Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 5/9/06 01:00 AM, Dranigus wrote:

The need for plants and their inability to survive with an excess of water is what discredits Noah's story.

Not quite because Most of the oxygen comes from Plankton And second the seeds could still survive to grow new trees.

Oh yeah, I forgot to respond to that lion story.

True carnivores lack the physiology required for the efficient digestion of vegetable matter, and in fact some carnivorous mammals eat vegetation specifically as an emetic.

Link.

Your story holds no explanation from scientists, I'm sure this was reported to the scientific comunity and after some close inspection they most likely came to a conclusion it was just some form of a rare disease or malfunction, they just left that part out of the story, becuase it is a religious website. Infact, this story is found only on religious sites which have quotes from the bible. From what I understand, this story is based on a children's book. I don't know how this lion survived, but it can't be healthy for it. It was born with an abnormality and ate vegetation right from it's birth. If you take a grown lion, as Noah did on his ark, and feed it vegetables, it will die. Carnivores require meat in order to gain energy and muscle to outrun their pray. Even if Noah has managed to teach every carnivore to eat meat, they wouldn't survive very long, and would lack the desire to reproduce. These animals would become weak and lazy, lions already sleep 20 hours a day. These carnivores would have to be carried of the boat.

Actualy wait here is something interesting. The people who adopted the lion lived on a farm full of chicken, sheep, cattle. They wouldn't want to bring a ferocious lion into their farm, so when they adopted it, they probably decided to feed it vegetation right from the start. The lion painfully adopted to it's diet since it had no meat avaliable. Died at age of 9. Avergae life span of lion in the wild 15-18 years, in captivity 25-30 years. So they shortened it's life by aprox two thirds, 66%. Nothing weird about that. They killed a lion by feedin it vegetables. Did that lion ever mate? Did it ever have the desire to mate?

In order for Noah to acomplish this he would have to take little cubs on the boat and feed them nothing but vegetables, but the bible doesn't specifically say that god told Noah to only bring newborn carnivores. And even if he would have accomplished this, look at the resluts, reducing their life by 66%, making them suffer. Surely the all mighty could have just made all the bad people vanish, wouldn't that be easier?

At 5/9/06 08:40 PM, WildCatzTy wrote: Can we use science *(our current technolgy)* to prove god is not real.
No

Can you prove God is real?
No.

Could people thousands of years ago prove God is real?
No.

At 5/10/06 04:19 AM, -Toast- wrote:

At 5/9/06 08:40 PM, WildCatzTy wrote: Can we use science *(our current technolgy)* to prove god is not real.
No

Can you prove God is real?
No.

Could people thousands of years ago prove God is real?
No.

Have the worlds greatest scientists proven God is not real?
No

Will some people on newgrounds prove God is real?
No

How about just respecting others faith and viewpoints a bit more hey?

Exactly, that's what I'm saying. No one can prove God is real as well as no one can prove he isn't real, but it doesn't matter anyway. The important thing about God is not if he is real or not, it is what he represents.

At 5/9/06 09:18 PM, facksfunny wrote: Daniel 4:7-8, "I saw a tree of great height at the center of the world. It was large and strong, with its top touching the heavens, and it could be seen from the ends of the earth."

That's a dream sequence. Link. Proves Nebucudnezzer thought the world was flat.

You other points still stand

At 5/9/06 10:02 PM, therealsylvos wrote:

At 5/9/06 09:18 PM, facksfunny wrote:

Exodus 21:7 and Leviticus 25:44 support slavery. Read them in your bible.

Then why is slavery condemned in 1 Timothy 1:10.

well you have to understand wholesale parts of the bible are metophorical and not to be taken under any circumstances literlally. and as to the slavery when the bible was given slaves were as common as water so it doesnt truly make a difference.

Here's what I gathered:

Back in the Old Testament times, you could not file for bankruptcy or anything like that. To pay off a debt, a person would voluntarily sell themselves into slavery to pay it off in full. A craftsperson could use their skills to pay off a debt, and even a thief could make restitution.

I also want to give a shout out to Hank Hanegraaf for the preceding information.

Your story holds no explanation from scientists, I'm sure this was reported to the scientific comunity and after some close inspection they most likely came to a conclusion it was just some form of a rare disease or malfunction, they just left that part out of the story, becuase it is a religious website. Infact, this story is found only on religious sites which have quotes from the bible.

