Sad, America, just Sad.

[Gayowulf]

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/299253_inconvenient11.html

[Starcraftmazter]

Stupid National Socialist bastard gives a bad name to religion.

He should stop smoking pot.

[themoose]

See, those are exactly the type of christians who I hate. So drunken in their own beliefs that they neglect fact, and damage the planet further by doing so.

[iBrightDev]

See, those are exactly the type of christians who I hate. So drunken in their own beliefs that they neglect fact, and damage the planet further by doing so.

thank you Colin. i concur with that motion. :D

[utcrazy]

GD Doesn't do links.

[influct]

wow. thats just plain retarded.
I think these bible bashing idiots must be a myth, ALL the religious people I know are far more sensible than this.

[Tree]

We're supposed to present all sides? I've never heard about Scientology's creation theory being debated about being taught in schools.

Stupid Christians.

[[ih]Demetris]

We're supposed to present all sides? I've never heard about Scientology's creation theory being debated about being taught in schools.

Stupid Christians.


Thats because its taught in schools..Darwins theory is taught in schools well at least here in Colorado it is..

[Eclouds]

some of the laws in america are already laughed at by the rest of the world... for example you can go to war and loose a limb at 18 yet you cannot drink alcohol until you are 21. You can legally buy cigarettes and sign contracts at 18 but you still cannot drink...

Now let's get to the laws about censorship. It is completely ridiculous! In europe, commercials have women naked taking showers and stuff but in American, big NO NO. When listening to the radio station, half of the song is cut out because of "cussing". That is absolutely unacceptable, how are you supposed to listen to a song that just goes "BEEEP BEEEP" every 2 seconds?

Then we come to the videos that are now restricted in school. How are kids supposed to learn about global warming if some stupid aholes are banning the videos about it? We are the world's biggest polluter yet the kids in this country cannot learn about the damage their parents are doing to the planet?

Once again, ridiculous. Some people need to grow up and realize that by censoring everything for the kids, it is only making things worse. Not like if you tell someone "dont push this button"... what do you think he is gonna do..:idea:

[Wojtek]

religion and school eh?
When I was in high school, we had the best religion teacher. Funny guy.
Used to throw the bible on the floor and jump on it. Saying the bible is only a recipe book for life, and not to be taken as facts.

That lady would of sued that poor teacher if he would of been teaching with his methods at that school :p

[themoose]

some of the laws in america are already laughed at by the rest of the world... for example you can go to war and loose a limb at 18 yet you cannot drink alcohol until you are 21. You can legally buy cigarettes and sign contracts at 18 but you still cannot drink...

Now let's get to the laws about censorship. It is completely ridiculous! In europe, commercials have women naked taking showers and stuff but in American, big NO NO. When listening to the radio station, half of the song is cut out because of "cussing". That is absolutely unacceptable, how are you supposed to listen to a song that just goes "BEEEP BEEEP" every 2 seconds?

Then we come to the videos that are now restricted in school. How are kids supposed to learn about global warming if some stupid aholes are banning the videos about it? We are the world's biggest polluter yet the kids in this country cannot learn about the damage their parents are doing to the planet?

Once again, ridiculous. Some people need to grow up and realize that by censoring everything for the kids, it is only making things worse. Not like if you tell someone "dont push this button"... what do you think he is gonna do..:idea:

I still think it's funny you have to wait till 21 to legally drink :p

And yeah, those songs blanking out are annoying.. I heard fall out boy's "This aint a scene it's a god damn arms race" on the radio, and I went and listened to it on YouTube - an American version - and they blanked out "god damn". It was so annoying.

[Ben]

some of the laws in america are already laughed at by the rest of the world... for example you can go to war and loose a limb at 18 yet you cannot drink alcohol until you are 21. You can legally buy cigarettes and sign contracts at 18 but you still cannot drink...

Now let's get to the laws about censorship. It is completely ridiculous! In europe, commercials have women naked taking showers and stuff but in American, big NO NO. When listening to the radio station, half of the song is cut out because of "cussing". That is absolutely unacceptable, how are you supposed to listen to a song that just goes "BEEEP BEEEP" every 2 seconds?

Then we come to the videos that are now restricted in school. How are kids supposed to learn about global warming if some stupid aholes are banning the videos about it? We are the world's biggest polluter yet the kids in this country cannot learn about the damage their parents are doing to the planet?

Once again, ridiculous. Some people need to grow up and realize that by censoring everything for the kids, it is only making things worse. Not like if you tell someone "dont push this button"... what do you think he is gonna do..:idea:
I've always been under the impression that alcohol can be bought by any military personnel on base?

Not that I don't support lowering the drinking age.

[AMC]

whether or not there is an exception, its still stupid, I mean i dont live in the US i live in the UK but i spend quite a bit of time over there with my uncle, and you guys just need to relax, maybe, just maybe, US should take example from th rest of the world, rather than expecting it to be the other way round.

Dont get me wrong, I have no problem with americans, hell, half my family is american, but your administration does piss me of from time to time.

did you guys know that the US own space, the bush administration signed what they consider to be an international and legally binding document that states that the extremeties of air space including SPACE is under the official control of the US air force, I MEAN COME ON


We seem to have a slightly different veiw of religion over on this side of the atlantic, we have a way to temper and compromise religion in order to accomadate the truths that are science, if god is all powerful, then he would be able to function within the laws of physics (Damn, they are his laws after all ) also the bible is more viewed as a book of morale guidance, full of hidden meanings and rarely to be taken completely literaly.

Please note i am not flaming ANYONE, I am not trying to offend ANYONE.
Im just giving you my view

Regards
AMC

[themoose]

the bible is more viewed as a book of morale guidance, full of hidden meanings and rarely to be taken completely literaly.

EXACTLY! That's what I've always thought.

Besides, the bible has been mistranslated several times before it came to be the book it is today. Who knows what half the things in the bible originally were...

[TSO]

I can't stand Al Gore, though, so from that side of things I am happy to see this. :) I am disappointed, however, that religious fanatics (who can't truly be Christians if they act like that) are somehow trying to tie his movie to religion. :confused: That is pretty far fetched, and stupid, too.

[Tree]

Besides, the bible has been mistranslated several times before it came to be the book it is today. Who knows what half the things in the bible originally were...

Exactly. Good old King James commissioned a whole book to be translated to fit his own thoughts. Good work.

[stuffradio]

Ok,

Before you continue reading my message just like to remind you I am a christian so it may be biased, dunno... hope it's not though :D

So,
I always read on these forums that it is christians fault for ruining everything. There are some people that do ruin it, do things that make christians look bad.... but from reading a lot of stuff everyone says it's EVERYONE in christianity that is so... annoying, or self centered or whatever you want to throw out there.
I am sure, if the person who got the video banned from schools was not a christian, what would happen if the person was a Musslim, you would probably look at this differently and react a different way saying.... oh maybe so and so is right, or lets take a look at it and see why they think it's bad.

mmkay, now as far as the vidoe goes.. I'm going to watch it on my uh.. computer, later on, and give you my opinion on it,

Until than, I'll keep posting here :lol:

PS: The bible has lots of fables in it, which are not meant to be taking literally. There is a lot of stuff that is supposed to teach you some things, but there is also supposed to be some facts in there as well ;)
Some of the stories are true. If I ever get in to researching it a bit more I'll let you know

[Eclouds]

^^ Why would you need to watch it on a video to give your opinion on it? We are talking about the fact that videos telling the TRUTH about our planet are being banned because of innapropriateness?

[stuffradio]

I meant to give my opinion on the global warming thing lol... But the being banned part, I disagree with it being banned

[themoose]

Ok,

Before you continue reading my message just like to remind you I am a christian so it may be biased, dunno... hope it's not though :D

So,
I always read on these forums that it is christians fault for ruining everything. There are some people that do ruin it, do things that make christians look bad.... but from reading a lot of stuff everyone says it's EVERYONE in christianity that is so... annoying, or self centered or whatever you want to throw out there.
I am sure, if the person who got the video banned from schools was not a christian, what would happen if the person was a Musslim, you would probably look at this differently and react a different way saying.... oh maybe so and so is right, or lets take a look at it and see why they think it's bad.

mmkay, now as far as the vidoe goes.. I'm going to watch it on my uh.. computer, later on, and give you my opinion on it,

Until than, I'll keep posting here :lol:

PS: The bible has lots of fables in it, which are not meant to be taking literally. There is a lot of stuff that is supposed to teach you some things, but there is also supposed to be some facts in there as well ;)
Some of the stories are true. If I ever get in to researching it a bit more I'll let you know

I have nothing wrong with most Christains, just to let you know. Especially ones like you, who understand the bible wasn't meant to be taken literally.

It's the hard core, "everything in the bible is true" christians who I can't stand - like the ones in the article above. Too dangerous.

[Tree]

So,
I always read on these forums that it is christians fault for ruining everything. There are some people that do ruin it, do things that make christians look bad.... but from reading a lot of stuff everyone says it's EVERYONE in christianity that is so... annoying, or self centered or whatever you want to throw out there.
I am sure, if the person who got the video banned from schools was not a christian, what would happen if the person was a Musslim, you would probably look at this differently and react a different way saying.... oh maybe so and so is right, or lets take a look at it and see why they think it's bad.

I've kept a pretty consistent view on Christians since my leaving the Mormon church.


The bible has lots of fables in it, which are not meant to be taking literally. There is a lot of stuff that is supposed to teach you some things, but there is also supposed to be some facts in there as well ;)
Some of the stories are true. If I ever get in to researching it a bit more I'll let you know

Indeed. Parables, as they're called. My opinion on any scientific or anthropological evidence that is found is that these events may have indeed happened, and people have explained some perhaps unusual parts of the event by claiming divine intervention.

[Johnson]

NOTE: This story has been altered since it was originally published. The computer program Al Gore uses to present scientists’ findings in the movie “An Inconvenient Truth” is Keynote. A competing software program’s name was mentioned in the earlier version of the story.

Woo! Go Macs!

[heymrdj]

I can't stand Al Gore, though, so from that side of things I am happy to see this. :) I am disappointed, however, that religious fanatics (who can't truly be Christians if they act like that) are somehow trying to tie his movie to religion. :confused: That is pretty far fetched, and stupid, too.


One I don't believe in global warming, I've seen no proof. ALl I've seen is that for thousands of years the earth has went through cooling and heating cycles. It freezes it melts. Way of the world. It may get warmer as we get pulled toward the sun. its called entropy, suck it up live with it.

Two, based on point one, Mr. Johnson just brought us another pointless religious flame war thread.

[tandoc]

In before FSM.

Decline in pirate population has resulted in global temperature increase.

[inovartis]

it's just ridiculous to ban this thing. if the parent really wants his child to have an opposite view, why not get to work and give an opposite view.

Or make him listen to canada's prime minister Stephen Harper, whom thinks that it's not a problem to wait until 2050 to lower gaz emissions.... ;)

[Johnson]

Two, based on point one, Mr. Johnson just brought us another pointless religious flame war thread.
.....?

[stuffradio]

I'm watching it.. it's interesting hehe :)

[themoose]

One I don't believe in global warming, I've seen no proof. ALl I've seen is that for thousands of years the earth has went through cooling and heating cycles. It freezes it melts. Way of the world. It may get warmer as we get pulled toward the sun. its called entropy, suck it up live with it.

Two, based on point one, Mr. Johnson just brought us another pointless religious flame war thread.

Are you ----ing kidding me? There's not a chance in hell of what you just said being true. Watch the damn video, it outlays the direct correlation in CO2 ommissions, and there's no way is that a ----ing co-incidence.


.....?

Indeed.

[heymrdj]

Are you ----ing kidding me? There's not a chance in hell of what you just said being true. Watch the damn video, it outlays the direct correlation in CO2 ommissions, and there's no way is that a ----ing co-incidence.



Indeed.

So you just believe one source, and of all sources a politician, the most untrustworthy humans on the face of the planet? Sounds good. :usflag:

Well I've had my go juice this morning, might as well break out the fingers and burn this keyboard up for awhile. Maby I'll beat my 70 words per limit ceiling :lol:.


A closer look at the issue reveals a surprising lack of evidence for a global crisis. It is true that CO2 and methane levels have increased slightly, and that this increase may be due to man's efforts, but predictions of global warming are based on theory alone, and most of these theories predict mild increases in average temperature. All of the scientific evidence gathered indicated that there is no danger of a global warming disaster.
Earth's average temperatures tend to fluctuate over long term cycles. Earth has been considerably warmer in the past than it is now. For example, from AD 900 to AD 1100, a period scientists refer to as the "Medieval Climate Optimum," global temperatures were warmer on average than at present. The weather was so mild that the Vikings established colonies and farms in Greenland (in regions that were, in fact, green). In the 1300s, however, global temperatures began to drop, plunging the world into the Little Ice Age. The Vikings' crops and livestock in Greenland began to fail, the Vikings left, and Greenland was covered with ice. About 1850, Earth's climate began to gradually warm ending the Little Ice Age; this warming lasted until about 1940. Beginning in 1940, temperatures leveled off and began to drop slightly once again.
Another fact to keep in mind is that the most pronounced increase in temperature in the 20th century occurred before 1940, when human production of greenhouse gases was at a much lower level than it is today. The climate actually cooled somewhat between 1940-1980, although the amount of greenhouse gases produced by man increased. This fact casts doubt on the relationship of man's production of greenhouse gases and the global climate.
Finally, man's contribution of CO2 and other green house gases is considerably less than nature's. Man contributes about 7 billion tons of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere per year, compared to nature's own contribution of 200 billion tons.


If you're reading this than congratulations, you at least read the whole article :beer:.

[heymrdj]

some of the laws in america are already laughed at by the rest of the world... for example you can go to war and loose a limb at 18 yet you cannot drink alcohol until you are 21. You can legally buy cigarettes and sign contracts at 18 but you still cannot drink...

Now let's get to the laws about censorship. It is completely ridiculous! In europe, commercials have women naked taking showers and stuff but in American, big NO NO. When listening to the radio station, half of the song is cut out because of "cussing". That is absolutely unacceptable, how are you supposed to listen to a song that just goes "BEEEP BEEEP" every 2 seconds?

Then we come to the videos that are now restricted in school. How are kids supposed to learn about global warming if some stupid aholes are banning the videos about it? We are the world's biggest polluter yet the kids in this country cannot learn about the damage their parents are doing to the planet?

Once again, ridiculous. Some people need to grow up and realize that by censoring everything for the kids, it is only making things worse. Not like if you tell someone "dont push this button"... what do you think he is gonna do..:idea:

Oh and a quick reply to this. STOP CUSSING. SIMPLE. If you want your song heard in its entirity, don't cus. There is NEVER a reason to cuss, it is simply childish to imagine a reason to, especially in a song. Why do you need to sing about "I'm a P.I.M.P." or "I'm gettin all that ***** tonight". No one wants to hear how many sexual diseases a guy is picking up in one night. :P

[influct]

So you just believe one source, and of all sources a politician, the most untrustworthy humans on the face of the planet? Sounds good. :usflag:
Well I've had my go juice this morning, might as well break out the fingers and burn this keyboard up for awhile. Maby I'll beat my 70 words per limit ceiling :lol:.
If you're reading this than congratulations, you at least read the whole article :beer:.
Congratualtions, you've just taken the same stance as the USA president!
(would now be a good time to tell everyone what an idiot bush is)
sorry, that was a bit harsh, but really - wake up and smell the bacon, yes the earth does go through heating and cooling seasons but you CANNOT deny that greenhouse gasses trap in the atmosphere and stop sunlight leaving it, its been proven so many times.

[heymrdj]

Congratualtions, you've just taken the same stance as the USA president!
(would now be a good time to tell everyone what an idiot bush is)
sorry, that was a bit harsh, but really - wake up and smell the bacon, yes the earth does go through heating and cooling seasons but you CANNOT deny that greenhouse gasses trap in the atmosphere and stop sunlight leaving it, its been proven so many times.

You leave out the equation of the earth absorbing said gases as well.

[themoose]

So you just believe one source, and of all sources a politician, the most untrustworthy humans on the face of the planet? Sounds good. :usflag:

Yeah, that's right. Al Gore is the only person ever to think that global warming's happening.

Retard.

[Johnson]

Oh and a quick reply to this. STOP CUSSING. SIMPLE. If you want your song heard in its entirity, don't cus. There is NEVER a reason to cuss, it is simply childish to imagine a reason to, especially in a song. Why do you need to sing about "I'm a P.I.M.P." or "I'm gettin all that ***** tonight". No one wants to hear how many sexual diseases a guy is picking up in one night. :P
Yeah, free speech is way overrated.


Yeah, that's right. Al Gore is the only person ever to think that global warming's happening.

Retard.
pwntˆ4,000,000

[Nug]

This global warming is getting scary, Denmark has had by far the warmest winter in ages.



We're supposed to present all sides? I've never heard about Scientology's creation theory being debated about being taught in schools.

Stupid Christians.

You should stop generalizing christens.

Stupid Tree.

[themoose]

You should stop generalizing christens.

Stupid Tree.

I believe he is, or if not was, one.

[Tree]

Indeed, I was. I'm not a scientologist as some of you may have thought. More of an agnostic now more than anything.

[heymrdj]

Indeed, I was. I'm not a scientologist as some of you may have thought. More on an agnostic now more than anything.


Being an agnostic is impossible because to believe nothing is true is to believe the truth that nothing is true. Same as being an atheist...its impossible.

[Tree]

Donnie, an athiest is someone who denies altogether the existance of God. You're an agnostic. An agnostic is someone who believe that there can be no proof of the existance of God, but does not deny the possibility that God exists.

Agnostic:

a person who claims that they cannot have true knowledge about the existence of God (but does not deny that God might exist)
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

[themoose]

Being an agnostic is impossible because to believe nothing is true is to believe the truth that nothing is true. Same as being an atheist...its impossible.

rofl

Being an atheist is impossible? Being an agnostic is impossible?

Now I think you're just messing with us. Were you being sarcastic? Damn, now I'm confused.

[heymrdj]

rofl

Being an atheist is impossible? Being an agnostic is impossible?

Now I think you're just messing with us. Were you being sarcastic? Damn, now I'm confused.

Its quite simple. If you believe nothing can be true, then how can it be true that nothing is true. At its root level it's circular thinking. Same for being atheistic. If you belive it is impossible to have religion, then you are in fact believing a religion in itself, thus the term atheistic destroys itself.

[themoose]

First of all:

As Tree just explained, being agonistic is not believing nothing is true - it's when you "believe that there can be no proof of the existance of God, but does not deny the possibility that God exists."

And atheism is when you believe there is no god. It can seem to be kind of confusing if you look as the definition of religion to be an organization with a god, but I view atheism as a state of mind.

As for me, I guess I'm agonistic. I respect other religions however, EXCEPT for extremists, like, you heymrdj - who are actually dangerous to society.

I'm sorry if I'm offending you heymrdj (no doubt I am), but that's how it is. I have a free will to believe what I want, and I don't want to believe some old book (that's all I see it as) word-for-word.

heymrdj, what are your thoughts on the mistranslations of the bible? I'm curious.

[heymrdj]

First of all:

As Tree just explained, being agonistic is not believing nothing is true - it's when you "believe that there can be no proof of the existance of God, but does not deny the possibility that God exists."

And atheism is when you believe there is no god. It can seem to be kind of confusing if you look as the definition of religion to be an organization with a god, but I view atheism as a state of mind.

As for me, I guess I'm agonistic. I respect other religions however, EXCEPT for extremists, like, you heymrdj - who are actually dangerous to society.

I'm sorry if I'm offending you heymrdj (no doubt I am), but that's how it is. I have a free will to believe what I want, and I don't want to believe some old book (that's all I see it as) word-for-word.

heymrdj, what are your thoughts on the mistranslations of the bible? I'm curious.

I believe today's Bible's are grossly mistranslated which is why you simply go to a Weslyan Bible directly translated from the Masoretic texts. Not these crappy Nirv's or whatever sugar coated junk it is rolling off the presses now.

As for me being dangerous...how? I have never said BELIEVE GOD OR PAY. You are free to believe what you will. My religion pays no mind into this discussion. I BELIEVE GLOBAL WARMING IS A MYTH TO GET HIGHLY DEVELOPED NATIONS TO SLOW DOWN AND LET SMALLER COUNTRIES CATCH UP. When the temperature of the earth is only .4 degrees warmer, WHAT IS THE SCARE? That is my belief and I'm sticking to it. I have in know way shown any extremeism, unless your definition of extreme is set too low to even be called a state of extreme. Maby an agnostic can't truly be dedicated to something. My belief in my Creator and the Word of God is nothing to be considered extreme. The Bible says to spread the gospel, which I do, but do you see me blowing up other religious sects or cursing non-believers. There's people to far more fear than me.

[themoose]

I believe today's Bible's are grossly mistranslated which is why you simply go to a Weslyan Bible directly translated from the Masoretic texts. Not these crappy Nirv's or whatever sugar coated junk it is rolling off the presses now.

Fair enough. It'd be interesting to have a brief study of that to see how it compares with today's.


As for me being dangerous...how? I have never said BELIEVE GOD OR PAY. You are free to believe what you will. My religion pays no mind into this discussion. I BELIEVE GLOBAL WARMING IS A MYTH TO GET HIGHLY DEVELOPED NATIONS TO SLOW DOWN AND LET SMALLER COUNTRIES CATCH UP. When the temperature of the earth is only .4 degrees warmer, WHAT IS THE SCARE? That is my belief and I'm sticking to it. I have in know way shown any extremeism, unless your definition of extreme is set too low to even be called a state of extreme. Maby an agnostic can't truly be dedicated to something. My belief in my Creator and the Word of God is nothing to be considered extreme. The Bible says to spread the gospel, which I do, but do you see me blowing up other religious sects or cursing non-believers. There's people to far more fear than me.

If you've never encouraged anyone to believe your same beliefs about global warming and other massive world issues then I take back what I said about you being dangerous. If you do regularly however, then I stick by my words.

Regardless, there is massive risk of the earth temperature changing. The habitats are changing all the time - we're getting droughts followed by floods here, the ice caps are melting, a lot of animals will lose their habitat due to freak storms & climate changes.

Some things, like the details main article of discussion here, scare me. I would call that dangerous. If you would stop your children or other people's children from watching a documentry based on solid fact, based on religion, then that scares me.

[Johnson]

Let's just nuke everyone and get it over with.

[heymrdj]

Fair enough. It'd be interesting to have a brief study of that to see how it compares with today's.



If you've never encouraged anyone to believe your same beliefs about global warming and other massive world issues then I take back what I said about you being dangerous. If you do regularly however, then I stick by my words.

Regardless, there is massive risk of the earth temperature changing. The habitats are changing all the time - we're getting droughts followed by floods here, the ice caps are melting, a lot of animals will lose their habitat due to freak storms & climate changes.

Some things, like the details main article of discussion here, scare me. I would call that dangerous. If you would stop your children or other people's children from watching a documentry based on solid fact, based on religion, then that scares me.

AH HAH...there's where out confusion coems in my friend. I don't believe in global warming, I didn't say anything about animal habitat. I believe there is a problem with that, and while I don't believe its a severe danger to Earth or human life, we could use a little revamp on the antural resources deal ;). Mainly China....them people are really dirtying us up.

[heymrdj]

Let's just nuke everyone and get it over with.

I'll aim the first one at you.

[themoose]

AH HAH...there's where out confusion coems in my friend. I don't believe in global warming, I didn't say anything about animal habitat. I believe there is a problem with that, and while I don't believe its a severe danger to Earth or human life, we could use a little revamp on the antural resources deal ;). Mainly China....them people are really dirtying us up.

Er, they're all inter-related issues.

[heymrdj]

Er, they're all inter-related issues.

Not really. I'm referring to the quality of the air we breath and the habitats for the animals. Not to the warmth because I know that the CO2 is absorbed again.

[Eclouds]

Oh and a quick reply to this. STOP CUSSING. SIMPLE. If you want your song heard in its entirity, don't cus. There is NEVER a reason to cuss, it is simply childish to imagine a reason to, especially in a song. Why do you need to sing about "I'm a P.I.M.P." or "I'm gettin all that ***** tonight". No one wants to hear how many sexual diseases a guy is picking up in one night. :P

Freedom of speech. Rap has always been known for its explicit lyrics. You can't cuss in a song? It's life.. get over it. You won't melt because someone says "I'm a pimp".

[Nug]

Oh bugger! I wanted to give heymrdj bad rep on all his posts in this thread :( I can only give one :(

[heymrdj]

Oh bugger! I wanted to give heymrdj bad rep on all his posts in this thread :( I can only give one :(


I guess thats why your rep is so bad Nugi ;). You don't give bad rep because you don't believe like I do. Just keep on living your pessimistic life and leave reputation alone. We all know your track record anyways.

[stuffradio]

I guess thats why your rep is so bad Nugi . You don't give bad rep because you don't believe like I do. Just keep on living your pessimistic life and leave reputation alone. We all know your track record anyways

I really should give you a - rep heymrdj for your acts towards others who have bad rep like you.... however I'll refrain from it.

Now for this Global Warming issue....

How can you not believe it's effecting us? When T.M. posted about habitats being effected, etc. he was stating what he believes are facts. Not saying you said anything about it, because by the sounds of it you don't care.

We SHOULD do something, but how far should we really go? We can't survive without transportation because this world is so huge......
We need ways of getting around, so do we say... get rid of all the old cars, or
make it illegal to drive old cars, and only drive the new cars that run on water or something?
Don't know, but that's something that will have to be decided soon when they
go in to a bigger production, and cheaper.

[Spaloonka]

Too many different topics going on at once.

*reads through all of the posts*

[heymrdj]

I really should give you a - rep heymrdj for your acts towards others who have bad rep like you.... however I'll refrain from it.

Now for this Global Warming issue....

How can you not believe it's effecting us? When T.M. posted about habitats being effected, etc. he was stating what he believes are facts. Not saying you said anything about it, because by the sounds of it you don't care.

We SHOULD do something, but how far should we really go? We can't survive without transportation because this world is so huge......
We need ways of getting around, so do we say... get rid of all the old cars, or
make it illegal to drive old cars, and only drive the new cars that run on water or something?
Don't know, but that's something that will have to be decided soon when they
go in to a bigger production, and cheaper.

I see nothing wrong with trying to be more safety conscious of the earth for our own air quality. I believe more money needs to be spent on clean fuel technology. But nothing needs rushed in like some of those tree huggers want that will totally obliterate our fabric of living as we know it today. We'd be no better off than Haiti.

[bigperm]

This picture explains everything I feel about Al Gore.
http://permcast.com/images/al_gore.gif


We seem to have a slightly different veiw of religion over on this side of the atlantic, we have a way to temper and compromise religion in order to accomadate the truths that are science, if god is all powerful, then he would be able to function within the laws of physics (Damn, they are his laws after all ) also the bible is more viewed as a book of morale guidance, full of hidden meanings and rarely to be taken completely literaly.


The Southern Baptists would protest England like it was stem cell research if they knew this. Just letting you know what we have to deal with over here. Think about dealing with 300 million retards as apposed to 60, and having to appease (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/Appeasement) the larger groups without pissing everyone else off.


One I don't believe in global warming, I've seen no proof. ALl I've seen is that for thousands of years the earth has went through cooling and heating cycles. It freezes it melts. Way of the world. It may get warmer as we get pulled toward the sun. its called entropy, suck it up live with it.

I bet you don't believe in fossils either huh?

Here are some resourses for reading up on the existence of global warming.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
http://www.whoi.edu/institutes/occi/viewTopic.do?o=read&id=521
http://maps.grida.no/go/searchFree/q/global+warming

Also, your post contradicts it's self. If you don't believe in global warming how can the earth possibly go through a heating and cooling cycle? If we are to believe that this is merely the up swing of that cycle wouldn't that be global warming? How can you not believe in it then?

Let's talk about entropy now. Entropy is the gradual running down of the universe, the dissipation of heat and energy that will ultimately mean the end of the universe (see Issac Asimov's 'The Last Question' for how that will go down). Entropy is not the heating and cooling of the earth, nor is it one or the other. Entropy is quantifiable disarry that our system is in. Let me make this absolutely clear:

Human influenced global warming will increase entropy and lead to our demise.

Also Bad Religion wrote a song about entropy. It's called 'Entropy' and it's on 'Against the Grain' and I encourage anyone reading this to check it out.


Oh and a quick reply to this. STOP CUSSING. SIMPLE. If you want your song heard in its entirity, don't cus. There is NEVER a reason to cuss, it is simply childish to imagine a reason to, especially in a song. Why do you need to sing about "I'm a P.I.M.P." or "I'm gettin all that ***** tonight". No one wants to hear how many sexual diseases a guy is picking up in one night. :P

From Stephen King's On Writing.


Make yourself a promise right now that you'll never use 'emolument' when you mean 'tip' and you'll never say John stopped long enough to perform and act of excretion when you mean John stopped long enough the take a ----.His boldface, not mine. Take a lesson from the man that has sold more books than the bible. Also when they bleep out god damn, the bleep out god, not damn. Just thought that's interesting.


Being an agnostic is impossible because to believe nothing is true is to believe the truth that nothing is true. Same as being an atheist...its impossible.

Ignoring the ignorance of you post for a second, let's talk about paradoxes. Your paradox reminds me of the paradox of the all powerful god... the one who could create a rock so big that even he could not lift it, but since he can't lift it, isn't all powerful. Chew on that.

Also you may be confusing agnosticism/atheism with Nihilism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilism) and then getting that wrong too. That's the only way I can figure out what you are saying.

I think the definitions for agnosticism and atheism were laid out by others in the thread, so I encourage you to reread those definitions.

heymrdj, I hate that you took the brunt force of this post, but there is one thing that I agree with you on. Your 'live with it' apathy. My idealism got left on a roadside long ago and I no longer believe that I can do anything about the screwed up things in the world and have found better ways the spend my time (like mega-posting, I guess.)

[Starcraftmazter]

The entire Antarctica is bloody melting, only an idiot would say they've seen no proof of global warming.

What about that gigantic iceberg that broke off the Arctic Canadian Shelf just a month or so ago? It was the biggest ever.


I mean really, people who say global warming doesn't exist or try to understate it's effects are pure retards who know nothing about anything.

[heymrdj]

Lol how does my post contradict itself. Global warming in the since of this post is blaming man and not even viewing the natural aspects of the earth's cycle. My post is the only one that even looks at the earth as a possible cause of global warming. Everything was water once. If you can freeze it once it will freeze again. Going by your beliefs, amoebas didn't magically make ice from their farts. There had to be something to make earth's temperatures drop up there, and it all had to be regular water to that point.

Also your fossil comment is ridiculous. Of course there's fossils, alot of dead things build up in 6-10k years.

And for the record that crazy man stephen king comes no where near the sale of the bible over the last 2k years.

Anyone that studies physics, even high school level, is bright enough to relaize that when entropy occurs the earth WINDS DOWN NOT UP. Global warming would be winding up, as heat is energy, and as you gather more heat, you increase energy. Eventually, again in your religion, the earth will become so run down it suffers heat death, or the point where all energy is expended. We will all then be a frosty -459F or -273K and you'll have all the glaciers you want :). Of course I don't believe that will ever happen because of the promise in the Bible that the earth suntime, moontime, harvest, winter, and summer will exist till the day we depart. But again believe what you will. For now I'll drive my Hydrogen Hummer, not to prevent global warming, but because Hydrogen is cheaper than gas :P.

[bigperm]

Going by your beliefs, amoebas didn't magically make ice from their farts.

what? I mean... what?

[bigperm]

Anyone that studies physics, even high school level, is bright enough to relaize that when entropy occurs the earth WINDS DOWN NOT UP. Global warming would be winding up, as heat is energy, and as you gather more heat, you increase energy.

