You will never "prove" the conditions of primordial earth and the genesis of life.
Your inability to accept THAT knowledge despite the fact that it is REALITY is all YOUR fault.
Bottom line is that without the universal, the particulars have ZERO meaning. You strive to make the 'universal' an impersonal combination of time + chance.
That, my friend, is (to quote a foolish barb tossed my way) the masturbatory cul-de-sac from which you will never escape, until (if you're lucky) you go insane like Nietsche.
^ whenever you see that statement or its variants, someone is about to be disrespected. =)
"You won't see me there, because I don't believe in that fairy tale crap"
My three year old covers his eyes and says come find me, since he believes that if he can't see me, I can't see him. Your intellect (and argument) is damn near identical.
"an experiment that simulated hypothetical conditions" "It is now believed that Earth's original atmosphere did not contain as large a quantity of reducing molecules as was thought at the time" "Originally it was thought that... However, it is likely" "More recent results may have called this into question, however" "the early atmosphere of Earth could have contained" "The escape of hydrogen from Earth's atmosphere into space may have occurred at only 1% of the rate ***previously believed***" "I think this study makes the experiments by Miller and others relevant again" "lightning storms are thought to have been very common in the primordial atmosphere" "it is likely"
Those are the FAITH statements/guesses/hopes that I found before I bored of the Wiki piece cited. You "scientists" have WAAAAAY more "faith" than any fundie.
"Everytime a discovery is made, God is displaced from his question answering place and accurate knowledge takes his place."
Actually, it is far more prevalent and accurate to state that everytime a discovery is made, we throw out all of the "accurate knowledge" we THOUGHT we had and start over from scratch again.
Space and time do not permit me to enunciate the bajillion times the "next" discovery changed everything we THOUGHT we KNEW. Take "dark matter", for instance (in an accompanying/. article). How about the recent story that "constants" like the speed of light and gravity might not be so constant after all?
It's this "know-it-all-while-actually-knowing-jack-shit" attitude that makes the creationist chuckle. You'll change ALL of your story as soon as it's convenient, just never, EVER meditate on the possibility (probability) that there just might be someone to answer to at the end of this ride we call life. =)
"Fossil records have shown which creatures were the ancestors of modern day species."
You mean "we found a skeleton that doesn't fit into anything we recognize today, so we'll slot it here in this irritating gap in our 'record' and pretend we found something new"?
Is that what you mean by fossil record? The whole "we date the rocks by the fossils we find in them" and "we date the fossils by the rocks we found them in" circular reasoning?
I guess my response to both arguments you state would be the same...white or brown seal, it's still a seal. No matter the trait of the dog, it's still a dog. "Evolution" does nothing to explain species. The "common ancestor" of a fish and a bird (for example) is as much _mythology_ to a "creationist" as "God" is to an atheis...er, scientist. =)
You argument does NOTHING to address how so many varied species evolved from a common ancestor.
No matter how much "genetic change" occurs over the milennia, oddly enough, every woman has a HUMAN child. When a woman gives birth to a GOAT or an OCTOPUS, perhaps you will have an argument. Until then, you have a lot of self-aggrandizing nonsense.
Thoughtful Christians do not discount or deny the existence of adaption (what you are describing and calling "evolution". Species adapt to their environments on a gentic level over time, sure. They don't become entirely new species no matter how long you let them go. When a dog grows a tentacle, or when a sheep grows wings, perhaps you'll have a point.
1. Since it is genetically impossible for a dog to give birth to a cat, or a bird to lay an egg from which a frog pops out, etc etc (species reproduce "after their kind"), and since evolutionary theory dictates (as far as I understand it) that the forks/mutations in species occur over millions of years, how can they occur at all in a species that doesn't live past a few decades? A dog lives what, 10-15 years? How much genetic adaptation to it's environent can it make in 10-15 years, to a point that a passes down a "new" trait to it's progeny?
2. I have never read ANY scientific article about evolution that did not contain a PLETHORA of "we think", "we believe", "it seems likely", "theoretically", and similar FAITH statements in abundance, and at the same time contained almost NO *definitive* statements at all. Why is your faith in the "scientific method" or in the "latest research" any more _noble_ than another's faith in God? You're simply replacing a faith in something you know you can't control/understand with a faith in something that you HOPE to SOMEDAY control/understand.
That seems pretty desperate, to me. Almost as desperate as blaming "fundies" for the ills of America without being able to state what a "fundie" believes. Much like the cynic who states that the Bible is "full of errors and contradictions" without being able to name one. In the rare event that one can parrot the "error" they heard of secondhand, when a reasoned and logical explanation is made of the supposed "error", the universal response is to ignore/poo poo the explanation and demand a far more empirical _evidence_ than they would ever demand of the latest hot air blowing out of Berkeley or Oxford.
