________________
MASTERING HALO UNTIL THE SEQUEL *FINALLY* ARRIVES

99octane
Member

  Posts: 434
  Joined: 05/21/03

Posted: Feb 28, 2004 12:25 AM

Originally Posted by ViRuS
FOOL, If you did as you say you did, you would realize that statement was part of the articule.

And AGAIN! Don't pretend to know everything. You don't and never will. And you are niether higher in intelligence as me nor are you supirior in any way. To think that just because you believe in atheiestism that you are better than me? THAT is WAY more closedminded than anything I have stated. You are actually more dangeous to soceity than Christians. You have no rules. At least those who live by Jesus actually do try to live there lives morally.

That fact that you continually strike my ways of debating down, you have not yet countered any points I made earlier. I am not losing this debate and are far from it. All you has done is to attack points that you know can't exist without faith. You think science supports evolution? Nay...


You're all wet John.
I'm not claiming to be a better person than you,
but my intelligence and yours are comparable only by
factors of experience. YOU were the one who tried to put me down, remember? I AM superior to you in several ways John, and you are superior to me in at least one. Faith.
I, on the other hand, have 21 years of expereince and exposure to life than you do. I also have education that you haven't had the chance yet to get under your belt.
You're a very presumptious voung man, and I let you speak to me as you have to allow you an opportunity to debate me as an intellectual equal. You are now abusing this privilige I've given you. Remember who you're talking to.

And I am not an atheist. I am an Agnostic.
There is a difference. Also, I never said I know everything. But what I DO know, you ridicule, refute, don't accept, copy and past whole websites at me that you've never seen or examined before this topic,
and you still presume to think you're right?

(CONTINUED BELOW)

_sig________________________________________________________
MASTERING HALO UNTIL THE SEQUEL *FINALLY* ARRIVES
ramstein
Member

  Posts: 36
  Joined: 01/18/04

Posted: Feb 28, 2004 12:29 AM

ok too much reading not for me time to get out bye bye oh I think you are correct -99. hhehehe

99octane
Member

  Posts: 434
  Joined: 05/21/03

Posted: Feb 28, 2004 12:30 AM

(CONTINUED FROM ABOVE)

You just said: "I am not losing this debate and are far from it. All you has done is to attack points that you know can't exist without faith."
Actually John, you've done well, but you have indeed lost.
Points that can't exist without faith. EXACTLY.
Creationsism can not exist without faith.
Science does, and evolution is a field of study in science.
The evidence is overwhelming, and comes from several fields. Embryology, which you brought up. Genetics.
Fossils. Other diciplines come into play as well.
The simple truth is, your argument falls apart under the scrutiny of true science. But your theological bretheren will twist and perfect the facts to suit your agenda.
That is why you failed, before you even began.
You are defending an indefensible position.
You need proof, and all you have is faith.

John, you're a worthy adversary as a debator.
You are intelligent indeed.
You have an excellent command of language.
But you're embracing an ideology that is provably mistaken about the origins of all things.
Whether or not you accept that is up to you.
As it always is to the individual.
All I can do is say we're done here.
I wish you no ill will, I admire your spirit.
I like you! You're officially my favorite Creationist.

I have no further need to come here and continue this.
I am satisfied, we are at an intellectual impass.
It happens, and I hope you'll be mature enough to
accept my virtual hand offered in virtual friendship.
Have a productive, happy life John, and I mean that.
Peace to you, be good. -Greg "99octane".


_sig________________________________________________________
MASTERING HALO UNTIL THE SEQUEL *FINALLY* ARRIVES

ViRuS
Member

  Posts: 170
  Joined: 06/13/03

Posted: Feb 28, 2004 12:32 AM

No, I have seen them, I just thought it would be better if I let them do the talking....And you have failed to finish answering my questions...

About the transistional Fossils...Where are they? Point me in the direction of sites with proof of these fossils...

As for now, I must sleep....


_sig________________________________________________________
Nysa - The New Beginning

ramstein
Member

  Posts: 36
  Joined: 01/18/04

Posted: Feb 28, 2004 12:36 AM

This page loads too slow for me, perhaps its because of these letters and words that someone has created, maybe they evolved from something, I don't know.

99octane
Member

  Posts: 434
  Joined: 05/21/03

Posted: Feb 28, 2004 12:42 AM

Virus typed: "Why have you made no attempt to disprove the expert's statments on evolution being a religion and the disprovance of the evolution of whales?"

Because your experts are full of ... dung.
Evolution is not a religion. We do not worship the fossils nor do we think they are god. Silly notion.
This silly notion is the dance of the Creationist.
They claim evolution is as religion too so we'll be on the same footing. We're not. Not even close.
One is faith and myth, with worship, the other facts and the interpretation of them. nuff said.

