100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
|
Topic:
The THEORY of Evolution.
|
|
Im also waiting for your apology yzrabbit1..
I accept. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
The THEORY of Evolution.
|
|
Oops! This was an accidental post that just popped into existence from nowhere. Sorry bout that. what a waste of a 3000th post! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
The THEORY of Evolution.
|
|
Matthew 27:46 (New International Version) New International Version (NIV) 46About the ninth hour Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "Eloi, Eloi,[a] lama sabachthani?"—which means, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" Um no you dont actually, because if you did, you'd be a Christian. My apologies, my search of that verse came to this: Psalm 22 For the director of music. To the tune of "The Doe of the Morning." A psalm of David. 1 My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? Suprise! I know more about your religion then you.
LOL, dont wet your pants with excitement just ye rabbi, your wrong again: "My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?" If Jesus is God, why would He say this? First of all, Jesus quoted Psalm 22:1 which begins with, "My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?". Jesus quoted this Psalm in order to draw attention to it and the fact that He was fulfilling it there on the cross. Consider verses 11-18 in Psalm 22. -http://www.carm.org/questions/why_forsake_me.htm |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
The THEORY of Evolution.
|
|
I can hardly wait for the evolution of religion. What will be the next one?? I wonder......christianity has been pretty powerful at beating down the other religions and claiming their self-made position as the one true religion. What will be the new evolved religion? What epiphany will happen? Will it be the fact that 2000 years from now they will still be calling every year the last year before their savior comes for them? Or will it be the fact that we will by then have traveled farther into the universe and it will become clear that evolution is more a fact than before? Will we have become a loving people with no need to judge others by skin, sexual orientation, background, lifestyle, religion, status, etc....? What will it be? Its already here! According to a documentary, life on this earth arrived on a commit and we 'evolved' from the lifeforms that were on the commit. Global warming is another cult. But Im sure GW is just as factual as evolution *rolls eyes* see: "global warming, or Global governance?" and "The great global warming swindle" Two documentaries that obliterate GW. I think the next theory is that we are products of a different, superior civilization of ET's. ...which is pretty much scientology. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
The THEORY of Evolution.
|
|
Blood clotting just POPPED out of nowhere did it?
Just like the universe? Seriously. Have you been able to answer Funches question? Why arent we told about any of the planets in our solar system in the Bible? How come the Bible didnt predict 9/11 so we could stop it? Why doesnt the Bible tell su exactly how God created everything instead of being 'vague' about it in Genesis? Therefore, by your logic JUST these because these questions cant be answer automatically debunks the bible. Its true that when they say "all the wisdom of man is foolishness to God" You think it’s silly to believe that the universe just POPPED into existence out of nowhere, but the idea that a God just POPPED into existence out of nowhere isn’t a problem. Clearly you have no ability to think deeply. lol you are ahead of yourself Abra. Can you explain the lymphatic system or the circulatory system to a Dog? Doing this way easier than trying to get a human to grasp the concept of Something that has 'always been'. To think that you Abra are capapble of understanding this....who is unable to think deeply now hmm? "Why do you feel so threatened Abra?" Threatened? Don’t flatter yourself. The things you are claiming are simply absurd and totally groundless. I’m just calmly pointing out that fact.
keep telling yourself that Abra. If you are so adamant of my errors, read Bone of Contention and be a hero to the scientific world! You seem to be the one who is in a real panic about evolution. You apparently see evolution as a serious threat to your religion. Like if evolution is true then your religion must be false! Actually I LOVE talking about evolution because I see the full picture of it and how impossible and contradictory it is; I get my 'jollies' by provoking thought. Good luck with that one!
I dont need luck, I already know that my ground is solid. I’d say you’re in big trouble. Glad it’s not my religion.  Yeah i feel sorry for those that still follow this evolution like those fools did back in the days of spontaneous generation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
i'll ask again...are you ignorant of darwin and the finch? evolution does not take millions of years No; Bone of Contention outlines this. If you read about Gregor Mendals experiement which is ALSO outlined in the book you'll see what Darwin saw was NOT evolution. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
The THEORY of Evolution.
|
|
If I was in charge of my own evolution, I would have definitely kept the wings. This whole retarded argument is like watching kids argue on the playground. Evolution has no solid case and anyone willing to look at the facts of DNA would have to come to that conclusion. On the other hand, I don't exspect anyone who hasn't experienced what God is for themselves to understand. That's Gods job. Why aren't we seeing mixes of DNA right now and intermitant species and different levels of man. Because there isn't any and never will be. My faith has had oodles of physically manifested and supernatural evidence, but all you weazers can say and ever have said is "good for you, if it works for you". Du-uh, a miracle slaps you in the face and you STILL deny it, how stupid can a smart man be. Cop outs. I see Abra is still fighting himself. THEY buggin you Abra?  