I've never seen evidence of any 'missing link' of ANY species. When a "new" species is discovered, how can one empirically state that it wasn't ALWAYS here, and just gone unidentified til now? Does the difference between a doberman and a cocker spaniel qualify as "proof" of evolutionary thory? I see many posts here that refer to "mountains of evidence" for evolution, but I, as an "uneducated laymen" can poke as many (if not more) holes in that evidence as any cynic can poke in the Bible. So let's cut the bullshit. =) Self-worshipping people like (and vehemently pursue and guard) theories that suggest they are 'superior' and prevent any ACCOUNTABILITY for what they believe.
...is the sorriest excuse for a newspaper in North America. People with IQs above 13 who live in southeastern Wisconsin get one of the Chicago papers or another out-of-state pub (NYT or even -gasp- USA Today).
I have never made it through 3 pages of the Journal without seeing either typos, inaccurate information, or blatant gerrymandering of facts.
If the Journal said that all students would get free laptops, I'd invest in an abacus company and prepare for the Golden Age of Retro Math.
Scientists ***believe*** the previously unknown species was in the process of converting to vegetarianism from a rather more bloodthirsty diet.
Falcarius utahensis ***seems to represent*** an intermediate stage between a carnivorous and herbivorous form.
The creature, which lived about 125 million years ago, provides a "missing link" in dinosaur evolution. (Wish, Hope, Pray, BELIEVE!)
scientists cannot be entirely sure what it ate itself.
The adult dinosaur walked on two legs, was about 4m long (13ft) and stood 1.4m tall (4.5ft). It also had a woolly feather-like plumage and sharp, curved 10cm-long (4-inch) claws. (Of course, these are blind guesses based upon no empirical fact)
These formidable talons were probably a hang-over from the dinosaur's ferocious past, the researchers say, and may not have had a function in its more sedate new lifestyle. (i.e. we just try to avoid saying "I don't know")
Falcarius shared an - as yet undiscovered - ancestor with the Velociraptor, which was ***almost certainly*** a fleet-footed, small-bodied predator, the researchers ***believe***.
At some point, two major groups of dinosaurs split from their carnivorous cousins and shifted into plant-eating. But until now, the intermediate stages of this process remained a mystery. (Because it's a bunch of GUESSING and WISHING)
"With Falcarius, we have actual fossil evidence of a major dietary shift, certainly the best example documented among dinosaurs," said Dr Sampson. "This little beast is the missing link between small-bodied predatory dinosaurs and the highly specialised and bizarre plant-eating therizinosaurs." (Stated as fact, verified by none)
Although the team cannot know whether Falcarius was a committed vegetarian - it may have eaten a bit of meat, too - its emergence did coincide neatly with the evolution of flowering plants. (and if it didn't, we'd just move a few dates a few million years so that we have a "workable" theory)
"Mass mortalities are known in a number of dinosaur groups," said Dr Sampson. "In this case, it is difficult to work out what happened. It could have been a spring which dried up, and the dinosaurs died of thirst. "Or organic poisons could have contaminated the water - it is hard to know for sure." (But we'll keep publishing guesswork that we *hope* sounds intelligent as long as the research grants keep a flowin')
So, in summary...we don't *know* anything, but we guess a lot. Anything but believe the Bible. Our own fantasies are MUCH more plausible, to *us*.
The "normal" slashdot crowd mocks and scorns "religion", but seriously...is this not a belief system? Sure it is. Just admit it. You'll believe anything if it was written by a rockhead with "PhD" in his sig...
"One, if a literal interpretation of the Bible is correct, what about all these fossils?"
Creationists believe that the Flood explains the fossil record. Scripture clearly indicates that the climate of the earth, and thus is various ecosystems, were vastly different in the PreDeluvian world. There was no rain...water rose from the earth, according to Genesis. The problem is that the highly educated are *usually* highly ignorant of what the Biblical record states.
The Creationist's view of evolution is simple...if you believe that you can take all of the parts of a Rolex, put them in a box, shake them up for a billion years, and then open up the box to find a perfectly functional watch, then you, too can believe in evolution.
I have no problem with Darwinian concepts like survival of the fittest, or the adaptability of species. I have a problem with attempting to make them explain the Origin of life.
Things produce "after their kind", as Scripture states. Mate two dogs, they make a dog, not a cat. When an apple tree drops it's seed, another apple tree blooms, not a grape vine.
"Evolution does not disprove the existence of God."
You can say that again.
"I for one refuse to believe that God would give us brains capable of rational, abstract thought, and then plant fake clues to punish those of us who had the gall to use those brains to attempt to understand the world we live in."
Perhaps you're just misinterpreting the clues, in addition to your fallacious assumption that they were put there as an impediment.
