Fatty September 22, 2002 Share Fatty GC Founder September 22, 2002 Also, I'm not going to read a bunch of sites or my school science book and pretend anything that I say here is my own. I'd suggest others do that to. I read above stuff about amino acids, etc. READ THE TOP SECTION ON THIS Heck, that comes with footnotes. I haven't seen any thing based on anything in here. But, I really don't want to go too far here, because again, I'm not calling on my own scientific knowledge. I would like to actually move no further until someone points out an error in the Bible for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dennis September 22, 2002 Share Dennis Member September 22, 2002 question fatty how would anyone know if there was mistake in the bible?.....there are so many versions of it now too. i am starting to think i am the only one here who wont question either until one is proven 100% Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fatty September 22, 2002 Share Fatty GC Founder September 22, 2002 Evolution is based on facts, not faith. You are fundamentally wrong. Monkey also didn't evolve straight to man. I don't think you read everything I posted. I don't think YOU read everything you posted and/or post. Wow, I'm still making my way through all this. Very deep stuff. You've got some emotions flying around in here too, nice. I'll keep reading. I thought this was a funny post that came after you pasted a gazillion lines from someone elses site. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fatty September 22, 2002 Share Fatty GC Founder September 22, 2002 MaleModel,Sep 22 2002, 06:45 PM]question fatty how would anyone know if there was mistake in the bible?.....there are so many versions of it now too. i am starting to think i am the only one here who wont question either until one is proven 100% Granted...lots of versions. Pick your version. Don't care which. http://www.bible.com/bible_read.html There's several versions there. Take your pick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fatty September 22, 2002 Share Fatty GC Founder September 22, 2002 The following is merely a theory of mine. I think there is only one true emotion. Hate. I won't explain this here, because that was not the question. I was taught Christianity, and I believed it. After awhile, science came into my life. It taught me real truth, stuff that I can prove, stuff that is real. Church lied to me. Betrayal spawns Hate. Did you really want to know that? Man, I can't resist, but please do me a favor.....don't have kids. Heck, even gorillas, which are on one side of one of your arguments, show more than hate. Come on.... Again, i'm so late to this topic, I apologize. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fatty September 22, 2002 Share Fatty GC Founder September 22, 2002 I just scanned through pages and pages of posts from Hambone. While I'm sure he is a very smart kid, please don't equate cuts and pastes of other peoples' thoughts and research into intelligence. Hambone is blaming religion for all the bad things that happen in this world and when somebody calls him on it, he flings words like "Nazi" around. Everytime he comes up with a solid point, he taints himself with phrases like "religion is for the weak". I, personally, cannot take anything he says seriously. He is hostile and offensive and uses "truth" as a flimsy shield. If he hasn't already, I'm sure he'll hollar about "freedom of speech" and maybe throw a reference in about Martin Luther King. I'm going to refrain from joining this "debate" because that would lend credibility to a topic that really has no place in this particular forum. You can tell by the tone of his posts and his hostility toward religion/God that he is trying to come to grips with some personal issues. I hope his suffering ends soon because, at 17, you have a long way to go and if you're not careful, you will end up full of the only emotion you claim exists. I'd just assume see this post deleted from this forum. It has gotten out of control and doesn't belong. Ranger P.S. I'm already an Evolutionist, so don't waste your time replying with more religious-like preaching of science. Can we just read this one again. And for those of you that skipped it, shame. Great post, MC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fatty September 22, 2002 Share Fatty GC Founder September 22, 2002 MC Ranger, if you didn't read start to finish, you're not obligated to make a post criticizing my writing style. You didn't read everything. One my posts got flat deleted because our favorite moderator didn't like my view of god as a man. I have read start to finish and Ranger is right on..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fatty September 22, 2002 Share Fatty GC Founder September 22, 2002 I'm sure many of you readers are overwhelmed! You should have easy sources to read, instead of just the pasted choices.... Here are some interesting articles for those of you that are like me and can't just talk about micro/macro evolution from the hip... How Could Evolution Take Place? Dunno, you could read that whole Heinze site, he's got all kinds of answers for much of what's been covered here. http://www.creationism.org/ Heck that's a good place to start too...that's how I found the above. http://www.members.aol.com/dwr51055/Creati...nternet%20Sites wow that person has just a few links... i think background music on sites is funny anymore... Well, evilutionist guys, post up some good reading for us. It would be great for everyone to have some good reading sources, and obviously they should not all be biased from me.