I agree that the ISP should offer filters that the user can configure...so that if you are a sicko you can still be a sick perv...as long as your "free speech" isn't impeded, but parents can keep this away from their children...It should be adopted country wide.
I'm pretty sure this is going to be my last post on this topic. It's pretty much because I don't have the time to continue posting. All i want is whoever is reading this to go here and read this article. It explains how the length of evolution can't be as long as some scientists say.
I'm pretty sure this is going to be my last post on this topic. It's pretty much because I don't have the time to continue posting. All i want is whoever is reading this to go here and read this article. It explains how the length of evolution can't be as long as some scientists say.
we don't know yet...well u've had quite the time to work on it...
"Ah, so you don't *have* any answers then. That's OK, I understand."
i'll get right on it...
o wait if you don't know where it came from...then you have no begining... good job working out the middle though...
"Evolution has a great deal of observed evidence on how this happened over billions of years. "
A great deal of evidence? Then how come I've never seen any? Please some me some evidence of it. I'd love to see it. Observed evidence? Who observed it?
"I suggest next time you are sick, that you go to a hospital in Montreal. You will experience mutation first hand by the name of C. defacile, a bacterium that has mutated to become anti-boitic resistant."
A bacterium cell that's become resistant isn't a mutation. Why do you think that people get a shot for the chicken pox? So that they will become resistant to it. That's not a mutation...it's resistance. It's like saying that our cells mutated after we got the shot from the dr.'s office for the chicken pox.
"Ah yes the old "God of the Gaps" argument. Seems no matter how many times transitional fossils are found, creationist always revert to the "what about the transition between those?""
Show me an ape-man. That's a reallly important link...yet has anyone seen one? No. There's been loads of fake and people really trying to pretend that they've found it, but they've all come out as a farse.
"But to indugle your strawman attack, just because we don't yet have the evidence or the explaination doesn't mean that its God."
Back to the evidence. You just contradicted yourself. And I quote you:
"Evolution has a great deal of observed evidence on how this happened over billions of years."
"There is a great deal of evidence for evolution and none for creationism."
and later in this same comment you say:
""But to indugle your strawman attack, just because we don't yet have the evidence or the explaination doesn't mean that its God.""
It sounds to me that you are trying to convice yourself that there isn't a God.
"I give credibility to the observed fact rather than one religion's particular creation myth."
Observed fact? Who was there 10 billion years ago, or whenever you believe evolution took place? Where you there? Did you see it?
"Sorry, but based on available, measurable evidence, creationism is wrong."
"Evolution is something people choose to believe based on evidence. Evolution is provable and the evidence is appearing all the time."
This elusive evidence is talked about so often in this comment, yet hasn't been shown.
"People choose to believe in Creationism becasue they want it to be true, because they psychologically need there to be a god to take care of them. Wishing it doesn't make it so. Proving it does."
It takes more faith to believe that we came from some dust and gravity than to believe that there is a God that made us. You seem to be denying God an awful lot...are you mad at God for something? Or are you just an atheist who doesn't believe in God so that you can do whatever you want without consequences?
"Creationism will become science when it has evidence and can be proven. Until then it is myth and should not be taught in scienc calssrooms because it is not true."
Evidence? How about the way that your eyes and ears are made? They can't evolve. They need everything the way that it is right now for them to be able to work. If they evolved you couldn't read this right now.
"BTW, try reading things other than Yancey and Josh Mac Dowell."
Do you have something against those books? Even though they are good authors, I do read more than just them.
Is creation or evolution more credible? In order for an opinion about something to be credible, it must adequately explain the existing evidence. This is especially true for ideas about the long ago past.
Who saw it? Let's keep in mind that no one saw the origin's events; there are no living eyewitnesses. (Actually, there is one Eyewitness, and He wrote a Book about it, but this Testimony has been ruled inadmissible by opponents of His view.) We must try as honestly as we can to reconstruct the past by studying the evidence in the present and the results of past events.
Living organisms. We can look at living organisms and see that they are incredibly complex, with well-designed, interdependent parts, each aspect far beyond our own human ability to understand fully, let alone duplicate. Each living thing is governed and energized by the information-loaded DNA molecule, consisting of myriads of genes and proteins of intense precision, each doing its job and each depending on the other to do its job. Evolutionists say it all happened in a step-by-step sequence by a totally random process. Creationists say it was designed.
Mutations. Never has a truly beneficial mutation been observed, a random alteration which produces a new and better gene. Creation teaches that there shouldn't be, evolutionists assure us there have been billions and billions, but they are still looking for an example. What is needed is new and increased information in the DNA information code, but all science can show is that over time information is lost in such a system. Creationists point to the never-violated Second Law of Thermodynamics--the scientific law of increasing disorder over time--while evolutionists continue to maintain that certain chemical reactions produce order that changes ameba-to-man. This spontaneous generation has long ago been disproved, but evolutionists say it happened at least once. (But they were not there.)
