[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by undotwa:
Hey, I drink the blood and eat the flesh of Jesus Christ at least once a week on Sundays. And so did the early Christians.

And there's a man on trial for drinking the blood and eating the flesh of another man in Germany right now.

-s*

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by undotwa:
If the Church did nothing for the people, why did everyone come back each Sunday?

Um, because they were told that they'd go to hell if they didn't?

And social pressure?

There's an awful lot of people who go to church solely because they don't want the Johnsons to think they're commies.

-s*

[chris v]

Originally posted by chris v:


Here's another challenge, since you have as yet to answer my first one:

Carlsbad Caverns. Explain to me, detailing depositional rates for the Capitan Reef Limestone, dissolution rates of said limestone by carbonic acid-laden rainwater, and re-depositional rates of limestone-laden water as it deposits cave formations. I'd like to know how 2000 feet of limestone got laid, solidified, then dissolved/eroded to form the caverns, then how the 200-foot high formations got deposited in a 6000 year time-span. Go ahead.

CV

*crickets chirp*

CV

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by chris v:
*crickets chirp*

CV

God (or the devil, whichever) made them that way to tempt us into science.

-s*

[Logic]

Since we are reporting now, I thought I'd post this again and try to get some comments on it.

: flamesuit on :

OK, we all know that embryology and evolution are very similar in several aspects. And some of us knows that religion and modern science can live together without any problems. I found this article and thought I'd share it with you. Give me your thoughts after you read it, but try to keep the flaming down.

A Scientist's Interpretation of References to Embryology in the Qur'an

Keith L. Moore, Ph.D., F.I.A.C.
The Department of Anatomy, University of Toronto, Canada.
Address all correspondence to:
Keith L. Moore, Ph.D, F.I.A.C., Professor of Anatomy and Associate Dean Basic Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario M55 IAB, Canada

Statements referring to human reproduction and development are scattered throughout the Qur'an. It is only recently that the scientific meaning of some of these verses has been appreciated fully. The long delay in interpreting these verses correctly resulted mainly from inaccurate translations and commentaries and from a lack of awareness of scientific knowledge.

Interest in explanations of the verses of the Qur'an is not new. People used to ask the prophet Muhammad all sorts of questions about the meaning of verses referring to human reproduction. The Apostle's answers form the basis of the Hadith literature.

The translations(*) of the verses from the Qur'an which are interpreted in this paper were provided by Sheik Abdul Majid Zendani, a Professor of Islamic Studies in King Abdulaziz University in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.

"He makes you in the wombs of your mothers in stages, one after another, in three veils of darkness."

This statement is from Sura 39:6. We do not know when it was realized that human beings underwent development in the uterus (womb), but the first known illustration of a fetus in the uterus was drawn by Leonardo da Vinci in the 15th century. In the 2nd century A.D., Galendescribed the placenta and fetal membranes in his book "On The Formation of the Foetus." Consequently, doctors in the 7th century A.D. likely knew that the human embryo developed in the uterus. It is unlikely that they knew that it developed in stages, even though Aristotle had described the stages of development of the chick embryo in the 4th century B.C. The realization that the human embryo develops in stages was not discussed and illustrated until the 15th century.

After the microscope was discovered in the 17th century by Leeuwenhoek descriptions were made of the early stages of the chick embryo. The staging of human embryos was not described until the 20th century. Streeter (1941) developed the first system of staging which has now been replaced by a more accurate system proposed by O'Rahilly (1972).

"The three veils of darkness" may refer to: (l) the anterior abdominal wall; (2) the uterine wall; and (3) the amniochorionic membrane. Although there are other interpretations of this statement, the one presented here seems the most logical from an embryological point of view.
_
"Then We placed him as a drop in a place of rest."

This statement is from Sura 23:13. The drop or nutfah has been interpreted as the sperm or spermatozoon, but a more meaningful interpretation would be the zygote which divides to form a blastocyst which is implanted in the uterus ("a place of rest"). This interpretation is supported by another verse in the Qur'an which states that "a human being is created from a mixed drop." The zygote forms by the union of a mixture of the sperm and the ovum ("The mixed drop").

"Then We made the drop into a leech-like structure."

This statement is from Sura 23:14. The word "alaqah" refers to a leech or bloodsucker. This is an appropriate description of the human embryo from days 7-24 when it clings to the endometrium of the uterus, in the same way that a leech clings to the skin. Just as the leech derives blood from the host, the human embryo derives blood from the decidua or pregnant endometrium. It is remarkable how much the embryo of 23-24 days resembles a leech. As there were no microscopes or lenses available in the 7th century, doctors would not have known that the human embryo had this leech-like appearance. In the early part of the fourth week, the embryo is just visible to the unaided eye because it is smaller than a kernel of wheat.

"Then of that leech-like structure, We made a chewed lump."

This statement is also from Sura 23:14. The Arabic word "mudghah" means "chewed substance or chewed lump." Toward the end of the fourth week, the human embryo looks somewhat like a chewed lump of flesh. The chewed appearance results from the somites which resemble teeth marks. The somites represent the beginnings or primordia of the vertebrae.

"Then We made out of the chewed lump, bones, and clothed the bones in flesh."

This continuation of Sura 23:14 indicates that out of the chewed lump stage, bones and muscles form. This is in accordance with embryological development. First the bones form as cartilage models and then the muscles (flesh) develop around them from the somatic mesoderm.

"Then We developed out of it another creature."

This next part of Sura 23:14 implies that the bones and muscles result in the formation of another creature. This may refer to the human-like embryo that forms by the end of the eighth week. At this stage it has distinctive human characteristics and possesses the primordia of all the internal and external organs and parts. After the eighth week, the human embryo is called a fetus. This may be the new creature to which the verse refers.

"And He gave you hearing and sight and feeling and understanding."

This part of Sura 32:9 indicates that the special senses of hearing, seeing, and feeling develop in this order, which is true. The primordia of the internal ears appear before the beginning of the eyes, and the brain (the site of understanding) differentiates last.

"Then out of a piece of chewed flesh, partly formed and partly unformed."

This part of Sura 22:5 seems to indicate that the embryo is composed of both differentiated and undifferentiated tissues. For example, when the cartilage bones are differentiated, the embryonic connective tissue or mesenchyme around them is undifferentiated. It later differentiates into the muscles and ligaments attached to the bones.

"And We cause whom We will to rest in the wombs for an appointed term."

This next part of Sura 22:5 seems to imply that God determines which embryos will remain in the uterus until full term. It is well known that many embryos abort during the first month of development, and that only about 30% of zygotes that form, develop into fetuses that survive until birth. This verse has also been interpreted to mean that God determines whether the embryo will develop into a boy or girl.

The interpretation of the verses in the Qur'an referring to human development would not have been possible in the 7th century A.D., or even a hundred years ago. We can interpret them now because the science of modern Embryology affords us new understanding. Undoubtedly there are other verses in the Qur'an related to human development that will be understood in the future as our knowledge increases.

[theolein]

Originally posted by stupendousman:
What "details" are you going to be able to derive from photos? The point is that the evidence that is being investigated (fossils in this instance) are not sufficient enough to prove the "details" in such a degree to show if one thing is linked to another, much as if you were only given photos alone to decide the relationships between the houses.



I'd leave the explanation of MY point to an expert on the subject - me. You're still getting it wrong. My point wasn't that anything in particular was the cause of anything. I'm not trying to convince you or anyone else that creationism is what caused the genesis of man. I'm also not going to state as definitive fact that evolution was not the cause either. What I am stating is that people who take either to be fact are doing so based largely on FAITH since neither have yet to be proven, and there holes that you can drive trucks through concerning both theories. You can't believe in either creationism or evolution as fact without accepting on faith certain factors which are beyond our ability to prove definitively.

Someone above mentioned that scientists state that evolution may have caused the genesis of man. I have no problems with that statement. I also have no problems with a creationist saying that the power of God may have caused the creation of man. Neither statement can be proven false. When EITHER stop using the "may" in the phrase, they are then doing so based on a very unscientific method: FAITH. A creationist won't deny it. An evolutionist (as witnessed in this thread) will. I find that those who insist on envolution being the only possible way to explain man's genesis, most often are the most short sighted and ironically hypocritical in their opinions.

Ah, I see. Your problem is not in astrology or in astronomy, but in lobotomy. My condolences.

[Mastrap]

Originally posted by theolein:
Ah, I see. Your problem is not in astrology or in astronomy, but in lobotomy. My condolences.

Harsh but fair

[theolein]

Originally posted by Superchic[k]en:
...

Overall I don't believe in evolution not because microevolution doesn't happen sure it does, by really all we're looking at is random gene mutations, or not so random deppending on your view.

...

What is it with you overly religious people that makes it impossible for you to write a sentence in the English language that is comprehensible? You remind me of Zimphire when you abuse the language like that. Read your above sentence again. Go on, do it. Tell us what you see. What happened between the "happen sure" and what is "by really"?*







*Sorry for having a go at you, but it really is starting to irritate me. I don't know if it's the advent of computers in schools causing people to become absolute disasters with their own language or if it's a regional thing, but I find it appalling that even politicians can reach high office while still have trouble putting together a halfway comprehensible sentence.

Originally posted by Superchic[k]en:
...

He has the right to use any method He desires, be it a combination of big bangs and evolution whatever

...

Mind if I use this for my sig?