Whales. You didn't "disprove" a thing.
Whales are not unique unto themselves nor isolated from the rest of the mamalliam family tree. Their fossil record is plain, and clear. Large land animals that took to the oceans, and they were likely to be genetically predisposed to large size, perhaps a leftover from the reptillian DNA that lead to the large dinosaurs, and IN the oceans, with the abundant food supply and boyancy of water to suppor their bodies girth, they grew to immense size.
What's to prove? You have a gift for ignoring the obvious John. You're torturing me with all this typing, aren't you?
You're trying to make me thing that if you type more than I do, you'll win by attrition?
On to your next great question...


_sig________________________________________________________
MASTERING HALO UNTIL THE SEQUEL *FINALLY* ARRIVES

ramstein
Member

  Posts: 36
  Joined: 01/18/04

Posted: Feb 28, 2004 12:45 AM

Originally Posted by ramstein
This page loads too slow for me, perhaps its because of these letters and words that someone has created, maybe they evolved from something, I don't know.


I like my silver xbox its nice and shiny!!! wohooo go silver!
ViRuS
Member

  Posts: 170
  Joined: 06/13/03

Posted: Feb 28, 2004 12:47 AM

Fine, Since you offered a hand in a stalemate, I accept. My last thing is that not all I have is faith and that evolution takes faith as much as Christianity...

But I to wish that you will come to christ someday, for you are obivously a man of great intellect, and it would be great to have for the Kingdom. May God bless you, and I feel something more than a mutal friendship here. Brotherhood is more like it. I will personally defend you from any flaming and hope that you will do the same for me.

In conclusion, We both had closedminds and could not be pursaided from our posistion. We both think that the other is blind to the truth and can't believe it. you believe that the combination of abiogenesis and macroevolution is the reason we are here today. It is respected as the Dominant Theory.

Creation, on the other hand, is the theory that God created the earth in 6 days and 6 nights while resting on the 7th day. This theory conrtibutes to to a higher Goal, that being Jesus Christ. This is respected as the "lesser" theory, yet is growing at fast pace.

Both of these Theory's are supported by science, yet each believes science contradictes the other.

So it ends, Neither side winning, but neither side losing.


_sig________________________________________________________
Nysa - The New Beginning

ramstein
Member

  Posts: 36
  Joined: 01/18/04

Posted: Feb 28, 2004 12:52 AM

Originally Posted by ramstein
Originally Posted by ramstein
This page loads too slow for me, perhaps its because of these letters and words that someone has created, maybe they evolved from something, I don't know.


I like my silver xbox its nice and shiny!!! wohooo go silver!


how did you get a silver xbox? anyways what is it? is it a special edition that has like 1gig ram and runs at 2.0ghz with a dual processor? I wan't one too now!!!
99octane
Member

  Posts: 434
  Joined: 05/21/03

Posted: Feb 28, 2004 12:55 AM

Virus wrote: "And why did you call The experts crazy about their conclusions of the Archeopteryx, yet gave no evidence against their finds?"

Ok, here you have perhaps the most valid point, but I can still answer you. If the earlier specimen you mentioned, which I HAVE heard of and examined the evidence of myself,
proves to be the age it's reported to be, then it would indeed indicate that Archeopteryx was not the first bird.
But that's all - it would prove that a specimen of Archeopteryx from a MIDPOINT in that species' existence was found, like finding a 200 million year old fossil of a HorseShoe Crab. Since we ALSO have fossils of HorseShoe Crabs from nearly 400 millions years ago, and they are alive today, a single specimen from 200 million years ago with NO OTHER EVIDENCE would only prove the species existed 200 million years ago. Nothing more. We'd be ignorant of the fact that it also existed twice that long ago.
This may be what's happening with our understanding of the emergence of birds.. WHEN exactly it happened.
This is a science, but not every last fact is known by anyone. But what we CAN say is that birds appear in the fossil record AFTER the rise of fish, AFTER amphibians, and AFTER reptiles first emerged in the fossil record.
But BEFORE mammals larger than a shrew. Somewhere either during the last periods in which dinosaurs appear, or just after. (An admitted range of nearly 50 million years).
So while humankinds oldest fossil bird was Archeopteryx for a long time, we may have yet found an earlier bird.
And one more built like modern birds. It requires further study, but it DOES NOT refute the emergence of birds in the fossil record between other larger families of reptiles, and after the asteroid collision of 65 million years ago that wiped out the dinosaurs.
(Do I need to "prove" that to you too?
Sicne you're so good at searching GOOGLE for evidence please search for "Chicxulub impact")
THIS evidence is beyond contention.
On to the next one...