Transitional links. The fossil record is overflowing with "gaps"--no organisms bridging the span between basic categories have ever been found. Creationists say such organisms never existed, and there shouldn't be any transitional fossils. Evolutionists explain this lack of transitional links away by punctuated equilibrium (evolution happened faster at different times during these transitional link periods) and hope to find them someday.
Evolutionists spend great effort to propose mathematical models for the Big Bang. The evidence consists of varied points of light that don't move, that change only when they destroy themselves. Never do we see stars evolving from gas. Evolutionists, in order to save their mathematical models, propose imaginary cold, dark matter comprising 90% of the mass of the universe. The search for black holes continues. Millions are spent in a vain attempt to find extraterrestrial life for which there is no clue. But the evidence can much more easily be understood within the context of a created universe, with each star differing from the other.
Neither the evolutionary or creationist view of life can be proved in a concrete sense with mountains of hard evidence. But when the two competing historical views are looked at--creation is far more credible.
II. TWO BASIC WORLDVIEWS
The creationist worldview says that God made the universe about six thousand years ago. The evolutionist worldview teaches that the universe made itself from nothing about twenty billion years ago. One of these opposing worldviews obviously is wrong.
The entire theory of evolution is built upon the faulty assumption that the origin of the universe was "billions of years ago" Questions to ask evolutionists: 1. In the Big Bang, what exploded? And where did it come from? When they admit they don't know, ask, "Which is easier to believe: 'In the beginning God,' or 'In the beginning Dirt'?" 2. Do you believe in spontaneous generation (life coming from nonliving matter)?
Slashdot Mirror
SWEET!! where can I buy one??
I agree that the ISP should offer filters that the user can configure...so that if you are a sicko you can still be a sick perv...as long as your "free speech" isn't impeded, but parents can keep this away from their children...It should be adopted country wide.
also check this site for the rebuttals to your points.
http://www.icr.org/faqs/
Sorry it took so long for me to post.
I'm pretty sure this is going to be my last post on this topic. It's pretty much because I don't have the time to continue posting. All i want is whoever is reading this to go here and read this article. It explains how the length of evolution can't be as long as some scientists say.
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-082.htm
and this site rebuttals most of the statements that have been made about evolving bacteria and the such.
http://www.icr.org/faqs/
I'm pretty sure this is going to be my last post on this topic. It's pretty much because I don't have the time to continue posting. All i want is whoever is reading this to go here and read this article. It explains how the length of evolution can't be as long as some scientists say.
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-082.htm
we don't know yet...well u've had quite the time to work on it... "Ah, so you don't *have* any answers then. That's OK, I understand." i'll get right on it... o wait if you don't know where it came from...then you have no begining... good job working out the middle though...
good job avoiding the questions that would prove your point wrong. alright just one question then:
1. Where did the matter that evolved come from?
Answer that.
"Evolutionists spend great effort to propose mathematical models for the Big Bang.
Evolution hasn't got a goddamned thing to do with the Big Bang. You're starting to look like an idiot."
if you don't believe in the big bang theory then where did the matter and gravitiy come from? aliens???
"23. Do you honestly believe that everything came from nothing?"
"Number 23: No, fool."
then where did it come from?
I could fill out an answer to all your questions but these ones should finished off the thread.
yes I love Switchfoot and yes...they are awesome.
"Evolution has a great deal of observed evidence on how this happened over billions of years. "
A great deal of evidence? Then how come I've never seen any? Please some me some evidence of it. I'd love to see it. Observed evidence? Who observed it?
"I suggest next time you are sick, that you go to a hospital in Montreal. You will experience mutation first hand by the name of C. defacile, a bacterium that has mutated to become anti-boitic resistant."
A bacterium cell that's become resistant isn't a mutation. Why do you think that people get a shot for the chicken pox? So that they will become resistant to it. That's not a mutation...it's resistance. It's like saying that our cells mutated after we got the shot from the dr.'s office for the chicken pox.
"Ah yes the old "God of the Gaps" argument. Seems no matter how many times transitional fossils are found, creationist always revert to the "what about the transition between those?""
Show me an ape-man. That's a reallly important link...yet has anyone seen one? No. There's been loads of fake and people really trying to pretend that they've found it, but they've all come out as a farse.
"But to indugle your strawman attack, just because we don't yet have the evidence or the explaination doesn't mean that its God."
