NoSuchCreature
Offline
Whats your religion?
| Atheist |    |
39.2% | [ 1134 ] |
| Protestant | |
16.9% | [ 489 ] |
| Catholic | |
14.0% | [ 406 ] |
| Hindu | |
1.3% | [ 37 ] |
| Muslim | |
1.8% | [ 53 ] |
| Jew | |
2.3% | [ 67 ] |
| Buddhist | |
5.2% | [ 149 ] |
| Greek Orthodox | |
0.7% | [ 21 ] |
| Pagan | |
14.3% | [ 412 ] |
| Egyptian | |
4.2% | [ 122 ] |
| Total Votes: | [ 2890 ] | ||
Redem
Offline
- Quote
- Report Post
- Posted: Wed, 17 May 2006 01:31:10 +0000
XflintX
Scientists can make anything they want sound logica;, ya know why? Because their scientists! Almost everyone strives to stand out and making up religions will do just that. It's not that hard, everyone trusts them.
That is the most idiotic things I have heard in a long time.
You are truly retarded.
THEOLOGIANS can also think logicially. People who study philosophy.
LOGIC is your friend.
amacat
Offline
- Quote
- Report Post
- Posted: Wed, 17 May 2006 01:32:25 +0000
Fluffy Little Octopus
Would you be so kind as to make your claims valid in this forum by finding a link to any articles made by PBS online, then? I'm fairly certain they do such things.
Read. Its in the middle of the page.
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/holyland/noahsark2.html
amacat
Offline
- Quote
- Report Post
- Posted: Wed, 17 May 2006 01:37:04 +0000
redem
That is the most idiotic things I have heard in a long time.
You are truly retarded.
THEOLOGIANS can also think logicially. People who study philosophy.
LOGIC is your friend.
Definition of retarded:
A disparaging term for a mentally retarded person.
-dictionary.com
Sorry, as I've said in another forum, I'm not at all for bashing. I do not believe XflintX to be retarted. He's made some smart points.
XflintX
Offline
- Quote
- Report Post
- Posted: Wed, 17 May 2006 01:51:12 +0000
redem
XflintX
So a bunch of dirt was floating around and smushed together to create the Earth. Then Lava came up from the Earth and created the land. Then ashes from the volcanoes flew up and created the atmosphere. Later on, the atmosphere created clouds that rained down and created the ocean,
Not what scientists say happened. Read a science text book sometime. -That's where i got the information from-
XflintX
and then by the changing temperature of the water the first organisms came to be. Wait, if jellyfish had to stun fish and eat fish to feed themselves, and fish came after jellyfish then what would jelly fish eat? Plenty of new species came after that like trilobites magically formed from jellyfish and bacteria that still exist today. Later on creatures crawled up on earth and morphed into what we are today
Not what scientists say happened. Read a science text book sometime. -that's where i got the information from-
XflintX
and to top it off, it's all it's all based on the "Well Tested" Theory that the Earth and the Moon were created at the same time. Which is not likely (not like it could be tested any way), because if they were formed next to each other it would be very un probable because it would be quite a coincidence that they were created at the same time, If it broke off from the Earth it would be altered, and the shape would be a lot different similar to the shape of the earth and other planets in the solar system,
Not what scientists say happened. Read a science text book sometime. -that's where i got the information from-
XflintX
which contradicts how they find the absolute age of fossils.
No idea where you got this from. -science text book-
XflintX
If your not a Christian, or believe in any sort of after life, then how the world started shouldn't concern them any way.
I am going to assume that not was misplaced. What about simple curiosity? The joy of scientific discovery?
-sry that was with something else I copied and pasted it from-
XflintX
God is the Ultimate Existence who most likely had nothing to create him
Wha? The usual christian teaching is that he is the "uncaused cause". -ok then he had nothing to create him then, nothing to create him, he spawned-
XflintX
except for the scientific rule that was something merely like “Every action has the same or opposite reaction” which could be used to be explain the existence of God.
That is applicable to forces. Every force has an equal and opposite reaction.
You are confusing it with the principle of causality.
Which cannot be used to prove anything. -I was wondering where that was from-
XflintX
The question which this is in response to has been used a lot but can also be used similarly to the concept of evolution by the question: where did the first bit of matter come from?
Condensing energy after the bog bang. -big bang from what?- Big bang couldn't have existed-
XflintX
Or where did all the dust floating in space come from?
See aboce -see above-
XflintX
The answer can’t be explained the same way the question about God can because dust is no where near an infinite being that can be created like wise. There would have to be an ultimate existence in order for anything to appear.
XflintX
Such as: a half cup can exist as long as a full cup can. Finite life can only exist if there is an ultimate being to give it purpose and potential.