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fatty September 22, 2002 Share Fatty GC Founder September 22, 2002 Ok one more.... http://www.evolution-facts.org/default.htm Just the links to about a ton of stuff I'll never act like I researched. Let's get back to the Bible question now....looking for an error.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soul .gc September 22, 2002 Share soul .gc Member September 22, 2002 "if u read what i wrote correctly i did say that many prinipals of releigion are geneius and great.....but if a leader of a government saves hundreds of lifes and makes his country but he kills one man does that make that man good? (compareing the man to releigion) " Please rephrase this as I have no idea what you are saying. I believe you are saying Religion is great and for Geniuses but that if a leader of a country saves tons of lives and makes his country great, yet he kills one man. Does this make that one man good? which man? the slain man? the leader? Are you trying to compare when Christ gave his life for our sins (according to some religions)? Are you talking about Arafat and his religious zeal? Trying to find out. Also..did you know that not many words in that paragraph are spelled correctly? I am not flaming you about it, it just helps an argument if it is posted with proper grammar and spelling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hambone September 22, 2002 Author Share Hambone Member September 22, 2002 You're not arguing like a gentleman. I refuse to debate in this manner. I will delete your post. Sound familiar? Take out anything remotely offensive or I will retreat from the discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hambone September 22, 2002 Author Share Hambone Member September 22, 2002 Despite myself, I actually read some of those links you gave me. Although trying to remain level headed, his arguments are so contradictory and hypocritical. I don't currently have all day to refute everything individually, so I leave you with one smiley face that summarizes my feelings towards theories that try to justify everything based on a fictitious character: I'll give you my lecture on god the fictional character too if they don't use banning to try and silence my ideas first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dennis September 23, 2002 Share Dennis Member September 23, 2002 well fatty thats my point there are so many versions........how would i know whats wrong and what isnt in the bible? unless somewhere it said jesus was a pimp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fatty September 23, 2002 Share Fatty GC Founder September 23, 2002 Hambone.... are you done or something? Your last two posts made claims based on what? You see, I just gave some links for people to read. If they are wrong or messed up, point out where and how. You've got it all straight, give me a link to his site showing a quote that you disagree with and let it fly. Don't tell me "his arguments are so contradictory and hypocritical" and that you don't have time. You've spent a ton of time posting in this topic, so don't quit now. Make the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fatty September 23, 2002 Share Fatty GC Founder September 23, 2002 MaleModel,Sep 22 2002, 08:03 PM]well fatty thats my point there are so many versions........how would i know whats wrong and what isnt in the bible? unless somewhere it said jesus was a pimp <searches for "pimp" in online bible> it's not coming up....whew! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dennis September 23, 2002 Share Dennis Member September 23, 2002 lol i thought you would like that one fatty. im just tryin to bring some humor to this topic. i do hope one day this topic is resolved, but i think this might be one thing that we may never find the answer too. this could well be something that can only be true in our minds with what we beilieve. hey heres an idea...lets just say both idead are right.