Back to the evidence. You just contradicted yourself. And I quote you:
"Evolution has a great deal of observed evidence on how this happened over billions of years."
"There is a great deal of evidence for evolution and none for creationism."
and later in this same comment you say:
""But to indugle your strawman attack, just because we don't yet have the evidence or the explaination doesn't mean that its God.""
It sounds to me that you are trying to convice yourself that there isn't a God.
"I give credibility to the observed fact rather than one religion's particular creation myth."
Observed fact? Who was there 10 billion years ago, or whenever you believe evolution took place? Where you there? Did you see it?
"Sorry, but based on available, measurable evidence, creationism is wrong."
"Evolution is something people choose to believe based on evidence. Evolution is provable and the evidence is appearing all the time."
This elusive evidence is talked about so often in this comment, yet hasn't been shown.
"People choose to believe in Creationism becasue they want it to be true, because they psychologically need there to be a god to take care of them. Wishing it doesn't make it so. Proving it does."
It takes more faith to believe that we came from some dust and gravity than to believe that there is a God that made us. You seem to be denying God an awful lot...are you mad at God for something? Or are you just an atheist who doesn't believe in God so that you can do whatever you want without consequences?
"Creationism will become science when it has evidence and can be proven. Until then it is myth and should not be taught in scienc calssrooms because it is not true."
Evidence? How about the way that your eyes and ears are made? They can't evolve. They need everything the way that it is right now for them to be able to work. If they evolved you couldn't read this right now.
"BTW, try reading things other than Yancey and Josh Mac Dowell."
Do you have something against those books? Even though they are good authors, I do read more than just them.
WHAT IS THE CREDIBILITY OF THE EVIDENCE?
Is creation or evolution more credible? In order for an opinion about something to be credible, it must adequately explain the existing evidence. This is especially true for ideas about the long ago past.
Who saw it? Let's keep in mind that no one saw the origin's events; there are no living eyewitnesses. (Actually, there is one Eyewitness, and He wrote a Book about it, but this Testimony has been ruled inadmissible by opponents of His view.) We must try as honestly as we can to reconstruct the past by studying the evidence in the present and the results of past events.
Living organisms. We can look at living organisms and see that they are incredibly complex, with well-designed, interdependent parts, each aspect far beyond our own human ability to understand fully, let alone duplicate. Each living thing is governed and energized by the information-loaded DNA molecule, consisting of myriads of genes and proteins of intense precision, each doing its job and each depending on the other to do its job. Evolutionists say it all happened in a step-by-step sequence by a totally random process. Creationists say it was designed.
Mutations. Never has a truly beneficial mutation been observed, a random alteration which produces a new and better gene. Creation teaches that there shouldn't be, evolutionists assure us there have been billions and billions, but they are still looking for an example. What is needed is new and increased information in the DNA information code, but all science can show is that over time information is lost in such a system. Creationists point to the never-violated Second Law of Thermodynamics--the scientific law of increasing disorder over time--while evolutionists continue to maintain that certain chemical reactions produce order that changes ameba-to-man. This spontaneous generation has long ago been disproved, but evolutionists say it happened at least once. (But they were not there.)
Transitional links. The fossil record is overflowing with "gaps"--no organisms bridging the span between basic categories have ever been found. Creationists say such organisms never existed, and there shouldn't be any transitional fossils. Evolutionists explain this lack of transitional links away by punctuated equilibrium (evolution happened faster at different times during these transitional link periods) and hope to find them someday.
Evolutionists spend great effort to propose mathematical models for the Big Bang. The evidence consists of varied points of light that don't move, that change only when they destroy themselves. Never do we see stars evolving from gas. Evolutionists, in order to save their mathematical models, propose imaginary cold, dark matter comprising 90% of the mass of the universe. The search for black holes continues. Millions are spent in a vain attempt to find extraterrestrial life for which there is no clue. But the evidence can much more easily be understood within the context of a created universe, with each star differing from the other.
Neither the evolutionary or creationist view of life can be proved in a concrete sense with mountains of hard evidence. But when the two competing historical views are looked at--creation is far more credible.
II. TWO BASIC WORLDVIEWS
The creationist worldview says that God made the universe about six thousand years ago. The evolutionist worldview teaches that the universe made itself from nothing about twenty billion years ago. One of these opposing worldviews obviously is wrong.
The entire theory of evolution is built upon the faulty assumption that the origin of the universe was "billions of years ago"
Questions to ask evolutionists:
1. In the Big Bang, what exploded? And where did it come from? When they admit they don't know, ask, "Which is easier to believe: 'In the beginning God,' or 'In the beginning Dirt'?"
2. Do you believe in spontaneous generation (life coming from nonliving matter)?