Whew, that was a close one.

Originally posted by Shadwhawk

You\'re talking abiogenesis, not evolution. The two topics are separate. Evolution only matters after life begins.
As for how it began...no one knows for sure. Biochemists have gotten close to creating self-replicating proteins based on Earth\'s previous environmental conditions.

A question: Who says it really had to begin?  Why couldn\'t life, in some form, have always existed?  I mean, we have seen the harsh conditions that bacteria and such can survive in.  Perhaps there is no beginning.  Perhaps it has just always been that way.

Well, if the universe is infinitely old, then life very well could have existed all along.  Infinity allows for anything.  

If the universe had a start, though, biochemical life would\'ve had to arise at some point.  The earliest conditions in the universe weren\'t fit for protons, let alone life.

Originally posted by Shadwhawk
Shockwaves: Well, I\'m something of an anti-religion atheist

I hope you don\'t take this the wrong way: I love you!

And to Clowd, please reply to Shadwhawk\'s posts, I\'m sure it\'ll be very interesting. And don\'t forget or skip any of his questions either - just answer them directly instead of threwing out more questions as \'answer\'.

Uhhh i just read the first page and apparantly 14 pages later people are still debating religion and science and what not. Anyways Im just going back to the topic at hand. The asteroid.


You want Asteroid? I\'ll  show you Asteroid *ZIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIP*  If anyone has the armageddon dvd, they\'ll know where its from.


P.S. W00t to ShadownHawk for being an Otaku. Did you know that Otaku not only means anime fan, it also means "Place of living" Hehe Yup im a japanese anime whore too W00t for us!!!

I hope you don\'t take this the wrong way: I love you!

If you\'re female, that\'s not much of a problem.  

I must say, I\'m surprised at the general reaction to my post.  This kind of stuff doesn\'t usually go over well on other forums, and people like Clowd tend to have more people on their side.

And to Clowd, please reply to Shadwhawk\'s posts, I\'m sure it\'ll be very interesting. And don\'t forget or skip any of his questions either - just answer them directly instead of threwing out more questions as \'answer\'.

Don\'t expect much.  As I\'ve mentioned, I\'ve debated these types of people before, some who could actually argue their points.  Clowd doesn\'t seem to be quite up to that caliber.  Unless he\'s spurred on by my predicting his actions, he\'ll probably not respond, respond to small points and ignore my overall comments, or just dismiss me entirely.

P.S. W00t to ShadownHawk for being an Otaku. Did you know that Otaku not only means anime fan, it also means "Place of living" Hehe Yup im a japanese anime whore too W00t for us!!!

It\'s also far more derogatory in Japan than it is here.  You can be an otaku for anything, though, not just anime or manga.
Lots of Japanese words have multiple meanings that can be difficult to determine from context; seemingly more than English.
I\'m only a recent anime convert (about 2 years), and I\'ve just started buying DVDs (income is good), but I\'ve got over 400 CDs and far, far too many Gundam model kits and other anime toys/figures.  Only have about 25 manga volumes, though (but I can\'t be happier with Tokyopop\'s recent huge expansion!).

shadwhawk if you want to see all my scientific facts,  just read the whole thread, which ive doubt youve done.  and if you come back saying Ive posted nothing scientific,  then you are unworthy to debate with.  as for your point on evolution is how life evolves,  it has nothing to do with how life got here,  how life got here is the foundation.  if you cant prove how it got here then the rest of your theory is invalid.  i can prove a creator by the left hand right hand scientific fact.  quality vs quantity?  shotgun method?  the way you posted you seem to have not read the whole thread.  also for the 4 corners of the earth,  i remember the scripture,  it said something (cant remember what,  i think its bible news) would be spread to the 4 cornes of the earth.  this only means the entire world.  why take something that is sketchy and use it to mar something that outrightly says God is seated above the circle of the earth?  If my anti evolution facts are so bland and easily refuted,  why are you yet to do it?  Shadwhawk you also seem to know not much about evolution except what you read on a couple of EXTREMELY bias web pages.  Go to an unbias web page,  where reputable scientists are reasonable

you say i make up silly excuses too,  and i run from questions, im yet to hear a reply to the right hand left hand scientific fact.  if you want it its in this topic

I dont see the big thing other what I said about Jews.  Nobody is God\'s special people now.  Even when the Jews were God\'s people,  gentiles were alowed to learn the bible, too.

Everyone says Im not will to listen,  but get this,  I\'ll listen to scientific fact,  something like what bossieman posted.  If you dont want to listen to people trying to prove their point,  just post a scientific fact that proves evolution.  You cant just say we evolved that way all the time.  Evolution is yet to have a foundation,  go ahead and deny something darwin and thousands of scientists, including albert einstein have noted.

Shockwaves how can you tell me to read the thread over?  I answered basically all of your questions.


What did everyone excpect of me when this debate started.  Nonsense?  Your got straightforward answers.  

About the muskipper, post it again so I can reply to it.

I think we all can believe in the facts.

Give me facts.

Only bossieman is yet to do so

Shadwhawk your argument on how light came to be when there was no sun or stars is invalid.  Moses wrote Gensis fromt he stand point of a human on earth.  Keep that in mind when reading Genesis.  He didnt write it from the stand point of God.  So therefore in the primitive world there was constant total cloud coverage over the world.  So when the clouds moved,  light came to be

Which scientists?  It was in Discover magazine 2 months ago.  Sorry bud,  the asteroid theory is going down the toilet.  mORE AND more people are losing faith in it.  So as of yet youve prooved jack squat

Originally posted by Clowd
[everything he posted above]

And yet again you failed to post anything of substance.

as for your point on evolution is how life evolves,  it has nothing to do with how life got here,  how life got here is the foundation.  if you cant prove how it got here then the rest of your theory is invalid[/B]

WRONG! Evolution is a fact. It doesn\'t explain how life STARTED, but it explains how life/species evolved.

Originally posted by Clowd
Shadwhawk you also seem to know not much about evolution except what you read on a couple of EXTREMELY bias web pages.  Go to an unbias web page,  where reputable scientists are reasonable

Yet, he showed so much more than you have. Why don\'t you show us some unbiased websites with \'reputable scientists\' who prove what you say?

Originally posted by Samwise
Yet, he showed so much more than you have. Why don\'t you show us some unbiased websites with \'reputable scientists\' who prove what you say?

You say evolution is a fact = 0 knowledge of evolution

I answered all the questions.  I already proved my point.

He showed so much more?  Samwise,  dont go into denial on me.  I already answered all he said.

Just like how you blindly believed all he said,  you should blindly believe what I said.  But you dont have to do that.  Go look it up yourself if you doubt me.

Atheist.alt or whatever isnt a place to be posting links from in a evolutionist vs creationist debate.

get the info from unbias people like dicovery,  or other reputable sources

Sorry to get you so mad.  

All of you are in the corner now because Ive answered your questions and you havent.

Originally posted by Videoholic


This makes me think, where would be a good place for something like that to hit the earth?  

Besides the obvious, Australia...

Your a friggen racist, thats what you are.

And there are 21 million other people who would agree with me. Don\'t mess with us.

Mad? I\'m not mad. Just annoyed.

Denail? I\'m not the one in denial. :rolleyes:

You say evolution is a fact = 0 knowledge of evolution

[/b]And how is evolution not a fact? What about micro and macroevolution?

Again I dare you to find some websites that agrees with you. EXTREMELY UNBIASED ones too. My bet is that you won\'t - because they\'re all either biased against creation or evolution. And let me guess - the ones that doesn\'t agree with you are wrong and biased? And the ones who are pro-creationism are not biased? Yeah, perhaps if you live in fairyland.


I quote http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000D4FEC-7D5B-1D07-8E49809EC588EEDF on this:

Creationist claim: Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.

Many people learned in elementary school that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty--above a mere hypothesis but below a law. Scientists do not use the terms that way, however. According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natu

GALÁPAGOS FINCHES show adaptive beak shapes.
ral world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution--or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter--they are not expressing reservations about its truth.

In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the fact of evolution. The NAS defines a fact as "an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as \'true.\'" The fossil record and abundant other evidence testify that organisms have evolved through time. Although no one observed those transformations, the indirect evidence is clear, unambiguous and compelling.

All sciences frequently rely on indirect evidence. Physicists cannot see subatomic particles directly, for instance, so they verify their existence by watching for telltale tracks that the particles leave in cloud chambers. The absence of direct observation does not make physicists\' conclusions less certain.


You speak of having an open mind Clowd. Yet, you claim we\'re wrong without having an open mind to the proof/research of evolution. That makes you no better than the people you\'re trying to convince.

evolution is a theory, get other it. darwin admitted and all scientists do today.  case over

your in denial becuase you continue to state i have posted no scientific facts supporting creation or denying evolution







 and if bossieman is a scientist he can back up what i said about the amino acid left hand right hand scientific fact,  and how amino acids cant develop in the primitive atmosphere,  and how its hard for cells to polymerize in the primitive ocean.

EDIT:  Excuse me, its hard for them to POLYMERIZE

Originally posted by Clowd
evolution is a theory, get other it. darwin admitted and all scientists do today.  case over

No, the case isn\'t "over" just because you say so. That doesn\'t make you correct - I mean, what if I say "numerours priests and scientists have admitted that God is a hoax, he doesn\'t exist and never did." - OMG, there you have it. Fantastic evidence. :rolleyes:

And for the 1 millionth time, show me some proof - what amazingly unbiased sources back you up?

You\'re like a damn broken record - "it\'s not true because I and my imaginary friends say so!".