_sig________________________________________________________
MASTERING HALO UNTIL THE SEQUEL *FINALLY* ARRIVES

ViRuS
Member

  Posts: 170
  Joined: 06/13/03

Posted: Feb 28, 2004 12:57 AM

Greg, I ened the debate three post ago...It's over

We both win


_sig________________________________________________________
Nysa - The New Beginning

99octane
Member

  Posts: 434
  Joined: 05/21/03

Posted: Feb 28, 2004 1:02 AM

Originally Posted by ViRuS
Fine, Since you offered a hand in a stalemate, I accept. My last thing is that not all I have is faith and that evolution takes faith as much as Christianity...

But I to wish that you will come to christ someday, for you are obivously a man of great intellect, and it would be great to have for the Kingdom. May God bless you, and I feel something more than a mutal friendship here. Brotherhood is more like it. I will personally defend you from any flaming and hope that you will do the same for me.

In conclusion, We both had closedminds and could not be pursaided from our posistion. We both think that the other is blind to the truth and can't believe it. you believe that the combination of abiogenesis and macroevolution is the reason we are here today. It is respected as the Dominant Theory.

Creation, on the other hand, is the theory that God created the earth in 6 days and 6 nights while resting on the 7th day. This theory conrtibutes to to a higher Goal, that being Jesus Christ. This is respected as the "lesser" theory, yet is growing at fast pace.

Both of these Theory's are supported by science, yet each believes science contradictes the other.

So it ends, Neither side winning, but neither side losing.


And here I am answering all your questions that you told me to answer. LOL Does this mean I can stop typing now? LOL
I have one more post I was in the middle of composing.
I'll post it for whatever it's worth.

John, I appreciate what you said, I really do.
As one blade sharpens another, right?
I'm proud to call you friend, I hope you meant that.
Stalemate it is. But I always knew it would be with you.
I only hope that when our mutual friend Smoke Dog returns, he doesn't get too bent over all that's transpired since he had to go. I hope to call him friend too.
Afterall, what's more important here?
Who's right, or the ability to enjoy eachother's company,
gain from their presence, and maybe pick up a HALO trick or two? -Greg

_sig________________________________________________________
MASTERING HALO UNTIL THE SEQUEL *FINALLY* ARRIVES
BradLee
Moderator

  Posts: 114
  Joined: 06/1/03

Posted: Feb 28, 2004 1:02 AM

I'm locking this. It was request by it's starter. Im locking it til he says otherwise. You guys made a very friendsly debate with no flames or insults. Im only locking it because the starter, (John) asked me to.

_sig________________________________________________________
Burn Piano Island, Burn.


-BradLee

ViRuS
Member

  Posts: 170
  Joined: 06/13/03

Posted: Feb 28, 2004 1:04 AM

I have decided to get a mod to lock this topic, to keep it away from spam, and use it as an example to future debators

Thanks all for perticapating! Great Debate!


_sig________________________________________________________
Nysa - The New Beginning

99octane
Member

  Posts: 434
  Joined: 05/21/03

Posted: Feb 28, 2004 1:06 AM

Originally Posted by ViRuS
Greg, I ened the debate three post ago...It's over

We both win


Ok, I accept that - *two equally matched Generals on the virtual battlefield shake hands, eyes fixed on the other in mutual respect*

But I had this ready to go, so here it is, and I'll shut up.
"How come you ignore The Modern Human fossils that were in the same,acording to evolution, geological period?"

About the example of human remains found within a strata believed and demonstrated to be from a much earlier time than humans are known tro have existed. The Pliocene fossil man thing. Doesn't bother me one bit.
Erosion isn't a one-way street, several known examples of fossils found out of the rock they "should" be in have occured. In several cases, it was PROVEN that this occured because an older layer of sedimentary rock was exposed by the elements, a living animal dies and it's remains are covered by new sediments on a very old layer, thus creating a fossil of a creature not contemporaneous to the other fossil material found in that strata. And the fact that Homo Erectus through Homo Sapiens have been shown to dig dwellings, AND bury their dead is a far more plausible explaination to the logical mind than to suppose that hominoids existed more than 5 million years before any other known evidence.
I will state in the same breath that the Pliocene era was "only" 5.3 to 1.8 million years ago. Modern man, genetically identical to us, has existed for at LEAST 800,000 years. That's more than halfway back to the Pliocene era.
So remember we're discussing a layer of rock that is geologically VERY young.
It's strata is less well defined than, say, the Jurassic or Cambrian. Fair enough?
Ok, I'm done if you are! Goodnight John. -Greg


_sig________________________________________________________
MASTERING HALO UNTIL THE SEQUEL *FINALLY* ARRIVES


Go To: