|
|
|
|
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| ||||||||||||||||
Date: 8/23/2002 9:50:00 PM
From Authorid: 53052
there is the evolution of man.. we were taught in school on how man evolved.. i belive in evolution...i don't believe in creation... in all honesty i don't believe in god...but that is my choice  |
Date: 8/23/2002 10:11:00 PM
From Authorid: 16671
Before I log off for the night, I will just say, for the creation part. ITS not just because the bible says so, or my religion says so. However, if people would just start checking the facts. The history facts, the facts of the scrolls that were found that LINED up with the bible books. The arifacts that were dug up that are mentioned in the bible. The towns that have recently been found that are mentioned in the Bible, THE BIBLE that wrote ABOUT them 2000 or more YEARS before they found evidence of these towns. There are also writing from people in the time that Jesus was killed, that tells all about it. So Physical evidence has PROVEN the Bible in so many places and so many facts that I'm inclined to believe that the part in the bible that speaks about creation is real also. As for personal experience when using the word of God as HE has instructed, it works also. I was NOT a christian for 35 years but THERE IS NOTHING now that can convince me that the Bible is not the written word of God through man under the unction of the holy Spriit. Good night.  |
| Date: 8/23/2002 10:34:00 PM From Authorid: 42310 bilefs are dangerous, because sometimes they don't work out. A bilef first must start out as an idea. Ideas don't always work out. When something dosn't work out you should change it right? A bilef is hard to change. An idea howeaver is not. Stick with ideas and concepts. |
Date: 8/24/2002 4:46:00 AM
From Authorid: 35720
Creation of evolution.. the best of both worlds. ;)  |
Date: 8/24/2002 9:13:00 AM
From Authorid: 53500
Well for me it's lack of proof in evolution that leans toward creationism. Evolution needs proof, i.e. the missing link, creationism does not. The fact that we are here and apes are still here and the fact that there is no missing link is proof for creationism. There are quite a few scientists that believe in a grand creator of some sort. Why? Cause evolution can't be proven and the Big Bang theory can't be backtracked to zero. Also note, evolution was NEVER really considered until Darwin came around. Even ancient man believed in creationism. Yea, the same folks that built the pyramids, and charted the stars, and had advanced math and medicine, yes they all believed in creationism. So we have evolution being around only 150 years, and yet in that 150 years it's never advanced or been proven! It's time to stop riding a dead horse. (There, no mention of God or the Bible)  |
| Date: 8/24/2002 9:29:00 AM From Authorid: 55376 Evolution has been proven to the satisfaction of scientists in the field. Theory as a scientific term does not equate to the common usage of the word.Many missing links have been documented. The fact that we and apes are both here means absolutely nothing. A: We did not descend from present day Apes, just a common ancestor.B: nothing in evolution states a species and its descendant species cannot co-exist.There will never be enough evidence to convince creationists.Disproving evolution would not prove creationism nor does proving evolution prove atheism. Og |
|
Date: 8/24/2002 9:53:00 AM
From Authorid: 16671
rat town , Ideas and concepts is just a cop out against commitment. Suede: I agree, its a dead horse and thanks to darwinism concepts Hitler decided only the fit should survive, the race of the Jews was then mass murdered because of darwinism concepts. OG, The world was flat according to scientist in the field, it was PROVEN to thier satisfaction. OH WHOOPS, wrong again. |
| Date: 8/24/2002 9:59:00 AM From Authorid: 55376 Actually the belief that the world was flat has been a minority opinion among scientists since way before Columbus. The ancient Greeks knew the world was round. Actually those who were skeptical of Columbus's voyage were more concerned that Columbus was underestimating the size of the Earth.They were right.Actually it was religious zealots that promoted the concept of a flat Earth. Og |
| Date: 8/24/2002 10:02:00 AM From Authorid: 55376 The Flat Earth Society is a Christian group that still believes the Earth is flat based on a literal reading of the scriptures. Og |
| Date: 8/24/2002 10:29:00 AM From Authorid: 55376 The evils done in the name of a doctrine do not neccesarrily have any bearing on the truth of the doctrine. If so Christianity would be in big trouble. Og |
|
Date: 8/24/2002 12:10:00 PM
From Authorid: 16671
Og,is that more of your own personal numbers there? Anyone that was religiouse if they would have just read what God had written as far as even in the scrolls would have known better. Be back later. |
| Date: 8/24/2002 1:13:00 PM From Authorid: 55376 The fact is it is a myth that the majority of scientists or Christians believed in a flat earth during medieval times. This legend of a belief in a flat Earth seems to derive from Washington Irving's fictionalaccount of Christopher Columbus that we were taught in school. Most Christians accept a sperical Earth and I would say evolution also. Og |
Date: 8/24/2002 1:53:00 PM
From Authorid: 11240
Author, I read the first post and could partly agree with whomever you were "lifting", but I, like Rika, choose to term it a little differently: The evolution of His Creation. God Bless.  |
|
Date: 8/24/2002 2:02:00 PM
From Authorid: 43250
Ok here goes. The belief that the atoms of a "Big Bang" eventually produced people ALL BY THEMSELVES (that is, without any intelligent guidance) is contrary to the well-proven Second Law of Thermodynamics, and the fundamentals of Information Theory. The universe is known to be "running down" yet evolution postulates it is "building up". Atoms to people evolution is much more a "religious belief" than a scientific fact. The "geologic column", which is cited as physical evidence of evolution occurring in the past, is better explained as the result of a devastating global flood which happened about 5,000 years ago, as described in the Bible. Even evolutionists acknowledge that the fossil record is one of "fully-formed abrupt appearance" and "stasis" (that is, no change over time). Large scale change of one type of organism into another, so-called "macro-evolution", is beyond the ability of mutation coupled with natural selection to produce. Evolutionists acknowledge this is a "research issue". Even non-creation scientists (such as Denton and Behe) have written books giving the hard scientific facts that document why this is impossible. No one, including creation scientists, disputes that so-called "micro-evolution" (variation within a type of organism) caused by natural selection occurs and may be responsible for the large number of species found within a type. Almost all touted evidences for evolution are of this category (like Darwin's finches, the "peppered moth", or bacteria that become resistant to antibiotics). However, it is important to note that "micro-evolution" is a misnomer, as it implies that "a little" evolution is taking place. In actuality, NO evolution is taking place, as no increase in complexity (such as the development of a new organ) is being generated, but merely the emphasis of some already present traits over others. The "Big Bang", the most widely accepted theory of the beginning of the universe, states that everything developed from a small dense cloud of subatomic particles and radiation which exploded, forming hydrogen (and some helium) gas. Where did this energy/matter come from? How reasonable is it to assume it came into being from nothing? And even if it did come into being, what would cause it to explode? We know from common experience that explosions are destructive and lead to disorder. How reasonable is it to assume that a "big bang" explosion produced the opposite effect - increasing "information", order and the formation of useful structures, such as stars and planets, and eventually people? MI23  |
|
Date: 8/24/2002 2:04:00 PM
From Authorid: 43250
