PSX5Central
Non Gaming Discussions => Off-Topic => Topic started by: clowd on June 25, 2002, 02:26:35 AM
-
Part I. The Orgin of Life.
This explains why Moses says the moon and sun were made on the 4th day.
On the first ‘day’ the expression ‘light came to be’ was used. The Hebrew word used their for light was ‘ohr, meaning light in a general sense, but on the fourth ‘day’ the word changes to ma*’ohr, which means the source of light.
On the first day light penetrated the waddling bands, but the sources couldn’t be seen by an earthly observer because of the cloud layers around the entire earth.
Moses didn’t see the source of light until the 4th day, where he saw them for the first time.
Some say there is a second creation story in chapter 2 of Genesis, its simply more details of chapter 1.
How evolution started by Richard Dawkins. -from the book Selfish gene
He speculates that in the beginning, earth had an atmosphere composed of carbon dioxide, methane, ammonia and water. Through energy by lightning or volcanoes these simple compounds were broken apart and formed into amino acids. A variety of these gradually accumulated in the sea and combined into protein like compounds.
Ultimately, he says, the ocean became an “organic soup,” but still lifeless.
Then according to Dawking’s description, “a particulary remarkable molecule was formed by accident” - a molecule that had the ability to reproduce itself. Dawking admitted that such an accident was exceeding improbable, he says it must have happened. Similar molecules gathered together and by exceeding little probable accident, wrapped a barrier of protective protein around themselves as a membrane. Thus, as he claims, the first cell was born.
At this point a reader begins to understand what Dawking said in the preface to his book :
“This book should be read almost as though it was science fiction.”
Recent knowledge has only magnified the difference between living and dead things.
“The problem for biology is to reach a simple beginning,” says astronomers Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe. “Fossils residues of ancient life-forms discovered in the rocks do not reveal a simple beginning….so the evolutionary theory lacks a proper foundation.”
Steps of evolution
1) The existence of the right primitive atmosphere and
2) a concentration in the oceans of an organic soup of “simple” molecules necessary for life.
3) From these come proteins and nucleotides (complex chemical compounds) that
4) combine and acquire a membrane and thereafter
5) they develop a genetic code and start making copies of themselves.
Do these steps correspond with the available facts?
Primitive atmosphere
In 1953 Stanley Miller passed an electric spark through an “atmosphere” of hydrogen, methane, ammonia and water vapor. This produced some amino acids that exist, but they are just building blocks of protein. Also he managed to create only 4 of the 20 necessary for life. Even today, scientists are unable to create all 20 needed under any conditions that can be considered plausible.
Miller says the conditions in the flask were that of the primitive atmosphere. Why? He and a coworker said: “The synthesis of compounds of biological interest takes place only under reducing (no free oxygen in the atmosphere) conditions.” But evolutionist theorize that oxygen was present.
Hitching: “With oxygen in the air, the first amino acids would have never got started; without oxygen, it would have been wiped out by cosmic rays.”
The fact is no one knows what earths primitive atmosphere was like.
Organic soup plausible?
If the amino acids escaped lightning in a primitive atmosphere, and survived the trip through ultraviolet radiation in the atmosphere, evolution say they found their way beneath the surface of water.
But once amino acids are in the water, they must get out of it to form larger molecules and evolve toward proteins for the formation of life. The problem is, once out of the water they are back in ultraviolet radiation again!
Hitching: “In other words, the theoretical chances of getting through even this first relatively easy stage (getting amino acids) in the evolution of life is forbidding.”
Biochemist George Wald on molecules linking to each other in water: “Spontaneous dissolution is much more probable, and hence proceeds much more rapidly, then spontaneous synthesis.”
Another stubborn problem that confronts the evolution theory.
Left hand right hand.
There are 100 amino acids, but only 20 are needed for life’s proteins. Moreover, they come in 2 shapes. Some are left handed, some are right handed.
If they were formed at random in a theoretical organic soup, it is most likely that half would be left handed and half right handed. There is no know reason as to why either shape should be preferred in living things. Yet, of the 20 amino acids used in producing life’s proteins All are left handed!
Physicist J.D. Bernal: “It must be admitted that the explanation…still remains one of the most difficult parts of the structural aspects of life to explain.” He concluded “We may never be able to explain it.”
Probablility
To put the odds of nature randomly selecting the 20 amino acids better, imagine digging a scoop into a pile of 100 beans, full of different varieties. When you take your scoop out you must have only 20 of the red beans, and each one must be scooped into a proper place on the scoop. Imagine doing that over and over and over all the time, with the same results. Impossible. Virtually impossible.
What are the chances of a simple protein forming at random in a protein soup? Evolutionists acknowledge the odds are 1 : 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000.
(Yes, 1 followed by 113 zeros.)
Amazing?
2000 proteins serving serving as enzymes are needed for cell’s activity. What are the chances of these being formed at random? 1: 1 followed by 40,000 zeros!
Amazing?
Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
Hitching: “The answer must be, they developed in parallel.”
Does that sound reasonable?
Intelligent organizer
Arent the above odds too much to happen by chance?