Well said. Bone of Contention goes in DNA and mutations as well. but no one here as the guts to check it out. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
The THEORY of Evolution.
|
|
yzrabbit1, You expect me to take any of your posts seriously when you start a thread claiming Jesus was not God by posting a out of context verse; which you claimed was state by Jesus meanwhile was actually Daniel? Why should I take anything you say as credible? What are you talking about? Memory loss? or something more serious? http://www.justsayhi.com/topic/show/56268 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Christianity's Christ...
|
|
Many of the parables and words which are reported to have been spoken by Jesus follow closely along the lines of Eastern teachings from long before the time of Christ. Care to elaborate on such teachings? Do a comparison... read the 'spoken' words of Jesus... read the bloodshed and hate in the Old Testament... You say you HAVE experienced. Yet this statement alone tells me you never have! DIFFERENT Convenants! Enter through the narrow gate... Te narrow gate (and path) just represents the difference between the amount of people saved and the difficult lives they live. Just look at the persecutions of Christians by the Catholic church before the Catholic church said that all denominations of Christianity are now their "brethren"....hold, just a few hundred years ago if I said "the eucharist is SYMBOLIC" - I would be executed under vatican law. So is the hard path of the Christian. Ghandi said it best... 'I like your Christ, I just don't like your Christians.' I agree; within the CONTEXT of which Ghandi ment --> Same experience as you with the "most Christians" explanation I gave previously. I agree I DONT like either, because it puts ME in the same box and frames Jesus in a negative light. So many parables concerning what is within you... so, so many... NONE which are of crucifixion for redemption...  I dont see what point you are making here, please clarify. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Christianity's Christ...
|
|
untamed: This is quite funny.. you said: So actually, you have generalised all Christians as being judgmental..how judgemental .
Because you read not what I actually wrote... I said "most Christians" That makes no difference! You still judge "most Christians" as being judgmental, meanwhile the only reason why it seems they are majority is because there are MORE people on this world that say they are "Christian" meanwhile everything they do contradicts. So in essence you have lumped REAL Christians with 'labeled' Christians. See how it was a judgment? No problem, everyone judges. Some more than others. When I was 16 I became cognitive of my judgmental behaviour and was disgusted by how often I did it; it was a major turning point in my life. Then you make a broad-based claim that all humans need hope. Nothing is impossible with your 'God'...remember? Just think about what it would mean to be in a state where you DONT need hope. Think about it. What kind of mindset is it? What kind of belief system is running it? If you dont have hope, then you are hopeless and you will FEEL this..not a fun place to be; I've been there. But if you "dont need hope" ask yourself HOW can someone get to that belief in the 1st place? I hope you can see the flaws here. One creates what one believes one believes what one creates... Thats true, BUT it is false in the context you are making it. If you have no vested interest then why are you arguing with me? Because I know the exact mindset you are coming from and I can see how you can come to that : Christianity made Jesus the christ... not Jesus... conclusion. If I hadnt experienced what I have as a believer; I would be in the same boat as you. But because you havent experienced similar things you can only conclude on what you know/have experienced. So you are right in YOUR BELIEFS, but if you knew what I knew you would see that your current views are wrong. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
The THEORY of Evolution.
|
|
Why is it that we are supposedly have gone from simple to complex, yet when scientists find PROTOZOA on HIGHER levels of "millions of years of rock" and LARGE ANIMALS in the lower levels???? Shouldnt it be the otherway around since if you go from simple to complex; you also get BIGGER; after all that IS the idea of "evolution". Not to mention that through these "millions of years of rock" we see TREES LYING VERTICALLY THROUGH THESE "millions of years of rock"?? Why is it that these trees are JUST as preserved at the TOP as at the BOTTOM?? Shouldnt the bottom be in LESS condition since its at an "older" level of rock??? You're right Untamed, pre-suppositionist, apologetics, bible inerrancy is so much simpler than true research, where on the contrary we always have to let go of our 'prejudices' and 'pre-suppossitions'!!! Put me down for the great flood, the garden of Eden, Adam in god's image, and the fabrication of Eve out of a 'rib' from Adam's thorax... It's so much simpler this way!!! Thanks! Read "Bone of contention". and prove me wrong. but you wont. I take th effort to study things like these not because Im unsure or doubting my faith. are you the same? or are you all afraid? If I am sooooooooooooo closed minded and soooooooo misled and so "brainwashed", why not take 1 hour (bone of contention is short and sweet) and put me in my place. Go ahead. I confident that you will bring excellent points. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mon 01/21/08 09:52 AM Untamed, without the evolution (growth) of thought that naturally and normally occurs from childhood to adult life, you would not have the thought processes you have to even participate in a forum. clearly a case of influence It seems that you and I are talking about a completely different theory of evolution. Nuture (not nature) is what determines what we turn out like. not evolution. Do you not know that evolution takes "millions of years"? Your statement alone contradicts the theory. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You explanation of the evolution of the eye is completely flawed.