An "ultimate" collection would include the Odyssey2, Atari 2600 and 5200, Mattel Intellivision, Colecovision...gee whiz, is nobody here over 30? Now THOSE systems are CLASSICS. Adventure for the 2600! Donkey Kong on Colecovision! Pitfall, Kaboom! THOSE are CLASSICS!
These last few posts are the kind of pompous ignorance that shows your true selves. The Catholic church claims it's "authority" based on the Bible. The Bible clearly teaches in both Testaments that homosexuality is an abomination. If they fail to decry it, they have contradicted their own "authority", and are thus untrustworthy. SIMPLE LOGIC. The Catholic church has historically persecuted Bible believers around the world, including the Waldenesians, the victims of the Inquisition, and IN FACT, had a "handshake agreement" with Hitler re: the Holocaust. No amount of "revisionist history" can change the FACTS. Your willful ignorance OF these facts proves that you do not, in fact, desire TRUTH, you desire something that makes you feel good. There is *nothing* natural about queers. It is a perveted behaviour, period. Conduct all the studies you like, but I have never seen anyone who truly believed in God, an attempted to serve Him, who had any problems breaking the bondage of the sin. Someone said that the Bible, and it's believers, are unscientific and irrational. Unfortunately, the FACTS again are AGAINST you. The Bible said the world was round, when the "best scientific minds" said it was flat. We know who was right. When the "best medical minds" were leeching the blood out of many of our founding fathers, a simple turn to the Bible would have shown them that it was bad treatment, for "the life of the flesh is in the blood". Despite the claims of Evolutionists and secular humanists, the PREPONDERENCE of proven scientific fact points to a "young earth", no more than 10,000 years old. The only way to circumvent these facts is to "theorize" as to why the FACTS don't match the "theories". The Institute for Creation Research has more PROVEN, SCIENTIFIC FACT on it's side than the millions of wannabe Carl Sagans can ever hope for. The reason you don't know this is because you are "too smart". You *believed* all the crap you learned in school, and were too LAZY to do any *real* research into the FACTS. You can bash fundamental Bible believing Baptists all you want, but where they agree with the Bible, they are right, whether or not you like it. Solomon was aware of evaporation and condensation, prevailing winds, and other meteorological processes centuries before the "leading scientific minds". Read Ecclasiastes 1. Of course! The main reason you hold YOUR "narrow, exclusionary views" is because you have no idea WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS. Now THAT'S intelligent, isn't it? Let us all speak empirically about a book we've never studied! You people are SOOO smart, I doubt you can slap your behind with both hands at the same time. Many people claim to be "Christians", just as many claim to be intelligent. More often than not, these claims prove to be unfounded. I Corinthians 1 clearly states what this world's "wisdom" is worth, and trust me, it isn't much. Protestants do not worship the "same god" as Catholics. Matter of fact, most Protestants don't worship the same god as other Protestants. The Bible believer worships God Almighty, who made heaven, earth, and YOU, and quite frankly cares not whether or not you agree no more than your math teacher cared when you failed to agree with him for marking your incorrect answers as incorrect. Things different are not alike. Where a man disagrees with the Bible, man is wrong. Period. Jesus Christ is not a "dead carpenter". He claimed to be God Almighty, manifest in the flesh. Your ignorance shows. He was also rather "intolerant", for he SAID, "I am the way, the truth, and the life; no man cometh unto the Father but by me". Doesn't sound very *tolerant* to me. Bashing Christians a "sign of enlightenment by the posters"??? That guy ought to do stand up. Whether or not people "need" to add "I am a Christian" to lend weight is sorta comical, but the fact is, 99% of them would mock a TRUE Christian, and in fact, Christians are indeed commanded to "go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature". You would mock someone for demonstrating behavior consistent with their stated beliefs? I don't mock a Packer fan for cheering a Brett Favre touchdown: I view it as evidence that they are indeed a Packer fan. Your rationale (or rather, the *lack* thereof) is laughable. One of you twits is "sure they're gonna be ok, if there even IS an afterlife". Based on WHAT? You are perhaps the biggest idiot here! The fella who says Catholics don't worship the Pope is largely correct. This just proves that they are hypocrites, because Catholic doctrine in fact commands them to do just THAT. If their parish is not teaching it, and they do not practice it, what's the point of being Catholic? At least I give the Muslims and Jehovah's Witnesses credit for ACTING in accordance with their stated BELIEFS, which can be the *only* true measure. When you do stand before God (and rest assured, you WILL) He is not going to care one bit about "your opinion" of who was good, bad, etc. He is going to care whether or not you obeyed His Word. Your opinion means something to YOU, not God. You folks are so "puffed up" on your own self-perceived *intelligence* that you are just plain STUPID. Nothing said in this thread could be adequately defended as rational or substantial in any debate forum. This is just a bunch of pompous windbags sounding off about what they think, and why we should listen to their "superior intellects". Are you *all* smoking crack? "Let GOD be true, and every man a liar". May He have mercy on your souls.
today's "real world" is not necessarily TOMORROW'S "real world". Personally, I won't be here to have to worry about it. And by the way, I am educated, and I use Linux. You are an idiot.