Not true, this story is found in many places. Not just religious websites.

From what I understand, this story is based on a children's book.

No, it was made into a childrens book. This was a true story.

I don't know how this lion survived, but it can't be healthy for it. It was born with an abnormality and ate vegetation right from it's birth.

She was in perfect health the whole time. Even scientists were baffled by this.

If you take a grown lion, as Noah did on his ark, and feed it vegetables, it will die.

Noah didn't take grown animals on the ark. that would be stupid. he took babies. They eat less, will live longer to repopulate the species, sleep more, are hardier and they take up less space.

Carnivores require meat in order to gain energy and muscle to outrun their pray. Even if Noah has managed to teach every carnivore to eat meat, they wouldn't survive very long, and would lack the desire to reproduce. These animals would become weak and lazy, lions already sleep 20 hours a day. These carnivores would have to be carried of the boat.

Not true in the slightest.

Actualy wait here is something interesting. The people who adopted the lion lived on a farm full of chicken, sheep, cattle. They wouldn't want to bring a ferocious lion into their farm, so when they adopted it, they probably decided to feed it vegetation right from the start. The lion painfully adopted to it's diet since it had no meat avaliable.

They tried to feed it meat right from the start, but she refused. they wanted her to eat meat and made it available for her. she refused to touch it.

Died at age of 9. Avergae life span of lion in the wild 15-18 years, in captivity 25-30 years. So they shortened it's life by aprox two thirds, 66%. Nothing weird about that. They killed a lion by feedin it vegetables.

She died because she contracted virus pneumonia whilst in Hollywood for a show. Her diet had nothing to do with that. Scientists agree.

Did that lion ever mate? Did it ever have the desire to mate?

I don't know if she ever had the desire, but i do know that she didn't. There was no need for her to do so. She lived on a farm. Where would they have gotten the male and why would they want even more lions running around? Was she capable of breeding? Yes.

In order for Noah to acomplish this he would have to take little cubs on the boat and feed them nothing but vegetables, but the bible doesn't specifically say that god told Noah to only bring newborn carnivores.

It didn't say to specifically take lions either, but he did. Lions can survive just fine on a vegetarian diet if need be, especially back around the time of the flood. The bible even says "And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to everything that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so." All animals were vegetarians at the time of the flood.

Here is a link to a more detailed and complete story about the lioness Link

Cheers...

At 5/10/06 11:01 AM, SundayBest wrote:

At 5/9/06 10:02 PM, therealsylvos wrote:

At 5/9/06 09:18 PM, facksfunny wrote:

Exodus 21:7 and Leviticus 25:44 support slavery. Read them in your bible.

Then why is slavery condemned in 1 Timothy 1:10.

Just thought I'd drop in to say:

Because the Bible contradicts itself all the time.

At 5/10/06 12:44 PM, pretentious_asshat wrote:

Because the Bible contradicts itself all the time.

No it doesn't.

At 5/10/06 12:46 PM, SundayBest wrote:

At 5/10/06 12:44 PM, pretentious_asshat wrote:

Because the Bible contradicts itself all the time.

No it doesn't.

Oh, okay

At 5/10/06 04:54 PM, pretentious_asshat wrote:

At 5/10/06 12:46 PM, SundayBest wrote:

At 5/10/06 12:44 PM, pretentious_asshat wrote:

Because the Bible contradicts itself all the time.

No it doesn't.

Oh, okay

see giving me a link with a ton of contradiction some from new, wont get a rebbutal if you want i will attempt to rectify in your mind the "contradiction" of the old testement. but only if you give them to me one at a time.

At 5/10/06 11:28 AM, Taleynet wrote: Not true, this story is found in many places. Not just religious websites.

Nope, only religious and vegetarian websites. Find me a scientific site that has this story. I've googled it.

No, it was made into a childrens book. This was a true story.

Or the other way around. Proof please.

She was in perfect health the whole time. Even scientists were baffled by this.

Lions with a perfect health condition don't reject meat. Scientists weren'tt baffled by this because:
1) This story is not found on scientific sites.

2) Abnormalities happen in nature all the time, for instances some birds are born with short wings, and never leave the nest. It's just a birth defect.