[Spheric Harlot]

Never missed the mark, this man has.

-s*

[theolein]

::Bows before the Mas and the Harlot::
Stets zu Diensten.

[palmberg]

Originally posted by theolein:
What is it with you overly religious people that makes it impossible for you to write a sentence in the English language that is comprehensible?

No doubt. Isn't it ironic that most of the people who defend creationism can't type any better than chimps?

[ebuddy]

Hey, you all are still here? Holy mackeral!

How could I possibly reply to 15 angry secual humanists? It's impossible! You guys are throwing information out there so fast it's ridiculous to even try. BTW, does anyone have a job here? Sheesh.

Besides, we know from human nature that no one's mind will be changed. The fact of the matter in as simple a term as I can use; I'm not concerned about acceptance among men. I'm not concerned whether or not you think I'm crazy. Seriously, it doesn't bother me.

ChrisV; of course I'm not your judge brother I never presumed such. Reread my statement. It seems no matter how vague and diplomatic you try to word something, someone gets enflamed. Again, read through the statement again, I think you'll find it's quite harmless. I'm sorry if you felt convicted. Perhaps you should take a deeper look at that as well.

I totally agree regarding the skepticism of science. I don't mind the fact that they refute common practice and argue creation with information regarding evolution or anything else. I could've asked someone the speed of light and while they don't know the exact number offhand and perhaps never even looked into the history of it's calculation, blindly believe that a certain nebula is a certain hundred thousand light years away. I'm sorry, this is no less dogmatic to me. Then, we get the usual folks who obviously haven't read the Bible give us Bible lessons. (that's always my favorite) Most of us cannot comprehend the complexities of the topics at hand, but simply believe a thing. Why then is skepticism completely unacceptable contingent upon who is being the skeptic? Only certain communities are allowed to doubt?

Without intervention, can even the simplest cell breakdown and increase in complexity? Living things cannot evolve upward by mutations, natural selection, or any other means.

I don't presuppose the age of man or the earth. I don't know. There is no one here who can know this for sure. There are those within your scientific community who disagree with your stagnant and conventional methodology and for the sake of the greater good (i.e. research grants etc...) are silenced.
One thing I'm certain of, man will always be man and every single thing he believes and supports should be questioned at every angle. Including Christianity, Creationism, and Evolutionism. This is why I'm not highly critical of those skeptical of Creationism. When they immediately jump to the conclusion that you're a whacko, it tickles me . They are just as dogmatic as they claim me to be. Can any one of you prove beyond doubt that your belief is correct?! Absolutely not. I would challenge you to call yourself an enthusiast of science if you contented yourself with the rocky foundation upon which much of the evolution argument is founded. It simply has too many holes for me. There are some extremely basic concepts assumed that just can't be. Nothing about observational science lends to evolution. I applaud the efforts to keep trying. Honestly. I do believe too many things have been fed to us as fact when we are not also subject to the argument. Look, you can be the greatest scientist in the Universe, if you can't get funding nor have your life's work published-your work will be mostly in vain. The Scientific Community is an Industry. You may not believe me, but then I may believe you put too much faith in mankind.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by palmberg:
No doubt. Isn't it ironic that most of the people who defend creationism can't type any better than chimps?

Creationist conundrum: If a million monkeys type a million years, do they evolve into creationists?

-s*

[ebuddy]

Those of you who personally insult others as part of an argument, have essentially lost the argument.

I wish you could refrain from personal attacks Theolein and Spheric, you guys are better than that historically.

If you do not accept some of the most basic problems with evolutionism yet reject what you see as basic flaws in Creationism, you are as dogmatic, if not more dogmatic than me. I know folx really hate this point, but I just don't see it any differently.

[deekay1]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
Nothing about observational science lends to evolution.

actually, just about all of it does!

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
Those of you who personally insult others as part of an argument, have essentially lost the argument.

I wish you could refrain from personal attacks Theolein and Spheric, you guys are better than that historically.

Point 1: At some point, pointless arguments devolve into pointless bicker-fests, saved only by the occasional silliness attack. This can happen quite rapidly, as in version's wonderful 9/11 thread over in the pol lounge, or gradually, as everything has been said and is only re-hashed when it's apparent that it was never read.

Point 2: I was bouncing that off palmberg. And I'm sorry that Creationists find jokes offensive about their having evolved from monkeys. I don't see a problem with that, though. After all, isn't that what we evolutionists are supposedly all about? We just accept our history.
Oh, and see Point 1.



-s*

[theolein]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
Hey, you all are still here? Holy mackeral!

How could I possibly reply to 15 angry secual humanists? It's impossible! You guys are throwing information out there so fast it's ridiculous to even try. BTW, does anyone have a job here? Sheesh.

Besides, we know from human nature that no one's mind will be changed. The fact of the matter in as simple a term as I can use; I'm not concerned about acceptance among men. I'm not concerned whether or not you think I'm crazy. Seriously, it doesn't bother me.

ChrisV; of course I'm not your judge brother I never presumed such. Reread my statement. It seems no matter how vague and diplomatic you try to word something, someone gets enflamed. Again, read through the statement again, I think you'll find it's quite harmless. I'm sorry if you felt convicted. Perhaps you should take a deeper look at that as well.

I totally agree regarding the skepticism of science. I don't mind the fact that they refute common practice and argue creation with information regarding evolution or anything else. I could've asked someone the speed of light and while they don't know the exact number offhand and perhaps never even looked into the history of it's calculation, blindly believe that a certain nebula is a certain hundred thousand light years away. I'm sorry, this is no less dogmatic to me. Then, we get the usual folks who obviously haven't read the Bible give us Bible lessons. (that's always my favorite) Most of us cannot comprehend the complexities of the topics at hand, but simply believe a thing. Why then is skepticism completely unacceptable contingent upon who is being the skeptic? Only certain communities are allowed to doubt?

Without intervention, can even the simplest cell breakdown and increase in complexity? Living things cannot evolve upward by mutations, natural selection, or any other means.

I don't presuppose the age of man or the earth. I don't know. There is no one here who can know this for sure. There are those within your scientific community who disagree with your stagnant and conventional methodology and for the sake of the greater good (i.e. research grants etc...) are silenced.
One thing I'm certain of, man will always be man and every single thing he believes and supports should be questioned at every angle. Including Christianity, Creationism, and Evolutionism. This is why I'm not highly critical of those skeptical of Creationism. When they immediately jump to the conclusion that you're a whacko, it tickles me . They are just as dogmatic as they claim me to be. Can any one of you prove beyond doubt that your belief is correct?! Absolutely not. I would challenge you to call yourself an enthusiast of science if you contented yourself with the rocky foundation upon which much of the evolution argument is founded. It simply has too many holes for me. There are some extremely basic concepts assumed that just can't be. Nothing about observational science lends to evolution. I applaud the efforts to keep trying. Honestly. I do believe too many things have been fed to us as fact when we are not also subject to the argument. Look, you can be the greatest scientist in the Universe, if you can't get funding nor have your life's work published-your work will be mostly in vain. The Scientific Community is an Industry. You may not believe me, but then I may believe you put too much faith in mankind.

Hmmmm, where to start? This is almost too much fun for the little guy in my sig

Ok, let's get on with it.

"secual humanists". What is that? Is it related to a fecal creationist?

"There are those within your scientific community who disagree with your stagnant and conventional methodology and for the sake of the greater good (i.e. research grants etc...) are silenced. ". This is where I burst out laughing. Our man has nothing better to do after being being put through the jaws of science, so to speak, but to then claim that crooks, liars and con artists within (and soon without) the science community that are debunked are somehow some kind of martyrs on the pire of scientific oppression.

Tell me, ebuddy old chap. Did you actually read the quote of that article in any detail? Did you look around for articles, rebuttals or supporting theories on the net that weren't on some creationist website? Did you attempt to make your own opinion of the matter or did you just put your head in the sand when your mind blocked up leaving you not being able to offer anything better to say than "You're not playing fair, gimme my lolly".

You claim that you think one should be skeptical of everything but that (unsurprisingly) when people are skeptical of creationism, and supply arguments with more content than "faith" then you get upset.

Finally you resort to the very old and tired "You can believe all you want, but I'm right because some group of loonies told me so"

I'll tell you this: Your creationist friends would have a lot more standing if they didn't spend so much time supporting outright falsifications and lies on their websites and then supporting them in the face of all evidence to the contrary.

But actually I think you guys just like it this way. I think you'd be incredibly unhappy if you had to drop your presecution complex and martyrdom put on. It would rob you of a meaning to your life.

[ebuddy]

Really deekay1?

You've seen life evolve from non-living organisms? Hmmm. I'm suspect. I hope that doesn't make me a whacko.

You know of scientific law that would allow one kind of creature to turn naturally into a completely different kind? I'm curious.

[itai195]

Originally posted by Superchic[k]en:
Overall I don't believe in evolution not because microevolution doesn't happen sure it does, by really all we're looking at is random gene mutations, or not so random deppending on your view.

Sigh, there is NOTHING random about natural selection. Many evolutionists would argue it's the exact opposite of random...

[A Single Second]

Originally posted by itai195:
Sigh, there is NOTHING random about natural selection. Many evolutionists would argue it's the exact opposite of random...

Don't even bother. His knowledge of genetics and biology is about on par with his understanding of quantum physics, or his ability to spell and construct grammatically sound sentences.