"...this sort of thing will *really* bring the fundamentalist, right-wing christian lunatic fringe out of the woodwork."
indeed, it is. Not coincidentally, your attitude has ALSO been accurately prophesied: 1 Corinthians 2:14 "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned."
"hmm.. that last point, is that a *bad* thing?"
indeed, it is. Jesus said in John 14:6 "Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." If ALL religions and philosophies are "embraced", then we are "embracing" a multitude of lies.
btw, Jesus said what He said, and did what He did. "My" Jesus is the Jesus of the Bible. He said He was God Himself, manifest in the flesh. He was not a 'great teacher', 'wise man', or 'really nice guy and effective social activist'. He claimed to be God. He was either a lunatic or a liar if this is NOT true. And He IS coming back.
please provide evidence how you have gained employment without either a social security card or driver's license. How did your employer identify you for their tax records? Are you a migrant farm worker, making $2/hr. cash? Can you LIVE on that income? How did you get the lease on your apartment withou those things? Are you claiming to not have any kind of state-sponsored identification? I think you're full of it, and the perfect little sheep to fall in line with the "brave, new world". Good luck!
"I've given up trying to interpret the Bibles prophetic messages"
The Bible commands you to "study, to shew thyself approved unto God" (2 Tim. 2:15), and also tells you that the Holy Spirit will "teach you all things" (John 14:26). You should not give up, but rather stay balanced and don't let it consume you.
"One thing I keep recalling - you won't know the day or the hour."
Yes, but you will know the "times and the seasons" (I Thess. 5:1-2). These are them, chief.
"Do you really see the U.S. giving up its sovreignty in the next 10 or 20 years?"
Sure...If Europe, the Arab states, and everyone else fell in line, and perhaps even refused to trade with us if we did not comply also, I see it is perfectly plausible. Yes, we could "survive on our own" for a while, but the blow to the economy and resulting skyrocketing of prices on food, etc. would make it politically imperative and socially desirable.
"Their final government was really more a modern version of the Roman Empire(city with seven hills)."
Scripture against scripture (the proper way to interpret the Bible (I Cor. 2:13) seems to indicate that the 'city on seven hills' in Revelation 17 is the Roman Catholic Church (historically they are a persecuter of Bible believers, the Vatican is a sovreign nation, their colors are scarlet and purple, etc.) The European Union, which is progressing toward a singular 'national' entity at light-speed, threatening to leave 'slow-footed' Britain in the dust if they don't 'get with the program', will undoubtedly be one of the 10 kingdoms.
"The thing is, if you go by a strict interpretation, you are almost certainly going to be wrong"
The goal is not to empirically say that "I am right". But to ignore the potential and possibility that I might be *close* is foolhardy.
"ts your character and your faith that matter, not your interpretation of prophecy."
agree 100%, but I see no reason I can't do both.
the American people will NOT get a "choice"...read the FEMA article, which is first of the links below: http://www.worthynews.com/Government/fema. htm
http://www.worthynews.com/news-features/digital-an gel.html
http://www.worthynews.com/news-features/digital-an gel-2.html
http://www.worthynews.com/Government/chip.htm
dude!!! you just don't seem to *get* it! They won't HAVE to "track" you if it's mandantory to have one, like a Social Security Card, Driver's license, etc. What, you say? Those aren't MANDANTORY??? Have you tried to live without them? If you need a chip to buy or sell anything, hold a job, etc., is that not MANDANTORY, as those things are necessary to sustain your survival? You gonna grow all your own food, sew your own clothes, etc? You NEED to read these articles:
http://www.worthynews.com/Government/fema.htm
http://www.worthynews.com/news-features/digital-an gel.html
http://www.worthynews.com/news-features/digital-an gel-2.html
http://www.worthynews.com/Government/chip.htm
and before you get smart, and say you will grow your own food, read the FEMA article to learn how they will "appropriate" your land...
they'll be even LESS likely to remove it once it becomes illegal to do so...and you KNOW it will...just like convicts on the bracelet are in violation of their parole if they remove it...
Slashdot Mirror
"unproven, yet proveable"
You will never "prove" the conditions of primordial earth and the genesis of life.
Your inability to accept THAT knowledge despite the fact that it is REALITY is all YOUR fault.
Bottom line is that without the universal, the particulars have ZERO meaning. You strive to make the 'universal' an impersonal combination of time + chance.
