Fatty

The Board Members of the MCC are proud to present DW and MwR as the two additional teams for MCC4. MCC4, standing with 8 teams now, will be underway soon. Now that the teams are set, schduling can begin ASAP. A few more decisions need to be made on how the maps will be selected, and then it's time to fall in line. Standby! Congrats again to DW and MwR. To the teams that applied and did not make it, we thank you for your interest.

No, Jiffy, you still misread. Look at it once more. Here's what happened: I was ignorant about a change that was made to the autoteambalance. It does not work like it used to. The guys updated me, and my "ahem" was me taking the podium again and changing the statement/expectations. Nobody misread, nobody errored in literacy until, well, I think you see it now... Anyways, to everyone else, has this made any difference at all?

Have you lost the ability to sense a joke now? Although, all things being equal, cat + dog DOES = a messed up cartoon.

cat + dog = messed up cartoon.

Yes, Ark had to be huge, and yes, a very sarcastic article. Here's one to hold up against it: How Did All the Animals Fit on Noah's Ark? Very interesting reading.

. . .

I will not even bother. You can type "wait" or "go" all you want, but at this point, you've lowered this argument beneith where I need bother going. For a while, I was very impressed by your ability to debate, and actually very interested in continuing. At this point, however, if your question of "why doesn't a person who kills everyone become like Jesus" is, in your mind, still a question needing answered, then I guess someone else will have to stoop. I'm not avoiding the question, I'm choosing to ignore it. Now, it's my turn to wait until the others involved in this post raise the bar back up where it was.

Tell you what. I like your idea. Give it a shot. Start with me.

Ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer.... You know, my father told me that many times as I grew up and by golly I'm not sure how many times I've been able to use it, but I'd like to take this time to thank Dad!

<raises hand> I'll lower myself here! Me! Me! Um, <leafs through Bible, knowing it's in here somewhere>, wait! What about moral law? It exists...<tries to find his Kant writings>...killing...<searches more> Killing is bad? Again, you're sinking. Let's raise the bar back up. Readers: I apologize for my above actions, but I just had to release a little while I was proving a point.

Lol i guess I figured it out...let me put even more thought into it for you then....

You know, it's normal for people to sit and ponder, but to actually try and create a rationale discussion out of something like this is rather simple. You've spent so much time discussing things so well, and then you type this.... And if, by any stretch, you're not just being 17 but you're actually sitting there pondering a question like this, then I fear your thinking is not far from people that eventually get locked away. If you want to continue a debate, don't produce rhetorical questions like this, as if you're trying to act like you're some confused, unstable terrorist.

Who are you talking to? Didn't read invalid comment recently...where?

To Bob re: the flood. I agree with what this person says: Thus, there is a conflict between Egyptian chronology as generally interpreted and the Biblical records. Neither the first dynasty of Egypt nor the pyramids could have existed before the flood. If the Bible is historically reliable, as I believe it is, then there must be a mistake in the usual interpretation of Egyptian chronology which needs to be reduced by centuries. The issue is clear. An acceptance of the present chronological interpretation of Egyptian history, and a rejection of the Biblical chronology, opens the door to skepticism of the rest of the early Biblical records, including the record of the Creation of the world in six days. But if Egyptian chronology can be shown to be flawed, a major obstacle to the acceptance of the Bible records is removed, and the Genesis history stands justified. That is taken directly from: Searching for Moses, by David Down Ok, now what we're left with is two documents that say something that conflicts. For one to be true, the other must be flawed. Do we have evidence that states the translation of Egyptian history has been done perfectly so as to prove the Bible flawed? Can we say for sure either way?

Well, before I go any further, one says green grass, the other says grass...so the green grass was gone and what was left? Moreover, how much time went by? How long does it take for grass to grow? I will have to go back and read the two chapters in succession.

Wow, I came back to share a few findings with Bob and what a mess. There is no way to continue all of this without breaking it down. There is plenty of reasearch to talk to each of the above questions and/or statements, including the flood. I will not post these sites nor any last words to avoid the "he just wanted the last word" attack. I will simply say that it's out of hand with too many people jumping on at the end. Perhaps Hambone and I can continue a debate where it can be focused without interuption. Gotta go coach football now. TTYL

Ok ok, I'm a fair guy by anyone's standards, right? I've set up a poll to see if you should get polls... HERE IT IS

Should anyone be able to create a poll?