According to the fundamental principle of evolution; mutations, we came from simple to more complex. Now, if you have NO blood clotting system and you cut yourself; you bleed to death. So if we "evolved" to get more and more complex; tell me how did the lifeforms evolve to create the ability of blood clotting? if in order to DO this, you need to experience it right? no experience = no call to evolve into a superior species right? but if you dont have a blood clot system and you get cut, you bleed to death. Remind me, can you evolve into a stronger, fitter lifeform if you are dead? The eye "The eye is a extremely complex organ. It has the complicated system whereby light is directed to the back of the eye on to cells which are sensitive to it; it also has that even more intricate arrangement whereby the information then travels to the visual part of the brain so that we actually see someting. ... All the specialized and complex cells that make up our eyes are supposed to have evolved because of advantageous mutations in some more simple cells that were before. But what use is a hole in the front of the eye to allow light to pass through, if there are no cells at the back of the eye to recieve light? what use is a lens forming an image if there is no nervous system to interpret that image? How could a visual nervous system have evolved before there was an eye to give it infomation?" - taken from Bone of contention; Is evolution true? (by Sylvia Baker) (my emphasis) Im sorry toastedoranges, but you havent even got a missing link to stand on. the theory of evolution requires FAR MORE FAITH than any religion. THAT is JUST how unlikely it is. man, you're quite rabid. have you not learned of darwin and the finch? how the bird could change from generation to generation depending on the seeds that were deposited? "mutations" occur because they're needed. because without them the species would die out. it really doesn't take faith to see what is clearly in front of your eyes. here ya go http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html OK, so therefore by your logic/teaching of mutations male pattern baldness is a mutation? How is baldness NEEDED? What is causing this call to Change to be BALD? How will humans benefit from this? WHY are we "evolving" to have this trait?
Seriously, you think religious people follow blindly! You believe in evolution yet you dont even know the principles behind it! haha, and dont try claim that you DO, because that in itself proves you dont: if you know what evolution requires; by believing it makes you either SO stubborn or just dumb because believing in evolution is like believing in spontaneous generation (which was taught to the same level of intensity back when it was "fact" (like "evolution")). Spontaneous generation was disproved by Redi in the 17th cent by simply covering meat so that flies couldnt touch it; no eggs; no worms; no spontaneous generation. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
The THEORY of Evolution.
|
|
bolded is my emphasis.
Wow, whats that? speculation again? Just like the scientifically built 'missing link' from a tooth? this is what i find funny. religious folk getting all uppity over speculation with actual evidence before them, while all they have is blind faith SHOW ME this evidence!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
The THEORY of Evolution.
|
|
Creationists and other brands of 'believers' insist on holding this false debate about 'evolution' on the foundation of competing 'beliefs' or 'faith'!!! Other brands of 'believers', meaning those whom collapse 'reality' and a word for word interpretation of the bible, as one and the same. Through a very particular spriritual phenomenon known as revelation, some become convinced of a particular 'revealed' truth. That is what is referred to as a belief. Such a 'revealed' truth, or belief, deals with collapsing the word for word meaning of a book, as the word of 'god'. That is a revealed belief, and people are free to beleive such revelations. Regardless of the belief in the end, it remains what it is: A 'REVELATION BASED BELIEF'. Based on the intangible. Based on faith. Faith, revelations and emerging beliefs, do not belong to the 'material', physical, or factual domain. Faith, revelations, and beliefs cannot be proven, nor can they be demonstrated to be scientifically true. If they were, think of it for a moment, THEY NO LONGER WOULD BE BELIEFS, ... THEY WOULD BE HARD FACTS!!! On the opposite side of the spectrum, facts never require FAITH, nor do they require any form of REVELATIONS to be demonstrated!!! Moreover, anyone presenting as a fact, something which was based on some sort of revelation, would see this alledged 'fact' relegated to domain of belief, and religious practice. No need to feel offended!!! Facts cannot attack religious beliefs, and religious beliefs cannot attack facts. There are no common denominators to connect the two domains. No amount of insinstance on the part of false phophets claiming that their beliefs are 'facts', will change this possible god given reality, that 'evolution' will never be a matter of faith, and creationism will never be a matter of fact nor science. The confusion between fact and belief, religion and science, was possibly legitimate and excusable throughout the 'dark ages'; lack of education, lack of information, etc. In 2007, confusion is no longer possible. To insist on perverting faith into fact, and and fact into faith is downright dishonest, and litterally laced with 'BAD FAITH'.