3) No evidecne that this lion rejected meat at birth, the story says nothing about that. Could easily be that it was tought to eat meat.

Noah didn't take grown animals on the ark. that would be stupid. he took babies. They eat less, will live longer to repopulate the species, sleep more, are hardier and they take up less space.

Proof please, the bible doesn't say that Noah took babies.

Not true in the slightest.

Actually more true than you could imagine.

They tried to feed it meat right from the start, but she refused. they wanted her to eat meat and made it available for her. she refused to touch it.

Proof please. Since the story is ONLY found on religious and Vegetarians sites, it could have easily been altered to favor their cause.

She died because she contracted virus pneumonia whilst in Hollywood for a show. Her diet had nothing to do with that. Scientists agree.

Doesn't say anything about scientists agreeing. She had a low imune system due to a proper nutriotion, exactly what you would expect.

I don't know if she ever had the desire, but i do know that she didn't. There was no need for her to do so. She lived on a farm. Where would they have gotten the male and why would they want even more lions running around? Was she capable of breeding? Yes.

Prove that she was capable of breeding. All animals have desires and needs. If she never bread, she didn't want too. They would know if she did and take her to a zoo or a lion habitat.

It didn't say to specifically take lions either, but he did. Lions can survive just fine on a vegetarian diet if need be, especially back around the time of the flood. The bible even says "And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to everything that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so." All animals were vegetarians at the time of the flood.

Any other proof besides the bible? How many lions today eat vegetables? This lioness with a defect is one in a million.

Also if all animals were vegetarians then why does god say "I have given every green herb for meat" They were already vegetarians and didn't eat meat. I think this is one of those passages where the bible contradicts it self.

Here is a link to a more detailed and complete story about the lioness Link

I've already found it on some other webiste, which was religious.

I've posted more and you haven't responded to it yet, I would like to see your responces on those issues too.

Also:

Adaptation is an anatomical structure, physiological process or behavioral trait of an organism that has evolved over a period... Link No new species are created during adaptation right? Weren't you guys just arguing that a few pages back? I think somebody said something along the lines of no new species can be formed, only created by god.

Evolution is the process by which novel traits arise in populations and are passed on from generation to generation. Its occurrence over long stretches of time explains the origin of new species. Another link. Basically new species are created during evolution, right?

So you are saying no new species can evolve, new species can only be made by god.

Fine, you also said that Noah didn't take polar bears, he just took one type of bear that could survive in the same conditions as the kangaroo.

Polar bear:
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Carnivora
Family: Ursidae
Genus: Ursus
Species: U. maritimus

Grizzly bear:
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Carnivora
Family: Ursidae
Genus: Ursus
Species: U. arctos
Subspecies: U. a. horribilis

Black bear:
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Carnivora
Family: Ursidae
Genus: Ursus
Species: U. americanus
Asiatic black bear is even in a different Genus, so that couldn't have been the one he took.

Brown bear:
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Carnivora
Family: Ursidae
Genus: Ursus
Species: U. arctos

All of these are different species, therefore different "kinds." Since you don't believe in evoultion, these same species existed back then too. He had to bring them on the ark. So he had to make an environemtn sutiable for a polar bear and a lion, or a kangaroo.

Also, Penguin:
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Aves
Order: Sphenisciforme
This is where the penguins go a different route than birds.

Birds:
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Aves
Then come the different orders.

The penguins have their own Order. Not their own species, not genus, and not even family, but a whole new Order, devoted ONLY to aquatic flightless birds. So the penguin isn't a "kind" of bird. This means it is a totaly different kind of animal, Noah had to bring penguins too, since they couldn't have evolved from other animals.

At 5/10/06 09:43 AM, x_Toadenalin_x wrote: That's a dream sequence. Link. Proves Nebucudnezzer thought the world was flat.

You other points still stand

Galileo Galilei was arrested for trying to prove that the earth revovled around the sun. Also I can't recall but I think some people were burned for trying to prove that the earth was round. Either way, we can clearly see that the bible does infact improperly represent celestial bodies. And if people died because of that, I think these parts were not meant to be taken metaphorically, I'm sure the people in the middle ages would have figured that out.

no he isnt. i think ppl invented god to think that after death,they'll have a better life

so many gods are in the world, no one knows what god or gods look like.