That, my friend, is (to quote a foolish barb tossed my way) the masturbatory cul-de-sac from which you will never escape, until (if you're lucky) you go insane like Nietsche.
"With all due respect"
^ whenever you see that statement or its variants, someone is about to be disrespected. =)
"You won't see me there, because I don't believe in that fairy tale crap"
My three year old covers his eyes and says come find me, since he believes that if he can't see me, I can't see him. Your intellect (and argument) is damn near identical.
Nicely done.
Re: the Urey-Miller experiment...
... However, it is likely"
"an experiment that simulated hypothetical conditions"
"It is now believed that Earth's original atmosphere did not contain as large a quantity of reducing molecules as was thought at the time"
"Originally it was thought that
"More recent results may have called this into question, however"
"the early atmosphere of Earth could have contained"
"The escape of hydrogen from Earth's atmosphere into space may have occurred at only 1% of the rate ***previously believed***"
"I think this study makes the experiments by Miller and others relevant again"
"lightning storms are thought to have been very common in the primordial atmosphere"
"it is likely"
Those are the FAITH statements/guesses/hopes that I found before I bored of the Wiki piece cited. You "scientists" have WAAAAAY more "faith" than any fundie.
"Everytime a discovery is made, God is displaced from his question answering place and accurate knowledge takes his place."
/. article). How about the recent story that "constants" like the speed of light and gravity might not be so constant after all?
Actually, it is far more prevalent and accurate to state that everytime a discovery is made, we throw out all of the "accurate knowledge" we THOUGHT we had and start over from scratch again.
Space and time do not permit me to enunciate the bajillion times the "next" discovery changed everything we THOUGHT we KNEW. Take "dark matter", for instance (in an accompanying
It's this "know-it-all-while-actually-knowing-jack-shit" attitude that makes the creationist chuckle. You'll change ALL of your story as soon as it's convenient, just never, EVER meditate on the possibility (probability) that there just might be someone to answer to at the end of this ride we call life. =)
"Fossil records have shown which creatures were the ancestors of modern day species."
You mean "we found a skeleton that doesn't fit into anything we recognize today, so we'll slot it here in this irritating gap in our 'record' and pretend we found something new"?
Is that what you mean by fossil record? The whole "we date the rocks by the fossils we find in them" and "we date the fossils by the rocks we found them in" circular reasoning?
I guess my response to both arguments you state would be the same...white or brown seal, it's still a seal. No matter the trait of the dog, it's still a dog. "Evolution" does nothing to explain species. The "common ancestor" of a fish and a bird (for example) is as much _mythology_ to a "creationist" as "God" is to an atheis...er, scientist. =)
You argument does NOTHING to address how so many varied species evolved from a common ancestor.
No matter how much "genetic change" occurs over the milennia, oddly enough, every woman has a HUMAN child. When a woman gives birth to a GOAT or an OCTOPUS, perhaps you will have an argument. Until then, you have a lot of self-aggrandizing nonsense.
Thoughtful Christians do not discount or deny the existence of adaption (what you are describing and calling "evolution". Species adapt to their environments on a gentic level over time, sure. They don't become entirely new species no matter how long you let them go. When a dog grows a tentacle, or when a sheep grows wings, perhaps you'll have a point.
1. Since it is genetically impossible for a dog to give birth to a cat, or a bird to lay an egg from which a frog pops out, etc etc (species reproduce "after their kind"), and since evolutionary theory dictates (as far as I understand it) that the forks/mutations in species occur over millions of years, how can they occur at all in a species that doesn't live past a few decades? A dog lives what, 10-15 years? How much genetic adaptation to it's environent can it make in 10-15 years, to a point that a passes down a "new" trait to it's progeny?
2. I have never read ANY scientific article about evolution that did not contain a PLETHORA of "we think", "we believe", "it seems likely", "theoretically", and similar FAITH statements in abundance, and at the same time contained almost NO *definitive* statements at all. Why is your faith in the "scientific method" or in the "latest research" any more _noble_ than another's faith in God? You're simply replacing a faith in something you know you can't control/understand with a faith in something that you HOPE to SOMEDAY control/understand.
That seems pretty desperate, to me. Almost as desperate as blaming "fundies" for the ills of America without being able to state what a "fundie" believes. Much like the cynic who states that the Bible is "full of errors and contradictions" without being able to name one. In the rare event that one can parrot the "error" they heard of secondhand, when a reasoned and logical explanation is made of the supposed "error", the universal response is to ignore/poo poo the explanation and demand a far more empirical _evidence_ than they would ever demand of the latest hot air blowing out of Berkeley or Oxford.