Prove it. Life needs purpose and potential? Since when? -I copied and pasted that part of purpose and potential, from another source, I don't know what the guy who wrote it meant by that-
XflintX
If we really evolved from monkeys then where are the others in the evolutionary chain? If we evolved from micro organisms every thing would be unstable and constantly changing and mutating uncontrollably or predictably. The new reproductive system, different from a cell reproducing with itself could not have developed suddenly, it wouldn’t have happened. How could organisms stop reproducing with themselves and grow two new reproductive systems, dependant on other reproductive system within the same time period if it took millions of years, along with the theory in evolution that we developed a body that could live much longer than before. To believe that such a reproductive system could form like that would be unlikely, to think it worked and they found each other within the same time period would be insane.
Yeah. Sorry. This is nonsensical. I can't reply to this, except to say this is not what scientists say happened. Read a science text book sometime. -I have, as in where are the hairy half men half ape people, there's both sides, but no intermediate.- -how could you not understand the rest?- It has to do with making love-
XflintX
Dinosaurs probably were dragons from the Medieval Times, there skeletal designs seem very similar, and they lived humans as was recorded in the Medieval Times; we believe everything else recorded, why not that? So since they lived at the same time as humans we didn’t evolve from them. The reason for the mass extinction is most likely because they have no reproductive system, but can live for a very long time because of its good body structure, hard scaly rough skin, and they lived in caves. It also says that on the Discovery Channel.
AFAIK no dinosaurs can breath fire. Nor can large dinos fly. -who said large dinos flew?- -how do you know they can't blow fire? Mideival people could have exaderated with the fire anyway-
And NO SCIENTIST CLAIMS WE EVOLVED FROM DINOSAURS! -That was put in senslesely and i don't renember why I put that in.-
Your ignorance is astounding.
And dinosaur eggs have been found. HOW can you claim they have no reproductive system?-i told you scientists can make up whatever they want, maybe it's not a real dino egg. What I said was a theory.
It boggles the mind that anyone can be that stupid!
Redem
Offline
- Quote
- Report Post
- Posted: Wed, 17 May 2006 01:52:54 +0000
amacat
redem
That is the most idiotic things I have heard in a long time.
You are truly retarded.
THEOLOGIANS can also think logicially. People who study philosophy.
LOGIC is your friend.
Definition of retarded:
A disparaging term for a mentally retarded person.
-dictionary.com
Sorry, as I've said in another forum, I'm not at all for bashing. I do not believe XflintX to be retarted. He's made some smart points.
No, he's made a semiliterate, almost unintelligable rant.
Made a few massive strawmen arguments.
Some some more or less trampled all over reason and logic.
Not the same thing.
Read what that was in response to.
That was UTTERLY moronic!
I am have allowed my temper to make my post a little more aggressive than i should have. I apologise for that. But my point stands.
Sinner
Offline
- Quote
- Report Post
- Posted: Wed, 17 May 2006 01:59:38 +0000
I've got to say, XflintX is definitely pushing for a top position on my list of people who shouldn't be allowed to reproduce. This is... beyond ridiculous.
NoSuchCreature
Offline
- Quote
- Report Post
- Posted: Wed, 17 May 2006 02:12:48 +0000
XflintX
how do you know they can't blow fire? Mideival people could have exaderated with the fire anyway
rofl
And guess what:
THEY COULD HAVE EXAGGERATED WITH THE DRAGONS ENTIRELY!!!
Way to pick your sources.
Redem
Offline
- Quote
- Report Post
- Posted: Wed, 17 May 2006 02:14:24 +0000
XflintX
redem
Not what scientists say happened. Read a science text book sometime.
Then you didn't understand what you read.
XflintX
redem
Not what scientists say happened. Read a science text book sometime.
Then you didn;t understand what you read.
XflintX
redem
Not what scientists say happened. Read a science text book sometime.
See above.
XflintX
redem
XflintX
which contradicts how they find the absolute age of fossils.
No idea where you got this from.
See above.
XflintX
redem
I am going to assume that not was misplaced. What about simple curiosity? The joy of scientific discovery?
-sry that was with something else I copied and pasted it from-
Bad form. Cite a source when you do that please.
XflintX
redem
XflintX
God is the Ultimate Existence who most likely had nothing to create him
Wha? The usual christian teaching is that he is the "uncaused cause".
Nono. I mean that he wasn't caused. He either created himself, or has always existed. Those are the usualy responses from theologians.
XflintX
redem
XflintX
except for the scientific rule that was something merely like “Every action has the same or opposite reaction” which could be used to be explain the existence of God.
That is applicable to forces. Every force has an equal and opposite reaction.
You are confusing it with the principle of causality.
Which cannot be used to prove anything.
One of Newtons laws. You should have learned that in class already. I would presume at least.
XflintX
redem
XflintX
The question which this is in response to has been used a lot but can also be used similarly to the concept of evolution by the question: where did the first bit of matter come from?
Condensing energy after the bog bang.
It is the best model we have which explains the universe as it exists today. We have ample evidence.
XflintX
redem
XflintX
Or where did all the dust floating in space come from?
See aboce
redem
XflintX
The answer can’t be explained the same way the question about God can because dust is no where near an infinite being that can be created like wise. There would have to be an ultimate existence in order for anything to appear.
Matter appears. That matter then attracts other matter due to tis' gravity, and that matter then eventually forms stars. These undergo nuclear fusion and form heavy elements. Things like cardon, iron etc...
When a star explodes these are spread throughout the universe.
In time those form new gas clouds, which again collapse into suns and plantes and stuff.
XflintX
redem
XflintX
Such as: a half cup can exist as long as a full cup can. Finite life can only exist if there is an ultimate being to give it purpose and potential.
Prove it. Life needs purpose and potential? Since when?
Nor do I.
XflintX
redem
XflintX
If we really evolved from monkeys then where are the others in the evolutionary chain? If we evolved from micro organisms every thing would be unstable and constantly changing and mutating uncontrollably or predictably. The new reproductive system, different from a cell reproducing with itself could not have developed suddenly, it wouldn’t have happened. How could organisms stop reproducing with themselves and grow two new reproductive systems, dependant on other reproductive system within the same time period if it took millions of years, along with the theory in evolution that we developed a body that could live much longer than before. To believe that such a reproductive system could form like that would be unlikely, to think it worked and they found each other within the same time period would be insane.
Yeah. Sorry. This is nonsensical. I can't reply to this, except to say this is not what scientists say happened. Read a science text book sometime.
Ah. You are asking for trasitional fossils!
That makes more sense now.
Check back a page or two. Someone posted a few links on it.
XflintX
redem
XflintX
Dinosaurs probably were dragons from the Medieval Times, there skeletal designs seem very similar, and they lived humans as was recorded in the Medieval Times; we believe everything else recorded, why not that? So since they lived at the same time as humans we didn’t evolve from them. The reason for the mass extinction is most likely because they have no reproductive system, but can live for a very long time because of its good body structure, hard scaly rough skin, and they lived in caves. It also says that on the Discovery Channel.
AFAIK no dinosaurs can breath fire. Nor can large dinos fly. -who said large dinos flew?- -how do you know they can't blow fire? Mideival people could have exaderated with the fire anyway-
And NO SCIENTIST CLAIMS WE EVOLVED FROM DINOSAURS! -That was put in senslesely and i don't renember why I put that in.-
Your ignorance is astounding.
And dinosaur eggs have been found. HOW can you claim they have no reproductive system?
They have fossilised baby dinosaurs in them. What more do you want?
XflintX
redem
It boggles the mind that anyone can be that stupid!
I apologise for this.
It was uncalled for.
amacat
Offline
- Quote
- Report Post
- Posted: Wed, 17 May 2006 02:17:38 +0000
redem
No, he's made a semiliterate, almost unintelligable rant.
Made a few massive strawmen arguments.
Some some more or less trampled all over reason and logic.
Not the same thing.
Read what that was in response to.
That was UTTERLY moronic!
I am have allowed my temper to make my post a little more aggressive than i should have. I apologise for that. But my point stands.
I've reread your post. Your rebuttals mainly consist of saying "that's not what scientists say,""read a science book,""prove it," applying your own opinion, and and saying that it doesn't make sense. Comparing yours to his, I would say his makes more sense. To avoid this, please provide support for your rebuttals. Yeah, you're right. definitly not the same thing. Sorry to disapoint you...oh yeah;apology accepted.
NoSuchCreature
Offline
- Quote
- Report Post
- Posted: Wed, 17 May 2006 02:22:32 +0000
amacat
Fluffy Little Octopus
Would you be so kind as to make your claims valid in this forum by finding a link to any articles made by PBS online, then? I'm fairly certain they do such things.
Read. Its in the middle of the page.
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/holyland/noahsark2.html
There, a breath of fresh air.
Excluding that the article said nothing about it being unsinkable, now you've proven it was possible for a ship that size to go. I was only curious. 3nodding
Redem
Offline
- Quote
- Report Post
- Posted: Wed, 17 May 2006 02:24:44 +0000
amacat
I've reread your post. Your rebuttals consist of saying "that's not what scientists say,""read a science book,""prove it,"
Well. If your main arguments are constructing a strawman, and then destroying it. What more is needed?
You would rather I responded with a concise review of evolutionary theory? And astronomy. And geology. Sorry. But other people have spent hours constructing such posts. I do not have the time. Plus I tend to waffle a lot, going off point.
Read back a few pages.
amacat
applying your own opinion, and and saying that it doesn't make sense.
Not my opinions. The scientific theories and hypothesis he attacks are not made by me. And they are not what he stated them to be. He gas obviously not learned what those theories are. His attacks are therefor meaningless.
amacat
Comparing yours to his, I would say his makes more sense. To avoid this, please provide support for your rebuttals. Yeah, you're right. definitly not the same thing. Sorry to disapoint you...oh yeah;apology accepted.
And, frankly, there are parts of his which make no sense to me.
TrueSacredRahXephon
Offline
- Quote
- Report Post
- Posted: Wed, 17 May 2006 03:52:23 +0000
XflintX
So a bunch of dirt was floating around and smushed together to create the Earth. Then Lava came up from the Earth and created the land. Then ashes from the volcanoes flew up and created the atmosphere. Later on, the atmosphere created clouds that rained down and created the ocean, and then by the changing temperature of the water the first organisms came to be.
What?
Iron and silicates gravitated together to form the planet. There was always land.
Ashes flying up from volcanos could not create an atmosphere. The early atmosphere was made of toxic (to us) gasses that were also pulled toward the Earth as it was forming.
Quote:
Wait, if jellyfish had to stun fish and eat fish to feed themselves, and fish came after jellyfish then what would jelly fish eat?
Plankton, just like they do now.
Quote:
Plenty of new species came after that like trilobites magically formed from jellyfish and bacteria that still exist today. Later on creatures crawled up on earth and morphed into what we are today and to top it off, it's all it's all based on the "Well Tested" Theory that the Earth and the Moon were created at the same time.
Please enlighten me.
Quote:
Which is not likely (not like it could be tested any way), because if they were formed next to each other it would be very un probable because it would be quite a coincidence that they were created at the same time, If it broke off from the Earth it would be altered, and the shape would be a lot different similar to the shape of the earth
Quote:
and other planets in the solar system, which contradicts how they find the absolute age of fossils.
Quote:
The question which this is in response to has been used a lot but can also be used similarly to the concept of evolution by the question: where did the first bit of matter come from? Or where did all the dust floating in space come from? The answer can’t be explained the same way the question about God can because dust is no where near an infinite being that can be created like wise.
Quote:
There would have to be an ultimate existence in order for anything to appear.
Quote:
Such as: a half cup can exist as long as a full cup can. Finite life can only exist if there is an ultimate being to give it purpose and potential.
Quote:
If we really evolved from monkeys then where are the others in the evolutionary chain?
Quote:
If we evolved from micro organisms every thing would be unstable and constantly changing and mutating uncontrollably or predictably.
What, you think life is completely static and unchanging?
Quote:
The new reproductive system, different from a cell reproducing with itself could not have developed suddenly, it wouldn’t have happened. How could organisms stop reproducing with themselves and grow two new reproductive systems, dependant on other reproductive system within the same time period if it took millions of years, along with the theory in evolution that we developed a body that could live much longer than before. To believe that such a reproductive system could form like that would be unlikely, to think it worked and they found each other within the same time period would be insane.
Besides that, this is an argumentum ad ignorantium. Just because you don't know, or because it has not been discovered, does not mean that it's impossible. Even if there was no way to know or to find out, that would still not prove evolution wrong.
Quote:
Dinosaurs probably were dragons from the Medieval Times, there skeletal designs seem very similar, and they lived humans as was recorded in the Medieval Times; we believe everything else recorded, why not that?
Who's "we"?
Oh, Christians.
Quote:
So since they lived at the same time as humans we didn’t evolve from them.
Humans did not directly descend from dinosaurs. Even if they did, simultaneous existence does not make descent from dinosaurs impossible. It just means that the species diverged at some point and neither the original species nor the new species died out.
Quote:
The reason for the mass extinction is most likely because they have no reproductive system, but can live for a very long time because of its good body structure, hard scaly rough skin, and they lived in caves. It also says that on the Discovery Channel.
What the hell are you smoking?
xorflex
Offline
- Quote
- Report Post
- Posted: Wed, 17 May 2006 04:30:43 +0000
Queen of the tigers
Quote:
the bibles a story book, created from ppls imaginations.
Quote:
jesus did exsist but him n his 12 diciples were con artests
but the argument that the bible has a story book has one advantage:
namely that, being a book, it must have been created by SOMEONE, so
half the argumant is already proven
*looks around for visual evidence of God*
curious, not to say there is no God but stil........curious
Balcerzak
Offline
- Quote
- Report Post
- Posted: Wed, 17 May 2006 13:11:39 +0000
Nuri
pipdiddle
No, whats impressive is that her teacher could stomach reading it 3 times through.
Not that difficult to imagine. As I have posted before, the Bible is full of sex and violence and beautiful words. It can be a very entertaining read.
It depends where you are in it.
