Re: A challenge to Racer and ILL.......
 

That was pretty funny (y)

Re: A challenge to Racer and ILL.......
 

HAHAHA

I haven't laughed that hard in quite some time.

Re: A challenge to Racer and ILL.......
 

yea. If u think about it, then yes.

Re: A challenge to Racer and ILL.......
 

http://www.crystalinks.com/evolution.html

Didn't he say *in your own words* ?

Or was post #6's quote a horrible fiction?

Re: A challenge to Racer and ILL.......
 

Why do we have to drift along a stream of time?

"It's just nature's way of making sure everything doesn't happen at once."

Re: A challenge to Racer and ILL.......
 

Wow, spoken like a true pothead.

I gotta agree with every reasonable person on here Q, what is the point of this? You keep saying it's documentation, but this is a message board. It's been documented plenty of times. This just seems downright mean-spirited, and it's a complete waste of bandwidth.

Re: A challenge to Racer and ILL.......
 

Why did God give me such a large penis? Do I have a mission in life?

Re: A challenge to Racer and ILL.......
 

What, Q-drop is an antagonistic troll? Well colour me shocked.

Re: A challenge to Racer and ILL.......
 

Ace, stay off my threads.......
fuck, you can't even read them.

it's funny how you loathe me, yet we have common ground on more than half of our beliefs......but that is another story....


THE POINT of this thread is to documment that both ILL and RACER's doubt in evolution and science is NOT SCIENTIFICALLY BASED as they have claimed before hand.
it is purely faith based.

See, most people on here, PARTICULARLY ACE, do not know how to argue against a creationist.
you cannot fall for all there little debate tricks.
Ace, time after time, will argue for pages and pages.....splitting hairs, letting the debate get seguayed in semantics and definitions.....
this what creationists want. they want the argument to go on forever, delving into philosophy and such.
that is how they stalemate you.....

creationists CLAIM that they have scientific reasoning behind their doubts in evolution.
they do not.

in order to beat a creationist at their own game....you must not let them play it the way they want: giving them openings to spew out thier pre-written rhetoric they got from creationsit websites : how did the human eye evolve? what about fossil gaps? ect)

you must take a step back and not get caught up in their "details".
you must force them to admit what they are: faith based lemmings.

issuing a challenge such as this forces them to show their true colors.

while most of us already knew this.......NOW THEY ARE FORCED TO ADMIT TO IT THEMSELVES.
and now, if they attempt to make any other "scientific claims" against evolution or any other science that challenges thier beliefs....they can be directed back to this thread, which shows that it is a ruse, and thier disbelief stems purely from pig-headed arrogance in thier religion.

no 5 page, hair-splitting debates......

call a spade a spade.

sometimes, you gotta be dickhead to get anything accomplished. :rolleyes:

Re: A challenge to Racer and ILL.......
 

what? Ace making an antogonistic, troll-like remark about others being antagonistic trolls?
i, too, am shocked.

Re: A challenge to Racer and ILL.......
 

I have a challenge. Who can read the Bible the fastest.. In Hebrew!

Re: A challenge to Racer and ILL.......
 

You have proven nothing. The fact that I do not believe in evolution and that I have faith in God comes as a surprise to no one.

You remind me of a twelve year old boy, what with your high-handed remarks about beating the creationists at their own game.

The fundamental core of your argument is based on your presuppostion and that evolution is a fact. You do nothing but sight your articles explaining
your position while I have offered an equal number to the contrary. The creation/evolution debate is still ongoing in the scientific community, yet you behave as though you have conclusively proven a great truth here.

http://www.commonsensescience.org/


Common Sense Science reflects the Judeo-Christian and Muslim Worldview that is based on three unprovable but reasonable assumptions:

Reality
The world is real, and we can understand the nature of that reality. Objects are durable and continue to exist whether or not we think about them (see Vedantic Philosophy) and whether or not we observe them (see Quantum Reality)
Causality
Events in the universe follow the law of cause and effect. Every event has a preceeding cause. For example, a electron with negative charge is attracted by a proton with opposite charge and moves toward it. It doesn't move without a reason.
Unity
Nature is unified in two major ways. First, the forces between objects follows the same laws of physics whether the objects are large as galaxies or small as atomic nuclei. Second, the design and structure of atoms is the same everywhere in the universe. Hot hydrogen gas emits the same colors of light whether the light comes from a distant galaxy or from a laboratory on earth.

Although these assumptions of reality, causality and unity seem self-evident to many people, Modern Science is built upon some opposite assumptions of quantum reality, randomness, and multiplicity of force laws.

Contradictions in Modern Physics


The modern theory of matter rests upon such supporting theories as the Standard Model of Elementary Particles, Quantum Mechanics, and the Special Theory of Relativity. After decades of work by thousands of physicists, the theory has "grown" until it can explain a very large body of physical phenomena. This has made the theory very successful; but the theory is not adequate or true because:

1. It is only a mathematical model consisting of equations and does not usually specify physical structure for elementary particles.
2. It frequently contradicts itself.
3. It provides no mechanism for such fundamental processes as the exchange of energy.
4. It has to rely upon numerous assumptions.

The Many Myths of Evolution

http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/topics.htm

Creation of Life

It is popularly believed that experiments have been done that showed that the chemicals present in the early Earth's oceans and atmosphere could have formed amino acids, which could have combined to form proteins, which eventually turned into the first living cell. This myth arose from the publication of the results of experiments done by Miller 9 and Fox. 10

On March 28, 1997, we showed the video. "Is Life Just Chemistry?" in which Michael Girouard, M.D., showed that these experiments did not prove that amino acids and proteins could have formed naturally. In fact, they prove that life could not have happened that way.