I guess my one of my points is this: for each source you find, I'll find a source that argues the other way that you can't shake a stick at. The people are right, we could go on forever if you'd like. I'd much rather talk about your hate, though, because we could do that without cutting and pasting, but actually speak from our hearts. Anyways, I'd hate for the readers to be swayed by large, boring posts, so I guess I'll have to combat your pasting of the endosymbiotic theory and on down with something else that people won't be able to sit still long enough to read... Did cells acquire organelles such as mitochondria by gobbling up other cells? (Or, can the endosymbiont theory explain the origin of eukaryotic cells?) by Don Batten -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Eukaryotic cells, such as yeast and those of animals and plants, have a membrane-bound nucleus, chromosome structures and organelles such as mitochondria and chloroplasts, whereas prokaryotic cells, such as bacteria, lack these features. Many evolutionists believe Lynn Margulis’ idea that eukaryotic cells came about as a prokaryotic cell ‘ate’ (by a process called endocytosis) other prokaryotic cells, which then became the mitochondria and chloroplasts. The engulfed cells supposedly reproduced in step with the host cell in some sort of symbiosis (mutual advantage), just by chance, before coming under the control of the primitive eukaryotic cell (which developed chromosome structures, nuclear membrane, Golgi apparatus, etc, etc, also). Over time, portions of the mitochondrial and chloroplast genomes happened to transfer to the nucleus. Problems abound with this scenario. For example, how could the enveloped cells reproduce in close synchronicity? How did lateral gene transfer into the nucleus take place when the nuclear membrane is designed for the passage of mRNA (out), and to contain DNA? If DNA were passed between the engulfed cell and the host cell, would not the host respond by degrading the foreign DNA, because it would detect it as a virus? (Note that the enzymes used so widely to chop up DNA into pieces in DNA sequencing studies come from bacteria, i.e. prokaryotes  they function in destroying foreign DNA inside the bacteria.) It is only to be expected that there would be similarities in many of the genes for photosynthesis or respiration between prokaryotes and eukaryotes  they have to achieve the same chemistry (photosynthesis: light energy + carbon dioxide + water giving glucose plus oxygen. Respiration: glucose (C6H1206) giving CO2 + H20 + energy). Furthermore, they have the same Designer! For an in depth treatment of the concept that God designed things in a way to reveal himself and thwart naturalistic explanations of origins, see The Biotic Message and the review. However, detailed studies of the DNA base sequences have shown that the pattern of similarity between eukaryote and prokaryote is not what would be expected from the endosymbiont hypothesis. Doolittle said, ‘Many eukaryotic genes turn out to be unlike those of any known archaea or bacteria; they seem to have come from nowhere.’ (Doolittle, D.F., 2000. Uprooting the tree of life. Scientific American 282(2):72–77). Wendell Bird’s book The Origin of Species  Revisited, Vol. I, has information on the origin of mitochondria and chloroplasts. He cites evolutionists’ criticisms of the endosymbiotic hypothesis for eukaryote origins  e.g. that mitochondria have split genes (having introns, unlike prokaryotic genes), and that no example of prokaryote endocytosis or endosymbiosis has been observed (pp. 210–212). Also, there are huge differences in the ways that prokaryotic and eukaryotic cells form m-RNA (e.g. the editing system in the latter). The endosymbiont idea was severely dealt with in the 70s and early 80s, and should have died. But, what else is there for the evolutionist? It is very much akin to chemical evolution  anyone who knows a little of the biochemistry involved in the most basic of bacteria knows that formation of a living cell from chance chemical reactions, even in highly controlled / contrived Miller-type experiments, is absolutely impossible. But that it happened is deemed to be certain (well, we have living cells, don’t we?!) and it is taught that way in universities around the world. For a thorough refutation of the idea that life could form by natural processes, see The Mystery of Life’s Origin and the Origin of life articles. However, something like this must have happened, because we have plants, for example, which are fantastically complex things and they must have arisen from some stepwise evolutionary process (Did I just hear someone say they think the cells were created? Now listen here, that’s religion, which has nothing to do with the real world of cells and science. Science is about material explanations, and just you remember that! We just will not accept an intelligent cause, regardless of whether the evidence supports it!). See Lewontin’s admission regarding the materialistic bias applied in much scientific reasoning today about origins. Note that this view that science can only deal with materialistic answers is a modern misuse of science. The founders of modern science did not see things that way (Newton, Kepler, Boyle, Faraday, Pasteur, Kelvin, Pascal, etc.)  see 21 Great Scientists Who Believed the Bible. And there are many modern highly qualified scientists who believe Genesis literally  see In Six Days  Why 50 [Ph.D.] Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation. And science does deal with non-observable, intelligent causes where it suits the practitioners  for example, forensic science is all about finding evidence that ‘person X poisoned person Y with strychnine’, for example (natural causes cannot account for person Y’s body containing strychnine, so someone, an intelligent agent, was responsible). Likewise, the SETI program is tacit agreement that science can tell the difference between natural causes and intelligent causes (certain patterns on radio signals from outer space could not be explained as originating from natural forces). Also, archaeology is much about recognising that an axe-head, for example, was created by an (unseen) intelligent agent, because the structure of an axe-head is so unlikely to arise from natural chemical and physical processes. See the article A brief history of design. It is the atheistic bias of modern practitioners of science that prevents them from seeing the abundant evidence, right under their noses, for the unseen Creator of life. There is more evidence than there ever has been for there being a Creator. Unbelieving scientists are in willfully ignorant denial (Rom. 1:20 ff., 2 Peter 3). Here's the source from the above.