I've never seen evidence of any 'missing link' of ANY species. When a "new" species is discovered, how can one empirically state that it wasn't ALWAYS here, and just gone unidentified til now? Does the difference between a doberman and a cocker spaniel qualify as "proof" of evolutionary thory? I see many posts here that refer to "mountains of evidence" for evolution, but I, as an "uneducated laymen" can poke as many (if not more) holes in that evidence as any cynic can poke in the Bible. So let's cut the bullshit. =) Self-worshipping people like (and vehemently pursue and guard) theories that suggest they are 'superior' and prevent any ACCOUNTABILITY for what they believe.
...is the sorriest excuse for a newspaper in North America. People with IQs above 13 who live in southeastern Wisconsin get one of the Chicago papers or another out-of-state pub (NYT or even -gasp- USA Today).
I have never made it through 3 pages of the Journal without seeing either typos, inaccurate information, or blatant gerrymandering of facts.
If the Journal said that all students would get free laptops, I'd invest in an abacus company and prepare for the Golden Age of Retro Math.
Scientists ***believe*** the previously unknown species was in the process of converting to vegetarianism from a rather more bloodthirsty diet.
Falcarius utahensis ***seems to represent*** an intermediate stage between a carnivorous and herbivorous form.
The creature, which lived about 125 million years ago, provides a "missing link" in dinosaur evolution. (Wish, Hope, Pray, BELIEVE!)
scientists cannot be entirely sure what it ate itself.
The adult dinosaur walked on two legs, was about 4m long (13ft) and stood 1.4m tall (4.5ft). It also had a woolly feather-like plumage and sharp, curved 10cm-long (4-inch) claws. (Of course, these are blind guesses based upon no empirical fact)
These formidable talons were probably a hang-over from the dinosaur's ferocious past, the researchers say, and may not have had a function in its more sedate new lifestyle. (i.e. we just try to avoid saying "I don't know")
Falcarius shared an - as yet undiscovered - ancestor with the Velociraptor, which was ***almost certainly*** a fleet-footed, small-bodied predator, the researchers ***believe***.
At some point, two major groups of dinosaurs split from their carnivorous cousins and shifted into plant-eating. But until now, the intermediate stages of this process remained a mystery. (Because it's a bunch of GUESSING and WISHING)
"With Falcarius, we have actual fossil evidence of a major dietary shift, certainly the best example documented among dinosaurs," said Dr Sampson. "This little beast is the missing link between small-bodied predatory dinosaurs and the highly specialised and bizarre plant-eating therizinosaurs." (Stated as fact, verified by none)
Although the team cannot know whether Falcarius was a committed vegetarian - it may have eaten a bit of meat, too - its emergence did coincide neatly with the evolution of flowering plants. (and if it didn't, we'd just move a few dates a few million years so that we have a "workable" theory)
"Mass mortalities are known in a number of dinosaur groups," said Dr Sampson. "In this case, it is difficult to work out what happened. It could have been a spring which dried up, and the dinosaurs died of thirst. "Or organic poisons could have contaminated the water - it is hard to know for sure." (But we'll keep publishing guesswork that we *hope* sounds intelligent as long as the research grants keep a flowin')
So, in summary...we don't *know* anything, but we guess a lot. Anything but believe the Bible. Our own fantasies are MUCH more plausible, to *us*.
The "normal" slashdot crowd mocks and scorns "religion", but seriously...is this not a belief system? Sure it is. Just admit it. You'll believe anything if it was written by a rockhead with "PhD" in his sig...
http://www.icr.org/
The Institute for Creation Research
Whole bunch of them.
"One, if a literal interpretation of the Bible is correct, what about all these fossils?"
Creationists believe that the Flood explains the fossil record. Scripture clearly indicates that the climate of the earth, and thus is various ecosystems, were vastly different in the PreDeluvian world. There was no rain...water rose from the earth, according to Genesis. The problem is that the highly educated are *usually* highly ignorant of what the Biblical record states.
The Creationist's view of evolution is simple...if you believe that you can take all of the parts of a Rolex, put them in a box, shake them up for a billion years, and then open up the box to find a perfectly functional watch, then you, too can believe in evolution.
I have no problem with Darwinian concepts like survival of the fittest, or the adaptability of species. I have a problem with attempting to make them explain the Origin of life.
Things produce "after their kind", as Scripture states. Mate two dogs, they make a dog, not a cat. When an apple tree drops it's seed, another apple tree blooms, not a grape vine.
"Evolution does not disprove the existence of God."
You can say that again.
"I for one refuse to believe that God would give us brains capable of rational, abstract thought, and then plant fake clues to punish those of us who had the gall to use those brains to attempt to understand the world we live in."
Perhaps you're just misinterpreting the clues, in addition to your fallacious assumption that they were put there as an impediment.
I have to think it will be something "feel goody", i.e. that extends life itself...and Twinkies are too old to qualify.