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hambone September 23, 2002 Author Share Hambone Member September 23, 2002 Very well. Here is a copy of the article I am quoting from. http://www.creationism.org/heinze/Method.htm In writing evolutionary literature on a popular level, evolutionists often loose track of this fact and attribute to natural selection an almost magical ability to produce new organs and organisms. Actually, while natural selection does produce change, it does not do it by adding new genetic information, but by weeding out some of the information that was already there. You can not start with a bacteria and produce a school teacher, for example, by simply eliminating genetic information. No matter what opinion some students may have of some teachers, new genetic information that was not there before would have to have been added.This is a smart man, who has done some homework on evolution. The rest of his argument is almost entirely based on the fact that no DNA is added, so therefore evolution is false, believe in god. He didn't do all his homework. If he did, he would have come across a tested, proven, viable Endosymbiotic Theory which I have touched on in earlier posts. To dumb it down, this says that organisms can coexist, voluntarily (symbiotic relationships) or involuntarily (phagocytosis). An interesting thing is that when these symbiotic combinations reproduce, they can reproduce as a single, functionaly entity. Exampe that I used before: a heterotrophic archaebacteria is stirred up from its native deep sea vent dwelling. As it approaches the surface of the ocean it comes into contact with a cyanobacteria. The cyanobacteria is much, much more of an efficient ATP producer and therefore, it is benificial that the bacteria maintain the engulfed organelles. As it undergoes cell mitosis/meiosis followed by cytokenesis, the product will be a combination of the two. This is where more DNA comes in. DNA is added. Strands become more complex. This man's argument is not correct, as it fails to take into account a critical principle. Because Darwin knew nothing of genetics, or even of the laws of heredity, he incorrectly believed that the little variations we see between one person and another, one dog and another, etc. when chosen by natural selection, could build up in an unlimited way (Macro evolution). I once bread guppies, selecting for large tails. By allowing only the guppies with the largest tails to breed I was able to get guppies with tails more than twice as big as the ones I started with. This would correspond to micro evolution in nature, but because of genetic limits it is impossible to develop either a breed of guppies with tails as big as a whale, or develop whales from guppies by selective breeding. Genetic limits are real! They are real for natural selection as well as for selective breeding. Darwin's theory, however, has convinced many that all of the types of animals and plants which exist developed gradually from a first cell. The idea that this was caused by natural selection working to select the helpful variations and eliminate the bad ones is a part of what is now called the Darwinian theory, as contrasted to the neo-Darwinian theory which will be discussed later. This is a valid point. Genetic limits do exist. But unfortunately he uses this fact to disprove evolution by equating Darwinism to Evolution. Darwin created evolution. But, unlike Creationism, Evolution can "evolve" as new evidence comes into play, that's the wonderful thing about it. Did God create every variety of dog? No, we all admit that many have been developed by dog breeders. God probably made a basic kind that had within its genes the possibility of a good deal of variation; something so rich in genes that it contained the genes for dogs, wolves and coyotes. Dr. J. D. Sarfati gives a particularly helpful explanation of how animal breeding works.Hrm, so god didn't make all the animals. Breeding evolves new breeds. This argument is that a dog changing from generation to generation is not evolution. Fundamentally, this is wrong also. The organism is changing over time, as new stresses or oppurtunities are placed on it and or its enviroment. If only Chihuahuas and Great Danes were found together on an Island with no other in between sized dogs, they probably could not have pups together because of the size difference, and would likely be classified as two different species. In nature as well as in animal breading, when a loss of genetic material forms a new species, the movement is in the opposite direction from that in which evolution is claimed to have moved. Genetic information has been reduced. This is not a scenario that would ever happen, so this is not evidence for disproof of evolution. Evolution doesn't happen as this argument portrays it. Evolution often happens by chance; this situation is not something created by chance. Continuing in this direction could reduce a dog to a one-celled animal, but it could not transform a one-celled animal into a dog. No matter how big a percentage of the information contained in the DNA of a one celled animal is eliminated, it could never build it up into a Chihuahua.Something unicellular is not an animal, great logic buddy. One cell will turn into a chihuaha eventually, with the wonderful things called Time and Chance. If everything were eliminated tommorow, evolution would start all over again, but in 3 billion years the world as we know it would not have the same creatures. Evolutionists cite such changes in animals as proofs of the theory, but it is like jumping off a bridge and plunging to the ground below to prove that a person can resist gravity and rise up into the air. Not even the most convincing demonstration that the opposite of evolution actually happens should be accepted as a proof of evolution. Did eliminating a small amount of its genetic information every year for millions of years turn