Honestly, the most important thing isn't denying the existance of God, it's about taking control of your life away from the Church and the Theocracy.

This is the most practical application of Athiesm : More personal freedoms and not letting some fucking book dictate what you can or can't, what should feel and what you shouldn't feel guilty for, what you should do and what you shouldn't. It's fucking outrageous how many puppets are fucking outraged because some god damned book and a loony cleric tell them to do.

I brings such a fanaticism into people that can be more afflicting personally than drugs. Look at Scientology and it's control over people, they make people pay to be apart of their Church and basically take over their lives. Of course, the current Protestant and Catholic churches a bit more lenient on personal rights, however, they aren't perfect. For example, the Catholic church began a campaign in Africa against contraception.

Guess what happens next? You got it : more AIDs outbreaks in many small villages, towns and cities.

Yeah, fucking morally righteous or what?

Nope, only religious and vegetarian websites. Find me a scientific site that has this story. I've googled it.

No no no... you said it was only on religious sites... not religious and vegetarian sites... i was merely correcting you. I have googled it as well and it is true that it is mostly on veggie and religious sites, but they talk about the scientific side of it as well. When i have time away from work, college and a social life, i will find the original source and send it to you... otherwise, you will just have to wait.

Or the other way around. Proof please.

wow... "proof please" is becoming something of a mantra for you isn't it... Prove that it wasn't! Fine, you need me to do all your work for you? Did you or did you not see the ACTUAL PHOTOS taken of this lion? The ones where she is laying down and cuddling with lambs and kittens, and turning away from offered meat etc... this was a real lion and unless you can prove to me that she wasn't, drop it.

Lions with a perfect health condition don't reject meat. Scientists weren'tt baffled by this because:
1) This story is not found on scientific sites.
2) Abnormalities happen in nature all the time, for instances some birds are born with short wings, and never leave the nest. It's just a birth defect.

The story says that scientists were baffled by the lion's ability to survive without meat... did you or did you not read what i linked to?

3) No evidecne that this lion rejected meat at birth, the story says nothing about that. Could easily be that it was tought to eat meat.

Wow... either you're blind, don't know how to read or you're an idiot... the story specifically says that the lion refused to eat meat from the very beginning! Please read before posting!

Proof please, the bible doesn't say that Noah took babies.

It's not scientific evidence, it's common sense... tell me, do you ride one of the short school buses to school?

Actually more true than you could imagine.

Umm, yeah... that told me nothing whatsoever... all it did was give a definition of what a carnivore is. That has nothing to do with what we were talking about. try again.

Proof please. Since the story is ONLY found on religious and Vegetarians sites, it could have easily been altered to favor their cause.

Again with the mantra... Use common sense! this wasn't a doctored story, it was a true story about a weird lion. Stop arguing the validity of the story just because it doesn't fit with your wacked out theory about your grandpa being a monkey.

Doesn't say anything about scientists agreeing. She had a low imune system due to a proper nutriotion, exactly what you would expect.

HA, i get to use your own mantra against you... PROVE THAT HER IMMUNE SYSTEM WAS MESSED UP!!!! Her immune system was fine. I repeat, did you or did you not actually read the story???

Prove that she was capable of breeding. All animals have desires and needs. If she never bread, she didn't want too. They would know if she did and take her to a zoo or a lion habitat.

And the mantra, yet again... oh goodie... PROVE THAT SHE WASN'T!!! They didn't breed her because they weren't lion breeders. They just rescued a lion that became a pet. If she didn't breed, it's not because she didn't want to, ITS BECAUSE THERE WAS NO MALE!!!!! Use common sense, please!! Lack of evidence is NOT proof of anything!

Any other proof besides the bible? How many lions today eat vegetables? This lioness with a defect is one in a million.

It wasn't a defect. Read the story. Scientists studied her and said that she was normal. They couldn't figure out why she could survive without meat, because she technically shouldn't have been able to. She is a mystery, but all you're doing is disregarding it because it doesn't fit with your theories. Suck it up and actually face the facts. This was a true story and all the wishing in the world is not going to make it go away.

Also if all animals were vegetarians then why does god say "I have given every green herb for meat" They were already vegetarians and didn't eat meat. I think this is one of those passages where the bible contradicts it self.

Have you ever seen a bible? Have you tried opening it and looking at the words inside of it? I'm not even going to answer this one until you actually read the bible yourself. I'm not going to do all your homework for you.

I've already found it on some other webiste, which was religious.

I don't care where you've found it, read it anyway. You want to know why it's on religious websites and not on every scientific site out there? It's because this lion actually supports creationism. Evolutionists have a funny habit of burying their heads in the sand whenever they see something they don't like or that could hurt their theory. Why would an evolution site have this on there? It hurts their cause, therefore, they're going to ignore it and hope it goes away.

I've posted more and you haven't responded to it yet, I would like to see your responces on those issues too.

I haven't had time to respond to your other post and you know what? I'm not going to. I am tired of repeating myself over and over again. You're not listening, you haven't done any research, and your IQ is lower than the apes you claim to be related to. If you were actually arguing intelligently, then it would be a different story, but i feel like i'm talking to a three year old. Here's some advice for you... grow up, try reading actually READING about what you're arguing, at least skim the bible, "evolve" to have an IQ higher than mayonnase and then get back to me. I will not respond to the rest of this post either because i have already explained all this to you. You're not getting it and you're wasting my time. i honestly have much better things to do with my life than banter back and forth with a monkey who refuses to listen to me.

Cheers...

No, he's not.

At 5/9/06 06:12 PM, Ravariel wrote:

Please, enumerate them.

Do it yourself... it's all there. I'm not doing your homework for you.

The point IS the exact rate of shrinkage. You claim that the early sun was large enough to encompass the earth's orbit... thus being larger than the Red Giants physicists have observed. No such immense young star has ever been found. If one was that large, chances are good it would collapse in on itself or go Nova very early in its life. Such a claim is pure bunk. GIVE ME EVIDENCE that the rate of shrinkage was constant throughout the sun's life, or even semi-constant. Give me ANY reason to believe that stellar mechanics, studied by hundreds of scientists who have had years more schooling, study and better instruments than you or I are SO wrong about the characteristics of the universe.

GIVE ME EVIDENCE THAT IT WASN'T CONSTANT!!!! See, i can play that game too...

You are yanking one stray number out of the air, with NO context whatsoever and flaunting it as proof against evolution.. Hell, against science itself. You're going to need more than just "The sun is shrinking". Give. Me. Evidence.

You give me evidence! Okay, you know what... even the scientists can't agree on this one. there's no way that you and i ever will. We can argue this until we're blue in the face and never agree. This line of argument is a deadend and a waste of our time. I know i am right, but i also know you'll never agree with me on this one. If you will, i would like to move onto areas where there is more observable evidence and less speculation.

Do you even read what I write?

Yes, do you?

Do you know how galaxies and solar systems are created?

Yeah, BY GOD!!! HA!

Oh really? Funny, every argument I have made has been backed up by decades of verifiable scientific evidence. Where's your evidence? Upright petrified trees? Mt. St. Helen's stratification? General observational similarities to geologic strata? Give me some hard data... ANY hard data. You and TBL haven't been able to do it yet... even though I've asked over and over.

I've asked over and over for evidence of evolution and you haven't been able to provide it. I and ThebanLegion have given you evidence, but unfortunately, your worldview differs to the point that you just don't see things the way we do.

Your study is lacking, I'm sorry. Your understanding of geology, biology, botany, ecological science, orbital mechanics, thermodynamice, stellar mechanics, and physics in general is not very good. It is of a level of a creationist picking out the data he wants in order to try and undermine science. You don't get to pick a few stray facts, take them out of context and hold them up as some shining gem of proof against the thousands of years of scientific advancement that has come before.

I said i studied these things. I never claimed to be an expert, and i'm not. I do have a basic understanding of these things though. I don't pick and choose stray facts, but the scope of what we are debating is so immense that it is impossible to do it all at once. You "pick and choose" just like we all do in order to find the subjects that carry the most weight for your argument. It is what debating is all about.

Do you REALLY think that scientists haven't thought of what you're now thinking? Do you really believe that a layperson such as yourself, with so little knowledge about the subjects in general, are capable of punching holes in science?

No, i know that they have... I'm not making stuff up. Everything i put down in these posts is from scientists that know more about it than i ever will. Why? Are you making stuff up and trying to poke holes in things you know nothing about?

God, being, by definition, outside the universe, is obviously untouchable by science. The universe, however, IS. And that's what we're discussing here. God, himself, has been put on the back burner through most of this thread while we banter back and forth about the science of the universe. Once we get that nailed down, then we can tackle the larger problem.

That's the thing though. We will never get anything nailed down. My beliefs are based on God and i cannot separate him from science because he is intricately involved in everything i believe. I do know that science does not and never will be able to prove, 100% that evolution is true.

Here's a question for you, and when you reply to this post, this is honestly the only question i want you to answer. Nothing else. I want to drop all of the sidetracking and rabbit trails and just get down to the absolute basics.

You say that the Universe came into existence billions of years ago. For the big bang to happen, the dimension of time had to have exsisted already. How did time come into existence? Where did dimensions come from? Where did all of the original matter that the universe is comprise of come from? If matter cannot be created or destroyed, how did this all begin?

I say that God created all of it. It came from intelligent design. How can evolution explain the existence of time, dimension, and the absolute beginnings of the beginning?

I look forward to your reply, cheers...

At 5/9/06 06:52 PM, Ravariel wrote:

Yeah, a couple of problems: As the article mentioned 2% of the material was amino acids, did you know that the other 98% was made up of materials toxic to life. Also, the experiment was done without the addition of oxygen, oxygen is essential to life. And finally a person performed the experiment; it didn’t randomly happen, it took intelligence.

In case you hadn't noticed, we were talking about entropy, not evolution specifically.

We’re talking about entropy in the context of evolution.

Regardless, the combination of genetic material results in much new information... a whole new organism, for one.

A cat can’t breed with a dog. The possibility for variation within a kind of animal is very great but two cats will never produce dogs. A new kind of organism will never be produced.

Oftimes with new features that neither parent had before.

Yes but they had the genetic capability to produce those features. No amount of combining cat data (if you will) will produce anything other than a cat.

Sometimes it's due to a mutation, sometimes through recessive genes, sometimes through activation of retroviruses in the genome.

Recessive genes are information that a cat would already have; they will not result in new information. Mutation and retroviruses are harmful, any alterations in an animal by those means are going to be destructive not constructive.

Lol... thousands of years of science have been repeatedly wrong because of all of this? Yeah, right.

This sentence right here is proof of your bias, you imply that I claim SCIENCE is wrong. No! Science is right, the evolutionary worldview and the conclusion based off it are wrong. I’m running out of ways to explain this to you.

One big conspiracy theory. Give me evidence and not suppositions. Every piece of flimsy evidence you've put forth has been pretty well blasted... so you're going to have to come up with something good this time, ok?

No, every piece of evidence I have put forward we have been debating, you haven’t “blasted” anything. You may have seemingly reasonable explanations for a few things I have put forward but that doesn’t mean anything. For example, to break a code you use algorithms. You can use two different algorithms and they can both give you seemingly reasonable, but different answers. Because they both can appear reasonable, does that mean that both are the correct algorithms to use? Of course not, only one is right.

Again, you take a discussion of geology and physics and take it out of context into evolution. You really do have a hard time staying on point, don't you?

It’s called sarcasm.

But specation IS changing into other animals... it's a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT SPECIES.

Speciation can account for two different types of cats but it cannot cause cats to produce dogs. That is the limit of speciation. A cat always has been and always will be a cat, no amount of speciation, natural selection or variations can change this.

Sigh, it doesn't work like that and you know it. Quit trying to argue your case with logical fallacies.

Wow, that sentence oozes with irony. That is what evolution is based on, that is an exaggerated version of how it has to work, the only difference is a great deal of time, so by your argument evolution is a logical fallacy. Also the fact that we have never observed a kind of animal changing to another makes evolution unscientific.

I read the article, it's BS. General observational similarities to geologic strata. No real in-depth study, no dating methods to verify the age of the strata, no science to back up the claim other than "It LOOKS like geologic strata and canyons." That is NOT evidence... give me DATA, not BS.

The article shows that rapid stratification can and does occur, are you denying this?

Do you require additional sources?

I’m sorry, my initial question was buried amongst the rest of my sentence, I have the feeling that you thought it was part of my argument, I shall repeat: In what order of density are the layers of strata in the “geologic column” found in?

Who's closed minded again?

My point was that it would get us nowhere as our worldviews are completely different. You have been so set in your ways that you wouldn’t accept even the most logical deductions if they supported creation.

Any actual evidence for this other than the bible?

Not currently, but the Bible is evidence nonetheless. I hate to argue from the standpoint of a lack of evidence but have you got any evidence that it didn’t? Because I have evidence that says it did. Why is this so hard to accept?

I give you links with the information you want, etc…

I briefly read through the first few and they all started out with arguments against creation, not raw scientific data. Did they really have the information that I was looking for? Which one? Do these erosion marks exist?

Wtf? Dude, I'm done with you. Everything I see you write is, in essence "LALALALALA I'm not listening!"

Really? That’s the same impression that I get from you :)

But seriously, if you wish to discontinue your debate with me I will not think any less of you, however if you continue to post in this thread I will continue to respond.

Factsfunny: I agree with Taleynet, your arguments consist of circular reasoning, demanding proof where none is required, etc… She is justified in ending a time wasting debate with you. I mean no offence by any of this but I have been laughing out loud at some of your posts. You have a lot to learn about science and even more to learn about the Bible.

I don't know much about Religion, and I don't know that much about science, but I'm smart enough to realize that both science, and Religion both have minor, and major contridictions... As far as is god real? I tend to believe in a higher power, I refuse to classify it as God / Demon / Male / Female... As long as you acknowlege the power, it will be blessed on you.

I don't mean to hurt people's feelings or hurt people's faiths with this reply.
I beleive religion is a complete lie. The bible is probably a story book from an acient civilisation that was lost thouasands of years ago, which someone has found and is now taken completely out of contrast and has created the society we have today where all religion does is create wars and racism throughout the world.

Is this 'shrinking sun' stuff still being discussed? If so, the following might be helpful:

The sun does not shrink.

But, to be a little more fair. There you have something for the creationists.

That's probably all I'll do in this topic. Sorry, but I don't want to jump into the rest of the discussion.

At 5/11/06 03:07 PM, Foamy_pint wrote: I beleive religion is a complete lie.

You're right. "Thou shall not steal" is a stupid idea. Everything in the Bible is stupid, since it is impossible to learn moral lessons from something that is not 100% true.

The bible is probably a story book from an acient civilisation that was lost thouasands of years ago,

Yes. Paul's letter to the Church of Corinth rather upsets this view, doesn't it?

all religion does is create wars and racism throughout the world.

Bollocks:
Christian Aid CAFOD Red Cross

At 5/11/06 03:42 PM, x_Toadenalin_x wrote:

At 5/11/06 03:07 PM, Foamy_pint wrote: I beleive religion is a complete lie.

You're right. "Thou shall not steal" is a stupid idea. Everything in the Bible is stupid, since it is impossible to learn moral lessons from something that is not 100% true.

I am really having a hard time if you are trying to be sarcastic, x_Toadenalin_x. If you are, then move over, Jos; because there's a new Justice of Sarcasm here!

LOL

I hope he doesn't ban me for this.

At 5/11/06 03:07 PM, Foamy_pint wrote: I don't mean to hurt people's feelings or hurt people's faiths with this reply.
I beleive religion is a complete lie. The bible is probably a story book from an acient civilisation that was lost thouasands of years ago, which someone has found and is now taken completely out of contrast and has created the society we have today where all religion does is create wars and racism throughout the world.

Yeah, this is a real common response from someone who just wants to live their life with no consiquences. I've heard it a thousand times before. So many people have this idea that the bible is just a bunch of fairy tales and myths. This is not true however. Instead of trying to convince you myself, because you will never believe me, i give you a quote from a book written by a doctor of history.