Now a little about The Second Law of Thermodynamics. The Second Law of Thermodynamics may be the most verified law of science. It states that systems become more disordered over time, unless energy is supplied and directed to create order. Evolutionists says that the opposite has taken place - that order increased over time, without any directed energy. How can this be? ASIDE: Evolutionists commonly object that the Second Law applies to closed, or isolated systems, and that the Earth is certainly not a closed system (it gets lots of raw energy from the Sun, for example). However, all systems, whether open or closed, tend to deteriorate. For example, living organisms are open systems but they all decay and die. Also, the universe in total is a closed system. To say that the chaos of the big bang has transformed itself into the human brain with its 120 trillion connections is a clear violation of the Second Law. We should also point out that the availability of raw energy to a system is a necessary but far from sufficient condition for a local decrease in entropy to occur. Certainly the application of a blow torch to bicycle parts will not result in a bicycle being assembled - only the careful application of directed energy will, such as from the hands of a person following a plan. The presence of energy from the Sun does NOT solve the evolutionist's problem of how increasing order could occur on the Earth, contrary to the Second Law. MI23 |
|
Date: 8/24/2002 4:20:00 PM
From Authorid: 55376
A misinterpretation of thermodynamics again. From Entropy,Disorder and life by John Peiper: "...what of entropy and disorder? where does that identifivation fit into the structure of thermodynamics.' "The answer is nowhere. It is not an axiom or first principle, it is not derived from other basic principles, and nowhere is it required or even used at all to do any of the science to which thermodynamics applies." No one in the field of thermodynamics believes the second law of thermodynamics has any position in the evolution argument. Og |
Date: 8/24/2002 6:15:00 PM
From Authorid: 19613
Why is it that so many people seem to believe that if the world was created by A God it does not proove anything about the nature of the being who created it.  |
|
Date: 8/24/2002 6:15:00 PM
From Authorid: 19613
Wlel, i didn't exactly phrase that right, but you know what i mean. |
|
Date: 8/25/2002 5:46:00 PM
From Authorid: 43250
Well if The Second Law of Thermodynamics does not apply, then tell us why? Since The Second Law says that the most probable state for any natural system is one of disorder. So how then could simple materials come together and form more complex materials and the process continue overtime yet never break down? And why do we not see evolution going on today? MI23 |
|
Date: 8/26/2002 7:31:00 AM
From Authorid: 53500
OG, Please show the "missing link". Also, if "modern day" apes and humans share a common ancestor, what is it? AND, why did some evolve into humans and others into apes? Also please explain the evolution of the eye and site examples of every evolutionary stage. (Hint: there aren't any.) |
| Date: 8/26/2002 10:56:00 AM From Authorid: 54196 I showed you that repeatedly, Suede. Og nor I cannot help it if you don't like to listen. |
| Date: 8/26/2002 10:58:00 AM From Authorid: 54196 1 There are tons of missing links. They just don't fit your creationist fantasy about what they SHOULD look like. 2 Why some humans and others apes? DUH. BASIC EVOLUTIONARY EDICTS HERE, if you ever actually paid attention to anything we said rather than planning your next POINTLESS attack, is environmental differences. We evolved brains because we weren't under duress to remain strong. Intelligence made more sense. 3 PHOTOSENSATIVE CELLS. Look, I won AGAIN. |
|
Date: 8/26/2002 11:27:00 AM
From Authorid: 53500
OG<< Missing links found, tons of em? You mean Lucy? Even scientists put that as a distant relative, not a missing link. Besides, wasn't one of those missing links eventually an admitted fraud? Enviroment causes adapation, not evolution. By your case, Africans and Eskimos should be two entirely different beings. They after all, are in two completely different enviroments. Remember, evolution is the process by which something becomes something else. Africans and Eskimos are still humans. Also, so if I leave a dog in the sun long enough, does it become a lizard? Photosensitive cells, like the ones found on flukes (no pun intended) are NOT EYES. The are nerve endings, like the ones in our skin that pick up varying temps. The fact is, eyes CANNOT evolve. They either see, or they do not see. They would serve NO other function beyond sight. Remember, evolution is something becoming something else. Did we breathe through our eyes at one point? Looks like I win, AGAIN. SUEDE |
| Date: 8/26/2002 11:42:00 AM From Authorid: 54196 "The process by which something becomes something else"? That is so obscure and absurd that it's not even worth debating. What is the difference, scientifically, SUEDE, between SOMETHING and SOMETHING ELSE? I want nothing but scientific terms used here, too. Proceed. |
| Date: 8/26/2002 11:42:00 AM From Authorid: 54196 EYES ARE BUNDLES OF NERVES? Are you that misinformed? |
| Date: 8/26/2002 11:45:00 AM From Authorid: 54196 Even with my eyes closed, I can see light. Why is that? Organized light sensativity CAN evolve as has been shown by the recent advancements in sight repair. We've given a man, with NO EYES AT ALL, the ability to see. How? By organizing his brain's perception of light through direct stimulation of his brain's neurons. Evolution would take longer, but would be able to have the same results. You're arguing with false pretenses and it makes it difficult to have a meaningful debate. |
|
Date: 8/26/2002 11:58:00 AM
From Authorid: 53500
Og, the difference between something and something else, living, is DNA. <My scientific term. Yet you say that the enviroment can completely alter DNA? Eyes give you sight, the ablitity to see things. Picking up light and dark is not seeing things. It is picking up the presence or absence of light. One would still not be able to see their own hand in front of their face. SUEDE |
| Date: 8/26/2002 12:06:00 PM From Authorid: 54196 Ah, finally, the difference is DNA. Okay, then, Suede. Evolution is definitively proven by the mule (horse/donkey) and the cama (camel/llama). Two seperate and different creatures, having sexual relations to create a third, totally unrelated animal. And this isn't Og, Suede. It's Loserpunk. |
| Date: 8/26/2002 12:10:00 PM From Authorid: 54196 Oh, and you lose AGAIN. SEEING is NOTHING BUT picking up light. What is seeing, then, exactly? Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's those photosensative cells you have called EYES that collect visible light and send signals to your brain that INTERPRETS them and creates "sight". Your eyes are nothing more than lenses. |
|
Date: 8/26/2002 12:27:00 PM
From Authorid: 53500
Loserpunk, Sorry bud, same families of animals. You also forgot the Liger, a lion and tiger cross, and the countless of other family relations. A Poodle and Great Dane, same families, yet different. But they are the same families. Now, if you can get a whale and a flamingo to cross breed, you'd have one heck of pink flying mammal! Ah, alas, this is breeding, or the science of genetics, not evolution. Back to the topic at hand, eyes are able to pick up light, I totally agree with you on that, WOW! BUT, they are also able to show the object being viewed. Light sensors don't do this. Ain't science fun? SUEDE |
| Date: 8/26/2002 12:30:00 PM From Authorid: 54196 No no no no no. Hold on, not that fast. Same FAMILIES? Their DNA is DIFFERENT. That was your argument. Different DNA. I showed that, so then you changed your definition. Now I have to provide evidence of changing of FAMILIES? You're changing the rules in the middle of the game. |
|
Date: 8/26/2002 12:32:00 PM
From Authorid: 54196
Nevermind. By your OWN admittal, you LOSE look: Family CERVIDAE - Deer, Elk, Moose and allies (Llama) Family CAMELIDAE - Camels and allies (CAMELS) Please admit, NOW, suede, or this debate is over, that you, according to your own rules ARE WRONG. Now. |
| Date: 8/26/2002 12:34:00 PM From Authorid: 54196 Arg. Screwed that up. Nevermind. |
| Date: 8/26/2002 12:39:00 PM From Authorid: 54196 I get confused easily. One of those side effects from having my grandfather be a monkey. |
| Date: 8/26/2002 12:40:00 PM From Authorid: 54196 Evolution happens through breeding. It's very difficult, you know, to debate someone who has little actual understanding of the theory, who only argues propaganda that he has been given, rather than intuitively or factually questioning my premise. |
Date: 8/26/2002 12:49:00 PM
From Authorid: 24924
*Raises glass to loserpunk* ^^ You said it right! Cheers.  |
| Date: 8/26/2002 1:11:00 PM From Authorid: 54196 I knew you'd agree with that statement, Thinker, without any verbal (or textual?) confirmation from you! :) |
|
Date: 8/26/2002 1:11:00 PM
From Authorid: 53500
Well families ain't the right word then, but you know what I mean. Species, genus, whatever. Again, evolution, the process of something evolving into something else, a NEW creature. Fish to reptiles, reptiles to birds, etc. <That is evolution. You are still speaking in the proven world of GENETICS. If a black and white person get together, what do they have. A human! It may look a bit different, but it's still a human being. Tigers and lions, still cats. This all still genetics. You know another arguement against evolution is the fact that the planets and.. oh wait, that's astronomy. Sorry if you think I'm uniformed "monkey boys".<Please take no offense, just repeating Loser punk here, very funny by the way. That's too bad. Again, I agree with genetics, I agree with adapation through the enviroment among other things. I don't agree with evolution. Hi Thinker! *waves hand widly* Hugs and Kisses to you XOXOXO! Well, may God bless the evolutionists! Thanks for keeping the humor around loserpunk! I guess we can finally agree....to disagree. SUEDE |
| Date: 8/26/2002 1:18:00 PM From Authorid: 54196 We agreed to that a LONG time ago, Suede. :) Cheers all round, even to my woefully misinformed creationist puppets! |
|
Date: 8/26/2002 1:20:00 PM
From Authorid: 53500
Uh, I'm more of a muppet. I'm more liked an evolved mop. Take care. SUEDE |
| Date: 8/26/2002 3:12:00 PM From Authorid: 55376 I have already given many examples of links between species in a previous debate. Thousands of missing links are in the fossil record. There is no half-human half ape which creationists seem to require as a missing link. Og |
|
Date: 8/26/2002 4:31:00 PM
From Authorid: 53500
Og, sorry, I don't buy the missing links that have been put forth, besides, at least one was a known hoax. Don't assume I'm unschooled either, I honestly used to want to be a palentologist, I've done my share of research. Extinction of certain creatures doesn't prove evolution. So what you are calling missing links are simply other creatures that have died out. Let me ask you this, creationism and evolution aside along with God and science. What if someone simply asked your soul, "Ok, we can either give you a body created after an ape, or we can give you a body created after a god. Which one do you want?" SUEDE |
| Date: 8/26/2002 6:42:00 PM From Authorid: 55376 Yes, Christian apoligists claim there are no missing links and then when they are provided they do not accept them. Some still believe in a flat Earth, they set the burden of proof beyond what a reasonable, non-biased individual would. Og |
|
Date: 8/26/2002 10:49:00 PM
From Authorid: 43250
So were are the missing links? MI23 |
|
Date: 8/27/2002 6:55:00 AM
From Authorid: 53500
Og, again, I see no missing links, nor do I hear any scientists saying, yes, this IS THE missing link. Also, it's funny that people view the earth as flat, the Bible mentions it be circular. Eh, go figure. Oh well, I guess put your faith in what you will, I will put my faith in what I will. Take care, SUEDE. |
| Date: 8/27/2002 7:36:00 AM From Authorid: 54196 You have a knack for asking the most INNANE questions I've ever heard. You're going to ask my soul if I'd rather be a monkey or a god. Hmmm... |
|
Date: 8/27/2002 8:15:00 AM
From Authorid: 53500
Well loserpunk, speak up and be counted. Monkey man or in the image of a/the god? Which is it. Personally I'd rather be created in the image of God, but that's just me. SUEDE |
| Date: 8/27/2002 9:17:00 AM From Authorid: 55376 What you would prefer, has no basis in reality. I would prefer to be fishing right now.The Bible is NOW interpreted as saying the Earth was round. The Hebrews believed the Earth was flat,with a spherical dome containing the atmosphere. Og |
|
Date: 8/27/2002 9:26:00 AM
From Authorid: 53500
Og, not according to Isaiah. Not speaking of the atmosphere, but the earth itself, noted to be circular in the Book of Isaiah. SUEDE |
| Date: 8/27/2002 9:43:00 AM From Authorid: 55376 Give me the exact verse,Suede. Og |
| Date: 8/27/2002 9:53:00 AM From Authorid: 54196 Monkeys are God. Your point is moot. No seriously, though, Suede, are you going to actually contend that you don't recognize the couple of thousands of similiarities between you and the other simians? Gimme a break. Whether you like it or not, we look like monkeys. |
| Date: 8/27/2002 9:54:00 AM From Authorid: 54196 Which means that YOUR GOD looks like a monkey! |
|
Date: 8/27/2002 9:56:00 AM
From Authorid: 53500
Alrighty, there you go folks. Monkeys are gods! See, evolution isn't completely devoid of religion. LOL SUEDE |
| Date: 8/27/2002 10:55:00 AM From Authorid: 55376 Speak for yourself,Loser Punk. Og |
| Date: 8/27/2002 11:08:00 AM From Authorid: 54196 In reality, my god has a startling resemblance to the Olsen twins... |
|
Date: 8/27/2002 12:53:00 PM
From Authorid: 53500
Well looks like your god won't be legal til 2004. SUEDE |
|
Date: 8/27/2002 1:13:00 PM
From Authorid: 43250
Once again were is the missing link? I have looked and can find no proof that there is a missing link between man and ape. So were is it? MI23 |
| Date: 8/27/2002 1:38:00 PM From Authorid: 54196 Nice to see that you're keeping track, Suede. Any reason why? MI23, we don't need loads of fossil record evidence. It's plain as day, as evidenced by our stunning amounts of similarities, physically, socially and genetically to other simians. To deny the evidence is just stubbornness. |
|
Date: 8/27/2002 1:46:00 PM
From Authorid: 53500
Loserpunk<<< Ah, they're cuties, but I remember them in diapers. It really adds to the creepiness factor. But they seem nice and basically genuine. I know a lot of guys, especially online that are just dying for, eh March? 2004 to get here. Like they have chance. LOL SUEDE |
| Date: 8/27/2002 1:57:00 PM From Authorid: 55376 Homo Habilis is one missing link. Og |
| Date: 8/27/2002 2:20:00 PM From Authorid: 54196 Well, still only 21 over here. It's not exactly disgusting for me to desire 16 year olds. :) |
| Date: 8/27/2002 2:52:00 PM ( From Author ) From Authorid: 61830 For a more up to date "missing link" turn to last months National Geographic. It is all in there. |
Date: 8/27/2002 9:25:00 PM
From Authorid: 34476
Some would say that I am a missing link, of sorts :D  |
| Date: 8/27/2002 9:29:00 PM From Authorid: 55376 That wasn't me saying that,Paranoid. Og |
|
Date: 8/28/2002 6:40:00 AM
From Authorid: 53500
Yea, I one time saw a guy wearing a tank top and he had hairy shoulders. I instantly thought of him as the missing link. If only I had had my tranquilizer gun..... Loserpunk<< Well I'm no old man, but I'm not 21 either. SO, looking at 16 year old girls, is a bit odd. I guess once they pass the 21 mark it will be ok though! Let's see here, ok they'll be 21 so I'll be....Yea, it could work. SUEDE |
| Date: 8/28/2002 8:06:00 AM From Authorid: 54196 All you need to be is rich or famous. |
|
Date: 8/28/2002 8:50:00 AM
From Authorid: 53500
Well let's see here..I'm..uh...well if factor that in...ok....uh...Let's just say I'm realistic! Besides, I'm married, so I wouldn't even go after them in real life. Now in my dreams though, I do sometimes dream of being rich and famous so.....Mary Kate Suede? SUEDE |
| Date: 8/28/2002 12:24:00 PM ( From Author ) From Authorid: 61830 LMAO Suede! Ha! Well, I think that if the goal is to be rich and famous, I am going to be SORELY mistaken! (being an anthropolgy major, we don't make much money) |
|
Date: 8/29/2002 7:05:00 AM
From Authorid: 53500
Well you need to go where you'll be happy. Gosh, if I were to ever go back to school, it wouldn't be to get a money making type of degree! SUEDE |
Renasoft is the proud sponsor of the Unsolved Mystery Publications website.
See: www.rensoft.com Personal Site server, Power to build Personal Web Sites and Personal Web Pages
All stories are copyright protected and may not be reproduced in any form, except by specific written authorization
Other Cool Sites:
demo.thecommunitywatch.com
demo.myusm.com
demo.personalsitecreator.com
demo.usmpg.com
demo.unsolvedmysteries.com
demo.aaez.com
demo.ourfamilybonds.net
demo.easyrlty.com
demo.myonlyebay.com
demo.encyclopedia-of-knowledge.com
Awesome Free Web Graphics
Favorite Grapic Quotes
Greetings in Glittery Text
Your name in Glittery Text
www.thehomebusinessindex.com
www.diet-food-weightloss-health.com
www.investingandinvestments.com
www.cancerinformationworld.com
www.datinglovematchmaking.com
www.creditinformationworld.com
www.insurancelinksdirect.com
www.ilovemysteries.com
www.casinopokergambleing.com
www.make-money-while-sleeping.com
www.vacation-travel-cruse-deals-information.com
.