He couldn't even *spell* dimer, let alone define it.

[entrox]

Originally posted by CharlesS:
Regardless of whatever else gets into the argument, the basic argument creationists use to argue for the very viability of their entire position is cognitive relativism. Because in a scientific theory, there's always some degree of doubt, however small, that makes the theory falsiable, creationists argue that it is not proven and therefore that all alternative beliefs are equally valid, and therefore that teachers should teach these multiple beliefs. The thing is, if you believe this, then to be consistent you have to reject other scientific theories as well, such as gravity. You have to believe that the idea that the universe is a simulation in the Enterprise holodeck is just as valid as our theories of how the stars and planets interact. And you have to argue for all such hypotheses in the classroom. You also have to include the philosophy of the Buddhist, Hindu, and other religions.

Very well put. By the same line of reasoning, we can also demand equal time in the class room for the flat earth theory.

[itai195]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
You've seen life evolve from non-living organisms? Hmmm. I'm suspect. I hope that doesn't make me a whacko.

You know of scientific law that would allow one kind of creature to turn naturally into a completely different kind? I'm curious.

Life 'evolving' from non-living organisms is an incorrect use of terms and really has nothing to do with the theory of evolution.

Once again, the point of a scientific theory is that it fits the available data. It may be amended or replaced later when more data is available. It's convenient that for creationism there is no data to fit and there will never have to be any. How does creationism explain failed speciation, extinction? It doesn't. And yet one doesn't see many mammoths roaming about anymore.

[deekay1]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
You've seen life evolve from non-living organisms?

i never claimed i did. but, there is plenty of observable evidence, which supports the "big bang theory".

Originally posted by ebuddy:
You know of [a] scientific law that would allow one kind of creature to turn naturally into a completely different kind?

yes! it's called "adapt or perish"

if you can show me a "complete system" which goes against this, explaining how life works, you're more than welcome to. i seriously doubt you can!

[entrox]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
You've seen life evolve from non-living organisms?

No. Only the Bible would describe something so stupid and unrealistic as dust magically transforming into a human being. However, organic molecules can certainly form from inanimate matter.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
Really deekay1?

You've seen life evolve from non-living organisms? Hmmm. I'm suspect. I hope that doesn't make me a whacko.

You know of scientific law that would allow one kind of creature to turn naturally into a completely different kind? I'm curious.

Well, that about wraps it up for you, ebuddy, I'm sorry to say.

It's absolutely impossible to discuss when you won't even look up the basic term "evolution".

Because evolution does not explain, or even ATTEMPT to explain, the initial CREATION of life. It describes how lifeforms develop over time. Note that this assumes a LIFEFORM. Not geology, or inanimate primordial soup.

You know, sort of how flight school assumes you have a PLANE, not a large pile of iron ore and petroleum derivates. Or how parenting guides assume the presence of a child.

Originally posted by ebuddy:
You know of scientific law that would allow one kind of creature to turn naturally into a completely different kind? I'm curious.

Over tens of thousands of generations, yes. That's the basic premise, isn't it?

[ebuddy]

Young Theolein;

tell me, did you read any of my posts? I've grown up assuming much of what you believe. I decided to take another look, but then I'm not very dogmatic.

Has anyone non-Creationist ever been willing to publish opposing views? C'mon, somewhere within you is a point, but it may be 170,000,000 years before you find it.

Theolein's intellect in action;
ou claim that you think one should be skeptical of everything but that (unsurprisingly) when people are skeptical of creationism, and supply arguments with more content than "faith" then you get upset.
Finally you resort to the very old and tired "You can believe all you want, but I'm right because some group of loonies told me so"
I'll tell you this: Your creationist friends would have a lot more standing if they didn't spend so much time supporting outright falsifications and lies on their websites and then supporting them in the face of all evidence to the contrary.
But actually I think you guys just like it this way. I think you'd be incredibly unhappy if you had to drop your presecution complex and martyrdom put on. It would rob you of a meaning to your life.

Now I know you didn't read what I said. I actually appreciate openness and opposing views. I would have to since I seemingly carry such a controversial opposing view. I believe you are simply too emotional for healthy banter here. Your prejudice and anger just kind of left hanging out there like your fly is undone or something. It's kind of painful to witness. I hope your friends can help you make more effective arguments. BTW, you know the things you claim as fact? Dude, with all due respect, I'm starting to think you're kind of a zealot. Even those in the Community you espouse disagree, they are silent for "the greater good", but they exist. You are simply blind if you can't see that.

It must be tough carrying around that huge chip on your shoulder. You simply cannot see where Science has become an industry. It pains you to challenge anything you've grown up with. Keep sucking your thumb in your comfy little crib and let's get rid of anyone that might make you feel convicted. Afterall, I can't for the life of me figure out any other reason why you are so full of venom. You see me as a fool no? Do you get this mad at your child for spitting up on himself? I certainly hope not. I believe you are convicted. Foolish, but convicted!

[theolein]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
Those of you who personally insult others as part of an argument, have essentially lost the argument.

I wish you could refrain from personal attacks Theolein and Spheric, you guys are better than that historically.

If you do not accept some of the most basic problems with evolutionism yet reject what you see as basic flaws in Creationism, you are as dogmatic, if not more dogmatic than me. I know folx really hate this point, but I just don't see it any differently.

All of your arguments in the thread almost allways revolve around the point that you ask us to believe you without giving us any reason to do so. The one and only time you supplied a factual argument to my question about the nebula, I found a counter argument in less than 5 minutes on the web. All, and I mean every single one of the google results to the so called researchers in the article you quoted led to creationist websites. Not one, not a single one, led to any other mailing list, website or online journal. Not one.

Now of course, you make that pathetic argument (and I could really get violent when I read such BS) that of course the poor martyr of a crap **** lying bastard, who is willing to fake results in order to prove his point, is being suppressed and ostracised by the scientific community. You assume, just like all the hordes of willing fools who frequent UFO and abduction websites, that the theories proposed by your favourite unknown "scientist" are so wild and strange that it would change the world.

You have no idea of some of the really wild theories out there that are taken seriously by the scientific community (Hint: The theories about dark matter and the non quantization of time for example were at first taken with large doses of skepticism). You of course think "your" researcher is the only one with a vaild theory of time, even though his claims on the continual slowing of time are based on falsifying recorded numbers.

THAT is why you reap increasing derision and anger, not because we don't want to listen to your arguments, but because you don't even bother to read ours.

[ebuddy]

No Spheric, biologically impossible. That is established fact. It has been ignored for the sake of Evolution dissemination, but it is a known biological fact. Life cannot come from non-life. You must know that. Honestly, you must know that. I know it's impossible in the Evolution debate to understand it, but you learned in the your first biology class.

It is also fact that matter degenerates. Our galaxy is degenerating, the Universe is degenerating. IMHO, humankind is degenerating.

[entrox]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
Has anyone non-Creationist ever been willing to publish opposing views? C'mon, somewhere within you is a point, but it may be 170,000,000 years before you find it.

How about Panspermia, which theorises that life was brought to Earth from outer space?

[itai195]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
No Spheric, biologically impossible. That is established fact. It has been ignored for the sake of Evolution dissemination, but it is a known biological fact. Life cannot come from non-life. You must know that. Honestly, you must know that. I know it's impossible in the Evolution debate to understand it, but you learned in the your first biology class.

Are you deliberately misunderstanding his post?

[entrox]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
No Spheric, biologically impossible. That is established fact. It has been ignored for the sake of Evolution dissemination, but it is a known biological fact. Life cannot come from non-life.

People would take you more seriously if you stopped lying. As I said 5 minutes before, only the Bible would say something that stupid. Organic molecules can form from inanimate matter.

It is also fact that matter degenerates. Our galaxy is degenerating, the Universe is degenerating.

Your lack of education shows. Degenerates? Oh please, read up on "entropy", but stop shouting nonsense.

[A Single Second]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
Life cannot come from non-life.

Sucks to be made of carbon, eh?

[ebuddy]

Theolein, I've read yours given to me as fact my entire life. "The earth is suchandsuch billion years old" , "this star actually happened this many thousands of years ago" it just goes on and on. The assumption that none of this information should be challenged amazes me. Again, it's as dogmatic if not more dogmatic than what I'm suggesting.

I'm not trying to change your mind. I know I can't, though I wonder if you know the same. The initial assumption of the thread was "gosh, it's too bad this really smart girl was such a psycho." I simply pop in and out of these to defend. Not offend. Those on your side of the fence get off on offending people. I didn't call you foolish to offend you, I called you foolish to wake you the fxck up! Get violent! Beat your friggin' head against a wall! Perhaps that's the only way you'll see beyond that shallow desire to be acceptable, cool, and comfortable! I welcome debate, you immediately go into talking about how blind everyone else is. How nice it would be to be as enlightened as you. I accept the other side and debate. I generally don't get angy, but man when I run into straight mule-headedness...

I'm thankful for what science has offered mankind throughout history. I believe there are some out there with true intentions of helping others and that's to be nothing, but applauded and supported. When science presupposes things and manipulates data to support lies from the past it just reaks to me. I appreciate the advancements in forensic science, study and matter collecting from other planets. I love the stuff. I like talking about it, but when someone just immediately casts you off as something without knowing anything at all about your view it's just fruitless.

BTW, as a Creationist whacko, I'm much less inclined to frequent UFO sites than you.

[ebuddy]

Actually; I'm glad you mention that wait a second or whatever;

man is made up of an amazingly similiar composition of earth's matter, yes, including carbon. Sound familiar?

[ebuddy]

People would take you more seriously if you stopped lying. As I said 5 minutes before, only the Bible would say something that stupid. Organic moleculescan form from inanimate matter.

Examples Entrox?

[theolein]

Originally by meBut actually I think you guys just like it this way. I think you'd be incredibly unhappy if you had to drop your presecution complex and martyrdom put on. It would rob you of a meaning to your life.

Originally posted by ebuddy:
...
I actually appreciate openness and opposing views. I would have to since I seemingly carry such a controversial opposing view. I believe you are simply too emotional for healthy banter here. Your prejudice and anger just kind of left hanging out there like your fly is undone or something. It's kind of painful to witness. I hope your friends can help you make more effective arguments. BTW, you know the things you claim as fact? Dude, with all due respect, I'm starting to think you're kind of a zealot. Even those in the Community you espouse disagree, they are silent for "the greater good", but they exist. You are simply blind if you can't see that.

It must be tough carrying around that huge chip on your shoulder. You simply cannot see where Science has become an industry. It pains you to challenge anything you've grown up with. Keep sucking your thumb in your comfy little crib and let's get rid of anyone that might make you feel convicted. Afterall, I can't for the life of me figure out any other reason why you are so full of venom. You see me as a fool no? Do you get this mad at your child for spitting up on himself? I certainly hope not. I believe you are convicted. Foolish, but convicted!

QED*










*Again, I have to ask why you "folx" and "dudes" of the One True Way� have such a problem with the English language? Is it because you're "convicted" or because certain levels of intelligence carry along certain levels of conviction?

[entrox]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
man is made up of an amazingly similiar(sic) composition of earth's matter, yes, including carbon. Sound familiar?

Oh boy. You're pure comedy gold.

[theolein]

Originally posted by A Single Second:
Sucks to be made of carbon, eh?

[deekay1]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
The assumption that none of this information should be challenged amazes me. Again, it's as dogmatic if not more dogmatic than what I'm suggesting.

again, my friend, you are wrong. the research into evolutionary theory is an ongoing one. the thing is though, the more we know about "how nature works" the more evidence we find for "evolution". it's almost like "someone" wants us to find out about it .

[entrox]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
Examples Entrox?

What do you think amino acids are? Look up "Abiogenesis" for specifics.

Edit: I changed my mind. I will give you a concrete example, because I know you'll be too lazy to actually look something up yourself. Stanley Miller synthesised amino acids by zapping a mixture of hydrogen, methane, ammonia and water with electricity in 1953. As far as I can see, all those ingredients qualify as inanimate matter, don't they? Here's a link.

[Stradlater]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
Besides, we know from human nature that no one's mind will be changed.

I don't care about changing your mind, you still wouldn't be the most intelligent person in mine. All I want for you to do is to actually read those rebuttals and realize a few things...

Originally posted by ebuddy:
I could've asked someone the speed of light and while they don't know the exact number offhand and perhaps never even looked into the history of it's calculation, blindly believe that a certain nebula is a certain hundred thousand light years away.

Could you? Don't you mean "I already have and it's been rebutted but I have nothing to respond to the rebuttal again so I'm going to repeat my assertion.

Originally posted by ebuddy:
Most of us cannot comprehend the complexities of the topics at hand, but simply believe a thing. Why then is skepticism completely unacceptable contingent upon who is being the skeptic? Only certain communities are allowed to doubt?

Then why are you skeptical of science and not religion? And what made religion win in your mind? (Was blind faith better than supported evidence?)

Originally posted by ebuddy:
Without intervention, can even the simplest cell breakdown and increase in complexity?

Why yes, yes they can.

Originally posted by ebuddy:
Living things cannot evolve upward by mutations, natural selection, or any other means.

Wow, stated as fact, here's another: You're wrong.

Originally posted by ebuddy:
I don't presuppose the age of man or the earth. I don't know. There is no one here who can know this for sure. There are those within your scientific community who disagree with your stagnant and conventional methodology and for the sake of the greater good (i.e. research grants etc...) are silenced.

You obviously don't know what you're talking about, and do you mean "knowing for sure" as stupendousman meant it before? Real proof before your eyes? Of course we can't go back in time, but science has given us enough evidence to KNOW that the earth is older than 6,000 years.

Originally posted by ebuddy:
One thing I'm certain of, man will always be man

Until he evolves, at least But that could take awhile, considering hospitals will continue to accept the ignorant.

Originally posted by ebuddy:
I would challenge you to call yourself an enthusiast of science if you contented yourself with the rocky foundation upon which much of the evolution argument is founded.