"Any book that chronicles a credible record of historical events must undergo the test of accuracy. Because the Bible presents religious truth affords no reason why it should be allowed to avoid this test. However, the Bible welcomes the test of accuracy in spite of the long time span of its multiple authors. If what the diverse human authors record about history fails to accord with fact, then what the Bible teaches about religion becomes questionable. If what the diverse human authors record about history accords with fact, then what the Bible teaches about religion deserves validity. The Bible has passed multiple tests of historical accuracy with the unique record of no mistakes. In fact, the entire collection of sixty-six books has no rival among religious books for historical accuracy. For example, consider how the nineteenth century critics challenged the accuracy of the biblical record concerning the Hittites, the Horites of Sargon II, and Sodom and Gomorrah. Critics condemned the biblical record as myth until archaeological excavations completely authenticated the biblical record. One Egyptian tablet actually recorded a fierce battle between Ramses II and the Hittites at Kadesh on the Orontes River. The Bible proved accurate; the critics proved false.
Earlier Bible scholars also had doubted the accuracy of Bible statements concerning Belshazzar because no known secular historical records listed this ruler. But in 1853 archaeologists found an inscription in Ur which confirmed the Bible record about Belshazzar. Archeology has continued to confirm biblical records but, more importantly, has never produced one contradiction.."

The bible wasn't just a story book. It is a historically accurate account of the past. And religion does not cause wars and racism. It is people who do that. If everyone would just practice what religion preaches, there would be no war. God gave us an instruction book as to how to live. It's up to us to use it or not. I choose to do so. It is people who don't that cause the pain and suffering in this world today.

Cheers...

i believe he is there.

At 5/11/06 04:35 AM, Taleynet wrote:
Do it yourself... it's all there. I'm not doing your homework for you.

I've responded to almost every point put forth by you and TBL and none of them stand up to scrutiny. If you'd give actual data rather than speculation and general observational similarities we might have something. I've seen the evidence you two have put forth in here, and it's either bogus, incomplete, or easily explained when put into context.

GIVE ME EVIDENCE THAT IT WASN'T CONSTANT!!!! See, i can play that game too...

Layperson evidence:

http://www.talkorigi..ndexcc/CE/CE310.html

http://www.reall.org..4/n11/sunshrink.html

http://www.talkorigi../faqs/faq-solar.html

And now, how's your math?

http://www.vectorsite.net/tastga3.html

http://www.amazon.co..=glance&n=283155

http://arxiv.org/PS_..pdf/0212/0212223.pdf
(more about your little spewing about rotational anomalies)

http://www.amazon.co..=glance&n=283155

http://www.powells.c..blio?isbn=048644273x

Time to read up, m'boy!

You give me evidence! Okay, you know what... even the scientists can't agree on this one. there's no way that you and i ever will.

The only tards that don't agree are the creation scientists who have no real idea what they're talking about. This whole amazing shrinking sun has OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE against it, and is based on ONE conference to decide on how to better understand the data.

Yeah, BY GOD!!! HA!

Fine, just quit trying to bring science into it.

I've asked over and over for evidence of evolution and you haven't been able to provide it. I and ThebanLegion have given you evidence, but unfortunately, your worldview differs to the point that you just don't see things the way we do.

A) quit changing the subject.
B) There is plenty of evidence, otherwise it wouldn't be the accepted theory.
C) Any evidence I put forth, and I've already put forth plenty, you will call either flawed, politically inclined, or just ignore altogether.

I said i studied these things. I never claimed to be an expert, and i'm not. I do have a basic understanding of these things though. I don't pick and choose stray facts, but the scope of what we are debating is so immense that it is impossible to do it all at once.

Except none of your evidence holds any water. It's all debunked by real science. If you want to say everything was created by God Magic, that's fine. I can't debate that. But when you bring math and numbers and quantifiable observations to the table, you better bring the big guns... and oyu haven't. Everything you've tried to put forth is weak, at best... and just plain false at worst.

No, i know that they have... I'm not making stuff up. Everything i put down in these posts is from scientists that know more about it than i ever will. Why? Are you making stuff up and trying to poke holes in things you know nothing about?

Unfortunately, everything I've linked is done by scientists who know far more than your scientists ever will. And what, exactly, have I "made up"? Every single point I have made has been or can be backed up by solid science.

That's the thing though. We will never get anything nailed down. My beliefs are based on God and i cannot separate him from science because he is intricately involved in everything i believe. I do know that science does not and never will be able to prove, 100% that evolution is true.

Science can't prove anything to be 100% true... that would require the ability to know all of the information in, and outside, the universe. What it can do, is come up with the best answer possible based on the observations made. That answer is evolution. No evidence has come under observation that would disprove the theory. Everything we've found has only strengthened it. Once we have evidence that evolution CAN'T be the case... then we'll look at other options.

continued...