From Evolution from Space (Hoyle and Wickramasinghe)
“These issues are too complex to set numbers to.” They add: “There is no way…in which we can simply get by with a bigger, (which outrules small pools of sulpher) and better organic soup, as we ourselves hoped might be possible a year or two ago. The numbers that we calculated above are essentially just as unfaceable for a universal soup as for a terrestrial one.”
After acknowledging that an intelligent designer must have some how been involved: “Indeed, such a theory is so obvious that one wonders why it is not widely accepted as being self evident. The reasons are psychological rather than scientific.”
Some scientists say intelligence is mandatory, but a creator is unacceptable.
QUOTES
“The hypothesis that life has developed from inorganic matter is, at present, still an article of faith.” -Mathematician J. W. N. Sullivan
“The probability of life originating from accident is comparable to the probability of the unabridged dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing shop.” -Biologist Edwin Conklin
“One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible.” -Biochemist George Wald
“An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle.” -Biologist Francis Crick
“If one is not prejudiced by either by social beliefs or by scientific training into the conviction that life originated (spontaneously) on the Earth, this simple calculation (the mathematical odds against it) wipes the idea entirely out of court.” -Astronomers Fred Hoyle and N. C. Wickramasinghe
Not all scientists accept it
Physicist H. S. Lipson on the odds against spontaneous origin for life, said: “The only acceptable explanation is creation.”
Astronomer Robert Jastrow: “Scientists have no proof that life was not the result of a direct act of creation.”
This is my post on the origin of life. Soon I will post about evolution of animals, and even more evidence that points to an intelligent designer.
-
This is already being discussed here:
http://www.psx2central.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=22466
-
Dude Clowd you seriously need to chill out with this whole religion vs science thing. It alreaedy got you trolled and your pic and post count stripped away.
It\'s good and all that you are such an avid hardcore Christian and all but its one thing to try and force your ideas onto other people. That just won\'t happen. Everyone is entitled to thier own beliefs. Who are you to say I\'m right and your wrong. God created this and God created that. Heck i\'m a Christian and I believe in God. I pray to him for forgiveness and gudiance every night before I sleep. But you dont see me going on a rampage when someone writes about something scientific like his/her theory on evolution and what not.
You just need to drop this whole war on evolution and science. THIS IS A GAMING FORUM. It is not a God Vs Science Forum. You keep this up and you\'ll be banned from this forum. That isn\'t a threat. Thats the truth. All your doing is trying to get people to see things your way. The admins and mod don\'t have anything against posting your opinion but when you start flame wars, you are just asking for trouble. You just need to chill out and realize everyone is entitled to his/her own opinion.
By now I honestly don\'t think anyone would really care about anything you say or try to prove. You have just done too much damage to your name and credibility. Time for you to just take a bow and walk quietly off the stage.
-
I expected posts like yours to follow my post...
Members have said I have no facts, so I posted them. They have gone as far as saying Im a \'troll\' for what reasons, are unkown. Now Im trying to force my opinion on you?
Im not forcing anything. You read the facts, you make of it what you want. I dont have any credibility? My post is basic science with quotes from scientists. This isnt me talking, its scientists.
EDIT: I started flame wars? Who does all the flaming? Who does the name calling? Who is it impossible to have a debate with, without name calling or flaming intervening? Last time I checked this board was called off-topic, not console disscusion. Do you remember how this got started? Creationism was called stupid.
Rampages? :rolleyes:
-
My Bible class last year touched on many subjects, including this. I wish you all could read my textbook, because it touches on all the other worldviews including Secular & Cosmic Humanism, Marxism, etc.. and how they all compare and contrast to Christianity. I really don\'t like to debate, because it takes too much of my time, but yea I just wanted to say that. ;)
-
Originally posted by Clowd
I expected posts like yours to follow my post...
Members have said I have no facts, so I posted them. They have gone as far as saying Im a \'troll\' for what reasons, are unkown. Now Im trying to force my opinion on you?
Im not forcing anything. You read the facts, you make of it what you want. I dont have any credibility? My post is basic science with quotes from scientists. This isnt me talking, its scientists.
EDIT: I started flame wars? Who does all the flaming? Who does the name calling? Who is it impossible to have a debate with, without name calling or flaming intervening? Last time I checked this board was called off-topic, not console disscusion. Do you remember how this got started? Creationism was called stupid.
Rampages? :rolleyes:
Originally posted by Clowd
get a education
Originally posted by Clowd
Jews are no longer Gods people
...sure, you haven\'t started anything :rolleyes:
And you have also never posted a source to back up your so called facts. Might wanna try that for a change.
Oh, and one more time, since you clearly still haven\'t gotten it: Evolution has nothing to do with how life began. :rolleyes:
Someone give this man his picture back
-
I\'m tired of this crap.
I have to say Clowd that your entire post is a bunch of theories. No facts, just theories. No biggie though cause I don\'t give a rats ass about any of this anymore anyway. You have certainly tired me out with your shear ignorance and your lack of an open mind.
And can we repeat ourselves any more. No one is debating you on how life was created!! It\'s about how life has evolved.
Pulling lines out of the bible and showing them as fact is absolutely ludicrous. Blah Blah Blah..
I have to go back to work.
PS: Did you hear they found two new species of monkeys? Hmmmmm....
-
[Janice\'s voice] OH...MY...GOD!!!![/Janice\'s voice]
seriously GO AWAY!!!
-
Originally posted by shockwaves
...sure, you haven\'t started anything :rolleyes:
And you have also never posted a source to back up your so called facts. Might wanna try that for a change.
Oh, and one more time, since you clearly still haven\'t gotten it: Evolution has nothing to do with how life began. :rolleyes:
Someone give this man his picture back
Look, finally a post that you cant deny, only can complain about. Who is running now?
This doesnt dissaprove of your \'evolution\' but it proves there is a cretor.
No need for a source, there is all quotes. If I got it from different books how can I give one source?
You want me to post the x rated things said about me?
Shockwaves if you think God created a cell or a human, and left it alone to evolve, thats one type of debate.
If you think God isnt envolved thats quite another type of debate.
Please clear this up, did life appear on earth by intelligent design on chance? The question is simple
-
SO you all believe in a creator. Yes or no. SImple answer
VIDEOHOLIC your a fool for thinking what I posted was theories.
A bloody fool.
-
If you say so
-
Tell me what religion you are, since that was asked first, and maybe I\'ll answer.
I\'m just saying proving creationism to disprove evolution is incredibly stupid. If creation happened, it is very possible that evolution followed it.
And until you have some source to back up what you post, it is just theories to me. Infact, pretty much all of it is just theories anyway.
Originally posted by Clowd
Look, finally a post that you cant deny, only can complain about. Who is running now?
I\'m not running, I\'m just tired of posting the same arguements over and over, the way you are. Give it up. Damn
Oh, and ever hear of editting your posts? Creating 2 posts in a row is unneccesary in situations like this.
-
You have nothing to say about the thread, because it is completly true.
THEORIES?
YOUR A FOOL LIKE VIDEOHOLIC
BOSSIEMAN! WE NEED SOMEBODY IN HERE WITH AN EDUCATION HIGHER THEN HIGHSCHOOL
-
How are things with the words "speculates", "theorize", "probability", and "some say" facts? They are theories in themselves...just less tested and proven ones.
And I have nothing to say about your thread because you have posted it so many times, that everyone is tired of hearing it.
-
please people, do not respond to him, for he will go on..... and on and on and on.
If I were a mod, I would so close this thread (hint hint)
-
Part I. The Orgin of Life.
Everything in this area is bogus.
This explains why Moses says the moon and sun were made on the 4th day.
On the first ‘day’ the expression ‘light came to be’ was used. The Hebrew word used their for light was ‘ohr, meaning light in a general sense, but on the fourth ‘day’ the word changes to ma*’ohr, which means the source of light.
On the first day light penetrated the waddling bands, but the sources couldn’t be seen by an earthly observer because of the cloud layers around the entire earth.
Moses didn’t see the source of light until the 4th day, where he saw them for the first time.
Some say there is a second creation story in chapter 2 of Genesis, its simply more details of chapter 1.
How evolution started by Richard Dawkins. -from the book Selfish gene
Well, his first line says it best. SPECULATION!!!!
He speculates that in the beginning, earth had an atmosphere composed of carbon dioxide, methane, ammonia and water. Through energy by lightning or volcanoes these simple compounds were broken apart and formed into amino acids. A variety of these gradually accumulated in the sea and combined into protein like compounds.
Ultimately, he says, the ocean became an “organic soup,” but still lifeless.
Then according to Dawking’s description, “a particulary remarkable molecule was formed by accident” - a molecule that had the ability to reproduce itself. Dawking admitted that such an accident was exceeding improbable, he says it must have happened. Similar molecules gathered together and by exceeding little probable accident, wrapped a barrier of protective protein around themselves as a membrane. Thus, as he claims, the first cell was born.
At this point a reader begins to understand what Dawking said in the preface to his book :
“This book should be read almost as though it was science fiction.”
Recent knowledge has only magnified the difference between living and dead things.
“The problem for biology is to reach a simple beginning,” says astronomers Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe. “Fossils residues of ancient life-forms discovered in the rocks do not reveal a simple beginning….so the evolutionary theory lacks a proper foundation.”
Steps of evolution
1) The existence of the right primitive atmosphere and
2) a concentration in the oceans of an organic soup of “simple” molecules necessary for life.
3) From these come proteins and nucleotides (complex chemical compounds) that
4) combine and acquire a membrane and thereafter
5) they develop a genetic code and start making copies of themselves.
Do these steps correspond with the available facts?
Primitive atmosphere
In 1953 Stanley Miller passed an electric spark through an “atmosphere” of hydrogen, methane, ammonia and water vapor. This produced some amino acids that exist, but they are just building blocks of protein. Also he managed to create only 4 of the 20 necessary for life. Even today, scientists are unable to create all 20 needed under any conditions that can be considered plausible.
Miller says the conditions in the flask were that of the primitive atmosphere. Why? He and a coworker said: “The synthesis of compounds of biological interest takes place only under reducing (no free oxygen in the atmosphere) conditions.” But evolutionist theorize that oxygen was present.
Hitching: “With oxygen in the air, the first amino acids would have never got started; without oxygen, it would have been wiped out by cosmic rays.”
Hey, a FACT!!!!!
The fact is no one knows what earths primitive atmosphere was like.
Organic soup plausible?
Theories Theories Theories!!!!!
If the amino acids escaped lightning in a primitive atmosphere, and survived the trip through ultraviolet radiation in the atmosphere, evolution say they found their way beneath the surface of water.
But once amino acids are in the water, they must get out of it to form larger molecules and evolve toward proteins for the formation of life. The problem is, once out of the water they are back in ultraviolet radiation again!
Hitching: “In other words, the theoretical chances of getting through even this first relatively easy stage (getting amino acids) in the evolution of life is forbidding.”
Biochemist George Wald on molecules linking to each other in water: “Spontaneous dissolution is much more probable, and hence proceeds much more rapidly, then spontaneous synthesis.”
Another stubborn problem that confronts the evolution theory.
Left hand right hand.
Big deal
There are 100 amino acids, but only 20 are needed for life’s proteins. Moreover, they come in 2 shapes. Some are left handed, some are right handed.
If they were formed at random in a theoretical organic soup, it is most likely that half would be left handed and half right handed. There is no know reason as to why either shape should be preferred in living things. Yet, of the 20 amino acids used in producing life’s proteins All are left handed!
Physicist J.D. Bernal: “It must be admitted that the explanation…still remains one of the most difficult parts of the structural aspects of life to explain.” He concluded “We may never be able to explain it.”
The odds of it happening at random are equal to flipping a quarter 400 times in a row and all are heads.
Probablility
To put the odds of nature randomly selecting the 20 amino acids better, imagine digging a scoop into a pile of 100 beans, full of different varieties. When you take your scoop out you must have only 20 of the red beans, and each one must be scooped into a proper place on the scoop. Imagine doing that over and over and over all the time, with the same results. Impossible. Virtually impossible.
What are the chances of a simple protein forming at random in a protein soup? Evolutionists acknowledge the odds are 1 : 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000.
(Yes, 1 followed by 113 zeros.)
Amazing? NO.... The rest just makes me want to nap
2000 proteins serving serving as enzymes are needed for cell’s activity. What are the chances of these being formed at random? 1: 1 followed by 40,000 zeros!
Amazing?
Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
Hitching: “The answer must be, they developed in parallel.”
Does that sound reasonable?
Intelligent organizer
Arent the above odds too much to happen by chance?
From Evolution from Space (Hoyle and Wickramasinghe)
“These issues are too complex to set numbers to.” They add: “There is no way…in which we can simply get by with a bigger, (which outrules small pools of sulpher) and better organic soup, as we ourselves hoped might be possible a year or two ago. The numbers that we calculated above are essentially just as unfaceable for a universal soup as for a terrestrial one.”
After acknowledging that an intelligent designer must have some how been involved: “Indeed, such a theory is so obvious that one wonders why it is not widely accepted as being self evident. The reasons are psychological rather than scientific.”
Some scientists say intelligence is mandatory, but a creator is unacceptable.
“The hypothesis that life has developed from inorganic matter is, at present, still an article of faith.” -Mathematician J. W. N. Sullivan
“The probability of life originating from accident is comparable to the probability of the unabridged dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing shop.” -Biologist Edwin Conklin
“One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible.” -Biochemist George Wald
“An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle.” -Biologist Francis Crick
“If one is not prejudiced by either by social beliefs or by scientific training into the conviction that life originated (spontaneously) on the Earth, this simple calculation (the mathematical odds against it) wipes the idea entirely out of court.” -Astronomers Fred Hoyle and N. C. Wickramasinghe
Not all scientists accept it
Physicist H. S. Lipson on the odds against spontaneous origin for life, said: “The only acceptable explanation is creation.”
Astronomer Robert Jastrow: “Scientists have no proof that life was not the result of a direct act of creation.”
This is my post on the origin of life. Soon I will post about evolution of animals, and even more evidence that points to an intelligent designer. [/B][/QUOTE]
-
Originally posted by politiepet
please people, do not respond to him, for he will go on..... and on and on and on.
If I were a mod, I would so close this thread (hint hint)
And give him his troll picture back too!
-
so unexpected :rolleyes:
I post a thread that proves there is a God, and has nothing but facts, and it probably will get closed....
Congratulations, you ignored all the facts in the thread and dont want to hear about it no more so you want it closed.
Congrats, you come up with lame excuses, such as he wont listen to us (you dont listen to me), you posted this before etc so you can ignore the facts in front of your face.
You said post facts, I did.
Then you almost cant deny there isnt a creator so you say \'this is about evolution of animals not God\' which makes you completly forget why this whole thing was started, \'not by whether evolution was true or not, but whether there was a God or not, so how you managed to switch the topic
Guess what? this thread wasnt posted to prove evolution wrong. it was posted to prove there was a creator. I said in my next post i will cover evolution.
-
im sorry but videoholic your post was dumb as hell
THEORIES BECAUSE THATS WHAT SPONTANEOUS LIFE IS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
IF THERE WAS OXYGEN PRESENT IT WOULD KILL THE LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!! READ IT CAREFULLY!!!!!!!!!
BIG DEAL NAP? :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Clowd
so unexpected :rolleyes:
I post a thread that proves there is a God, and has nothing but facts, and it probably will get closed....
Congratulations, you ignored all the facts in the thread and dont want to hear about it no more so you want it closed.
Congrats, you come up with lame excuses, such as he wont listen to us (you dont listen to me), you posted this before etc so you can ignore the facts in front of your face.
You said post facts, I did.
Then you almost cant deny there isnt a creator so you say \'this is about evolution of animals not God\' which makes you completly forget why this whole thing was started, \'not by whether evolution was true or not, but whether there was a God or not, so how you managed to switch the topic
Guess what? this thread wasnt posted to prove evolution wrong. it was posted to prove there was a creator. I said in my next post i will cover evolution.
The whole thing was started by you saying your could prove creation to us, which you couldn\'t. Your facts have no sources backing them up. We said we wanted sources. And once again, if it has words like "speculates", "theorize", "probability", and "some say", then they prolly aren\'t facts. You posted a bunch of theories, nothing more.
And once again...edit your posts, don\'t double post
-
True, your topic is about the origin of life. I\'ll give you that.
But no one is debating you on that.
And as far as how the entire thing got started you are wrong. This entire thing was started from a meteor coming close to the earth and us not knowing about it till 3 days afterwards.:thepimp:
-
Originally posted by shockwaves
The whole thing was started by you saying your could prove creation to us, which you couldn\'t. Your facts have no sources backing them up. We said we wanted sources. And once again, if it has words like "speculates", "theorize", "probability", and "some say", then they prolly aren\'t facts. You posted a bunch of theories, nothing more.
And once again...edit your posts, don\'t double post
I know so I could prove creation...I just did....
-
Originally posted by Clowd
I post a thread that proves there is a God, and has nothing but facts, and it probably will get closed....
Proves? With theories and speculation? Sorry, that\'s not proof. Even YOU must be able to see that. "Nothing but facts" - LOL, where did you hide THAT thread? It sure isn\'t here.
-
Originally posted by Clowd
I know so I could prove creation...I just did....
No, you didn\'t. You can\'t prove something with theories and speculation.
-
Originally posted by Samwise
Proves? With theories and speculation? Sorry, that\'s not proof. Even YOU must be able to see that. "Nothing but facts" - LOL, where did you hide THAT thread? It sure isn\'t here.
well i gotta remember this is coming from people who think evolution is a fact.
there is theories because that is what spontatneous life is. ive already said it.
Anytime you speak of evolution or spontaneous life, your talking theorie, same with creation.
But what does this evidence point to?
-
Our point is theories in themselves are not evidence. And if it is what it points to, nothing has been proven. You just said creation is a theory. That means it can\'t be proven. So stop trying.
-
Could someone ban clowd for say a week or so.. Then we can stop this crap.
And then we can all live in peace with little angels flying around serving us tea.
-
Originally posted by shockwaves
Our point is theories in themselves are not evidence. And if it is what it points to, nothing has been proven. You just said creation is a theory. That means it can\'t be proven. So stop trying.
You do a bad job of dodging questions.
Stop trying to prove creation. OK I\'ll stop as long as you admit evolution is a theory, with nothing except speculation as its foundation.
-
I love the ignore button. Then I can reply to Clowd without having even read his post. Let\'s give it a shot.
You have not given us any facts. Numerous facts have been put forth confirming many theories about evolution.
How\'s that. Yawn.. 1 more till the 5k. I cetainly hope it\'s not a reply to Clowd.
-
Shingoku was right.
-
It\'s all theories everything we know as a society is because someone told us that is the way it is we think grass is green because why? someone told us that it was the color green.. How can you possibly call anything a fact nothing is factual it a hypothesis an educated guess.. You want a college education cause you think because if someone disagrees with you that makes them and Idiot.. You bible pushers are all the same. You have your beliefs fine keep them to yourself if your right you\'ll be saved Halleluiah... Stop trying to save the rest of US I have the right the same as you to believe what I WANT to believe.
-
Originally posted by Clowd
You do a bad job of dodging questions.
Stop trying to prove creation. OK I\'ll stop as long as you admit evolution is a theory, with nothing except speculation as its foundation.
What question did I dodge?
I never said evolution wasn\'t a theory. I know it is. However, it does have a lot more than speculation as its foundation. You\'d see that if your read some of the facts backed up by sources that we posted in the beginning of Thread III
-
Originally posted by shockwaves
What question did I dodge?
I never said evolution wasn\'t a theory. I know it is. However, it does have a lot more than speculation as its foundation. You\'d see that if your read some of the facts backed up by sources that we posted in the beginning of Thread III
But what does this evidence point to?
I\'ll go read the beginning of thread III
-
I have a new theory.
Clowd has us all on ignore!!!
That\'s why he doesn\'t respond to any counter arguements and why he makes no sense.....
-
You posted little evidence, if any at all. You posted speculation and theories. There isn\'t enough fact there to point to anything. Sorry :o
-
Originally posted by Videoholic
I have a new theory.
Clowd has us all on ignore!!!
That\'s why he doesn\'t respond to any counter arguements and why he makes no sense.....
Whats your argument? That evolution exists? Give me evidence thats more then \'it looks that way\'
-
Originally posted by shockwaves
You posted little evidence, if any at all. You posted speculation and theories. There isn\'t enough fact there to point to anything. Sorry :o
You want evidence of my ignore theory? I have none. Just lots and lots of quality posts by Clowd that have nothing to do with what everyone else was saying.
-
Clowd, have you not realised that pretty much no one wants to argue with you on this anymore? Since we post things time after time and you never listen to them, it\'s pointless.
-
Originally posted by Videoholic
I have a new theory.
Clowd has us all on ignore!!!
That\'s why he doesn\'t respond to any counter arguements and why he makes no sense.....
Lol, that\'s the only thing that makes sense. :D
As for putting Clowd on ignore - consider it done. I\'m finished with that guy. BTW, wouldn\'t that get us on the same wave length as Clowd? Ignoring is right down his alley. ;)
-
I want to agrue with him straight from his own book.
James 4:11 Speak not evil one of another, brethren. He that speaketh evil of his brother, and judgeth his brother, speaketh evil of the law, and judgeth the law: but if thou judge the law, thou art not a doer of the law, but a judge.
Bingo baby and now SHUT UP!!! says right there in the scriptures that you also so fondly of quoting not to judge anyone so push your bible someplace else!!!!
-
Originally posted by Clowd
I expected posts like yours to follow my post...
Members have said I have no facts, so I posted them. They have gone as far as saying Im a \'troll\' for what reasons, are unkown. Now Im trying to force my opinion on you?
Im not forcing anything. You read the facts, you make of it what you want. I dont have any credibility? My post is basic science with quotes from scientists. This isnt me talking, its scientists.
EDIT: I started flame wars? Who does all the flaming? Who does the name calling? Who is it impossible to have a debate with, without name calling or flaming intervening? Last time I checked this board was called off-topic, not console disscusion. Do you remember how this got started? Creationism was called stupid.
Rampages? :rolleyes:
What everyone is trying to say is....NO ONE REALLY CARES!!! This is PSX2central... Not BACcentra (BAC standing for boring a$$ conversation) Do you really think that anyone in here read that entire post??? dude, thats crazy. Why dont you write a book or something. In the meantime, enjoy yourself, play some video games and then talk about them.
-
Ive gaven pearls to swine.
I shall speak no more on this subject. PM me if you want to know more.
-
Originally posted by Kaldertaut
It\'s all theories everything we know as a society is because someone told us that is the way it is we think grass is green because why? someone told us that it was the color green.. How can you possibly call anything a fact nothing is factual it a hypothesis an educated guess.. You want a college education cause you think because if someone disagrees with you that makes them and Idiot.. You bible pushers are all the same. You have your beliefs fine keep them to yourself if your right you\'ll be saved Halleluiah... Stop trying to save the rest of US I have the right the same as you to believe what I WANT to believe.
You took the words right out of my mouth. Someone prove to me that there is a God. You cant. Someone prove evoloution. :surprised you cant!
Believe what you want to believe and let us end this bickering.
-
Clowd. You never answered my question. Do you know what a f***ing theory is? Since you are not answering which I\'m assuming you aren\'t because you don\'t know. A theory is a time tested hypothesis. Evolution is a theory, not a fact. But there are many facts supporting it. The fossils found in Africa in Olduvai Gorge and Tanzania do show evidence of evolution. Skulls, bones, foot prints, arms, legs, skeletons, tools, ect. How could you explain the fossils found? Especially premanlike creatures like Homo Erectus, Homo Habilis "the Handyman", Neandertals all have human features. They have hips and feet and legs just like ours. Their rib cages are extrememly similar as well as arms, hands. The only big difference is the brain and head. As you go back in time, the brain cavities are smaller. But they aren\'t apes or apelike (like Australopithesis Robustus and Australopithesis Gracille) have a triangle (easier said bump) in the back of thier skull. However, apelike creatures like Australopithesis robustus and gracille both walked upright and for time were thought to be modern human\'s ancestors. That is how you know if it is apelike or manlike. Humans and premanlike creatures (which are our ancestors) don\'t have that bump. Only primates, apes and apelike creatures.
-
Evolution doesnt pass the scientific method. Ill look it up late, but I did read it.
-
The scientific method is for experiments, not for theories.
-
Originally posted by Clowd directed at Shockwaves
You do a bad job of dodging questions.
Speaking of Dodging questions, you have yet to respond to the "What religion are you" question that has been asked a dozen times. Heck, you haven\'t even acknowledged that we asked the question! If you are embarrassed of your religion, or are embarrassed of the image you are giving your religion, then at least reply with "I would prefer not to answer that." Otherwise, why don\'t you just tell us?
Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
The chicken of course! God doesn\'t lay eggs! :)
-
Well, neither the chicken nor the egg. They evolved from unicellular organisms and then through billions of years of evolution, the chicken came. Then we decided to domesticate them and hack their heads off :) Has anyone actually see a chicken run with it\'s head cut off? My mom always says "You run around like a chicken with it\'s head cut off".