Seriously. In order for evolution to be true you will need to have (emphasis on HAVE) actual MISSING LINKS. But you dont. When ever some scientist comes along with an idea of HOW X could have evolved its almost always stated as "this explains how X could" COULD. SPECULATION taken as TRUTH. What does THAT say about the scientific approach of tested until VALID? EVen if you DID find something that could be credible as a 'missing link', in order for it to be UNDENIABLE this what would have to be presented: Monkey - Us. Monkey -(credible missing link) - Us : this missing link ALONE will NOT be enough to prove that we have come from simple, to more complex. hence it would have to repeat[/] TWICE again: Monk (NEW credible missing link [A]) - Original credible missing link - (ANOTHRE NEW credible missing link ) - Us. And the process of finding Links between links will go on and on until it is UNDENIABLE that we evolved. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
The THEORY of Evolution.
|
|
We have witnessed the selective process in our time. So your "theory" is off by a long shot. We indeed did evolve. And we will continue to evolve. Our lifetimes are but micromilliseconds in the time on this planet. If you are going to say that creationism, or incestuous beginning of man is more a reality, I will beg to differ with you. Spare me that nonsense nessie. give me ONE missing link. Why is it that we are supposedly have gone from simple to complex, yet when scientists find PROTOZOA on HIGHER levels of "millions of years of rock" and LARGE ANIMALS in the lower levels???? Shouldnt it be the otherway around since if you go from simple to complex; you also get BIGGER; after all that IS the idea of "evolution". Not to mention that through these "millions of years of rock" we see TREES LYING VERTICALLY THROUGH THESE "millions of years of rock"?? Why is it that these trees are JUST as preserved at the TOP as at the BOTTOM?? Shouldnt the bottom be in LESS condition since its at an "older" level of rock??? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
The THEORY of Evolution.
|
|
Umm, where do you get this info? Much of it is false, for example Neanderthaul was not an arthritic old man. Neanderthaul, though not a human ancestor, was a very robust and strong species who had several remains discovered. We have more than one. Lucy, you're right, everybody agrees she was a chimp, a BI PEDAL CHIMP, in other words a chimp with our pelvis designed for walking upright. Remember, a theory is more than an educated guess, I think your definition of theory is really a hypothisis, evolution is a true scientific theory;^] I really don't want to get into this stuff, but we don't have Lucy's pelvis. We have one hip bone and a fragment of the sacral area of the pelvis. http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Agora/7951/lucy.jpg Here is an article about Oliver, a bi-pedial chimp who was once believed to be a human-chimp hybrid or even a missing link. After DNA testing, it was confirmed that he was simply a weird looking chimp. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_(chimpanzee) Now let's assume that we had enough of Lucy's skeleton to say that she was bi-pedial. That's an assumption, since we don't have enough of it's (we can't even prove the gender) skeleton to determine conclusively if it was a biped. But assuming that we could confirm that Lucy was a female and was a biped, how do we know that Lucy didn't have the same deformities that Oliver had? Is it unreasonable to assume that Lucy could be deformed just like Oliver is deformed? I guess it all comes down to what you are willing to accept at faith. bolded is my emphasis. Wow, whats that? speculation again? Just like the scientifically built 'missing link' from a tooth? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
The THEORY of Evolution.
|
|
Where do these religious freaks come from? Honestly, if you have to make up utter lies to make a case for your religious view that doesn’t say much for your religion. Clearly the religion has absolutely no merit of its own if they only way you can support it is to make up completely bogus statements about the real world just to support dogma that was clearly written by ignorant superstitious men. This is nothing short of pathetic. 
It just goes to show how desperate a dying religion can be. 
LOL Abra, Your insecurities are leaking.. If you really were content with your belief would you really feel to make such statements? If you really felt content, your reaction would be the same as a giant reacting to a dwarf attacking your shins with a tig. But here you are getting ultra defensive! Why do you feel so threatened Abra? Is this reallu such a BIG, THREATENING challenge?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
The THEORY of Evolution.
|
|
yzrabbit1,
You expect me to take any of your posts seriously when you start a thread claiming Jesus was not God by posting a out of context verse; which you claimed was state by Jesus meanwhile was actually Daniel? Why should I take anything you say as credible? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
The THEORY of Evolution.
|
|
if in order to DO this, you need to experience it right?
Wrong. And that’s your misguided thinking right there. Not much sense in reading beyond your statement quoted above because this statement shows unequivocally that you have absolutely no clue how evolution works. Therefore anything you have to say about evolution will certainly be misguided. All you did here is show that you have absolutely no clue about how evolution works. Thank you for outlining the exact amount of faith required to believe in this theory. So if evolution doesnt require something to prompt it to mutate; HOW DOES IT EVOLVE to accommodate those specific aspects??? Blood clotting just POPPED out of nowhere did it? Just like the universe? Seriously. If you had any[ clue about how evolution works you would see immediately that believing in such a theory is as LUDICROUS as believing in the long disproven theory of spontaneous generation. |
|
|
|
|
Previous