At least one can stand on a "rocky" foundation, you're falling in the void of blind faith, which has no concrete foundation, just pillowy clouds of no real evidence.

Originally posted by ebuddy:
It simply has too many holes for me. There are some extremely basic concepts assumed that just can't be. Nothing about observational science lends to evolution.

1. Why then believe in something that is just one big hole?
2. What basic concepts and you seem pretty sure of this (another "factual" quotation), but HOW can you say that that these concepts "just can't be"?
3. Wrong again! Evolution is based on many scientific studies, INCLUDING observational!

Originally posted by ebuddy:
I applaud the efforts to keep trying.

And I'm sure the claque is going strong.

Originally posted by ebuddy:
Honestly. I do believe too many things have been fed to us as fact when we are not also subject to the argument. Look, you can be the greatest scientist in the Universe, if you can't get funding nor have your life's work published-your work will be mostly in vain. The Scientific Community is an Industry.

All your arguments go back to your own faith. "God is real" was fed to you as a fact and you don't question it? AGAIN, PLEASE, ANY CHRISTIAN OUT THERE, ANSWER: If you believe that one should be skeptical of science, why do you believe in something blindly that doesn't even have (good, scientific) supporting evidence, like science?

Originally posted by ebuddy:
I may believe you put too much faith in mankind.

I have little faith in mankind, to find out why: reread your post.

[Stradlater]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
...life evolve from non-living organisms? Hmmm.

What the hell is a "non-living organism"? Is this like resurrection when Jesus came back alive? You're not making sense, non-living organisms did not come before living organisms (just as the chicken did not come before the egg).

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
No Spheric, biologically impossible. That is established fact. It has been ignored for the sake of Evolution dissemination, but it is a known biological fact. Life cannot come from non-life. You must know that. Honestly, you must know that. I know it's impossible in the Evolution debate to understand it, but you learned in the your first biology class.

It is also fact that matter degenerates. Our galaxy is degenerating, the Universe is degenerating. IMHO, humankind is degenerating.

I'm sorry, ebuddy, but again, it is patently obvious that you simply have absolutely no idea of which you speak.

The origin of life has not been "ignored for the sake of Evolution dissemination"; in fact, it is one of the most heavily-discussed biological subjects of all, and several theories are being bandied about. That seminal moment is, indeed, not yet understood.

The reason it never comes up in discussion relating to evolution is BECAUSE IT DOESN'T HAVE THE SLIGHTEST THING TO DO WITH EVOLUTION. I explained that above.

It is utterly non-sequitur.

And I am seriously beginning to doubt whether you ever HAD biology lessons, because one of the experiments we did was the formation of simple cell-membranes by careful mixture of certain substances allegedly present in the Primordial Soup. One of the first things we learned in biology class was, indeed that it seems that life DID come from non-life, that amino acids were fairly easy to create simulating the early earth-environment, that cell-like membranes were fairly easy to create, but that it wasn't clearly understood what exactly happened then.

Since then, other theories have been put forth.

But none of them relate in the slightest to evolution.

-s*

[Stradlater]

Originally posted by deekay1:
"adapt or parish"

which is a very similar concept to adapt or perish.

[Stratus Fear]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
No Spheric, biologically impossible. That is established fact. It has been ignored for the sake of Evolution dissemination, but it is a known biological fact. Life cannot come from non-life. You must know that. Honestly, you must know that. I know it's impossible in the Evolution debate to understand it, but you learned in the your first biology class.

It's not an established fact. Granted, we haven't created anything that satisfies every prerequisite for being considered a normal life form, but I do remember at one point reading that we have at least managed to create viruses from the correct materials of a living being and an electric charge, or something like that. I should dig up some articles on that one...

[deekay1]

Originally posted by Stradlater:
which is a very similar concept to adapt or perish.

oops *g* <spellcheck on>

[Stradlater]

Originally posted by Superchic[k]en:
That said if I get to heaven and find out evolution is how God created life on earth, all probably shrug my shoulders and my world won't fall apart.

How can you call something like evolution "wrong" because you don't believe in its evidence, and then stick to things that have no evidence: God, heaven.

[Stradlater]

Originally posted by deekay1:
oops *g* <spellcheck on>

no, spellcheck wouldn't have found that, i found it amusing...look up "parish" in the dictionary

[Stradlater]

Originally posted by undotwa:
Hey, I drink the blood and eat the flesh of Jesus Christ at least once a week on Sundays. And so did the early Christians.

Take some flesh and blood to a scientist, then take your wafers and wine, and ask for a comparison.

[entrox]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
But none of them relate in the slightest to evolution.

Typical straw men arguments from Creationists. Next they'll be babbling about the Big Bang and how it disproves evolution. It's always the same.