-
Originally posted by IronFist
Speaking of Dodging questions, you have yet to respond to the "What religion are you" question that has been asked a dozen times. Heck, you haven\'t even acknowledged that we asked the question! If you are embarrassed of your religion, or are embarrassed of the image you are giving your religion, then at least reply with "I would prefer not to answer that." Otherwise, why don\'t you just tell us?
I would prefer not to answer any questions relating to my religion, they may help or break my credibility.
Again if you want to know more, pm me.
EDIT: I have to look up the snakes skeleton, before I can reply
My religion isnt what is on what trial here, its rather spontaneous life is true or not, or rather whether evolution is true or not.
-
You really have nothing to be afraid of about your religion. I won\'t trash you about your religion. You have my word.
-
Originally posted by Titan
You really have nothing to be afraid of about your religion. I won\'t trash you about your religion. You have my word.
Unfortunatly, everybody on the board cant say the same.
-
Ok, whatever. I guess I have to respect that you won\'t publically share your religion.
-
As shockwaves put it, this isnt the place to prove evolution, creation.
-
Out of curiosity, why would you care if some ignorant person bashed you for your religion?
-
Originally posted by shockwaves
Out of curiosity, why would you care if some ignorant person bashed you for your religion?
It will lead to more flaming. Instead of debating creation, evolution, we would probably begin debating the views of the religion.
-
What religion are you clowd?
-
Originally posted by Titan
Has anyone actually see a chicken run with it\'s head cut off? My mom always says "You run around like a chicken with it\'s head cut off".
Not a chicken, but a turkey. :) You would be surprised at how far they can run without a head. lol. :D
Edit: and it looks like everyone wants to know now, Clowd. Come on now. Don\'t be shy. :)
-
That\'s cool. Chickens running around without their head. How do they do it :eek:
-
Part I. The Orgin of Life.
http://www.awitness.org/contrabib/torah/future.html
Although not taken from a university or science magazine so as to completely credify it\'s claims, the artical does pose some interesting questions. However, as versions of the bible change from faction to faction, it\'s hard to tell if this version matches the version Clowd gets his information from. Until Clowd posts a link or at LEAST a version of the bible he believes in so as to verify passages, it stands that Moses did not write Genesis.
As for the rest of this small section, until you clearly define what a "day" is, you cannot debate further since a "day" as it regards to genesis is a VERY abstract term believed to cover anywhere from 24 hours to 24 million years.
As for Stephen Dawkings, you do realize that he\'s not quite the best source for you to be quoting from. He is not a creationist through complexity, but a hardliner atheist. As for using his example of the spontanious generation of life, yes, by most theories now it is increadibly unlikely that life arose on this planet at all. Common sence tells you that it shouldn\'t have happened.. but it did. What should we attribute this to? God? No.. actually there is a much better solution if you would simply open your eyes to new possiblities rather than just throwing your hands up in the air and attributing it all to god. Look to new, emerging, sciences such as Quantum Mechanics and reccuring patterns of complex systems - I.E. Chaos Theory. Self organization is spawned from Chaos theory, and if you\'re looking for proof of it then unfortunately it dosen\'t exist. However, theories have been tested, and results are extreemely promising. Instead of simply writing it off, I suggest downloading James Gleick\'s "Chaos: The Software", published by Autodesk in 1990. By tinkering with the simulations such Fractles, Mandelbrot Sets, Non-Linear attractors, and such, and by changing certain aspects of the simulations, you can see for yourself the basics of theories of how order can (and it does, it seems) arise from what we consider chaos.
Of course, once again.. you won\'t. ;) I have the programs on my computer now, and anyone who wants to get a copy from me, just PM me an Email address. (As I\'m fairly sure the software is Freeware/abandonware by now)
Oh, and just for the record, Self Organizing theory isn\'t a "Fact Free" science of pure ideas either.. as actual labratory tests have backed up it\'s hypothysis.
Unexpected evidence comes from Lou Allamandola [13]:
"The most amazing thing is that we start with something really simple. And then suddenly we\'re making this enormous range of complex molecules. When I see this kind of complexity forming under these exceedingly extreme conditions, I begin to really believe that life is a cosmic imperative." and from Biliang Zhang & Tom Cech [14], who isolated RNA\'s that could efficiently link specific amino acids together. These pseudo-ribosomes were selected from a random pool of 1015 synthetic RNA\'s. So, there is enough evidence to invalidate the claim, that complexity theory is \'fact-free science\'. Recently Yao et al [16] described a four-component peptide system that is capable of auto- and cross-catalysis and which supports the suggestion that self-replicating peptides may have played a role in the origin of life.
Taken from the same site as I posted earlier in Gohan\'s thread about Intelligent Design theory...here. (http://home.wxs.nl/~gkorthof/kortho32.htm)
As for most all of the rest of your paragraph, it\'s incorperated ino the SOTheory.. even your precious lefthandrighthand phenomenon. :D I\'ve provided plenty of links, and a solid starting point for you. Weither you accept this knowlage or not is up to you to decide, weither or not you actually take the time to read it, understand it, and debate it in a mature manner is what I\'m really looking and hoping for.