a bacteria into a biochemist? No! To make something more complex requires more information, not less. Yet the kind of "evolution" which has been observed makes more generalized animals (like mongrels) become more specialized (like Chihuahuas) by eliminating some of the genes. A poor analogy and an even poorer argument. See endosymbiosis. ___ I honestly can't do anything more for the time being, as much as I like arguing, I won't compromise my grade on a Spanish paper. I await your rebuttal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zeabos September 23, 2002 Share Zeabos Member September 23, 2002 I read above stuff about amino acids, etc. READ THE TOP SECTION ON THIS Heck, that comes with footnotes. I haven't seen any thing based on anything in here. Im quoting from the artice in this link... "Scientists have not been able to cause amino acids dissolved in water to join together to form proteins. The energy-requiring chemical reactions that join amino acids are reversible and do not occur spontaneously in water."1 Yes the energy requiring reactions DO NOT happen spontaneosly... The Miller Urey expeiriment(the expieiment was talking about earlier) Was carried out with an energy supplying spark plug that would represent the origional lightning on primordial earth. Yes lightning is made of energy supplying the energy needed to make the reactions go through. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fatty September 23, 2002 Share Fatty GC Founder September 23, 2002 You'll have to give me a source that contradicts that, Z. I don't know enough about what you're refering to. Show me something from Miller Urey. Not saying you're wrong, just show me so I can look at both. Let's remove the opinions by citing our sources, so it's not you or I speaking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyklik September 23, 2002 Share Cyklik Member September 23, 2002 Frankly, I'm disappointed... I was 100% behind the institution of this forum because I thought everyone could be mature enough to handle it and treat other people with respect. Thanks for proving me wrong guys. In my opinion, we all had a chance to talk about things like civilized people, and the chance was blown. I'd vote for removal of the forum. isnt what makes us different from wild animals is that we have debate and that we question something that we think is wrong??....what makes us civilized is that we dont not follow leadership blindly debate is healthly for everyone and my pastor (yes i got to confomration) even encourages us to come and challenge his beliefs...he says it only makes him believe more....try looking at this post that way Mack, I think you're missing the point. There is nothing wrong with debate, but this has gone far past that. People's views are no longer being respected as they should. Debate doesn't mean you go and flame on people's beliefs. You support your beliefs and try to refute the points of your opposition. You do not go and attack the person's beliefs, you attack the points. The points are no longer being addressed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
linch September 23, 2002 Share linch Member September 23, 2002 It seems that too many of you are taking this way too personal... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hambone September 23, 2002 Author Share Hambone Member September 23, 2002 On that note I still would like someone to quote by me a direct, personal, unquestionable attack on someone else in this thread. I was criticized, warned about being "ungentlemanly". Show me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Playaa September 23, 2002 Share Playaa Member September 23, 2002 hamb0wnz I refer back to Rev's post with all the quotes from you and saying things like "religion is for the weak" what is ungentlemanly about that is that you are taking you're opinion (which naturally you deem to be correct, which is fine) and completely forgetting that there is the possibility that you are incorrect and after you make this assumption, you proceed to call us weak because of our faith in something higher than us..... religion is not for the weak, lack of religion is for the ppl who can't take the heat..... try following a religion for real in a hostile country (such as America is to Christians) and tell me how weak we really are..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Playaa September 23, 2002 Share Playaa Member September 23, 2002 also hambone, your post "disproving" the article fat supplied..... you're saying those things are wrong based on your belief that evolution is true.........OF COURSE they're wrong if evolution is true.....but that's not being objective Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Playaa September 23, 2002 Share Playaa Member September 23, 2002 one MORE thing maybe you could explain the Endosymbiosis(sp?) because what you explained earlier.......it just seems like one organism eats another one and then gets energy from that organism.....how is that evolution? once again.....I'd like to say....stop this post........everyone it's pointless....we're getting nowhere and never will Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts