Forum Closed
The forum is now to new posts. All the historical content is still available to browse.
if you are looking for musicians to play with, please view the Bands Seeking Musicians list, or use the Musicians Directory
You can use our pages on social media to connect:
Christmas Hols
| Message Board > Controversy and Quarantine > Christmas Hols |
| Blackjack User Info... | So since when did christmas start on november 1st? I really do get confused by this season, it all seems so pointless till 5 days before THE day, and afterwards it loses all point once more. Getting stressed out at your shopping woes, losing sight of ur loved ones as they have to see family members, and getting drunk with your own happy family. What is the point of all this corporate interaction when the season is about giving? Well, they at least gave me a headache contemplating such deep thoughts. P.S. Santa Clause was adapted from the British Father Christmas by Coca Cola. Coca Cola started out as a product containing cocaine until the drug became illegal in the early 1900s. Ever wonder why rudolf had a red nose? *snifffffff* - Sun, 21 Dec 2003 8:25pm | ||
| METALNECK User Info... | Actually the real birthday of christ is in september so november is a late start date. Christmas is based on the barbarian tradition where they decorated trees and odin came and gave you presents to celebrate the winter solstice. It was so popular that the pope changed christmas to co-incide with this holiday as to take away power from the pagan traditions. Also it had to do with the fact that most christians were farmers and did not have alot of heavy work in december compared to september, making for an opportune time to celebrate. On another note the term 'barbarian' is actually roman slang for anyone who wasn't roman. You see bar bar was how romans said blah blah and bar-bar-ian was what they referred to as all people who could not speak their language. So in fact most of the world are decendents of Barbarians, who in turn invented the tradition of decorating trees and giving presents in winter, then used as a religious holiday by christians to celebrate christ, and now stolen again by pagans to make a buck. Weird eh? - Mon, 22 Dec 2003 10:41am | ||
| ROSS B AY User Info... | uhh....isn't this celebrating the birth of Santa? - Mon, 22 Dec 2003 1:39pm | ||
| mi.coll. User Info... | how do you figure that jesus' birth is in september? i have heard that the bible (never having read it) describes it as taking place in springtime. that shit about barbarians is just dumb. you mean "pagans" and then you mean "atheists." also, the pope didn't co-opt the pagan christmas, it was martin luther. - Mon, 22 Dec 2003 8:34pm | ||
| Broccoli User Info... | and x-mas still is the frigg'n solstice: days get longer. aparently this is a good time to celebrate... although I think the asshole pegans gave presents TO the trees insteda cut'n 'm down and piling presents for their spoiled brats. "how much consumption is nesisary before jesus is satisfied?" JS - Tue, 23 Dec 2003 11:12am | ||
| ROSS B AY User Info... | uhh...Santa? - Tue, 23 Dec 2003 2:33pm | ||
| Ebolavire User Info... | In the Ukrain and other parts of the world where they don't follow the King James bible, Jesus birthday is in January. King James revised for his convenience. Of course now we celebrate Coke and Satan...uhh.. Santa. - Thu, 1 Jan 2004 9:58pm | ||
| Stefan User Info... | METALNECK, you know the actual birthday of christ?? funny, i guess i missed that part of the bible... - Sat, 3 Jan 2004 8:25am | ||
| a cheap laugh User Info... | I'm sure he doesn't know the exact date there, slapnuts, but do a little research and read a little history, and it becomes clear that it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that Christ was not born anywhere near december, and that December 25 was a PAGAN holiday that was simply switched to "Christmas" by the pope to make it easier for the great unwashed to go from one lie to another. I can understand your angst though, must be hard to see your "good book" discredited and proven wrong so often. oh well, at least if it snows more and you are unable to get to the store because of it, at least you'll have a good supply of "holy" toilet paper. - Sat, 3 Jan 2004 11:15am | ||
| Stefan User Info... | haha thats a cheap laugh!! "the Good Book discredited so often??!!??" HAHAHAH hey, you ever heard of the anthropic principle?? in essence, a growing number of repected scientists believe the sole purpose of the universe is to produce human life. Gravity, electro-magnetism, the weak nuclear force, and the strong nuclear force, are the 4 fundemental forces of the universe. Scientists have run programs on supercomputers to see what the univese would be like if any of the 4 were changed even slightly, like, less the 1/20th of a percentage point. Guess what they found out?? The ONLY way the universe can support life is exactally the way it was designed. Basically, the odds are the same of the universe happening by chance, as you winning the 649 lottery 50 times in a row. "discredited so often" haha, let me ask you this; you feeling lucky, slapnuts?? - Wed, 7 Jan 2004 2:03pm | ||
| ROSS B AY User Info... | Hey, you guys are right!! Fuck Christmas and all it stands for!! Don't get your wife and/or kids anything at all next Christmas and tell them that it's because you don't believe in it!! Why didn't I think of that? Damm....Since when did Christmas ever have anything to do with religion ya bible scholars? - Wed, 7 Jan 2004 2:35pm | ||
| stefan User Info... | Since when didnt it?? 2 words, Christ Mas, no, the word Christ in there isnt just a coincidence.. man thats sad, "since when did Christmas have anything to do with religion"... there would be no Christmas if it werent for religion... - Wed, 7 Jan 2004 6:55pm | ||
| ROSS B AY User Info... | you're telling me we all are worshipping christ at that time of year? get a grip son!! just like almost everyone else, i'm not christian and i still take part in christmas. think before you say something you have no clue about corky!! hahahahahaaaa...... - Thu, 8 Jan 2004 12:16am | ||
| Dr.V User Info... | You`re all wrong. Christmas was created by the pagans who whorshipped the god, Mall, and his under gods, Gap, Roots, and Brick, and they called the hunter that killed the most reindeer, Santa, and they would hang reindeer balls on their mantles. - Thu, 8 Jan 2004 2:43am | ||
| Shaggy User Info... | "Don't get your wife and/or kids anything at all next Christmas and tell them that it's because you don't believe in it!!" Not hard to do if you have balls. I don't celebrate xmas. S.V. and kiddo get their Xmas 'fix' at her parents. - Thu, 8 Jan 2004 5:00am | ||
| stefan User Info... | hey fucknuts..err.. ROSS B AY, i never said everyone worships Christ at Christmas, im not that fucking ignorant genious, what im saying is that CHRISTmas is a RELIGIOUS holiday, and its not like you can deny that, CHRISTmas, not Santamas, or getpresentsmas, or imafuckingidiotmas,... CHRISTmas. stop tryin to be a smartass, corky. - Thu, 8 Jan 2004 8:03am | ||
| Wreaker of Havoc User Info... | Dec 25th was a Pagan holiday long before Christ was born. It was celebrated 3000BC as the rebirth of the Sun. i.e. Celebrated on the Dec 25th before Christ: The birth of Horus (Egyptian god of light) the birth of Hercules (son of Greek God Zeus) the birth of Freyr (son of Scandanavian God Oden) etc....the actual birthdate of Christ has never been know. Events and history was not accuratly dated for about 400 years around that time. For several hundred years the birth of Christ was celebrated on various dates in Jan then April and sometimes in May. The exact year was not even clear. Eventually rather than try to squash the Dec 25 Pagen celebration the Christians simply stole it. Obviously the short version but Christmas was definitley NOT started by Christ, it was merely taken over. All I want to know is why a good boy like me always gets these horrid tasting chocolates in my stocking......wait a minute! - Thu, 8 Jan 2004 8:39am | ||
| stefan User Info... | CHRIST mas. Now, your whole long, boring speech there was all fine and good, but it still dont take the Christ out of Christmas. The actual date might have been stolen, but the actual celebration of christmas is absolutely about celebrating the birth of christ. you just cant fight that. thats why its called Christmas. Still dont get it?? Read the best selling book in the universe and maybe youll get an idea. - Thu, 8 Jan 2004 9:26am | ||
| Wreaker of Havoc User Info... | I dont really see what xmas trees, santa, stockings, egg nog, and me getting free shit has to do with your christ. Goes to show how fuckin bright you Christians are BUYING your bible when you can get one free from any hotel in town.....oh ya stealing and shit blablabla fire and brimstone...if you really want to get technical look up the meaning of 'mas' in ChristMAS. 'mas' is ancient latin for 'is a goat' - Thu, 8 Jan 2004 9:32am | ||
| Stefan User Info... | Ya i dont see what that has to do with the birth of Christ either. Just goes to show how fucking selfish and pathetic we as a people have become. As far as what the word "mas" in Christmas means, it actually comes from an old english word "messe" which was abreviated, and it means "festival or celebration". Nice try with the whole goat thing tho, really, but no dice, sorry. - Thu, 8 Jan 2004 9:36am | ||
| ROSS B AY User Info... | Seems like somebody takes themselves - and this website - waaaay too seriously. Relax asshole. It's all fun and games. - Thu, 8 Jan 2004 11:46am | ||
| Wreaker of Havoc User Info... | Merry Stephanmas!!!! Thats "Happy Smallman is a goat" for those who dont speak fluent Latin like me. - Thu, 8 Jan 2004 12:18pm | ||
| Shaggy User Info... | Don't you mean fluent llama Wreaker? - Thu, 8 Jan 2004 12:52pm | ||
| Nik Olaz User Info... | The christian aspect of christmas had a focus on society at one time because Christianity itself had a chokehold on the world. Thanks to the 20th century, Christianity fell out of our society. Thus Christmas was seen more as a time for spending money for presents for others, rather than Jesus's "magical birth". Why do we have trees? Yule logs? Santa? Reindeer? Because it carried on from a pagan religion. If you don't believe that, do some actual research for yourself and find out. FYI: I don't think paganism is better than Christianity, as an atheist that religious/spiritual shit is played out. - Thu, 8 Jan 2004 12:55pm | ||
| mi.coll. User Info... | Stephan : "haha thats a cheap laugh!! "the Good Book discredited so often??!!??" HAHAHAH hey, you ever heard of the anthropic principle?? in essence, a growing number of repected scientists believe the sole purpose of the universe is to produce human life. Gravity, electro-magnetism, the weak nuclear force, and the strong nuclear force, are the 4 fundemental forces of the universe. Scientists have run programs on supercomputers to see what the univese would be like if any of the 4 were changed even slightly, like, less the 1/20th of a percentage point. Guess what they found out?? The ONLY way the universe can support life is exactally the way it was designed. Basically, the odds are the same of the universe happening by chance, as you winning the 649 lottery 50 times in a row. "discredited so often" haha, let me ask you this; you feeling lucky, slapnuts?? " -----> so the bible must be right? seems to me that the bible doesn't just establish the existence of god. i do agree with you, though, that this is pretty good evidence of the existence of god. however, it seems like a bit of a non-argument in that it states that "reality is perfectly suited for the way that it actually is." -- huh? - Thu, 8 Jan 2004 1:26pm | ||
| stefan User Info... | Nic Olaz, you are right, Christianity has fell out big time, due to comercialism and people becomming selfish and lazy and not taking the time to carefully look at the facts and look at the fact that more and more scientists are beginning to seriously think that there must be some higher being out there cause things are just too intricate and too perfect for it to be by chance, as i stated the odds of just one example. And therefor the actually celebration behind Christmas has long been forgotten and has become solely a selfish excuse to get shit and get drunk with family. That i think is very sad, but it is the way it is and i am not arguing that. mi.coll, thank you for actually making a valid, non-threatining post. I dont quite understand your statement at the bottom.. but i just gotta say.. if life is perfectly suited for the way it is... and you know the odds of that happening by chance... how could you not think there must be something greater out there.. its just too imposible to happen by chance. But, i dont mean to preach on here and that was NEVER my intention, i respect everyone ideas on religion and i just expect the same from everyone els. - Thu, 8 Jan 2004 1:55pm | ||
| Stefan User Info... | ROSS B AY, i dont take myself too seriously, i actually try not to take stuff to seriously, and im not happy at how all my posts on live vic seem to turn into heated debates, i wont let my opinions be slammed without saying my piece tho. Dont mean to offend anyone, or assault anyones personal belifes, im just saying my piece and defending my beliefs. Wreaker : i dont feel the need to even reply to your last post. If your joking.. haha... thats funny... if not.. grow up. - Thu, 8 Jan 2004 2:05pm | ||
| ROSS B AY User Info... | that's the differance right there man - a lot of people don't think it's impossible that it's simply nature. that decision right there - to believe it's all nature, or it's all from a higher power - is the basis of all religion, as far as I can see. some people go one way, others go the other, and that's it. i don't feel the need personally to tell myself that there's such a thing as a "higher power" anymore. i was forced to listen and practice all that as a wee lad. didn't take too well. in the end, i suppose there's no real answers, and everyone pretty much has to make up what they wanna believe. oh well....plus I like getting free shit at christmas so i do it like everybody else!! and hey, stop telling people to grow up sonny! you lose credibility that way. word... - Thu, 8 Jan 2004 2:09pm | ||
| Stefan User Info... | Ross b ay, i agree completely with your last post. It is a choise, and thats the way it should be, and i respect everyones choise, provided they dont slag mine. and i dont lose credibility telling peopel to grow up, you lose credibility when you say stuff like " fuck you god boy you and nickelback suck" and stuff like " merry stefanmass, for you who dont speak latin that means merry smallman is a goat". that, Ross, is how you lose credibility and validity, to anyone who is mature, that is. - Thu, 8 Jan 2004 2:21pm | ||
| ROSS B AY User Info... | where the ^%$# did you get the idea that anyone here wants to be mature!! hehe...this board is for those of us who feel most comfortable acting like retarded nine year olds man. that's why I go here... - Thu, 8 Jan 2004 2:25pm | ||
| Stefan User Info... | i also agree completely that this board is not for maturity, but when it comes to subject such as peoples personal beliefs, that is one area that i personally think should not be slagged and made fun of. i am only 18 so therefor i am sure not a stiff, mature person, its just... ridiculing peoples religion, or favorite bands.. that is acting like 9 year olds and to me, not being mature as in having fun and making jokes, and ridiculing like that and acting like your 9 is quite different, and acting like your 9 like that on here i think for any aged person is just pathetic. i have NO probleme with inside jokes and FUN slagging of people, but serios slagging like that is just uncalled for. in my opinion - Thu, 8 Jan 2004 2:28pm | ||
| Nik Olaz User Info... | what is being "mature" anyways? I've seen everyone on this board make fun of someone/something at one point or another. - Thu, 8 Jan 2004 2:55pm | ||
| Shaggy User Info... | There's a few subjects you NEVER discuss if you expect to have a normal discussion with ANYONE, let alone on an message board. Religion and Politics are things better left for discussion while downing a few pints at the local pub than on a message board. Text based communication loses a lot and is pretty heavily perception based. You can't convey emotion properly, so there are always going to be people offended at what THEY percieve to be a slight against them or their beliefs. Is there a god? Don't know and honestly don't care. Any 'being' that allows the wholesale slaughter of those supposedly created in it's own 'image' by those who have been deemed or deem themselves to be the 'voice' of god, is something I'll never be able to fathom. No wonder the JW's are so doom and gloom, but at least they realise that 'god' is just as clique oriented as the rest of us animals. - Thu, 8 Jan 2004 3:20pm | ||
| Nik Olaz User Info... | Does it really matter if there is or isnt a God? I mean if someone stops believing in any of that spiritual stuff can they walk down the street? yes. can they cook vegetables? yes. Can they wipe their ass? yes. The whole idea is pretty vestigial. Then maybe some people need fake guidance from an invisible being thats from "beyond time" and is "mysterious". Sounds more like a cheesy sci-fi flick to me. Meh. It's their lives. - Thu, 8 Jan 2004 3:58pm | ||
| eboner User Info... | jesus isent real therefore christmas has no meaning. - Thu, 8 Jan 2004 4:29pm | ||
| eboner User Info... | i half disagree with what i just said...christmas does have a meaning..to me its just differnt..i dont look at it in the religious aspect because im athiest not christian..but its still a family holiday. - Thu, 8 Jan 2004 4:31pm | ||
| mi.coll. User Info... | stephan- what i meant is - we exist, so in hindsight the universe must be suited to our existence. this does not necessarily mean that the universe was INTENTIONALLY designed for our existence. there could concievably be infinite universes, most of which have no life. causality does not follow. also, my girlfriend made a good point: EVERYTHING is improbable. the fact that you are sitting where you are while reading this sentence is very unlikely. if anything in your life, or in your day, had been slighly different, you would not be where you are. this doesn't prove that god is responsible. - Thu, 8 Jan 2004 5:32pm | ||
| Wreaker of Havoc User Info... | This is crap, next you humbugs will be sayin insane shit like "Santa's not real" or "reindeer dont fly" Crazy talk, all of it.... - Thu, 8 Jan 2004 5:39pm | ||
| stefan User Info... | mi.coll - yes, everything is improbable. But not that improbable. i do have a computer do i not?? i do have internet do i not? i have been making lots of posts on live vic have a not?? Everything is improbable, ill give ya that, but i pose this question: If it is so improbable that there is a higher being who set up this universe to be the way it is, why is it that with the more technology that we have and the more we learn, the more scientists are leaning towards the idea that there must be some higher being because there are just TOO many things that are TOO flukey and if changed in the SLIGHTEST would not allow for life in this universe. Now i know your gonna say everything is improbable... but when you look at the odds, and the facts.. i dunno, like.. if you say that maybe there are tons of universes out there that may not have life.. like.. what.. theres gotta be like what, 9000000000000 universes out there?? i dunno... im not gonna preach.. and judging by the majority of the responses im getting on here (excluding you mi.coll, you have been very.. un-agressive with your posts), the people on this message board are just not mature enough to resonably discuss this or other serious topics so.. i think im just gonna stop discussing this on here. thanks for.. well.. thanks mi.coll for being mature about it. - Thu, 8 Jan 2004 6:44pm | ||
| Fred the Dragon User Info... | What a load Christmas is. I mean, come on. All this holiday serves to do is give the general populous a reason to be assholes the rest of the year. They tell themselves, "if I pretend to be nice for a month, I can be a schmuck for the rest of the year". That's how it is. When purporting this view in numerous conversations with Christmas lovers I am always defeated by the argument, "No, it's not". How can you rebut? You can't. The argument is ingenious. If people really are nice, and not fake nice, at Christmas time, wouldn't they be just as nice and kind and happy all year round? Nice isn't like being sexually 'turned on'. It doesn't start when you see the December issue of Maxim or end when you think of your mother. - Thu, 8 Jan 2004 7:33pm | ||
| Nik Olaz User Info... | TH0$E $Ci3NTI5T5 4RE ge+T1Ng re@lly l4zy 50 THEy H@v3 ST0pP3D aCtu4lLY Try1N9 tO ExPL4iN +H1n9$ n0rm4lLy 1 r34lLy dOnt 93+ +HI5 9uy $+3ph4N. wH4T 4 51lLy m@n! h3 15 NOT @n 3l33+ LiKe M3 0R @nyoN3 3Ls3 keK3kEKEk3 ^_^ - Thu, 8 Jan 2004 8:19pm | ||
| Shaggy User Info... | Looks like someone found a d00dspeak dictionary... - Fri, 9 Jan 2004 4:23am | ||
| mi.coll. User Info... | we don't understand anything "before" the big bang, so there really is a lot of room for god. you get my point, though, that the anthropic principle is kind of bullshit. if we weren't here, would that disprove god? it is ex post reasoning at its best! - Fri, 9 Jan 2004 7:35am | ||
| mi.coll. User Info... | and, yes, christmas has become a commercialized, non-denominational celebration of gluttony and consumerism. deal with it. - Fri, 9 Jan 2004 7:42am | ||
| stefan User Info... | when did i say i hadnt?? and how the hell do you figure you just proved the anthropic principle to be bullshit?? maybe you might wanna inform all those scientists who are believing it, they might wanna know its bullshit too. thanks for enlightening me. - Fri, 9 Jan 2004 7:55am | ||
| Wreaker of Havoc User Info... | Everyone was created by a big bang. Stephan notice the twinkle in your mom's eye when the mail comes...... - Fri, 9 Jan 2004 8:50am | ||
| mi.coll. User Info... | maybe i will, stefan, maybe i will... oh yeah, and fuck you too- thanks for enlightening all of us. - Fri, 9 Jan 2004 8:57am | ||
| some girl... User Info... | Stefen.... Are you getting your facts, about Scientists and how the universe was made, from the book "The Science of God" by Gerald Schroeder? If not, where did you get your facts? I'm asking because there are some really good books out there about science actually proving religion (backing it up) rather than discrediting it. As far as Jesus being a fictional character--> anyone who says that is completly ignorant of facts and of history. Jesus was talked about in sources other than the Bible (secular sources written during Jesus' lifetime--> a good book is, "The Case for Christ: A Journalist's Personal Investigation of the Evidence for Jesus by Lee Strobel". I'm throwing out book titles just to show others here that I'm not simply letting my ass do the talking). There's also archeological proof too that Pilot and others existed. If anyone here doesn't want to follow Christ well, that's what 'Free Will' is all about, but to say that He isn't/wasn't real is absolutly idiotic. - Fri, 9 Jan 2004 9:23am | ||
| ROSS B AY User Info... | I'm not sure anyone said Jesus didn't exist though....I would never say something stupid like that. Well, maybe.... - Fri, 9 Jan 2004 10:55am | ||
| Wreaker of Havoc User Info... | You ever notice how "Jesus Christ" spelled backwards spells "Santa Claus" Coincidence? I think not! - Fri, 9 Jan 2004 11:21am | ||
| ROSS B AY User Info... | Hey, you're right. I kant spells twoo gudd, buht iit sher lukks lyk Santa too meee.. - Fri, 9 Jan 2004 11:24am | ||
| Wreaker of Havoc User Info... | What if D-O-G spelled 'cat'? Fuckin wierd - Fri, 9 Jan 2004 11:36am | ||
| some girl... User Info... | Quote: [eboner] "jesus isent real therefore christmas has no meaning." - Thu, 8 Jan 4:29pm Okay, I'm sure that eboner must have been kidding (since no one can possibly, rationally, think that He is a fictitious character. I just wanted to really make sure that no one here actually thinks this He never existed. ha ha about Jesus Christ spelling Santa Claus! - Fri, 9 Jan 2004 12:36pm | ||
| ROSS B AY User Info... | I saw the A&E bio about Jesus last year, and the shit he did while he was actually alive was documented. All the myth part of the writings of J.C. started being told after he died. According to Bill Kurtis anyway, and - well - he IS Bill Kurtis..... - Fri, 9 Jan 2004 12:56pm | ||
| stefan User Info... | Wreaker : did i ever say there was no big bang?? id have be a complete moron to say that. But just cause there was a big bang doesnt mean there is no God. How did the big bang happen? Could it have been set up?? mi.coll- hope your not planning on being a scientist. Bottom line, you guys dont smash what i believe in, i dont smash what you believe in. Soon enough we will find out who was right, whats the point in fighting over it now? - Fri, 9 Jan 2004 1:01pm | ||
| ROSS B AY User Info... | Why does anyone have to be "right"? Belief is all about what you persoanlly want in your life, what makes you personally comfortable. There is no right and wrong when it comes to belief. - Fri, 9 Jan 2004 1:08pm | ||
| stefan User Info... | oh but if there really is a god and there really is a heaven and hell and all that is actually true, then there is a right and wrong, and, if its true, we will all find out once we die. Now, we "crazy dumb ignorant" christians might be wrong and nothing will happen, but, as we, and more and more scientists believe, that is not the case. My point was only, why should we get angry at each other about that now, i believe what i believe, you believe what you believe, one day we will know for sure, no point in getting mad about it now. - Fri, 9 Jan 2004 1:21pm | ||
| ROSS B AY User Info... | But you're the only one getting mad about it kid. - Fri, 9 Jan 2004 1:38pm | ||
| Wreaker of Havoc User Info... | Not the 'big bang' i was talking about there kiddo..... - Fri, 9 Jan 2004 4:08pm | ||
| Nik Olaz User Info... | Man, you guys take this way too far. It really should make no difference whether there is a god or not. Either way we should all be nice to one another. but if majority of creationsits believe in creation to it's extent that means that God itself had to have been created by another being higher than god. If you think about it logically it doesnt make sense to say that everything has a creator EXCEPT god, because thats hypocritical. - Fri, 9 Jan 2004 6:15pm | ||
| stefan User Info... | Nic Olaz, good point, But.. IF you believe there is a god, or any sort of higher being, which most people on here dont but bare with me im just saying IF you believe there is a god, then at least somewhere down the line, at least, there has to be the origional, who was not created, but always was. I cannot comprehend that idea.. and the bible clearly states that we cannot, and wont until we die, be able to understand timelessness.. i dunno, i never thought too deep into that idea cause its just too overwhelming, there is no way to comprehend that, but, then again, if we had all the answers, there would be no "faith", would there? oh, and sorry wreaker, i thought you might have actually said something intelligent, guess not.. - Fri, 9 Jan 2004 9:59pm | ||
| mi.coll. User Info... | stefan- the bible is NOT at all backed up by your anthropic principle. in fact, modern science has completely discredited any literal interperetation of the bible. also, the principle leaves room for good before the big bang, not in your life now. it says "god did something once, but sure as hell doesn't answer your prayers, create miracles, or have any sons!" maybe the "scientists," of which you so frequently mention, believe in some sort of god, but there is no "scientific" evidence of christianity! in fact, who are these "scientists"? physicists? why not call them physicists (or do you even know?). also, have you read any literature, or are you just quoting your sunday school class? name some names, biatch. --- anyway, the anthropic establishes that god COULD exist, but this doesn't mean that christianity isn't complete CRAP. and, hey, it is! religion is faith-based. do not EVER try to say that science supports religion. either believe it or not, but do not claim to have any proof. you make it seem like science (physics? philosophy? math?) overwhelmingly supports religion or something- but this is plain WRONG. this anthropic principle is a very new, very marginal concept. maybe jesus existed, but i would contend that he was just some shmoe with charisma and a mental illness, kind of like charles manson or something. - Sat, 10 Jan 2004 10:48am | ||
| Nik Olaz User Info... | timelessness indicates more of a infinite amount of time. Therefore according to majority of creation stories, god existed before it created the universe. That is confusing because that allows time to actually flow through where ever this "god" may be. If there was a time before creation, there clearly was time there in the first place. Thus making the idea of god in a place of "timelessness" incorrect. Its more logical to think of god, less as a thing with thoughts and feelings but more as an acting force upon the universe. More like just a basic law that just is. But then you get into the arguement of "How did that law get here?" Yes it is all very perplexing. - Sat, 10 Jan 2004 11:03am | ||
| Wreaker of Havoc User Info... | Intelligence is sooo yesterday man. Get with the times boy.....and its sooooo dang confuzin too! - Sat, 10 Jan 2004 11:56am | ||
| Stefan User Info... | Hey mi.coll, before you start talking about of your ass again and making yourself look like an uneducated idiot, check out the book "Science and Evolution" by "Charles Colson and Nancy Piercy". Then you can start rambling on again about a bunch of shit you have no idea about. - Sat, 10 Jan 2004 12:26pm | ||
| METALNECK User Info... | "maybe the "scientists," of which you so frequently mention, believe in some sort of god, but there is no "scientific" evidence of christianity!" Well see that church outside? That is scientific proof of christianity. Christianity most certainly exists. Only god is debatable. And yes there is a surprisingly large number of things that point to creation, but our society doesn't teach us anything about them. You have to go out and learn them yourself. It is 'not cool' to believe in religion. And that about sums 99% of the arguments I have been in with other people. - Sat, 10 Jan 2004 12:56pm | ||
| mi.coll. User Info... | good points, boys. why don't you go and read any first year anthropology text, k. now i'll go talk some more about of my ass. - Sat, 10 Jan 2004 1:05pm | ||
| mi.coll. User Info... | oh, and "science and evolution" is not in either the uvic library or the greater victoria public library. i guess i just have to be involved in some waco christian fundamentalist organization to get a copy... or as metalneck says- "You have to go out and learn them yourself." hahahaha! - Sat, 10 Jan 2004 1:13pm | ||
| METALNECK User Info... | Yes creation theories are not taught in schools and you can't even seem to find a book. There are many good books on the subject so go out and get one. It is pretty easy, but no one is going to bother to show you. Almost all the christians I know are very against being preachy since most people have their mind made up about the bible before they even know a single thing about it. There is no point in me or anyone else wasting our time showing someone scientific facts about the bible because you already have made up your mind. You want to learn about God go out and learn. I can show what I have researched and give you my books to read, but you only really know something when you do it yourself. My best buddies dad was always big on the bible and the science and philosiphy behind it. I got a few beers in me and one night I asked him how he could still beleive in the bible when it is common knowledge that it isn't true? He said if I was really interested that I could go ahead and ask him specific questions about the bible and he would try to prove them to me. He got me to look up anything that I thought was proven false by science and then we could have a proper debate. we have had countless since and will have countless more. The library behind Save-on-foods has more books on the subject then you are capable of reading. I have a dozen books on evolution and I have never had any trouble finding any at the library or at any bookstore. Oh and back to the begenning of the thread, His birthday is not stated but they do say that there where shepards tending their flocks and due to freezing temperatures in Bethleham throughout winter and late spring, Jesus was most likely born in Fall when the shepards would be out letting their flocks graze instead of being indoors. But, they do give the date of his baptism and among other things there is some evidence that it could have been in April or May. But no one knows, and no one alive will probably ever know. - Sat, 10 Jan 2004 1:23pm | ||
| eboner User Info... | some girl: if you read the post i had put right after that one youd know yes, i disagreed with what i had said there. maybe you missed that. if by me saying 'hes' a fictional character you mant jesus, then yes i am serious..hes not real. santa is real and hes rocks. - Sat, 10 Jan 2004 1:44pm | ||
| eboner User Info... | ok wait..i mean jesus christ as a baby was real..i think..either way i dont care becuse thats a religious thing..but i mean god isent real.i dont know..im confusing myself. ok bye. - Sat, 10 Jan 2004 1:46pm | ||
| stefan User Info... | mi.coll, of course you cant find the book or any even remotely like it at uvic, its probably banned to even think about saying the word "creation" within 10 km radius of thier campus. Now, i would, like metalneck, tell you to go out and find the book, cause, if you actually go into it with somewhat of an open mind, the book would probably blow you away with facts and interesting things you wont hear in a million years at uvic or in any of your anthropology texts, BUT, there is probably no point in you even looking at it, cause, agian like metalneck said, you already have your mind made up and are not willing to even accept the idea that you, and your anthropology text books, could possibly be wrong, actually, maybe not even wrong, but missing part of the whole story. - Sat, 10 Jan 2004 1:56pm | ||
| Stefan User Info... | oh, and mi.coll, if you do for some reason decide to find and read the book, if you go into it with at least somewhat of an open mind, i personally GURANTEE you it will at least make you seriously think. Even if you dont believe it after reading it, im sure you would at least find it interesting. - Sat, 10 Jan 2004 2:00pm | ||
| Broccoli User Info... | Now don't get me wrong here kiddies: I don't necessarily think that Science and religion are necessarily mutually exclusive. I don�t believe in either of them. And Balls to you kid for sticking up for what you believe in And I hate to trample other people�s beliefs (even when it is poppy cock), especially if they keep you going, or whatever, but I heard the "C" word, so dig this: creationism is exactly as likely as mankind being planted by an alien race (not very) A) Evolution is an undisputable phenomenon, and man's evolution from lesser apes has molecular evidence (sequence homology of the S13 ribosomal subunit is ONE good marker, there are TENS OF THOUSANDS more). B) No viable vertebrate society could develop from only 2 ancestors: try sticking two people on an island and see how many generations survive. Not enough Genetic Variance to sustain a non-retarded 2nd or 3rd generation. - Sat, 10 Jan 2004 2:15pm | ||
| Stefan User Info... | ok, first of all, i do believe in evolution WITHIN a species. But you show me a mesquito that can "evolve" into an elephant, and maybe ill buy a bit more of this evolution stuff. Look at Darwin's finch's, noone can argue that there was some evolution within a species there, BUT, did any of them evolve into a sea gull?? If you look at their dna, each and every type, was still, scientifically, a finch. To your point B - if for a minute you believe that God was involved in the process, then it could be possible.. im not a genious on this topic, but, you should check out this website if your interested in hearing a much more scientific explanation on this topic then i could ever give. http://www.reasons.org/index.shtml That website will get you thinking for sure. - Sat, 10 Jan 2004 2:31pm | ||
| METALNECK User Info... | Micro-evolution occurs all the time. That is undisputed. But real evolution is when one species turns into a new species. The fact that all species evolved into completely new species including us is the theory of evolution. If it is completely proven, than it is no longer a theory and becomes scientific fact. Simple fact is the fossil record is the biggest downside to the theory of evolution. Look that up, every scientist can tell you what is meant by that. There is no fossils of a species changing into another species. I will give you a quick rundown but I cannot fit 1000 pages of explanation into a few paragraphs so try not to jump out at loopholes in the wordings of my summary. Evolution is supposed to happen slowly over millions of years. Single celled organisms turned into fish and other water species which then wondered onto the ground and slowly evolved legs and then slowly changed into elephants, giraffes, dogs, birds, cats, and humans. Ok here is the kicker, with all of these billions and billions of slow gradual changes for all species to have evolved into the mass aray of extinct and living species we have today, there would be thousands of fossils of each animal in there different state of evolution. We can theorize what they should have been like. We can imagine what those species must have looked like. But there is not a single transitional fossil(evolutionary term for a fossil of a species evolving) ever found. Thats right not a single fossil of anything ever evolving. You can look at different species that are alive and extinct and scientists theorize about all the different gradual changes that would be neccessary for evolution to occur. We can draw pictures and we can say how they lived and what they ate and we teach this in classrooms, but we have not found a single fossil of anything in the midst of evolving. Scientists even have names for many species of animals that think would have existed in order for evolution to occur. We have names for them and pictures of them even though there is not a single trace of their existence. Even without a single bone or hoof print we are told how these animals lived and that they existed. Nice and easy example here: Look at an elephant. We have countless fossils and remains of long ago elephants. We do not have fossils of elephants before they were elephants. An elephant would have had thousands of transitions between itself and what it was before it was an elephant, but scientists cant find them. Look at the horse. We have found dozens of different species that had much different attributes that all belong to the horse family. We do not have slow gradual changes of the countless small evolutionary steps needed for all of these different species to have been connected. There is only large abrupt differences in these species. We can not find any evidence of these species changing from one to the other. Why can we only find fossils of completely different species of animals? Because there are only completely different species of animals. Its kind of funny how much the world runs on faith: We can not deffinatively prove or disprove God. We can not see Him. We have no foot prints or fossils of God. We write about Him and accept Him. People have believed in God for milleniums and people who believe in God do so in faith. We have no fossils of anything evolving. We have no footprints or skeletons. We can not see evolution. Yet we write about it and accept it. It is a theory and yet most of the worlds population follows this belief with out any evidence. Science seems to point away from evolution instead of towards it. People who believe in evolution are doing so in faith. Blind faith of a 150 year old idea. It is a brilliant idea, but an idea nontheless. - Sat, 10 Jan 2004 3:06pm | ||
| stefan User Info... | Exactally, read up on the Burgess Shale site. Same idea as METALNECK is on, basically, a whole bunch of insects, and,they would find different species of insects in different layers of earth, suggesting evolution had occured, BUT, there were NO transitional insects whatsoever. So there is no proof of one species evolving into another. Just another one of those little coincidences i was talking about way earlier on in this chain. - Sat, 10 Jan 2004 4:16pm | ||
| Stefan User Info... | Even if it takes an equal amount of faith to follow each of the two, noone wants to accept Christianity or God, because if you do, then you have to accept the fact that there IS a DEFINATE right and wrong and you WILL be PERSONALLY held accountable for your life and your life choises, and in the end, noone wants to have to be accountable to anyone els for their life, and that, is why Christianity fell out: people became too selfish. - Sat, 10 Jan 2004 4:30pm | ||
| Mr. Hell User Info... | No. That's why they invented Catholicism. You can sin and not be fearful of eternal damnation. Just confess and have some wine and an unsalted wafer and you'll be fine. - Sat, 10 Jan 2004 4:42pm | ||
| eboner User Info... | ok i dont know why im even reading this anymore, because i dont undertsand what you are saying..but didnt this start about santa clause? - Sat, 10 Jan 2004 6:01pm | ||
| Shaggy User Info... | Religious zealots... Gotta love em... It's 'christians' like you Stef that continously attempt to cram your ideals down everyone's throats that have driven people away from religions of all types. Can you be more of a sheep or are people actually allowed to believe what THEY choose to belive or not believe? FOLLOW BLINDLY! DO NOT QUESTION! YOUR DESTINY IS PREORDANED! ASK FORGIVNESS AND SAVE YOUR SOULS NOW! THE JIHAD IS UPON US! Bullshit... - Sat, 10 Jan 2004 7:42pm | ||
| mi.coll. User Info... | lol! creationism!! - Sat, 10 Jan 2004 8:15pm | ||
| eboner User Info... | i agree with shaggy... - Sat, 10 Jan 2004 9:26pm | ||
| ROSS B AY User Info... | he's just a a little kid..perhaps one day he'll grow up and start to think freely. if not, oh well...another lamb to the slaughter! - Sun, 11 Jan 2004 5:54am | ||
| stefan User Info... | Its really pathetic how you all blindly follow the idea of evolution, when there is not one single bone of an animal that is in "trasition" from one to another.. so basically there is no proof of outer-species evolution, but yet.. you all blindly follow that THEORY, without even questioning it could be wrong.. when infact, science is more and more DISPROVING evolution. Yet you get on my case for believing in God... See, noone had anything to say about the facts me and metalneck showed you, because you already have your minds made up and wont even realize that your evolution theory, doesnt hold much water. - Sun, 11 Jan 2004 9:47am | ||
| ROSS B AY User Info... | nobody cares if you believe in god man. they just don't want to hear it. everyone believes what they want to. - Sun, 11 Jan 2004 9:55am | ||
| mi.coll. User Info... | what the fuck are you talking about "transition." what do you want- an individual in the act of "morphing" into another species? lol!!! there are millions of fossils of species that gave rise to other species- it is a gradual process. you guys are so poorly informed that it is shocking and laughable. - Sun, 11 Jan 2004 10:39am | ||
| Shaggy User Info... | And creationism holds about as much. So drink a nice tall cup of STFU and carry on with your life dumbass. Show me 1 tangible particle of evidence there's a god. Can't do it can ya? Belief systems are funny that way aren't they? Did you never take lit in school? Ever study mythology at all? Cause that's all ANY religion is...mythology. my�thol�o�gy n. pl. my�thol�o�gies 1. a. A body or collection of myths belonging to a people and addressing their origin, history, deities, ancestors, and heroes. That my friend is what religion is all about, especially the 'written word'. If you're so blinded by your own faith that you can't see that, I truly pity you. - Sun, 11 Jan 2004 10:45am | ||
| Wreaker of Havoc User Info... | Jesus will forgive you Shag....he loves you, he really does...ROSS B AY unfortunately makes in through the pearly gates on a technicallity. Not even Lucifer can handle his drunken advances..... - Sun, 11 Jan 2004 11:16am | ||
| Shaggy User Info... | Jesus built my hotrod! - Sun, 11 Jan 2004 11:25am | ||
| Wreaker of Havoc User Info... | and all I got was this lousy Tshirt..... - Sun, 11 Jan 2004 12:14pm | ||
| Nik Olaz User Info... | you're all gay. - Sun, 11 Jan 2004 6:47pm | ||
| Wreaker of Havoc User Info... | You hittin on us there little boy? Shaggy's married and Im afraid that unless you have tits and a nice shaved box that youre just not my type there pole grabber.... - Sun, 11 Jan 2004 8:04pm | ||
| Nik Olaz User Info... | i meant gay as in happy. - Sun, 11 Jan 2004 9:04pm | ||
| stefan User Info... | mi.coll - there is no proof whatsoever of one species turning into another, only of interspiecies evolution. check out this site if youd like a deeper explanation:http://www.icr.org/pubs/btg-b/btg-172b.htm "It is absurd for the evolutionist to complain that it is unthinkable for an admittedly unthinkable God to make everything out of nothing, and then pretend that it is more thinkable that nothing should turn itself into anything" -G.K.Chesterton - Sun, 11 Jan 2004 10:39pm | ||
| Bah, bah, went the sheep User Info... | "Religion is the opiate of the masses." - Karl Marx. - Mon, 12 Jan 2004 12:19am | ||
| Shaggy User Info... | "Institute for Creation Research A Christ-Focused Creation Ministry" Yeah, we don't expect that research to be a lil one sided now do we? - Mon, 12 Jan 2004 1:44am | ||
| Gman User Info... | Yo Stefan, re: bones of animals in the process of evolution. Bones? Who needs bones? Ever see a duck-billed platypus? Voila. It's neither here nor there. The Theory (which it is, btw,) of Evolution can easily be observed in moths. In areas where forest fires hit, moths do change from brown to grey over a few generations - the grey ones simply live longer as they can blend into the background. I personally don't think that evolution and creationism are necessarily contradictory. Neither seems to make a lot of sense anyway. I mean, look at the tit mouse. NO FRONT LEGS? What? RE: Christian 'science': The site you posted is complete balogna. There's about thirty cents worth of pseudo-science and a dearth of logic to be had. RE: Probability. The actual probability that things will have ended up the way they are right now is exactly 1 in 1 or %100. That is probability theory. Any other statement is foolish. Gman - Mon, 12 Jan 2004 5:19am | ||
| stefan User Info... | Shaggy - Of course its done by a Christian Minestry, who the hell els is gonna do research on creation?? But what does that matter?? FACTS ARE STILL FACTS, no matter who sais them. Do any of your books from UVic have any arguments FOR creation?? didnt think so. isnt that a little one sidded given that your evolution has just as much evidence for it as creation does?? GMAN- Ok, so your grey moth turned into a brown moth... guess what?? scientifically, ITS STILL A MOTH-interspiecies evolution.. noone is arguining that, now if you could show me a moth that turned into a cat... "bones, who needs bones??" - well for starters the theory of evolution needs bones... all those thousands upon thousands of animals that turned from one to another, that was a hell of a long process that didnt just happen in one generation, so wheres the bones of all the animals going through this Very long, slow process of change?? they just.. dissapeared and only the bones of the animals that they finally changed into stayed?? hmm... odd.. probability.. the probably that from nothing, with noones help or design, that the universe would be EXACTALLY the way it is, and be made so that this is the ONLY possible way for life be to be existing.. is the same odds as you winning the 649 50 times in a row.. that dont quite sound like 100% to me. - Mon, 12 Jan 2004 9:06am | ||
| ROSS B AY User Info... | you're absolutely clueless. your folks did a jim dandy job of brainwashing if i ever did see one. - Mon, 12 Jan 2004 9:33am | ||
| Gman User Info... | Yo S: You make a few assumptions here which may not be based in any science or theory of science... which is fine, unless you're critisizing them. There is some question as to whether there is a gradual shift in evolution or if evolution is exhibited in a sudden and sometimes drastic change in the animal at a certain point. I don't know quite enough about evolutionary change to get into the details. A moth changing colours in a SHORT time does indeed support a part of the Theory of Evolution - animals are constantly changing and the changes which stick are the ones that support the animal's survival. Anyhoo, you don't even address the platypus which is obviously either in the middle of going from a beaver to a duck or vice versa. OBVIOUSLY. Bones are irrelevant because like anything, they may or may not last. Bones burn, break, disintegrate, are eaten, turn into oil, etc. DNA, on the other hand, does suggest that animals of different species are interrelated. Pigs, of no direct relation to humans, share many genetic sequences with us. So, the transitional 'evidence' you seek may not be buried in the ground, but in your very own cells. Regardless, there are not TWO versions of evolution. There is no Micro-Evolution and Macro-Evolution. Great and small changes are part of the same process - genetic mutation. As for the argument about the world being the way it is because it was intended to be so, obviously, the ONLY way the world could have developed the way it did IS the way it did. Therefore, the probability of this happening is 100%. Any other worlds that might have been created would have been destroyed and there are scientists who theorize that this too happens all the time. If you want to speculate about what could have happened at any time in the universe(s) history, well, that's really science fiction and no one has any good idea about it. Now, the reason this is a foolish argument is that none of this proves anything about 'God' and nothing about 'God' proves anything about any of this. What I do find interesting, however, is that the argument put forward by Metal Neck and yourself says that because there is no evidence of evolution (lack of fossils,) thus, evolution did not occur... much the same as the argument for the non-existence of 'God'. Gman - Mon, 12 Jan 2004 9:57am | ||
| Shaggy User Info... | Don't put words in my mouth Stefan. I have not once procalimed any beliefs in evolution or creation, cause I could give a rats ass either way. Choose what you choose to belive but don't cram it down others throats or project your messed up perception onto others. And FACTS are based on proof, hence your entire diatribe and any related links are nothing more than speculation based on faith. Faith is not proof, mythologies aren't based on proof. And therein lies the problem with holier than thou morons such as yourself. You know you can't provide proof to us poor souls that are comdemned to eternal damnation due to our damnable beliefs and that alone eats at you. You realise that it's not tangible, but your faith blinds you. As was said in a prior message, your parents and clergy did a wondrous job of mind control. You're so blinded by pure faith that you choose to see nothing outside your narrow vision, and any who don't conform to said vision are wrong. Well son, that's not the way the world works. Just because you, or any other bible thumper, decides that's the way it is doesn't mean the world is going to crumble and conform to your belief system. It's zealots like you that have caused millions of people to be slaughtered in the name of god for centuries due to your inability to see anything outside your narrow minded POV. Yet you expect people to believe in this all loving, all forgiving god. Had you not continuously crammed your beliefs down ppls throats in this thread, I prolly woulda just kept my mouth shut. Unfortunately you show the atypical christian values the majority have grown to completely disdain. You're not a christian, your a zealot that needs a crutch. If you were born 50-60 years earlier you'd have made a great SS spokesman. Yepp, that's right, I just called you a religious nazi. Prove me wrong and take yer holier than thou beliefs where they're appreciated, which obviously isn't here. - Mon, 12 Jan 2004 10:36am | ||
| stefan User Info... | "you're absolutely clueless. your folks did a jim dandy job of brainwashing if i ever did see one. - Mon, 12 " Ross, there is 2 sides to EVERY story, including evolution and creation, and school teaches only 1 of those sides, and it did a dandy job of brainwashing you, and i feel sorry for you cause of it. It has taught you not to question anything about evolution, but to question everything supporting creation, and that is sad. It is very sad how the theory of creation is left out of schools, seein as how it is just as valid a theory as evolution, BUT, if schools are gonna teach the theory of creation, then you HAVE to admit that if creation happened, there was a creator, and therefor that is deemed religion so they wont even touch on creation and that is really sad, cause so many people, yourself included are so brainwashed you cant even see it. Gman- you have some good points. Your right, i didnt address the platopus point. So i will now, If the plattapus is a creature inbetween changing from a duck to a beaver or vice versa, there should be TONS of slightly different shaped creatures inbetween. I can tell you now that a duck did not just give birth to a plattapus and the plattapus just give birth to a beaver, it had to take a HELL of a long time if that happened, and there would be TONS of different specimens while it was going through the gadual change. so where are the other specimens while it was going through this change?? About the bones being destroyed.. if there were THAT many animals going through change, all the time, there would still be SOME bones left of transitional animals, there would have to be if all animals came from other animals, not ALL the bones of ALL the animals changing would be destryoed.. so why cant we find any?? About us having some of the same genes as pigs... uhh.. first of all, we are both living creatures, im sure some of our genes and traits will be the same... that dont mean that a pig gave birth to the first human... And i thought the whole evolutionary view was that we came from apes.. so why the fuck would a pig have the same genes as us if apes made us... uhh.. isnt that contradicting your own theory?? - Mon, 12 Jan 2004 10:48am | ||
| Stefan User Info... | Shaggy, uhh.. stop talking out of your ass. I know in NO way are any of my points proving Christianity, i am merely showing you that Evolution is not a very sound theory, and that creation is just as valid a theory as evolution. that's it. im not telling you your all gonna go to hell if you dont believe me, im just showing you there are 2 sides to each story. As far as how you say i am just telling you my ideas and not facts. All the stuff i have told you are FACTS. dont believe me?? go to the Burgess Shale Site, read some books on Creation. Just because they are written by Christians does not take away the fact that they are, indeed, FACTS, not opinions, FACTS. I make a point of making sure everything i say is a FACT, not an oppinoion, cause i know that an opinion is not enough. thanks for comming out, but no dice. - Mon, 12 Jan 2004 11:03am | ||
| Shaggy User Info... | You need to learn some reding comprehension son, otherwise you end up like a lot of kids graduating school that have no idea how to properly percieve what they read. fact - n. 1. Knowledge or information based on real occurrences: an account based on fact; a blur of fact and fancy. 2. a. Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed: Genetic engineering is now a fact. That Chaucer was a real person is an undisputed fact. b. A real occurrence; an event: had to prove the facts of the case. So where are all these facts you tout? Because it's written it's fact? NOTHING about the bible can be proven as fact. The bible is NO different than greek, roman, celtic, norse or any other cultures mythology. Mythology is how early 'men' explained things that were unexplainable to them, nothing more nothing less. The bible and any other mythology are nothing more than a collection of short stories written by people thousands of years after the supposedly originating event happened. There is no proof or fact to a single shred of anything written in the bible. And don't think I haven't done my time studying it. I had to take a years worth of confirmation classes as a young man who's parents were involved with the united church. Even our pastor was less tunnel visioned than you are. He pointed out on more than 1 occasion that the bible is not meant to be taken in literal form, but as an example to gain morals and faith from it's teachings. Not blind faith, as you put forth. But I guess the pastor is wrong too right? I have no problems with peoples belief systems. What I have problems with are narrow minded peons who think their POV, or their religion, is the be all and end all and anything anyone else believes that isn't inline with their own is wrong and inherently flawed. That is exactly how you come accross and even once it's pointed out, albeit in not so nice terms, STILL continue to cram their bullshit down peoples throats. You sir are either, as I have said before, a religious zealot or a troll. The more I read your drivel, the more I'm tending to go with the latter. And as such, I'll not continue to feed your infantile need for attention. You can easily get that from your parents and your clergy. - Mon, 12 Jan 2004 12:22pm | ||
| stefan User Info... | If you guys would like to see/read some of the stuff school left out of their texts books, check out some of this reading, it is FACTUAL and much more in depth then i could tell you. Micheal Denton - Evolution- a theory in crisis Phillip Johnson - Darwin on Trial Micheal Behe - Darwin's Block Box Jonathan Wells - Icons of Evolution William Dembski - The Design Revolution Hank Hanegraaff - The Face Thomas W. Woodward - Doubts about Darwin John MacArthur - The Battle for the Beginning Henry Morris - Biblical Creationism Here are some websites as well: Darwinism Refuted - Darwinismrefuted.com Access Research Network - http://www.arn.org Answers in Genesis - http://www.answersingenesis.org Creation Moments - http://www.creationmoments.com Discovery Institute - http://www.discovery.org Institute for Creation Research - http://www.icr.org Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness - www-acs.ucsd.edu/--idea Reasons to Believe - http://www.reasons.org The talk.origins Archive - http://www.talkorigins.org - Mon, 12 Jan 2004 12:30pm | ||
| Nik Olaz User Info... | gosh you guys it really is turning into a flame war. who the hell cares what stefan thinks, he's happy in his ignorance. i mean if creationism was really as good as evolution, why wouldnt they teach it in schools. the truth of the matter is that evolution DID happen, it is not a theory. The actual theory, however is, HOW evolution occurred. - Mon, 12 Jan 2004 12:42pm | ||
| stefan User Info... | When Darwin's The Origin of Species was published in 1859, it was believed that he had put forward a theory that could account for the extraordinary variety of living things. He had observed that there were different variations within the same species. For instance, while wandering through England's animal fairs, he noticed that there were many different breeds of cow, and that stockbreeders selectively mated them and produced new breeds. Taking that as his starting point, he continued with the logic that "living things can naturally diversify within themselves," which means that over a long period of time all living things could have descended from a common ancestor. However, this assumption of Darwin's about "the origin of species" was not actually able to explain their origin at all. Thanks to developments in genetic science, it is now understood that increases in variety within one species can never lead to the emergence of another new species. What Darwin believed to be "evolution," was actually "variation." - Darwinismrefuted.com Check it out, its got TONS of FACTS any evolutionist would be interested to see. - Mon, 12 Jan 2004 12:42pm | ||
| Stefan User Info... | in MY ignorance?? you guys just take what the schools feed you and never question it once and never look back.. That, Nick, is ignorance. - Mon, 12 Jan 2004 12:45pm | ||
| Nik Olaz User Info... | when i was young i used to believe in adam & eve. i was a christian. then guess what, i looked at it and well that there stuff just didnt compute! so then evolution was introduced to me through...are you ready for this...a friend of mine. and pity i went to a prvate christian schools in my elementary years too eh? they must have brainwashed me good to believe in adam and eve. - Mon, 12 Jan 2004 12:46pm | ||
| Stefan User Info... | Shaggy, when have i pushed God on you?? My point here is not to prove God, it is to prove that Creation is JUST as valid a theory as Evolution. I am the first person to say that that lots of the stuff in the bible shouldnt be taken too literally!! When the hell have i used ANY examples from the bible?? I HAVENT QUOTED IT ONCE. What are you reading man?? - Mon, 12 Jan 2004 12:47pm | ||
| Stefan User Info... | There is NO proof of evolution, check out some of the websites. The reason they dont teach it in schools is that it is deemed "religious", cause if there is a creator, then that is religion. Evolution is a theory, and not a very good theory either. As science moves forward, Evolution loses more and more credibility. It is DEFINETALLY not a fact. Nick, do some reading, your are very poorly educated. - Mon, 12 Jan 2004 12:50pm | ||
| Stefan User Info... | If evolution was a fact, it would not be the theory of evolution. Show me ONE thing that PROVES it is a fact and not a theory. - Mon, 12 Jan 2004 12:53pm | ||
| Nik Olaz User Info... | who taught you about creationism stefan? and as for a fact, i really dont sit around posting websites that i never even read. but as i hear it, from the brainwashing satanist scientists, us and apes are only one chromosome of difference! weird eh? and i'm totally expecting some random websites coming from you. ever wonder why there are more sites trying to disprove evolution rather than proving it? it's wackos with a bleeding heart for their dying beliefs that are being de-constructed. this is bound to happen. people once also used to believe that blacks werent humans, and that women werent equal to men too you know. i'm sure there are some websites still refuting those two things, that doesnt make it right however. - Mon, 12 Jan 2004 12:54pm | ||
| Stefan User Info... | stop laughing and do some reading, instead of trying to make a sad excuse for a stab at me cause youve been beaten big time. You are completely wrong about Evolution being a Fact, and you need to do some reading before you keep posting on here. I am showing you FACTS that say Creation is just as possible as Evolution, so instead of just laughing, maybe give me some real, valid ideas. - Mon, 12 Jan 2004 12:59pm | ||
| Stefan User Info... | actually nick, i have and am reading them.. weird eh? your very uneducted and COMPLETLY brain washed by school. "if creationism is right why dont they teach it in school?" thats so sad man.. come on.. do some thinking for yourself, question some stuff, just cause some teacher and school designed textbook say something doesnt mean its right, there are actual FACTS out there for creation, but you just sit there and let yourself be brainwashed by the school system. Look at the Facts, its not a black and white situation, as i said before , there are 2 sides to every story, and your only being told one side, you have to look for the other side. - Mon, 12 Jan 2004 1:02pm | ||
| Mr. Hell User Info... | They are both theories. Case closed. - Mon, 12 Jan 2004 1:04pm | ||
| Nik Olaz User Info... | you see i laugh because i'm not taking this that seriously. if you dont believe in evolution thats fine. the proof is there. so i ask you again, who taught you about creationism? - Mon, 12 Jan 2004 1:05pm | ||
| Stefan User Info... | Nick, the websites i showed you have actual scientific Facts on them. you cant fight scientific fact. well, actually you are, which makes you one of those crazy whackos you refered to now, doesnt it. Im not saying that either theory is right or wrong, and i, or anyone els, yourself included cannot prove OR disprove either of them. Im just telling you that there IS 2 sides to this story and its really sad that you are letting yourself be brainwashed by one side. Think for yourself. - Mon, 12 Jan 2004 1:06pm | ||
| Stefan User Info... | Nic, SHOW ME THIS PROOF!!! WHERE IS IT?? oh thats right, ITS NOT THERE, there is NO PROOF of evolution. if you are right and i am wrong, show me the proof. And where did i get my ideas on creation, uhh.. from reading, from thinking for myself, from my parents, from parents of other friends i have, from church, from tv, basically, i got them from FACTS saying that Evolution is not that sound a theory. And i learned to think for myself and NOT let myself be brainwashed by my school. - Mon, 12 Jan 2004 1:09pm | ||
| Nik Olaz User Info... | so you were brainwashed too eh? so on one side we have, me, brainwashed by devil worshipping, god hating scientists imposing their evil lies on my tender little mind and you brainwashed by "from my parents, from parents of other friends i have, from church, from tv, basically" yippie! i sure am a wacko!! - Mon, 12 Jan 2004 1:11pm | ||
| Stefan User Info... | When Darwin's The Origin of Species was published in 1859, it was believed that he had put forward a theory that could account for the extraordinary variety of living things. He had observed that there were different variations within the same species. For instance, while wandering through England's animal fairs, he noticed that there were many different breeds of cow, and that stockbreeders selectively mated them and produced new breeds. Taking that as his starting point, he continued with the logic that "living things can naturally diversify within themselves," which means that over a long period of time all living things could have descended from a common ancestor. However, this assumption of Darwin's about "the origin of species" was not actually able to explain their origin at all. Thanks to developments in genetic science, it is now understood that increases in variety within one species can never lead to the emergence of another new species. What Darwin believed to be "evolution," was actually "variation." - Darwinismrefuted.com Check it out, its got TONS of FACTS any evolutionist would be interested to see. - Mon, 12 Jan 2004 1:12pm | ||
| Nik Olaz User Info... | best. post. ever. *giggle* i dont need to get myself into a little spat with someone over the internet. i don't have that much time to dispute something so painfully obvious. - Mon, 12 Jan 2004 1:14pm | ||
| stefan User Info... | Darwin put forward his claim that human beings and apes descended from a common ancestor in his book The Descent of Man, published in 1871. From that time until now, the followers of Darwin's path have tried to support this claim. But despite all the research that has been carried out, the claim of "human evolution" has not been backed up by any concrete scientific discovery, particularly in the fossil field. The man in the street is for the most part unaware of this fact, and thinks that the claim of human evolution is supported by a great deal of firm evidence. The reason for this incorrect opinion is that the subject is frequently discussed in the media and presented as a proven fact. But real experts on the subject are aware that there is no scientific foundation for the claim of human evolution. David Pilbeam, a Harvard University paleoanthropologist, says: If you brought in a smart scientist from another discipline and showed him the meagre evidence we've got he'd surely say, "forget it; there isn't enough to go on."181 - Mon, 12 Jan 2004 1:22pm | ||
| stefan User Info... | painfully obvious?? not even close. do some research, read some books, start thinking, and you will see there is NOTHING painfully obvious about evolution At All. the quote in the post right above this is also from darwinismrefuted.com, anyone interested in the post should check it out, some facts that will probably amaze your simply cause you wont hear them anywhere near school, FACTS, non the less. - Mon, 12 Jan 2004 1:27pm | ||
| Fred the Dragon User Info... | Interesting note: Darwin refuted all his claims just before he died. - Mon, 12 Jan 2004 1:30pm | ||
| Stefan User Info... | Darwin himself believed in some sort of higher being. - Mon, 12 Jan 2004 1:30pm | ||
| Gman User Info... | .......... ... it ... ... is ... .. time .. ... for .. .. Stef .. .. and ... ... Nik .. ... to ... .. get ... .... a ... .. room .. .......... - Mon, 12 Jan 2004 6:57pm | ||
| Broccoli User Info... | Darwin Also Didn't believe in cells. Listen: Both of ya stop talking about evolution, because neither of you will EVER understand it 1/2 as good as I do. it is Undeniable. NO the fucking finch isn't gonna turn into a seagull, but they both share a COMMON ANCESTORS, and there are plenty of transitional state organism fossils, ALMOST ALL FOSSILS ARE OF TRANSITION STATE CREATURES. And if one key motherfucking organism you want isn't out there, it DOESNT FUCKING MATTER, because only a small proportion of what creatures have ever existed was fossilized FURTHERMORE THEY ARE NOT NECCISARY TO PROVE EVOLUTIONARY RELATIONSHIPS classic phylogenies (fish>amphib>rat>monkey>man with all the fucking branches) were based on physical characteristics from fossils, and they had MANY FLAWS, because such homologous structures were only ASSUMED TO related evolutionarily. TODAY we use sequence homology of conserved proteins, or even whole fucking genome homology as a VERY ACURATE way of determining linear relationships AND EVOLUTION IS NOT FUCKING LINEAR EITHER, it has doubled back on itself DOZENS OF TIMES, SYMBIOSIS BETWEEN ORGANISMS is what has made you the membranous sack of shit you are today ONE LAST THING if you think that mankind is the end-product of evolution, then you are a fucking FOOL, we are only a stepping stone, and the sooner we are out of the way, the better it will be for the universe. SO STOP TALKING ABOUT BULLSHIT YOU DONT UNDERSTAND you FOOLS Get back to talking about santa or angels or some simple bullshit you can comprehend - Mon, 12 Jan 2004 7:05pm | ||
| stefan User Info... | lol.. im sure Nik is a good guy and all but.. i just dont swing that way, sorry Gman.. haha.. but seriously, i think it is time to just agree to disagree.. i left a whole bunch of books and websites you can check out if anyone is actually interested in any of the facts me and/or Metalneck put out there, and, even more unlikely, if anyone would actually like any more info on it or like to actually discuss evolution/creation in a NON-HOSTILE environment.. send me an email. sorry to anyone i may have offended, that was never my intention. - Mon, 12 Jan 2004 7:13pm | ||
| Stefan User Info... | uhh.. yes it is denyable, read some of the books i put up there, you DONT know everything, sorry to say. And as astounding as this may sound, there is NO ACTUAL PROOF of evolution. It is still a theory. Sorry. - Mon, 12 Jan 2004 7:27pm | ||
| Stefan User Info... | When Darwin's The Origin of Species was published in 1859, it was believed that he had put forward a theory that could account for the extraordinary variety of living things. He had observed that there were different variations within the same species. For instance, while wandering through England's animal fairs, he noticed that there were many different breeds of cow, and that stockbreeders selectively mated them and produced new breeds. Taking that as his starting point, he continued with the logic that "living things can naturally diversify within themselves," which means that over a long period of time all living things could have descended from a common ancestor. However, this assumption of Darwin's about "the origin of species" was not actually able to explain their origin at all. Thanks to developments in genetic science, it is now understood that increases in variety within one species can never lead to the emergence of another new species. What Darwin believed to be "evolution," was actually "variation." - Darwinismrefuted.com Check it out, its got TONS of FACTS any evolutionist would be interested to see. - Mon, 12 Jan 2004 7:32pm | ||
| stefan User Info... | So much for the cell, but evolution fails even to account for the building-blocks of a cell. The formation, under natural conditions, of just one single protein out of the thousands of complex protein molecules making up the cell is impossible. Proteins are giant molecules consisting of smaller units called amino acids that are arranged in a particular sequence in certain quantities and structures. These units constitute the building blocks of a living protein. The simplest protein is composed of 50 amino acids, but there are some that contain thousands. The crucial point is this. The absence, addition, or replacement of a single amino acid in the structure of a protein causes the protein to become a useless molecular heap. Every amino acid has to be in the right place and in the right order. The theory of evolution, which claims that life emerged as a result of chance, is quite helpless in the face of this order, since it is too wondrous to be explained by coincidence. (Furthermore, the theory cannot even substantiate the claim of the accidental formation of amino acids, as will be discussed later.) The fact that it is quite impossible for the functional structure of proteins to come about by chance can easily be observed even by simple probability calculations that anybody can understand. For instance, an average-sized protein molecule composed of 288 amino acids, and contains twelve different types of amino acids can be arranged in 10300 different ways. (This is an astronomically huge number, consisting of 1 followed by 300 zeros.) Of all of these possible sequences, only one forms the desired protein molecule. The rest of them are amino-acid chains that are either totally useless, or else potentially harmful to living things. In other words, the probability of the formation of only one protein molecule is "1 in 10300." The probability of this "1" actually occurring is practically nil. (In practice, probabilities smaller than 1 over 1050 are thought of as "zero probability"). Furthermore, a protein molecule of 288 amino acids is a rather modest one compared with some giant protein molecules consisting of thousands of amino acids. When we apply similar probability calculations to these giant protein molecules, we see that even the word "impossible" is insufficient to describe the true situation. check out: http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/molecular_biology_03.html , for the actual page in that site i was on, and keep readint this page (it gets much more indepth), or just darwinismrefuted.com to see that there IS infact, 2 sides to this story and you are only being told one. - Mon, 12 Jan 2004 7:42pm | ||
| stefan User Info... | Some 140 years ago Darwin put forward the following argument: "Right now there are no transitional forms, yet further research will uncover them." Is this argument still valid today? In other words, considering the conclusions from the entire fossil record, should we accept that transitional forms never existed, or should we wait for the results of new research? The wealth of the existing fossil record will surely answer this question. When we look at the paleontological findings, we come across an abundance of fossils. Billions of fossils have been uncovered all around the world. Based on these fossils, 250,000 distinct species have been identified, and these bear striking similarities to the 1.5 million identified species currently living on earth. (Of these 1.5 million species, 1 million are insects.) Despite the abundance of fossil sources, not a single transitional form has been uncovered, and it is unlikely that any transitional forms will be found as a result of new excavations. sorry broccoli.. if youd like the actual FACTS behind this, here is the link: http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/origin_of_species_05.html I was just gonna drop the subject.. but after reading broccoli's post, i had to put the Facts from the other side of the story on there, sorry broccoli, dont mean to steal your spotlight... - Mon, 12 Jan 2004 9:35pm | ||
| mi.coll. User Info... | that site- "darwinisrefuted"- seems to claim that all fossils belong to species that are alive today. hahahaha! what a fucking pile. say, look at them giant alligator bones. why are religious people so threatened by evolutionary theory? btw: the use of the term "theory" is a scientific convention. it really isn't a theory in the common usage of the word (eg. "i have a theory that stefan has never taken a course in evolutionary anthropology or biology"). this is similar to the "theory" of relativity or the "theory" of gravity. - Tue, 13 Jan 2004 9:29am | ||
| [+} User Info... | darwin was a monkey. - Tue, 13 Jan 2004 10:10am | ||
| stefan User Info... | "why are religious people so threatened by evolutionary theory? " Religious people are not threatened by evolutonary theory, not in the least, we simply look at the facts and realize that they are not in favor of evolution. What are you top 6 arguments for evolution?? I gurantee that site will prove them all either wrong or show they have major holes in them. That is a fact, not an opinion. You cant fight the scientific facts, sorry. "The resulting realization that life was designed by an intelligence is a shock to us in the twentieth century who have gotten used to thinking of life as the result of simple natural laws. But other centuries have had their shocks, and there is no reason to suppose that we should escape them". - micheal behe Mankind has been freed from such dogmas as that the world is flat, or that it is the center of the universe. And it is now being freed from the materialist and evolutionist dogma that life came about by itself. - Tue, 13 Jan 2004 2:27pm | ||
| Broccoli User Info... | Darwin understood very little. He didn't even know Mandellian genetics (developed by a polish monk in the 1600s), and much of his theoretical work was flawed. So slagging him doesn't discredit evolution at all. Evolution Takes EVERYTHING into concideration, and cells form SPONTANEOUSLY from phosphlids. LIFE ITSELF can be CREATED from a sterile mixture of organic molecules and a spark (this has been demonstrated for over a century). like I already said, the a compleate lack of transitional fossils PROVES NOTHING, and furthermore is a LIE: look at fucking microraptor Gui or archeoplxes(or whatever that fucking thing is called) Looks like a fucking dino-bird to me. How 'bout monotremes? looks like a fucking reptile-mammel to me. your highschool idea of what proteins are and how they work is flawed, but I'm not here to give biochem lessons, pick up a book yourself (one WITHOUT a dead jesus on the cover) alright stefan, you hairy little bitch, your starting to piss me off my regurgitating bullshit you don�t understand and just generally talking out of your ass ENOUGH I've had it one more lengthy bullshit post out of you(especially if it is just saying the same god-damn BULLSHIT that I've TRIED to explain to you why it was such tripe, but you WONT FUCKING LISTEN) and I'm gonna put you over my knee, and give your tush the tanning your poppa shoulda done years ago NB: you may be interested to know that it has recently been proven that man did NOT evolve from neanderthals: that they both split off from some common ancestor (see Cell jan 2003, it was on the fucking cover) - Tue, 13 Jan 2004 4:24pm | ||
| Broccoli User Info... | you want 6 reasons? Evolutionary Genomics Functional Genomics Population Genetics Structural Genomics Developmental biology endosybiosis I know all dont fuck with me - Tue, 13 Jan 2004 4:39pm | ||
| stefan User Info... | A number of points invalidate the endosymbiosis hypothesis: 1- If chloroplasts, in particular, were once independent cells, then there could only have been one outcome if one were swallowed by a larger cell: namely, it would have been digested by the parent cell and used as food. This must be so, because even if we assume that the parent cell in question took such a cell into itself from the outside by mistake, instead of intentionally ingesting it as food, nevertheless, the digestive enzymes in the parent cell would have destroyed it. Of course, some evolutionists have gotten around this obstacle by saying, "The digestive enzymes had disappeared." But this is a clear contradiction, because if the cell's digestive enzymes had disappeared, then the cell would have died from lack of nutrition. 2- Again, let us assume that all the impossible happened and that the cell which is claimed to have been the ancestor of the chloroplast was swallowed by the parent cell. In this case we are faced with another problem: The blueprints of all the organelles inside the cell are encoded in the DNA. If the parent cell were going to use other cells it swallowed as organelles, then it would be necessary for all of the information about them to be already present and encoded in its DNA. The DNA of the swallowed cells would have to possess information belonging to the parent cell. Not only is such a situation impossible, the two complements of DNA belonging to the parent cell and the swallowed cell would also have to become compatible with each other afterwards, which is also clearly impossible. 3- There is great harmony within the cell which random mutations cannot account for. There are more than just one chloroplast and one mitochondrion in a cell. Their number rises or falls according to the activity level of the cell, just like with other organelles. The existence of DNA in the bodies of these organelles is also of use in reproduction. As the cell divides, all of the numerous chloroplasts divide too, and the cell division happens in a shorter time and more regularly. 4- Chloroplasts are energy generators of absolutely vital importance to the plant cell. If these organelles did not produce energy, many of the cell's functions would not work, which would mean that the cell could not live. These functions, which are so important to the cell, take place with proteins synthesized in the chloroplasts. But the chloroplasts' own DNA is not enough to synthesize these proteins. The greater part of the proteins are synthesized using the parent DNA in the cell nucleus.334 While the situation envisioned by the endosymbiosis hypothesis is occurring through a process of trial and error, what effects would this have on the DNA of the parent cell? As we have seen, any change in a DNA molecule definitely does not result in a gain for that organism; on the contrary, any such mutation would certainly be harmful. In his book The Roots of Life, Mahlon B. Hoagland explains the situation: You'll recall we learned that almost always a change in an organism's DNA is detrimental to it; that is, it leads to a reduced capacity to survive. By way of analogy, random additions of sentences to the plays of Shakespeare are not likely to improve them! �The principle that DNA changes are harmful by virtue of reducing survival chances applies whether a change in DNA is caused by a mutation or by some foreign genes we deliberately add to it.335 The claims put forward by evolutionists are not based on scientific experiments, because no such thing as one bacterium swallowing another one has ever been observed. In his review of a later book by Margulis, Symbiosis in Cell Evolution, molecular biologist P. Whitfield describes the situation: Prokaryotic endocytosis is the cellular mechanism on which the whole of S.E.T. (Serial Endosymbiotic Theory) presumably rests. If one prokaryote could not engulf another it is difficult to imagine how endosymbioses could be set up. Unfortunately for Margulis and S.E.T., no modern examples of prokaryotic endocytosis or endosymbiosis exist�336 http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/origin_of_plants_02.html so much for that.. - Tue, 13 Jan 2004 5:05pm | ||
| Stefan User Info... | you definetally do not know it all, your very blinded tho. - Tue, 13 Jan 2004 5:26pm | ||
| Stefan User Info... | Unable to find what they were looking for in Archaeopteryx, the advocates of the theory of evolution pinned their hopes on some other fossils in the 1990s and a series of reports of so-called "dino-bird" fossils appeared in the world media. Yet it was soon discovered that these claims were simply misinterpretations, or, even worse, forgeries. The first dino-bird claim was the story of "feathered dinosaur fossils unearthed in China," which was put forward in 1996 with a great media fanfare. A reptilian fossil called Sinosauropteryx was found, but some paleontologists who examined the fossil said that it had bird feathers, unlike modern reptiles. Examinations conducted one year later, however, showed that the fossil actually had no structure similar to a bird's feather. A Science article titled "Plucking the Feathered Dinosaur" stated that the structures named as "feathers" by evolutionary paleontologists definitely had nothing to do with feathers: Exactly 1 year ago, paleontologists were abuzz about photos of a so-called "feathered dinosaur," which were passed around the halls at the annual meeting of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology. The Sinosauropteryx specimen from the Yixian Formation in China made the front page of The New York Times, and was viewed by some as confirming the dinosaurian origins of birds. But at this year's vertebrate paleontology meeting in Chicago late last month, the verdict was a bit different: The structures are not modern feathers, say the roughly half-dozen Western paleontologists who have seen the specimens. ...Paleontologist Larry Martin of Kansas University, Lawrence, thinks the structures are frayed collagenous fibers beneath the skin-and so have nothing to do with birds.138 Another important aspect of the matter is that there is no evidence for the thesis that birds evolved from dinosaurs. Because of the lack of evidence, either fake evidence is produced, or actual evidence is misinterpreted. In truth, there is no evidence that birds have evolved from another living species. On the contrary, all discoveries show that birds emerged on the earth already in full possession of their distinctive body structures. The latest blow to the "birds evolved from dinosaurs" theory came from a study made on the embryology of ostriches. Drs. Alan Feduccia and Julie Nowicki of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill studied a series of live ostrich eggs and, once again, concluded that there cannot be an evolutionary link between birds and dinosaurs. EurekAlert, a scientific portal held by the American Association for the The Advancement of Science (AAAS), reports the following: Drs. Alan Feduccia and Julie Nowicki of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill... opened a series of live ostrich eggs at various stages of development and found what they believe is proof that birds could not have descended from dinosaurs... Whatever the ancestor of birds was, it must have had five fingers, not the three-fingered hand of theropod dinosaurs," Feduccia said... "Scientists agree that dinosaurs developed 'hands' with digits one, two and three... Our studies of ostrich embryos, however, showed conclusively that in birds, only digits two, three and four, which correspond to the human index, middle and ring fingers, develop, and we have pictures to prove it," said Feduccia, professor and former chair of biology at UNC. "This creates a new problem for those who insist that dinosaurs were ancestors of modern birds. How can a bird hand, for example, with digits two, three and four evolve from a dinosaur hand that has only digits one, two and three? That would be almost impossible." 1 In the same report, Dr. Freduccia also made important comments on the invalidity-and the shallowness-of the "birds evolved from dinosaurs" theory: "There are insurmountable problems with that theory," he [Dr. Feduccia] said. "Beyond what we have just reported, there is the time problem in that superficially bird-like dinosaurs occurred some 25 million to 80 million years after the earliest known bird, which is 150 million years old." If one views a chicken skeleton and a dinosaur skeleton through binoculars they appear similar, but close and detailed examination reveals many differences, Feduccia said. Theropod dinosaurs, for example, had curved, serrated teeth, but the earliest birds had straight, unserrated peg-like teeth. They also had a different method of tooth implantation and replacement."2 This evidence once again reveals that the "dino-bird" hype is just another "icon" of Darwinism: A myth that is supported only for the sake of a dogmatic faith in the theory http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/natural_history_2_09.html - Tue, 13 Jan 2004 6:03pm | ||
| Shaggy User Info... | You're just cutting/pasting dumbass. Come up with some of your own material/thoughts and quit plagiarising. It makes you look like an idiot using simple cut/pastes. Your supposedly so intelligent and knowledgable on the subject and all bible boi. Any moron can cut/paste bits and pieces of otthers work. I highly doubt you even have a miniscule understanding of what you're even cuting and pasting, yet are touting it as 'proof'. Nice try Einstein, but it just goes to show you have no freaking idea what you're even talking about. - Tue, 13 Jan 2004 6:21pm | ||
| mi.coll. User Info... | wait a second- who is talking about faith here?? give us some real, scientific evidence for creationism- hahahaha!! creationism is NOT an alternative to evolutionary theory. in fact it isn't even science. trying to attack evolutionary theory on scientific grounds does nothing to lend credibility to creationism because when we turn the scientific lense on creationism everybody pisses their pants laughing. if you are so keen on science, and the scientific problems of evolutionary theory, why don't we turn the stage over to you so that you can give the evidence for your rival explanation. this is a challenge, fucker. lets see who takes what on faith now.... - Tue, 13 Jan 2004 6:27pm | ||
| Stefan User Info... | Facts are Facts. Period. - Tue, 13 Jan 2004 6:39pm | ||
| mi.coll. User Info... | yeah, lets see the facts. - Tue, 13 Jan 2004 6:40pm | ||
| Stefan User Info... | All im saying is that Evolution is not Proved, nowhere near actually. - Tue, 13 Jan 2004 6:40pm | ||
| mi.coll. User Info... | huh, BITCH. - Tue, 13 Jan 2004 6:40pm | ||
| Stefan User Info... | im giving them to you and i have given you TONS of resources to see them. Check them out, stop bitching. Darwinismrefuted.com is an amazing website with scientific Facts, breaking down and either disproving or discrediting pretty much every good point evolution has. Chill out guys, if im wrong then theres no need to get mad, the facts should put me in my place.. but wait... they dont.. - Tue, 13 Jan 2004 6:41pm | ||
| mi.coll. User Info... | actually is is, for all intents and purposes. read the literature, not the wacko jehova witness crap. - Tue, 13 Jan 2004 6:42pm | ||
| mi.coll. User Info... | so you admit your explanation holds no water ? - Tue, 13 Jan 2004 6:44pm | ||
| Stefan User Info... | uhh.. jehova witness crap?? who brought that up?? - Tue, 13 Jan 2004 6:44pm | ||
| mi.coll. User Info... | this is how science works, you know. you posit a rival explanation and BACK IT UP. you don't say "there is not enough evidence for your explanation, so god must have done it." that is not science, that is dogma. - Tue, 13 Jan 2004 6:45pm | ||
| Stefan User Info... | It holds just as much water as evolution, thats for sure. - Tue, 13 Jan 2004 6:45pm | ||
| Broccoli User Info... | dont talk shit about symbiosis: AND STOP REGURGITATING BULLSHIT. there are NUMEROUS pathways possible for an endocytosed vessicle, you are obviously quoting some crap you dont get, because enven if the endocytoced vessicle was destined to become a lysosome (digested), it may have avoided the process without recking all digestive pathways. and the evidence wich suports the theory is pretty fucking impresice: mitocondria use the BACTERIAL AMINO ACID CODE! and has a bacterial genome: covalently closed circular genome. How else could you possibly explain that, you snot nosed brat - Tue, 13 Jan 2004 6:45pm | ||
| Stefan User Info... | The facts are all there to show that evolution never happened. Im not saying there is proof of Creation either, im just saying and showing there is no real proof of either. - Tue, 13 Jan 2004 6:45pm | ||
| mi.coll. User Info... | how is "that for sure"? quote some other web page, do what you have to do, but it is not "for sure." - Tue, 13 Jan 2004 6:46pm | ||
| mi.coll. User Info... | i'm done. - Tue, 13 Jan 2004 6:47pm | ||
| Stefan User Info... | When have i ever said Creation had to happen? when have i put up facts saying creation happened? All im doing is showing you that the facts are saying, outerspecies evolution is not possible and never happened. - Tue, 13 Jan 2004 6:50pm | ||
| Stefan User Info... | go to the site broccoli, your not as smart as you think you are. - Tue, 13 Jan 2004 6:52pm | ||
| Stefan User Info... | However, this assumption of Darwin's about "the origin of species" was not actually able to explain their origin at all. Thanks to developments in genetic science, it is now understood that increases in variety within one species can never lead to the emergence of another new species. What Darwin believed to be "evolution," was actually "variation." - Tue, 13 Jan 2004 6:56pm | ||
| Stefan User Info... | im too am done. The Facts are all there to show that cross-boundry evolution is crap and never happened. Theres more proof of that then you know what to do with but if you are blinded by your science text book which only showed you one side of the story and arent willing to explore the idea that it could and very well may be wrong then, well.. ignorance is bliss... - Tue, 13 Jan 2004 6:56pm | ||
| Broccoli User Info... | I went to the site kiddo: its bull shit. Very interesting, well thought out Bullshit More holes in it that my tuesday underpants I KNOW ALL - Tue, 13 Jan 2004 6:56pm | ||
| Stefan User Info... | no. you. dont. show me the holes - Tue, 13 Jan 2004 7:00pm | ||
| Nik Olaz User Info... | rape. - Tue, 13 Jan 2004 8:04pm | ||
| mi.coll. User Info... | what is your explanation? is it that god created all species as they are today, all at once, and roughly 4000 years ago? ignorance indeed. - Tue, 13 Jan 2004 8:22pm | ||
| Wreaker of Havoc User Info... | fuck man the dinosaurs didnt BECOME extict, Noah just couldnt fit them on the ark. Its true, go to the website! - Wed, 14 Jan 2004 4:49am | ||
| Shaggy User Info... | Fuck creationism and darwinism. We're a failed alien experiment. Nothing more, nothing less. And if you think otherwise I'll start posting bullshit websites that prove I'm right even though it's all conjecture. - Wed, 14 Jan 2004 6:11am | ||
| Shaggy User Info... | "im giving them to you and i have given you TONS of resources to see them." You haven't given a single ounce of proof. You've given a lot of cut/paste bullshit that has nothing to back it up. Nothing but empty theorum. If it was even remotely backed by fact (hit a dictionary for christ sakes and learn what the fucking meaning is) scientists would be lining up to sing it's wonders. - Wed, 14 Jan 2004 6:21am | ||
| stefan User Info... | there are tons of scientists singing its wonders, you just never hear about them, and dont want to hear about them. - Wed, 14 Jan 2004 7:07am | ||
| Shaggy User Info... | Ton of them..lmao now they come in bulk! This is actually starting to become a lot of fun watching you make more and more idiotic statements...LOL! BTW, how old are you and what grade are you in? The answer to that querry will answer a lot about what you actually know, and what you just regurgitate to the masses without doing proper investigation on your own. - Wed, 14 Jan 2004 7:13am | ||
| stefan User Info... | THE theory of evolution maintains that life on Earth came about as the result of chance and emerged by itself from natural conditions. This theory is not a scientific law or a proven fact. Underneath its scientific fa�ade it is a materialist worldview that Darwinists are trying to impose on society. The bases of this theory, which has been disproved by science in every field, are suggestions and propaganda methods consisting of deceptions, falsehood, contradiction, cheating, and sleight of hand. The theory of evolution was put forward as an imaginary hypothesis in the context of the primitive scientific understanding of the nineteenth century, and to this day it has not been backed up by any scientific discovery or experiment. On the contrary, all the methods employed to confirm the theory have merely proven its invalidity. However, even today many people think that the theory is a proven fact, like the force of gravity or the law of buoyancy. Because, as stated at the beginning, the true nature of the theory of evolution is very different from what is usually supposed. For this reason, some people do not know what rotten foundations this theory has, how it is disproved by science at every turn, and how evolutionists are trying to keep it alive in its death throes. Evolutionists have no other support than unconfirmed hypotheses, biased and unrealistic observations, and imaginary drawings, methods of psychological suggestion, countless falsehoods, and sleight-of-hand techniques. http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/20questions01.html - Wed, 14 Jan 2004 7:16am | ||
| Stefan User Info... | im done. There is no point in trying to show the facts that school left out to people so blinded. - Wed, 14 Jan 2004 7:20am | ||
| Shaggy User Info... | You can keep regurgitating/plagiarising from the same site over and over again but it just shows there's nothing more than 1 site that even holds those views. Not really a whole lot of backing for ya there einstein. But you seem to be very talented at cut/paste, I'm sure yer mom's proud of yer skills. - Wed, 14 Jan 2004 7:20am | ||
| Stefan User Info... | If you guys would like to see/read some of the stuff school left out of their texts books, check out some of this reading, it is FACTUAL and much more in depth then i could tell you. Micheal Denton - Evolution- a theory in crisis Phillip Johnson - Darwin on Trial Micheal Behe - Darwin's Block Box Jonathan Wells - Icons of Evolution William Dembski - The Design Revolution Hank Hanegraaff - The Face Thomas W. Woodward - Doubts about Darwin John MacArthur - The Battle for the Beginning Henry Morris - Biblical Creationism Here are some websites as well: Darwinism Refuted - Darwinismrefuted.com Access Research Network - http://www.arn.org Answers in Genesis - http://www.answersingenesis.org Creation Moments - http://www.creationmoments.com Discovery Institute - http://www.discovery.org Institute for Creation Research - http://www.icr.org Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness - www-acs.ucsd.edu/--idea Reasons to Believe - http://www.reasons.org The talk.origins Archive - http://www.talkorigins.org - Mon, 12 Jan 12:30pm - Wed, 14 Jan 2004 7:24am | ||
| Shaggy User Info... | You keep stating your giving facts when you're not. You're cutting/pasting from one site that's posted their theory. Theory is based partially on conjecture and as such is not considered to be fact. Nice try though. Better luck next time. - Wed, 14 Jan 2004 7:24am | ||
| Stefan User Info... | Ive got plenty more resources if you would like them, i just dont find the need to use more then one website to show the many flaws of evolution. - Wed, 14 Jan 2004 7:27am | ||
| Shaggy User Info... | And the same rings true about creationsists. I'm sure in 1 google search I could find thousands of sites that disprove creation based on their theories. That does not make it fact now does it? What it all comes down to is if you weren't present when something like this happened (creation/missing link etc) then it's all conjecture and hit/miss theorising. Following said theories makes people following them nothing more than pathetic sheep. Think for yourself, question what you read and are taught. Following blindly makes you less a person and more a mindless automaton. - Wed, 14 Jan 2004 7:29am | ||
| Stefan User Info... | "Theory is based partially on conjecture and as such is not considered to be fact." -shaggy the THEORY of evolution. - Wed, 14 Jan 2004 7:31am | ||
| Stefan User Info... | This is pointless, they are both THEORIES, Neither with solid proof to back them up, and there never will be solid proof to back either up. I was merely showing you that evolution is not a fact as many people seem to think it is. and shaggy, i DO question what im told and taught. Just because im Christian doesnt mean that i blindly believed creationism. Up until about 6 months ago, even tho im christian, i would have been 100% on you guys side, defending evolution. You know why? Because from all the stuff i learned in school, i was tricked into thinking evolution was a FACT. Then i started hearing the other side of the story, showing that there is NO real proof that any animal has ever "evolved" into a NEW animal, and so on and so on. Then i started hearing GOOD arguments against every good point evolution has, and i realized.. wow.. this is no different then anything els in life.. it has 2 sides to the story.. And i know there are websites that would counter the website i have used, and really, this discussion is pretty pointless, we both have made up our minds already. Just dont say i dont question what i beleive, i was completely for evolution, and my Christian view was that God probably worked Through evolution, then i started seein the other side of the story showing that.. its just as likely evolution never even happened, then that it did. anyways, im sick of this, its gettin repetetive and going nowhere... - Wed, 14 Jan 2004 7:32am | ||
| Shaggy User Info... | And? I don't believe in either so thanks for the moot point. - Wed, 14 Jan 2004 7:36am | ||
| mi.coll. User Info... | okay. evolution has been a mainstream concept for 100 years. if you read the literature you will see that there is no real serious debate in academia regarding the validity of evolution. go up to the uvic library find some evolutionary biology journals. these are professional scientists working for universities, not a bunch of southern baptists arguing for a "creationist account of the grand canyon's formation." seriously, i don't care what you think, but i've got to say that you are pretty ignorant. your idea of what evolution is and how it works is also quite ridiculous. that "platypous" example was HILARIOUS. a duck to a beaver-- lol. ps. you have yet to back up any of your claims regarding creationism. SHOW ME SOME EVIDENCE. - Wed, 14 Jan 2004 7:39am | ||
| stefan User Info... | There are Tons of scientists writing books for Creationism too, and even more so writing books showing the huge holes in evolution. Most of the books i posted to read are by Scientists, many oh whome are working for universities or were as well. Check out some books by Phillip E. Johnson: Defeating Darwinism, Darwin on Trial, The Wedge of Truth, Reason in the Balance, Objections Sustained, The Right Questions.. he was working for University of California, but im sure he's not now, now that he is contradicting thier sacred evolution thoery. mi.coll, the reason it is not questioned and thought to be fact in universities is simply this, They dont have ANY books even suggesting evolution is wrong, they refuse to even look at the facts against evolution, basically, its so completely bias is pathetic, of course noone is gonna question it in universities, Its probably not even allowed. Many of the people who wrote the books i posted and TONS more i didnt, lost their jobs at universities simply because they were exploring the idea that evolution could be wrong, and that was not gonna be accepted there so they lost their jobs. It doesnt mean the points arent VERY good and TRUE, it just means univerisities wont accept anything other then the theory of evolution, if you are working there and you question it, your out. BIAS. YOU have to go out and do the research yourself if you want ALL the facts. - Wed, 14 Jan 2004 7:50am | ||
| Stefan User Info... | oh, mi.coll, by the way, its been a maintstreem concept for 150 years. - Wed, 14 Jan 2004 8:05am | ||
| Troutbreath User Info... | Couple of things: The Big Bang is just a theory. Some Astronomers from Australia recently observed a cluster of Galaxies whose light took some ten Billion years to get here. These galaxies shouldn't be there and they shouldn't be that old, at least according to the Big Bang theory. The Bang is supposed to have taken place some 12 to 15 Billion years ago and these galaxies wouldn't have had enough time to form. As for the Bible, which particular Bible do you want to discuss? King James? The Gregorian? The jehovah's? There are so many diiferent versions Each version of the Bible has subtle differences. It's all about who wanted the translation done and why. The actual manuscripts that comprise the origins of the Bible are incomplete. In fact the Gnostic gospels were left out of the Christian Bible 'cause they were too controversial. The Bible is to Christ what CNN is to the News. - Wed, 14 Jan 2004 11:25am | ||
| Nik Olaz User Info... | as i said before, rape. - Wed, 14 Jan 2004 12:41pm | ||
| mi.coll. User Info... | stefan. actually, the concept was contentious when darwin first discovered it, so i was being conservative with my definition of "mainstream". secondly, of course the people who publish creationist explanations should be fired from universities, just as people who wanted to explain physics in terms of aliens or something should be fired. the theory that god created man in seven days is not really taken seriously. it's bias i guess, but well founded bias in my opinion. also, if these people were for real, they would have tenure and would have guaranteed academic freedom. listen, stefan, don't believe everything you read. why don't you do a bit of research on the other side of the story. say, search for "creationism rebuttals" or whatever. in fact, i read a very good brosure once that refuted all of your arguments very concisely. just try it out. - Wed, 14 Jan 2004 7:32pm | ||
| stefan User Info... | Bottom line, you cannot prove either. And about the world being created in seven days.. even i dont take that litterally, the bible is very metaphorical, 7 days may stand for something completely different, just as hell (if there is one) may not be, and i dont believe is (or would be) a lake of fire or whatever. And with checking out some sites that rebuttle my points, ya i know there are sites that do that, ive seem many, and ive seen sites that rebuttle that so.. it wont end, in the end, we Dont know what actually happened, and neither theories can be proved, i just find it funny how everyone thinks of evolution as a fact, when in matter of fact, it is not. Anyways, this is getting really boring and repetative on here and ya, im sick of debating this on a local MUSICANS site, i would be more then happy to actually meet anyone somewhere and discuss this, but its gettin really old on here, and neither side is able to Prove their point, and wont be, and, as far as this site goes, i would much rather get back to.. well.. music. Sorry if i offended or pissed anyone off. - Wed, 14 Jan 2004 7:52pm | ||
| mi.coll. User Info... | hey stefan. here's a good one (i went to your site and read it, so why don't you go to this one?). this is a scientific american article-- pretty mainstream and readible. http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000D4FEC-7D5B-1D07-8E49809EC588EEDF&catID=2 - Wed, 14 Jan 2004 7:59pm | ||
| Stefan User Info... | i see a probleme just in the first point. Explain the Burgess Shale Site.?.? "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." - http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000D4FEC-7D5B-1D07-8E49809EC588EEDF&catID=2 - Wed, 14 Jan 2004 8:06pm | ||
| Stefan User Info... | as i said before, im gettin sick of copy/paste and just debating this over the internet, and im sure most of the rest of you are gettin sick of me doing it. So, mi.coll, if you would like to discuss this i would be more then happy to meet you somewhere and discuss it. and by the way, the more i read your site, im seeing more and more flaws in it too. To be honest, it is very interesting tho. Tho for most of their points i have a good rebutle right off the top of my head... - Wed, 14 Jan 2004 8:08pm | ||
| BOHDAN User Info... | hey stepanie i found all your proof right here http://www.truechristian.com/evolutionists.html , thanks to Nik - Thu, 15 Jan 2004 4:03am | ||
| stefan User Info... | lol, that is hands down the worste web site i have ever seen in my life.... lol damn... i always knew the world was actually flat... haha - Thu, 15 Jan 2004 4:19am | ||
| Troutbreath User Info... | Stefan, just take a blank business card, on one side of it write: "The Statement on the other side is true" turn it over and on the other side write: "The statement on the other side is false." keep that in your pocket. Take it out once in a while and refer to it. It's helped me out a great deal. - Thu, 15 Jan 2004 4:40am | ||
| mi.coll. User Info... | stefan, i am no expert in evolutionary biology. i would recommend that you meet with broccoli, who could likely teach you a thing or two. now, what are you arguing about the burgess shale? i must say, your arguments are all over the map. first you are saying that speciation and extinction do not occur, then you argue that the burgess shale occurred and this is an example of creation? make up your mind: did god create the first iota of life, from which all modern species developed, or did he create all species as we see them today? the burgess shale is an example of a period of very rapid speciation and variation. this is what happens. evolution occurs in leaps and bounds, not in a linear fashion. the burgess shale is evidence of a very explosive period of evolution. the recognition of the burgess shale refutes many of your previous arguments. - Thu, 15 Jan 2004 1:41pm | ||
| Instrument of Karma #1 User Info... | This is fucking great. Bill Nye vs. Jerry Falwell, binarymania IIV. Merry Fucking Goatmas. p.s. some of us are proof of evolution. - Thu, 15 Jan 2004 6:42pm | ||
| floaw User Info... | creation is a bunch of crap. Just think about it for a second, some random thing created all this shit out of nothing. What a load of shit - Fri, 16 Jan 2004 9:00am | ||
| stefan User Info... | mi.coll, Burgess Shale is an example of Different species of insects comming from... nowhere.. there are layers and layers between the different species, and when you get to a new layer of them there are NO transitional insects, and the insects arent even near the same as the ones in the layer below... and even if they were, that wouldnt prove evolution, becuase, where would the new insects have come from?? there were no insects before them for years and years to have produced them... So what it actually shows is, insects comming from... well... nowhere. How does that show evolution?? And i NEVER disputed INTER-species evolution, look at humans, just a little while ago we were on average like what.. a foot or 2 shorter and our heads shaped a bit differently.. There is no denying interspecies evolution, animals as they are today im sure do not look like they did when they were first put here. All im saying is there is no proof of cross-boundry evolution. and i would love to meet with broccoli, i would bring someone with me of course who knew the actual scientific stuff, cause im no genious on this subject either, well, i know about it but i dont know enough to Scientifically rebuttle his points, but i know people who can, because, as much as he would like to think so, he doesnt know everything, and there ARE facts goign against what he sais. Floaw- and its more realistic to think that everything came from.. nothing..?? - Fri, 16 Jan 2004 9:38am | ||
| Troutbreath User Info... | I'd like some one to Scientifically rebuttle my points. Uh preferably female. - Fri, 16 Jan 2004 4:52pm | ||
| mi.coll. User Info... | stefan- doesn't it seem logical if micro-evolution occurs, over time speciation will occur? say a species is divided geographically by a mountain range or a river or something. the groups on either side will exibit different variations over time due to their different environments, and these variations will compound over time until the two groups become different species. what do you think would happen- that they would stay the same species? look at african vs. indian elephants. god did not put these two species on the earth, they obviously descended from a common ancestor. why is this not obvious to you? - Fri, 16 Jan 2004 5:22pm | ||
| Instrument of Karma #1 User Info... | Often, more wisdom can be gained from truly understanding the question than in finding the answer. Why can't we all just accept that it IS, rather than deciphering WHY it is. For example, how tasty would a pizza be if during the course of eating it you reviewed in your mind (in great detail) the entire process of its' production? Smell the roses, and by the sounds of things, get outdoors to do it. - Fri, 16 Jan 2004 6:20pm | ||
| stefan User Info... | mi.coll, i do not argue that interspeicies evolution occurs, i never have and never will, all i need to do is look at darwins finch's and well.. how can i fight it? What i do argue is that there is no real proof that these changes can EVER lead to a new species. About the elephants, i dont know or care if God did put them on earth separatly or they evolved (as i said, i do not argue INTER-species evolution.. they are both still elephants are they not??, they did not evolve into some new animal..) About the Burgess Shale, there are NO insects for generations before each boom of new (and multiple different) species shows up.. basically, there were no parent insects for them to come from.. and then they just... showed up, and not just one, but multiple new species.. and from.. well.. nowhere... anyways, mi.coll, thanks for the lack of hostility in your replys now :) and Insrument of Karma #1, you make a very good point in your last reply, and the only reason i do still reply to this and not go out and do something or play guitar or whatever instead of spending so much of that time on here, is that this (Could) be the most important question man has ever had to answer, and i honestly find this subject very interesting, and i do actually like learning about both evolution and creation, or more acurately, evolution and the opposition of evolution, cause i forgot who, but i know someone made a point earlier, and it was very true, there is not ONE piece of evidence that supports Creation, it is not possible to prove, cause If Creation is true, then that means a God made earth and the Universe, and how can i or Anyone prove that?? all we can do is disprove, or put major holes in evolution. anyways.. enough time on here.. im gonna go play guitar.. - Fri, 16 Jan 2004 7:06pm | ||
| mi.coll. User Info... | but the elephants are two DIFFERENT species! now, what about woolly mammoths and elephants- is that such a stretch? - Sat, 17 Jan 2004 7:53am | ||
| stefan User Info... | does that make all of darwin's finch's different species?? Both elephants are still.. well.. elephants. Just cause they have a few different characteristics doesnt mean they are a new animal, look at the finch's, they prolly had more destinct different characteristics then the elephants do, they were all still finch's tho. about the wolly mamoths, did they not go extinct Way before elephants ever arrived?? wouldnt that mean that there were no parents for the first elephants to come from?? how is that evolution. anyways, once again, back to playing guitar. as i said before, im gettin really sick of debating this over the internet, i would be more then happy to meet up somewhere and discuss it. - Sat, 17 Jan 2004 9:02am | ||
| Broccoli User Info... | WTF mate? you guys STILL on this? You wanna meet me? Fine, I'll kick you some science in person, but you have to buy me beers (I dont get REAL scientific tell I got a good buzz going, plus it makes it easier to deal with children) and bring some of your older sister's naughty catholic school girl friends while you are at it: uniforms and everything - Sat, 17 Jan 2004 12:47pm | ||
| stefan User Info... | sorry broccoli, i said id meet with you or anyone if they wanted to talk about this subjet, but i aint buying you shit and sorry im not catholic. - Sat, 17 Jan 2004 2:16pm | ||
| Nik Olaz User Info... | I met Jesus last week in an alleyway. We fought each other. He didnt put up much of a fight. Kinda a wiener if you ask me, but he seemed like a nice enough guy so I took it kinda easy on him. Then Darwin was all like bitching because he was late for dinner. I told him to shut the fuck up, but he wouldnt listen. I dunno about him either, kinda bitchy, if you ask me. What's the moral of this story? I have no clue. I just enjoy typing. - Sat, 17 Jan 2004 3:27pm | ||
|
|||
Not logged in
Log In / Register (optional)
Featured Events
Featured Historical Events
Featured Article
Newest Profiles
District of Saanich - Community Services
The Community Services Division of Saanich Parks, Recreation...
Open / Operational
Haute Curations
We sell original giclee canvas art prints to businesses
Victoria BC
Open / Operational