After we showed the video, our favorite critic complained that we had taken a cheap shot by bringing up Miller and Fox. He said that those two series of experiments had been done more than 40 years ago, and that the errors in them are well known. He said that everybody knows that those experiments led nowhere, and that no respectable scientists are doing work along those lines. He said modern research into the origin of life is taking other approaches, but has not produced any positive results yet.

We agree with everything our critic said, except for the part that "everybody knows" it. It is our position that the general public does not know that these experiments failed and mistakenly believes that they succeeded.

One reason we believe that many people are misinformed is because the previously mentioned local high school text 11 presents the work of Miller and Fox as if it were long-established scientific proof of how life evolved.





Darwinism

Darwin revived the theory of evolution by doing what Lamark could not do. He supplied a plausible mechanism for descent with modification. He correctly observed: (1) there is a certain amount of variation in offspring; (2) there are more offspring produced than can survive; (3) in the fight for survival, the best variants live and the worst variants die. He correctly concluded that this gradually causes small, but noticeable, changes in species.

Darwin then extrapolated this truth into non-truth. He believed that these gradual changes could continue without limit, resulting in changes so large that entirely new species would evolve. He believed that when more fossils were found, the fossil record would show evidence of these gradual changes. But after more than 130 years of searching, those fossils have not been found.

Re: A challenge to Racer and ILL.......
 

Ill, next time you cite an article, could you at least attempt to make sure it isn't a load of bollocks?

Even a cursory understanding of the scientific theories mentioned in the stuff you cut and pasted would show that whoever wrote it had a very limited understanding of the theories he was attempting to debunk.

Also, while the argument between Evolutionary-creation and spontaneous / deified creationism might persist, the latter case has no basis in fact whatsoever.

And the fundamentalist Christian view of creationism (7 days, etc etc) is *not* being debated. It is false. There are no two ways about it.

To say it is "still being argued" is to say that "it isn't certain that grass is green, because one raving loon keeps shouting 'It's purple!'"

I appreciate you making an effort to engage in the subject scientifically, however the fact that you are disregarding scientific fact in favour of a terribly misrepresented simplification of it proves nothing other than your limited understanding of the matter.

The fact that equally ill-informed individuals have written teribly innaccurate artiles in agreement with you does not change the fact.

Also, why not read up on quantum theory, because judging by the cut and paste job, it seems that your source has problems with something that is demonstrably correct.

Quantum computer prototypes have been designed that use fundamental premises of quantum theory in order to operate. They work (in a purely experimental manner, they cannot be *used* practically yet, even though they work well enough to prove the theories they operate on) and thus you cannot refute Quantum Theory as "scientific mumbo-jumbo."

Likewise questioning relativity is backwards. Various aspects of relativity have been proven by experiments. To say they are "false" is to argue with fact.

Re: A challenge to Racer and ILL.......
 

"We have educated ourselves into imbecility,"

http://www.rzim.org/publications/jttran.php?seqid=22

Re: A challenge to Racer and ILL.......
 

Again, you post an opinion piece which is devoid of any critical thinking whatsoever. This is Sisko's tactic, and look where it got him. Seriously, if this is the best you can do, then don't.

Re: A challenge to Racer and ILL.......
 

Yes, that's exactly it, 100%Ill. The rise of secularism was an evil conspiracy designed to turn people away from Jesus. There's no substance to it at all. What an earth-shaking revelation you've provided for us there.

Re: A challenge to Racer and ILL.......
 

you see elements of that with Intelligent Design.

the basic belief is that science and evolution are supported....but underneath it all is GOD.
meaning: yeah evolution is cool....but only cause God made it that way and guided it all the way.

and the universe shows "undisputable evidence" that there is a design to it by a higher intelligence.
the universe is simply too complex to happen by chance.

basically, the belief is "science WITHOUT chance."




what it really is ....is a backdoor approach by creationists.....so they can be taken seriously by science.
it's still a farce with no substantial evidence.

Re: A challenge to Racer and ILL.......
 

Re: A challenge to Racer and ILL.......
 

I was wondering out there who believes that Jesus was a black Hebrew ? The white image of Christ is Cesare Borgia, the son of Pope Alexander the VI (1492). Don't some of you realize that the all the Christian holidays coincide with the Pagan holidays of Rome ? Rome was a pretty messed up place back in the late 15th century and were fighting wars with arabic muslims. The reason they "white" washed Christ was to gain followers in attempts to win this war. How could these caucasions fight against the people who look like their savior. Think about it, it relates even more significantly today.

Re: A challenge to Racer and ILL.......
 

In other words, a Jehovah Witness or Mormon.

Re: A challenge to Racer and ILL.......
 

Why not look up Jehovah's witnesses and Mormonism before saying stupid things like that?

Unitarians are incredibly different from either of those.

Re: A challenge to Racer and ILL.......
 

http://www.mormon.org/learn/0,8672,1092-1,00.html

http://www.jw-media.org/beliefs/trueworship.htm

Re: A challenge to Racer and ILL.......
 

Follow in the footsteps of the one true god:

Bubba Ho Tep!

http://www.bubbahotep.com

Re: A challenge to Racer and ILL.......
 

Re: A challenge to Racer and ILL.......
 

great movie!
(y)

Re: A challenge to Racer and ILL.......
 

Re: A challenge to Racer and ILL.......
 

Ahhh, yes, endtimes with Bob. (y)

Re: A challenge to Racer and ILL.......
 

www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/you.html

Re: A challenge to Racer and ILL.......
 

yes.......truly a dickhead.

Re: A challenge to Racer and ILL.......
 

What was that all a/b?