Wait a second, on that fundamental flaw. Are you saying that these researchers are saying this: Evolutionists are wrong because the Bible says so? That would be kinda of self-destructive, to argue that something is true because the Bible says so, because the other side turns around and says "It's only a book!" I believe you're mistaken in that what they are saying is: Here are the facts, here is what the research shows, and hey, guess what? It stays in-line with the Bible! They are not saying, the Bible says so, they continue to say, as scientists and credible researchers, that here are facts that you cannot discredit, and these same facts do not contradict the Scriptures. As for the DNA information posted above, could you do me a favor and summarize it for me and give me some sort of conclusion? I never said you were making anything up, I said you were tossing out information without sources. What is the main point of that paste? No, I don't have a subscription to biology.com, but I would think you could find your information somewhere public, no? If the theories you are using are only found on one website, then credentials fly out the window, right? It's got to be somewhere else.

Again, I will not pretend that any of this is my own. Too many people have already spent their time doing this. When it's all said and done, and you don't have a proof like 2 + 2 = 4, then we'll move on to something that we can talk about more readily, like the idea of "hate being the only true emotion" or we can discuss things like the holes inside ourselves. Here ya go, directly pasted from: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2001/0105news.asp If you attended government schools anywhere in the world, you were probably wrongly taught that the following were facts, as Dr Wells debunks: that the famous Miller/Urey experiment of 1953 supposedly produced the building blocks of life in a test tube. The truth: Miller/Urey had to have a hydrogen-rich atmosphere for their experiment. Yet for almost 30 years, scientists involved in this field of research have concluded that the early atmosphere of Earth was quite different from this. So while their experiment does not work at all, some texts (e.g. Molecular Biology of the Cell by Alberts) continue to inform students that the first step to creating life was overcome by Miller and Urey. See also Q&A: Origin of Life.

Good morning! I'm just waiting for Hambone to use all his strong words in a some sort of valid manner. His assumption is that if he fills up a page with a bunch of scientific terms that it will automatically make sense and convince the readers that he must be right. If the debate makes you squirmish, then don't read or bother posting here.

Another article: http://www.creationism.org/genesis.htm in which that guy refers to this site: http://www.creationscience.com/ Lots to read! It's been a while since I've even looked into this topic. I'm really enjoing myself. I guess I owe Hambone thanks for that much.

3.5001

Here's the problem, Hambone. I'm going to make you work harder than that. You see, you run through that article by that one guy, and you give me what? Your explanation? I don't claim to have any knowledge about little critters floating around in the water, nor will I ever. My point is this...show me your PHD or show me the sources of everything you're stating. Put it all together for me, because I'm not going to take your word for it. The guy is not wrong because you say he is wrong, which has been the basis for just about every single argument you've brought up. You expect Joe-reader to just believe you. TAKE THIS PAGE OF QUOTES BY EVOLUTIONISTS FOR EXAMPLE You're a very good arguer, if there is such a thing. Bring some proof and backing to your claims that is easy for me to put together with what you're claiming.