A challenge to Racer and ILL....... - Page 2

yeahwho · #31 01-08-2005, 09:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by racer5.0stang

Proverbs 26:4

Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.

That was pretty funny

QueenAdrock · #32 01-08-2005, 11:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mac D

not that big of a fan of GWB myself, but damn he is way better than kerry.

HAHAHA

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

Burnout18 · #33 01-08-2005, 12:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freedom Toast

If the bible is real...then doesn't that mean we are all EXTREMELY inbred?

yea. If u think about it, then yes.

Ace42 · #34 01-08-2005, 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 100% ILL

evolution

concept that embodies the belief that existing animals and plants developed by a process of gradual, continuous change from previously existing forms. This theory, also known as descent with modification, constitutes organic evolution. Inorganic evolution, on the other hand, is concerned with the development of the physical universe from unorganized matter. Organic evolution, as opposed to belief in the special creation of each individual species as an immutable form, conceives of life as having had its beginnings in a simple primordial protoplasmic mass (probably originating in the sea) from which, through the long eras of time, arose all subsequent living forms.

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

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

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

yeahwho · #35 01-08-2005, 07:29 PM

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."

Rosie Cotton · #36 01-08-2005, 09:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 100% ILL

The whole point is Q-drop, that there is so much more to life than the physical and what you can see. This external view is what causes men to look to science to "prove" our exsistence.

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.

ASsman · #37 01-09-2005, 09:42 AM

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

Ace42 · #38 01-09-2005, 10:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rosie Cotton

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.

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

Qdrop · #39 01-10-2005, 07:41 AM

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.

Qdrop · #40 01-10-2005, 07:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ace42

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

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

ASsman · #41 01-10-2005, 08:29 AM

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

100% ILL · #42 01-10-2005, 09:36 AM

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.

Ace42 · #43 01-10-2005, 09:53 AM

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.

100% ILL · #44 01-10-2005, 11:38 AM

"We have educated ourselves into imbecility,"

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

Ace42 · #45 01-10-2005, 12:11 PM

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.

Schmeltz · #46 01-10-2005, 12:17 PM

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.

Qdrop · #47 01-10-2005, 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mae

What I would be more interested in, is an explanation for christians who believe in the theory of evolution.

Like the two can never be mixed?

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.

Ace42 · #48 01-10-2005, 12:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mae

What I would be more interested in, is an explanation for christians who believe in the theory of evolution.

Like the two can never be mixed?

Quote:

'Rationalist Unitarianism' - God is one being Who consists of one person - the Father. Jesus is not the Son of God, but merely a "good and wise man" who taught others how to lead a better life. Rationalist Unitarianism emerged from the German Rationalism of the 19th Century. Its proponents took a highly intellectual approach to religion, rejecting most of the miraculous events in the Bible (including the virgin birth.) They embraced evolutionary concepts, asserted the "inherent goodness of man" and abandoned many principles of Christianity. James Martineau (1805-1900) was one of their most prominent members. Rationalist Unitarianism is distinguished from Deism (with which it nevertheless shares many features) by the fact that RUs believe in a personal deity Who interacts with His creation, while Deists see God as an impersonal force which remains aloof from creation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitarianism

59 Chrystie St. · #49 01-10-2005, 01:03 PM

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.