As for your quote, pfft, I can easily list twice as many quotes from promenant scientists which claim Creationism is a load of horse shyt, and unlike you can I provide links to back them up. :D
Oh, and I thought I should bring this link to light. You want evidence of evolution, this site is chocked FULL of it. :D Enjoy.
No evidence to support evolution eh? (http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoEvidence.html)
-
Originally posted by Clowd
I would prefer not to answer any questions relating to my religion, they may help or break my credibility.
Hehehehe...Clowd\'s credibility in danger?.... hehehehe
Hey at least everyone is off of Racer\'s back.
-
I would prefer not to answer any questions relating to my religion, they may help or break my credibility. - Clowd
If you accept your religeon as Truth, then surely exposing your religeon and allowing us a point of reference would help us "see the light" so to speak. Unless, that is, you\'re afraid that your religeon is wrong.
My religion isnt what is on what trial here - Clowd
Yes, it is. You are accepting it as an absolute truth in which you use to argue against scientific points, we are proving otherwise... hence.. proving your religion wrong. You put your religon on trial by becoming a zelot, rather than a simple follower.
EDIT: I have to look up the snakes skeleton, before I can reply - Clowd
Oh, don\'t bother. I\'ll help you out... jus click Here (http://home.earthlink.net/~exonews/ancients/snake_with_legs.htm) Here (http://www.fmnh.helsinki.fi/users/haaramo/Metazoa/Deuterostoma/Chordata/Reptilia/Lepidosauromorpha/Pythonomorpha/Serpentes.htm) and Here (http://abcnews.go.com/sections/science/DailyNews/haasiophis000316.html)
:D Look! Protolegs!! Isn\'t this what you\'d been asking for?
(Edit: Here\'s a Paper I just found which attempts to explain Chaos theory in layman\'s terms, and even sites examples of consumer products built around the theories of Chaos. A fact-less science? Hardly. Did you all know that your very own bodies are rife with examples of fractal patters? Amazing. Check it out here! (http://www.duke.edu/~mjd/chaos/chaos.html)
-
Don\'t be afraid to reveal your religion, Clowd. I\'m rather curious to know where you\'re coming from. Nobody is gonna make fun of you for being of a particular faith. Maybe it\'ll help us understand you better.
-
Originally posted by Titan
Has anyone actually see a chicken run with it\'s head cut off? My mom always says "You run around like a chicken with it\'s head cut off".
Well, I have, in a science magazine *shuffle*
The most stubborn bird in history would possibly be Mike, a rooster, who lived in Fruita Colorado. In 1945, he was supposed to see his way to the owner family\'s dinner table, but chopping off his head didn\'t seem to bother him too much at all, as it went on walking around the premises even afterwards.
Lloyd Olsen was enthralled by the rooster\'s headless antics, and he begun to feed him with water and seeds, which he injected into the bird, through a whole left on his neck. Because the rooster still went on after months of headlessness, Olsen took it to the University of Utah for scientists to gawk at. They found out, that the axe had not damaged the bird\'s brain stem, but very slightly passed it, and a blood clog on the neck artery had prevented death because of blood loss.
Scientists believed that the bird could go on for quite a while, if Olsen was to keep feeding him. He did grow to be over 4 kilograms in weight, and went on tours all over the United States. It was only at 1947 when it finally kicked the bucket, accidentally, as it choked on a seed that got stuck in a piece of skin that had started to grow over his trachea.
There\'s a picture too, but I\'m so tired going through this crappy thread I can\'t bother to scan it.
I wonder if this is where the phrase "headless chicken" came from... though it was a rooster?
-
Our elders were much smarter than us.. I can remeber my dad saying to me when I was little, dad:" son there are two things you never talk about at a party" me: " ya dad whats that" (smirkish grin thinking i was gonna get a sex talk), dad: " religion and politics"...... I never thought my dad would be right about anything.
-
I cant believe i missed all this Clowd bashing :)
You have no idea how happy it makes me to see everyone realise what ive been saying all along.
Clowd can be 1 of 2 possibilities.
1/ The most ignorant man on earth
2/ A really intelligent man playing us all for fool
I pick the former :)
Originally posted by Clowd
get a education
:laughing:
-
That chicken without is head has been documented in Ripley\'s Odditorium.
Go to Orlando, FL to see it.
-
Originally posted by Bobs_Hardware
I cant believe i missed all this Clowd bashing :)
You have no idea how happy it makes me to see everyone realise what ive been saying all along.
Clowd can be 1 of 2 possibilities.
1/ The most ignorant man on earth
2/ A really intelligent man playing us all for fool
I pick the former :)
:laughing:
Wow your so un funny...:rolleyes:
-
Wow, you are so un funny yourself :rolleyes:
-
Clowd, I am still perplexed as to why you have spent the past week trying to prove why your beliefs are true, yet you still refuse to tell us what your beliefs really are. It\'s like me trying to prove that a television uses electricity without ever mentioning the television. Wouldn\'t it be easier to tell us your religion so we at least know what the heck you are fighting for? Otherwise, your arguments are all in vain.
-
well we all know one thing....he doesnt like people of jewish religion or believers of evoultion because he will not respect the right to other people\'s opinions.
-
Im thinking he must be an evangalist.