An "ultimate" collection would include the Odyssey2, Atari 2600 and 5200, Mattel Intellivision, Colecovision...gee whiz, is nobody here over 30? Now THOSE systems are CLASSICS. Adventure for the 2600! Donkey Kong on Colecovision! Pitfall, Kaboom! THOSE are CLASSICS!
These last few posts are the kind of pompous ignorance that shows your true selves. The Catholic church claims it's "authority" based on the Bible. The Bible clearly teaches in both Testaments that homosexuality is an abomination. If they fail to decry it, they have contradicted their own "authority", and are thus untrustworthy. SIMPLE LOGIC. The Catholic church has historically persecuted Bible believers around the world, including the Waldenesians, the victims of the Inquisition, and IN FACT, had a "handshake agreement" with Hitler re: the Holocaust. No amount of "revisionist history" can change the FACTS. Your willful ignorance OF these facts proves that you do not, in fact, desire TRUTH, you desire something that makes you feel good. There is *nothing* natural about queers. It is a perveted behaviour, period. Conduct all the studies you like, but I have never seen anyone who truly believed in God, an attempted to serve Him, who had any problems breaking the bondage of the sin. Someone said that the Bible, and it's believers, are unscientific and irrational. Unfortunately, the FACTS again are AGAINST you. The Bible said the world was round, when the "best scientific minds" said it was flat. We know who was right. When the "best medical minds" were leeching the blood out of many of our founding fathers, a simple turn to the Bible would have shown them that it was bad treatment, for "the life of the flesh is in the blood". Despite the claims of Evolutionists and secular humanists, the PREPONDERENCE of proven scientific fact points to a "young earth", no more than 10,000 years old. The only way to circumvent these facts is to "theorize" as to why the FACTS don't match the "theories". The Institute for Creation Research has more PROVEN, SCIENTIFIC FACT on it's side than the millions of wannabe Carl Sagans can ever hope for. The reason you don't know this is because you are "too smart". You *believed* all the crap you learned in school, and were too LAZY to do any *real* research into the FACTS. You can bash fundamental Bible believing Baptists all you want, but where they agree with the Bible, they are right, whether or not you like it. Solomon was aware of evaporation and condensation, prevailing winds, and other meteorological processes centuries before the "leading scientific minds". Read Ecclasiastes 1. Of course! The main reason you hold YOUR "narrow, exclusionary views" is because you have no idea WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS. Now THAT'S intelligent, isn't it? Let us all speak empirically about a book we've never studied! You people are SOOO smart, I doubt you can slap your behind with both hands at the same time. Many people claim to be "Christians", just as many claim to be intelligent. More often than not, these claims prove to be unfounded. I Corinthians 1 clearly states what this world's "wisdom" is worth, and trust me, it isn't much. Protestants do not worship the "same god" as Catholics. Matter of fact, most Protestants don't worship the same god as other Protestants. The Bible believer worships God Almighty, who made heaven, earth, and YOU, and quite frankly cares not whether or not you agree no more than your math teacher cared when you failed to agree with him for marking your incorrect answers as incorrect. Things different are not alike. Where a man disagrees with the Bible, man is wrong. Period. Jesus Christ is not a "dead carpenter". He claimed to be God Almighty, manifest in the flesh. Your ignorance shows. He was also rather "intolerant", for he SAID, "I am the way, the truth, and the life; no man cometh unto the Father but by me". Doesn't sound very *tolerant* to me. Bashing Christians a "sign of enlightenment by the posters"??? That guy ought to do stand up. Whether or not people "need" to add "I am a Christian" to lend weight is sorta comical, but the fact is, 99% of them would mock a TRUE Christian, and in fact, Christians are indeed commanded to "go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature". You would mock someone for demonstrating behavior consistent with their stated beliefs? I don't mock a Packer fan for cheering a Brett Favre touchdown: I view it as evidence that they are indeed a Packer fan. Your rationale (or rather, the *lack* thereof) is laughable. One of you twits is "sure they're gonna be ok, if there even IS an afterlife". Based on WHAT? You are perhaps the biggest idiot here! The fella who says Catholics don't worship the Pope is largely correct. This just proves that they are hypocrites, because Catholic doctrine in fact commands them to do just THAT. If their parish is not teaching it, and they do not practice it, what's the point of being Catholic? At least I give the Muslims and Jehovah's Witnesses credit for ACTING in accordance with their stated BELIEFS, which can be the *only* true measure. When you do stand before God (and rest assured, you WILL) He is not going to care one bit about "your opinion" of who was good, bad, etc. He is going to care whether or not you obeyed His Word. Your opinion means something to YOU, not God. You folks are so "puffed up" on your own self-perceived *intelligence* that you are just plain STUPID. Nothing said in this thread could be adequately defended as rational or substantial in any debate forum. This is just a bunch of pompous windbags sounding off about what they think, and why we should listen to their "superior intellects". Are you *all* smoking crack? "Let GOD be true, and every man a liar". May He have mercy on your souls.
today's "real world" is not necessarily TOMORROW'S "real world". Personally, I won't be here to have to worry about it. And by the way, I am educated, and I use Linux. You are an idiot.
"...this sort of thing will *really* bring the fundamentalist, right-wing christian lunatic fringe out of the woodwork."
indeed, it is. Not coincidentally, your attitude has ALSO been accurately prophesied: 1 Corinthians 2:14 "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned."
"hmm.. that last point, is that a *bad* thing?"
indeed, it is. Jesus said in John 14:6 "Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." If ALL religions and philosophies are "embraced", then we are "embracing" a multitude of lies.
btw, Jesus said what He said, and did what He did. "My" Jesus is the Jesus of the Bible. He said He was God Himself, manifest in the flesh. He was not a 'great teacher', 'wise man', or 'really nice guy and effective social activist'. He claimed to be God. He was either a lunatic or a liar if this is NOT true. And He IS coming back.
please provide evidence how you have gained employment without either a social security card or driver's license. How did your employer identify you for their tax records? Are you a migrant farm worker, making $2/hr. cash? Can you LIVE on that income? How did you get the lease on your apartment withou those things? Are you claiming to not have any kind of state-sponsored identification? I think you're full of it, and the perfect little sheep to fall in line with the "brave, new world". Good luck!
"I've given up trying to interpret the Bibles prophetic messages"
The Bible commands you to "study, to shew thyself approved unto God" (2 Tim. 2:15), and also tells you that the Holy Spirit will "teach you all things" (John 14:26). You should not give up, but rather stay balanced and don't let it consume you.
"One thing I keep recalling - you won't know the day or the hour."
Yes, but you will know the "times and the seasons" (I Thess. 5:1-2). These are them, chief.
"Do you really see the U.S. giving up its sovreignty in the next 10 or 20 years?"
Sure...If Europe, the Arab states, and everyone else fell in line, and perhaps even refused to trade with us if we did not comply also, I see it is perfectly plausible. Yes, we could "survive on our own" for a while, but the blow to the economy and resulting skyrocketing of prices on food, etc. would make it politically imperative and socially desirable.
"Their final government was really more a modern version of the Roman Empire(city with seven hills)."
Scripture against scripture (the proper way to interpret the Bible (I Cor. 2:13) seems to indicate that the 'city on seven hills' in Revelation 17 is the Roman Catholic Church (historically they are a persecuter of Bible believers, the Vatican is a sovreign nation, their colors are scarlet and purple, etc.) The European Union, which is progressing toward a singular 'national' entity at light-speed, threatening to leave 'slow-footed' Britain in the dust if they don't 'get with the program', will undoubtedly be one of the 10 kingdoms.
"The thing is, if you go by a strict interpretation, you are almost certainly going to be wrong"
The goal is not to empirically say that "I am right". But to ignore the potential and possibility that I might be *close* is foolhardy.
"ts your character and your faith that matter, not your interpretation of prophecy."
agree 100%, but I see no reason I can't do both.
http://www.worthynews.com/Government/fema.htmn gel.html
n gel-2.html
http://www.worthynews.com/news-features/digital-a
http://www.worthynews.com/news-features/digital-a
http://www.worthynews.com/Government/chip.htm
the American people will NOT get a "choice"...read the FEMA article, which is first of the links below:. htm
n gel.html
n gel-2.html
http://www.worthynews.com/Government/fema
http://www.worthynews.com/news-features/digital-a
http://www.worthynews.com/news-features/digital-a
http://www.worthynews.com/Government/chip.htm
dude!!! you just don't seem to *get* it! They won't HAVE to "track" you if it's mandantory to have one, like a Social Security Card, Driver's license, etc. What, you say? Those aren't MANDANTORY??? Have you tried to live without them? If you need a chip to buy or sell anything, hold a job, etc., is that not MANDANTORY, as those things are necessary to sustain your survival? You gonna grow all your own food, sew your own clothes, etc? You NEED to read these articles:n gel.html
n gel-2.html
http://www.worthynews.com/Government/fema.htm
http://www.worthynews.com/news-features/digital-a
http://www.worthynews.com/news-features/digital-a
http://www.worthynews.com/Government/chip.htm
and before you get smart, and say you will grow your own food, read the FEMA article to learn how they will "appropriate" your land...
"The main worry is not misuse in the US"
ummm...YOU need to read this story:
http://www.worthynews.com/Government/fema.htm
they'll be even LESS likely to remove it once it becomes illegal to do so...and you KNOW it will...just like convicts on the bracelet are in violation of their parole if they remove it...
until FEMA takes over...
http://www.worthynews.com/Government/fema.htm