So if global warming were to exist, it would reverse entropy?

Your high school physics seem lacking, considering that Entropy is an extensive state function that accounts for the effects of irreversibility in thermodynamic systems. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy).


Also your fossil comment is ridiculous. Of course there's fossils, alot of dead things build up in 6-10k years.The oldest (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/504776.stm) is 530 million years old. A far cry from 10k.


And for the record that crazy man stephen king comes no where near the sale of the bible over the last 2k years.
2000 years ago Jesus was 7 years old. I don't think they sold many bibles then. Maybe not even until the first commercial printing of the bible in 1450, a mere 557 years ago did they sell any.

[heymrdj]

what? I mean... what?

Evolution makes nothing from nothing. What made water turn to ice. Well actually what made the water? Actually what made the hydrogen and oxygen? Actually what made the neutron, proton and electron. Actually what make the quarks? Actually *on and on and on*.

[heymrdj]

So if global warming were to exist, it would reverse entropy?

Your high school physics seem lacking, considering that Entropy is an extensive state function that accounts for the effects of irreversibility in thermodynamic systems. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy).

Look at the big picture. That ice melting may look like an energy increase, but its drawing heat FROM its surroundings, some of that heat becomes an irreversible loss in energy. Again entropy = a wind down.

[bigperm]

Will someone else let me know if I am crazy and not making any sense?

I am willing to explain anything that isn't clear in any of my posts who isn't heymrdj, who should be making funky music whiteboy anyway.

Also, together we can read the post above this one, and learn about the strawman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman). Actually, that's not a strawman. It's just a simplification of a idea based on wrong.

That's right, wrong as a noun.

[Ben]

Anyone that studies physics, ... We will all then be a frosty -459F or -273K and ...

That would be either 0K or -273C, yes? -273K is impossible, no?

[resumes lurking, yes?]

[heymrdj]

That would be either 0K or -273C, yes? -273K is impossible, no?

[resumes lurking, yes?]

Yeah your right. I meant to put Celsius then Kelvin.

Oh and to bigperm(anent) I'll stop running the thread when people stop asking me questions. Otherwise, if you wanna keep talking to me about my beliefs on global warming ect, ask away. I've viewed every video/article posted and still have yet to be convinced that we are causing it.

[Johnson]

Translation: you'll reject any fact if it somehow contradicts any part of your religion.

[heymrdj]

Translation: you'll reject any fact if it somehow contradicts any part of your religion.

You need a better translator...

True translation: I only deal in true unbiased science which i haven't yet seen.

[Johnson]

You need a better translator...
Because mine contradicts your religion?














Yes.

[Tree]

That would be either 0K or -273C, yes? -273K is impossible, no?

[resumes lurking, yes?]

Theoretically with modern science 0K is impossible, as the trend in volume would show that at 0K volume would also be 0.

[themoose]

You need a better translator...

True translation: I only deal in true unbiased science which i haven't yet seen.

And you're the one who decides whether it's biased, I presume.

And I also presume that if it goes against your religious beliefs, you will discard it as biased.

Who's being biased now, huh?

[y01tzkev]

Most US politicians believe that Global Warming is a "myth". The United States are one of the few nations who did not sign legislation to limit gas emissions.
Why would the politicians keep denying the fact that humans ARE affecting global warming and that it's not a myth? The drastic changes to the world's temperature and climate are abnormal.

It makes much sense that if politicians limit gas emissions, industries would be limited - impact on economy and stock market. Less oil would be consumed. Oil is "Black Gold" to politicians. Just consider most legislations, who benefit most from US legislations? - Business, Big corporate companies.
You got money, you got power.

Separation of Church and State is a load of bull----.
Look at your money, "In God we Trust", and the President, Bush, thinks he's acts in the name of God. "The Iraq war is against evil terrorists."
Quit the acting and just admit:
"Your young 18 year olds are being sent into Iraq to secure the US of oil supply."

And Bush shouldn't have passed legislation against abortion and gay marriage. Abortion is too much of religion and individual perspective.
(I'm indifferent on abortion and gay marriage.)

And to those interpret the Bible's content literally:
Does the Bible need to write out which movies you can watch?
If God existed, would your beloved God allow the good to die? Allow the evil to constantly harm those who pray and follow the teachings of the Bible? :angel:

:evilb: My belief is that, Bible should not be interpreted literally nor should religion be an issue affecting public school education and government.
Politics? - pretty dirty stuff.

[heymrdj]

I know your kind y01. Your the kind thats had a bad experience in life and has dropped all religion.

If you wanna remove religion completely, we could always follow Russia's example, I think you'd be happy that way. Starving, homeless, no chance of hope, and maby on the hit list of the Red Mafia because you broke some insane rule. But no one would care, because without religion, everyone but your own self gets in your way. Your nothing but a number then to the government, and since you're in the way, you'll become another statistic on the 140 million strong death list of communist governments. Remove religion, you get the blessing of no law. I know you want that. You can run willy nilly and do what ever you want then....before someone kills you anyways, because you might have a nice watch that they want. I would think about what the few religious people in this country keep from happening before you say we should remove it.

[bigperm]

heymrdj, I don't think you understand most things. Especially spelling.

[y01tzkev]

heymrdj, your amazingly funny assumptions and personal attacks exactly demonstrates the extent of anger of a Bible hugger would go just because I questioned the Bible.

I'm not attacking the Bible, I'm just saying the Bible should not be interpreted Literally. - Meaning, example: "the Bible says something so I must do it."

Don't jump to conclusions. And calm down?

Oh, and if I ever
"follow Russia's example, I think you'd be happy that way. Starving, homeless, no chance of hope, and maby on the hit list of the Red Mafia because you broke some insane rule. But no one would care, because without religion, everyone but your own self gets in your way." quote you, I'll give you a call and request a Bible. That would help a lot.

[heymrdj]

heymrdj, your amazingly funny assumptions and personal attacks exactly demonstrates the extent of anger of a Bible hugger would go just because I questioned the Bible.

I'm not attacking the Bible, I'm just saying the Bible should not be interpreted Literally. - Meaning, example: "the Bible says something so I must do it."

Don't jump to conclusions. And calm down?

Oh, and if I ever
"follow Russia's example, I think you'd be happy that way. Starving, homeless, no chance of hope, and maby on the hit list of the Red Mafia because you broke some insane rule. But no one would care, because without religion, everyone but your own self gets in your way." quote you, I'll give you a call and request a Bible. That would help a lot.

Sorry if you misinterpreted my paragraph as angry, there wasn't any in it. I think your also be dramatic with Bible hugger. If I'm a Bible hugger, then you are apparently gullable to anything a scientist wishes to put on your plate. The paragraph clearly examples what has happened to every nation that has thrown any type of religion, and along with it the morality it teaches, to the wind. Anyways, I won't be around this thread anymore, because I imagine no one will have anything to talk about without a believer around. But if it manages to survive, I'll come back around in a few days. For now, its a long road of beta testing and php coding for my newest creation.

[Johnson]

heymrdkhead, please explain to me exactly how having no religion would destroy law, make you homeless, selfish and dead?

Atheists aren't gremlins.


More stuff: http://scienceblogs.com/grrlscientist/2006/03/now_nasa_says_its_getting_warm.php


you are apparently gullable to anything a scientist wishes to put on your plate.
You are apparently gullible enough to believe anything an old book says.

[heymrdj]

heymrdkhead, please explain to me exactly how having no religion would destroy law, make you homeless, selfish and dead?

Atheists aren't gremlins.


More stuff: http://scienceblogs.com/grrlscientist/2006/03/now_nasa_says_its_getting_warm.php


You are apparently gullible enough to believe anything an old book says.

Wrong, true Atheists are gremlins. Your saying without a all powerful being, we instead follow some human's laws? Yeah, why would I follow the rules some member of my species deems as proper in his mind? Think of it, NO being whatsoever. So there's nothing to say someone has to follow another human's rules. Therefore by right, ALL humans follow THEIR own rules, which I think you know how that all works, seeing as Bush is getting to follow his right now.

And for some of you who tie religion with politics, Bush is not the leader of the christians. In fact, he's pretty hated by all right now. I know my Methodist church is sure upset with him. :lol:

[Blade1941]

WHY is there censorship? People needs to see that humans can die! That people can be hurted, that people do have blood, whats wrong with blood to show?

The more people censor the more people gets crazy and does crazier things because of boreness.

That's why people kill, fight, hurt others today because they are getting hided behind the censorship and thats why they don't know that people are getting hurted seriously when killing someone.

A boy who got murdered in sweden by another 2 boys, they didn't know about killing people will hurt them, they choked him to death.

Instead of seeing any blood they saw his body there not moving.

The more you censor things the more people go and hurt eachother because they don't know how much people get hurted of ov it.

[Johnson]

Wrong, true Atheists are gremlins. Your saying without a all powerful being, we instead follow some human's laws? Yeah, why would I follow the rules some member of my species deems as proper in his mind? Think of it, NO being whatsoever. So there's nothing to say someone has to follow another human's rules. Therefore by right, ALL humans follow THEIR own rules, which I think you know how that all works, seeing as Bush is getting to follow his right now.
Wow....

[bigperm]

Indeed.

[heymrdj]

Wow.
http://greatdb.com


Go on and deny it. I expect a long list of excuses and proofs when I get back though :P.

[bigperm]

I lack the gibberish to talk any sense into you.

[heymrdj]

I lack the gibberish to talk any sense into you.

What was that? Oh yeah, big book of ugly translations. *pulls from Mr. Johnson*

Oh yeah here it is. translation: I lack proof to my theories and have no base on which to stand on them, because all theories, like the existance of God, global warming, ect are all based on faith.

[stuffradio]

Atheists aren't gremlins.

:o Damnit!

[bigperm]

Actually, I was referring to your poor spelling, sentence structure and absurd paradoxical strawman metaphors.

[heymrdj]

Actually, I was referring to your poor spelling, sentence structure and absurd paradoxical strawman metaphors.

Rethink your definition of paradox and metaphor. Paradox is a logical statement coming to a contradiction within itself, which none of my statements have been seeing as they are all just recounts of history that have proven themselves time and time again. Metaphors are comparisons between two seemingly dissimilar concepts, one that is easily understood, and the other which isn't, also lacking in the use of like or as that similes use. Again, I've used no metaphors. None of the topics are dissimilar because they all inter-relate.

PS. Only 15 more minutes to question.

[bigperm]

PS. Only 15 more minutes to question.Why do bad things happen to good people?

[heymrdj]

Why do bad things happen to good people?

Because bad people want bad things to happen to good people. If bad things never happen, the person gets lazy and thinks he can actually run his own life.

Question for you. Why should I listen to another human on my moral fiber. No human is better than another, so frankly I shouldn't be governed by human laws. SO why should the world listen?

[heymrdj]

Well I'm off to start testing. It was nice sparring and comparing our theological beliefs.

[Johnson]

Because bad people want bad things to happen to good people. If bad things never happen, the person gets lazy and thinks he can actually run his own life.
That was the dumbest thing I've ever heard.


No human is better than another...
You're no better than a gremlin Atheist? K.

[bigperm]

Well I'm off to start testing. It was nice sparring and comparing our theological beliefs.
I don't remember any comparing of theological beliefs.

Just me saying that you are wrong about a number of things.


That was the dumbest thing I've ever heard.
Also this.

[Blade1941]

No human is better than another

A human, with bad self esteem doesn't think the same.

I think the lawment of US/Europe is a bit hypocritical:

Anarchy
Absence of government, lawlessness is freedom. Making a goverment decide choices is not freedom!

Sure lawless people do crimes, and I don't say you should remove the police, medics or any similar organization.
What I mean is, goverment should not interfer with your life, which is exactly what it does nowadays.

[Jan]

Looks like it is time to download that ban from thread option ;)

[stuffradio]

Question for you. Why should I listen to another human on my moral fiber. No human is better than another, so frankly I shouldn't be governed by human laws. SO why should the world listen?

I'm sorry heymrdj.... but now if you say that... it's the same as saying why should we listen to you on our moral fibers. You can't go around saying stuff like that when you are trying to debate something, and try and get others to see your point of view and maybe change to that point of view!


Looks like it is time to download that ban from thread option ;)

Uh oh.... *hides*

[tandoc]

/me takes out his ban sti-

hey, who stole my mod powers :(

[Phoenix-systems]

There is as we all know somethingh called multitasking, wich should aplly to rational people. There is not one point of view only, there are severall that
together make up for some sense.

It won´t be too loong before water starts entering high buildings. It could be fun, and it also will destroy cultures and we will start eating a lot of fish.

Entropy I heard here. Gee, that guy does not know what entropy is. Entropy can be aplyed to enginerieng materials, but it is commonly the slow stoping of somethingh.

Look, like it or not, universe has it´s rules. The "creator/s"? the creator is way diferent from relegion, wich tends to be a refuge. But of course there was a plan. Thinghs seem too much organized, don´t you think? (take humanity from this equation!)

Get yourself a boat a prepare to start eating fish. Oh, glaciers do matter, and there are flutuations in the solar sistem orbits that cause weather flutuations sure, but it is much proven that ozone is needed, and a lot of other stuff.

You know, a day was only 12 hours some bilion years ago? gee, imagine that!

And relegion...well, I´m tired of irrationality. But I respect the ones who respect "the creator/s" as long as they get out of fairytales, hate and censhorship.

That school should have a surprise party of naked ladies. That´s my final note.

[tandoc]

That school should have a surprise party of naked ladies.

Finally, a message worthwhile in this thread. Kudos to you, good sir, kudos.

[themoose]

Wrong, true Atheists are gremlins. Your saying without a all powerful being, we instead follow some human's laws? Yeah, why would I follow the rules some member of my species deems as proper in his mind? Think of it, NO being whatsoever. So there's nothing to say someone has to follow another human's rules. Therefore by right, ALL humans follow THEIR own rules, which I think you know how that all works, seeing as Bush is getting to follow his right now.

And for some of you who tie religion with politics, Bush is not the leader of the christians. In fact, he's pretty hated by all right now. I know my Methodist church is sure upset with him. :lol:

What?

There's nothing in atheism that tells you you have to follow some "human's laws". None more than any other religion, anyway.


Looks like it is time to download that ban from thread option

Why? It's just a debate.

@heymrdj

Aren't christians supposed to respect other people's religions anyway? Including atheism?

[influct]

from what i understand about Christianity (not a lot) you do not have the place to judge people, it is not your place its Gods and only Gods, so really they should quit with the homophobia, racism and other general intolerances.
(sorry for generalizing)

[heymrdj]

I have passed no more judgement here than anyone has passed towards me and other religious people. I don't impose my moral fibers on anybody. However, if you wish to communicate with me, you will do so on the terms of my morals (aka without cussing). Otherwise you won't talk to me. Period.

There is no belief I don't respect. I guess respecting atheism could be possible, but then again its the one belief in this world that I don't view as a religion.

Also I never said atheism imposes any laws or morals. It is the lack of such a system that I was making clear on. Anyways, good day sirs, and gals if there are any.

(dives back into his php book)

[Johnson]

There is no belief I don't respect. I guess respecting atheism could be possible, but then again its the one belief in this world that I don't view as a religion.
You say you respect all beliefs and you also say that Atheism is a belief. So by your logic, you must respect Atheism.

Also, you don't respect the belief in global warming, so you're a hypocritical liar.

[Tree]

you're a hypocritical liar.

As are most avid followers of any religion.

[raversworld]

That just deserves a huge WTF!!!

[influct]

As are most avid followers of any religion.
Thats a bit unfair. Even atheists can be fanatical in the same way, its more too do with the fact that people will defend something that matters deeply to them, and beliefs fall into this bracket.

[Tree]

Thats a bit unfair. Even atheists can be fanatical in the same way, its more too do with the fact that people will defend something that matters deeply to them, and beliefs fall into this bracket.
Atheism is technically a religion. According to this definition (http://www.summit.org/resource/dictionary/#r).

Religion
any specific system of belief, worship, or conduct that prescribes certain responses to the existence (or non-existence) of God.

[bigperm]

That definition is biased.

Religion is where you love Jesus.

[themoose]

You say you respect all beliefs and you also say that Atheism is a belief. So by your logic, you must respect Atheism.

Also, you don't respect the belief in global warming, so you're a hypocritical liar.

Well said.


As are most avid followers of any religion.
Well said.



Atheism is technically a religion. According to this definition (http://www.summit.org/resource/dictionary/#r).

Religion
any specific system of belief, worship, or conduct that prescribes certain responses to the existence (or non-existence) of God.
Well said.


That definition is biased.

Religion is where you love Jesus.
Well said.

[Adam]

The only thing organized religions are good for in my opinion is starting arguments. Just because global warming and evolution is studied doesn't prove its existence. Just because the word God is in a book doesn't prove one exists.

I am a Christian but I believe christianity is a lot deeper than believing in god or jesus. I believe christianity is more about moral respect, personal responsibility and keeping an open mind. Which many Christian denominations do not respect another Christian denominations moral beliefs and seek to convert those that do not believe in ways they do.

Global warming could be a cold truth sometime in the future. It may or may not happen as scientists say it will. But I do believe everyone should do their part to cut emissions and waste in order to ensure better living in the future.

A few quotes from Napoleon Bonaparte I find interesting. He may have been a failure at what he wanted to achieve but he was still a wise man even by todays standards.

There are only two forces that unite men -- fear and interest.

The people to fear are not those who disagree with you, but those who disagree with you and are too cowardly to let you know.

Among those who dislike oppression are many who like to oppress.

Imagination rules the world.

[Nug]

Just because global warming and evolution is studied doesn't prove its existence.

No but what you have got out of the studies do.

[heymrdj]

No but what you have got out of the studies do.

All the studies I've seen prove differently... I've never seen anything that proves the existence of evolution, but to me more disproves it.

Also, those who are in support of global warming, anyone wanna tell me why I'm freezing my butt off here in southern Georgia, and why all the citrus crops in California just got wiped out by an ice storm? If global warming exists, we sure could use some more of it.

[themoose]

All the studies I've seen prove differently... I've never seen anything that proves the existence of evolution, but to me more disproves it.

Also, those who are in support of global warming, anyone wanna tell me why I'm freezing my butt off here in southern Georgia, and why all the citrus crops in California just got wiped out by an ice storm? If global warming exists, we sure could use some more of it.

Er, global warming doesn't necessarily mean a hotter climate, even if the name suggests it. It warms up the earth, which (by sea levels rising and streams changing) can give unpredictable results on the weather.

You've obviously been ignoring the studies that might have a hint of a fact that goes against what your church tells you. If you weren't so biased about what you read, then maybe you wouldn't be missing all the studies that prove theories correct.

[heymrdj]

Er, global warming doesn't necessarily mean a hotter climate, even if the name suggests it. It warms up the earth, which (by sea levels rising and streams changing) can give unpredictable results on the weather.

You've obviously been ignoring the studies that might have a hint of a fact that goes against what your church tells you. If you weren't so biased about what you read, then maybe you wouldn't be missing all the studies that prove theories correct.

Please refer some of these materials. Oh and if its somethinga bout dates and it uses the phosphorus dating method to count radicals, beta, and alpha decay, don't bother because I know those dating systems are bull anyways.

[bigperm]

Alright guys, for our sanity, we have to do this again.

http://freewebspace.net/forums/profile.php?do=addlist&userlist=ignore&u=40194

[Johnson]

anyone wanna tell me why I'm freezing my butt off here in southern Georgia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter

[stuffradio]

heymrdj.... another way to look at evolution is,

maybe god was the one who made evolution happen. Ponder on that :)

[heymrdj]

heymrdj.... another way to look at evolution is,

maybe god was the one who made evolution happen. Ponder on that :)

You mentioning Scientific Creationism? Or Deism. Its been pondered. I believe the Bible version of a personal, rather than impersonal, God. I believe there is a God we have to account to in the afterlife, rather than having no responsibility at all.

Too many inhuman or unnatural/unexplainable things happen for us to have a God that is impersonal to his creation.

[transrv]

Let's just nuke everyone and get it over with.

lol not everyone please :angel:

[influct]

All the studies I've seen prove differently... I've never seen anything that proves the existence of evolution, but to me more disproves it.

Its called origin of species by Charles Darwin, really I can't see how you can argue this, religions keep on fighting science when science and religion can live side by side. and religion just keeps on loosing.
Irreducible complexity? Nope, that was thrown out the window?
Creationalism? Fully discredited by the theory of evolution.
please, keep trying. Its amusing.

[heymrdj]

All the studies I've seen prove differently... I've never seen anything that proves the existence of evolution, but to me more disproves it.

Its called origin of species by Charles Darwin, really I can't see how you can argue this, religions keep on fighting science when science and religion can live side by side. and religion just keeps on loosing.
Irreducible complexity? Nope, that was thrown out the window?
Creationalism? Fully discredited by the theory of evolution.
please, keep trying. Its amusing.

I think you missed a crucial word in your own statement. THEORY of evolution. And evolution is so full of potholes its not even funny. Evolution proves its self wrong time and time again. And don't even start about complexity. It is IMPOSSIBLE for something to evolve into another form. In the billions of years it would take to evolve, you would break another law of evolution, and thats survival of the fittest.

Admit it, even Charles Darwin himself saw the holes in his own theory.

[AMC]

You know, Heymrdj, i had this whole speech planned out , dissproving each of your arguements individualy, and then i decided, what is the point?

You are obviously not going to listen to any point I make purely because it doesnt agree with your way of thinking. You are SO blind that nothing I, or anyone else says will change your mind.

Dont accuse me of not being religious, I am a confirmed and practising christian, who attends Church of England Services once if not twice a week.
Furthermore I believe in God (in some form, i havent decided just what yet).

I have studied Philosophy/Theology, AND Phsyics, Chemistry and Biology, to the age of 18.

God is good, but he shouldnt want you to be blind to all else. I have only one bit of advice.

GO BACK to school, preferably in not where you live now, at least that way you can get out of your cocoon,

why, again and again, must you insist that the whole world is wrong?? Global warming is happening, in global terms 0.4 C is a BIG difference.

the proof is provided by thousands of scientists and proffesors many of whom i am sure are far more intelligent than you or any of us, they dont necessarily wish to deny your belief, rather, just understand the world we live in and from this thread i can see that they have at least, got one hell of a lot closer to that goal than you.

Oh and one final point, Entropy and Global warming are on two COMPLETELY different timescales, global warming is predicted to reach a critical level in the next for hundered years, the universe will dissapate entirely in a few billion or so ( THE TWO ARE NOT COMPARABLE ).

Im not trying to offend anyone, I just get frustrated when people have closed minds, Mines open to your views and i will read your proofs, maybe you should extend us the same courtesy.

Best Regards,
AMC

EDIT: sorry i just had to edit, you dont EVEN KNOW WHAT EVOLUTION IS!!! YOU JUST PROVED IT. Evolution is the progression of certain characterisitics in a species through reproduction and gene exageration involved in chromosome transfer ( egg fertilisation)

put simply, some animals will have certain defects and characteristics that will give it an advantage over its fellow animals ( in that particular climate). In general, more of these animals will survive to mate, and when they mate they will mate-- in general with a mate with the same or similar advantage, this will cause an exageration in the characteristic in the young of the pair, these will have EVEN more of an advantage and so will survive to mate, thus further exagerating the characteristic.

CLinche in the arguement: look at dogs, did God really spend many hours thinking up all the different species, from chiwawa to pug?? No, Man bred the different breeds from the common wolf. would you deny that man will breed two dogs because he likes their characteristics and wants them in the young, this process is progressive and has produced all of the many species you see today, this is Man induced EVOLUTION.

If you reply to this thread and try to deny that selective breeding in dogs, horses and so on... works, then im not going to argue, its your point of view, :)

[influct]

Charles Darwin saw mainly the hole that is irreducible complexity.
Something is a theory until it can be proved irrefutably correct.
Now for most people this is true, but some people simply insist that it is wrong, with nothing but theories with NO proof to back them up, which means that it has to remain a theory.

EDIT: well said amc:)

[heymrdj]

You know, Heymrdj, i had this whole speech planned out , dissproving each of your arguements individualy, and then i decided, what is the point?

You are obviously not going to listen to any point I make purely because it doesnt agree with your way of thinking. You are SO blind that nothing I, or anyone else says will change your mind.

Dont accuse me of not being religious, I am a confirmed and practising christian, who attends Church of England Services once if not twice a week.
Furthermore I believe in God (in some form, i havent decided just what yet).

I have studied Philosophy/Theology, AND Phsyics, Chemistry and Biology, to the age of 18.

God is good, but he shouldnt want you to be blind to all else. I have only one bit of advice.

GO BACK to school, preferably in not where you live now, at least that way you can get out of your cocoon,

why, again and again, must you insist that the whole world is wrong?? Global warming is happening, in global terms 0.4 C is a BIG difference.

the proof is provided by thousands of scientists and proffesors many of whom i am sure are far more intelligent than you or any of us, they dont necessarily wish to deny your belief, rather, just understand the world we live in and from this thread i can see that they have at least, got one hell of a lot closer to that goal than you.

Oh and one final point, Entropy and Global warming are on two COMPLETELY different timescales, global warming is predicted to reach a critical level in the next for hundered years, the universe will dissapate entirely in a few billion or so ( THE TWO ARE NOT COMPARABLE ).

Im not trying to offend anyone, I just get frustrated when people have closed minds, Mines open to your views and i will read your proofs, maybe you should extend us the same courtesy.

Best Regards,
AMC

AMC I see where you're coming from, and yes .4C is a big differnce. But in the past it has gotten much warmer and much colder. The artic regions used to be covered with forest. I think what man is attempting to do is prevent earth's cycle because foolish people like to build homes on the beach :P. I see global warming as permanent damage that we are trying to stop, therefore I see no global warming. Because I believe in 50 years or so we are going to see a drastic freeze out again.

[heymrdj]

Anyways this thread is wasting too much of my time. I got 3 VHCS servers to set up and a Windows computer to repair. So I'm outta here.

[AMC]

well if you come back again, maybe take the time to read my post agia, i editied again.

AMC

[Johnson]

Too many inhuman or unnatural/unexplainable things happen for us to have a God that is impersonal to his creation.
Please, list some.


And evolution is so full of potholes its not even funny.
If by potholes you mean loopholes, then please list some.


Evolution proves its self wrong time and time again. And don't even start about complexity. It is IMPOSSIBLE for something to evolve into another form.
How do you know it's impossible to evolve? We're evolving. Look at the average height stats and how they've increased in the past years.


In the billions of years it would take to evolve, you would break another law of evolution, and thats survival of the fittest.
That's exactly survival of the fittest. The fittest lasted all that time.


Admit it, even Charles Darwin himself saw the holes in his own theory.
Proof?


I see global warming as permanent damage that we are trying to stop, therefore I see no global warming.
You see global warming, you acknowledge it. Then you say "I see no global warming"? K.


Your arguments have so many "potholes" it's not even funny.


Oh, fun fact: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_darwin#Religious_views -- Mr. Darwin believed in God.

[AMC]

Yeah, but i think heymrdj, slightly missed what evolution is , there is another theory that species change/evolve during the lifetime of one animal, this is hard to believe, unproved, and is not what darwins theory of evolution is based on

[heymrdj]

Yeah, but i think heymrdj, slightly missed what evolution is , there is another theory that species change/evolve during the lifetime of one animal, this is hard to believe, unproved, and is not what darwins theory of evolution is based on

you speaking of Spontaneous Generation?

[Johnson]

You going to answer my post?

[themoose]

You going to answer my post?

I doubt he will, he ignores factual statements that might in some how be against his religion.

[heymrdj]

Look i got one minute before I go back to work. Apparently TM and MR. Johnson don't have jobs because they sure waste alot of time.

AMC, the view of horses and dogs is different from the main meat of evolution, which is going from animal to animal and eventually human. Whenever I see an animal with a genetic mutation its normally bad, such as a missing toe, or backwards facing antlers, and you know he's not getting any to be able to spread his mutation. How could an animal with a half in half body, survive? No matter what the mutation is, rather in the mouth, feet, stomach, lungs, heart, whatever, it couldn't survive the transition. Look at insects? Would your body survive a transition from a closed circulatory system, with heart and veins, to a open circulatory system, with blood running into the body freely? I think we all know thats called internal bleeding, and it quite commonly deadly. At what point could ANY creature with a closed circulatory system survive said transition over a million or two years?

Thats the only question I got time for tonight.

EDIT: Do have time for the question on loopholes

No transitional forms
reversed geological strata
Proof the earth is only 6-10,000 years old
No recount of ancestry, if we came from apes, someone should remember looking at his half ape father and mother
Break the national defense systems of the body to prevent the spread of damaging chromosomes.

[bigperm]

Proof the earth is only 6-10,000 years old

Ahahahahaha.

Taking you off my ignore list was worth it for this.


AHAHAHAHAHA.

Please post this proof.


(hahahahahahah).

[heymrdj]

Ever hear of the US landing on the moon. Might wanna check that out a bit.

[bigperm]

Ahahahahaha.

Taking you off my ignore list was worth it for this.


AHAHAHAHAHA.

Please post this proof.


(hahahahahahah).Please respond to this.

[Johnson]

Thats the only question I got time for tonight.
A.K.A that's the only question which you could come up with some bull---- response to.

[Starcraftmazter]

Can I just say, there's absolutely no way to decisively prove just how old our planet is, if it's 10,000 or 100,000 or 1,000,000 years old.

There are very good cases for all options, and the nature of the evidence in each case is such, that it cannot be said to be conclusive.

[bigperm]

I (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html) think (http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/age.html) it's (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dinosaur/blood.html) about (http://gpc.edu/~pgore/geology/geo102/age.htm) 4.5 billion (http://www.gate.net/~rwms/AgeEarth.html) years old (http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast161/Unit5/deeptime.html)


Here (http://www.creationism.org/topbar/dinosaurs.htm) is an article saying that dinosaurs are not real, but were dragons (which were real).

[stuffradio]

Ever hear of the US landing on the moon. Might wanna check that out a bit.

So what... your saying that was all a big publicity stunt and it never happened?

[Starcraftmazter]

So what... your saying that was all a big publicity stunt and it never happened?

Well actually that never did.

1. US didn't have the necessary technology to go to the moon (the intention they announced quite appropriately, after the first ever orbiting by a US Astronaut, which wasn't even around the Earth all the way).
Von Braun himself said it was impossible, only years prior to it, "happening".
Not to mention the Soviet Union, which had vastly superior rocket & space technology, with 26 world firsts never even tried or had any thoughts of going to the Moon because it was impossible at the present time.
The only reason it's possible now, is because of the ISS, countries can now build, fuel and launch a spaceship straight from orbit to the Moon.

2. There's no way to go through the Van Allen belt.
Due to it's weight requirements, Apollo craft, had a flimsy layer of aluminium for radiation protection, when you in fact also need a decent layer of lead (which is very heavy). if the Apollo craft went through the Van Allen belt, the Astronauts would have been killed instantly.
In 1980s, a US Space Shuttle (which has significantly better radiation protection than the Apollo craft) was conducting some research, got within 700kms of the Van Allen belt (the closest of any craft ever), the radiation was so intense, NASA ordered it back to a "safe" altitude immediately.
Astronauts complained of numerous problems after and during that, like seeing radiation in the back of their retinas, with their eyes shut. Something some some of the Apollo Astronauts have never even heard of, even though they went right through is belt...or so we're led to believe.
Not to mention, the Moon Landings were conducted specifically during a decade of extremely heightened sunspot activity, which is very potentially fatal to anything outside the Van Allen belt. If they really were to send people to the moon, they picked the worst possible time to do it.
NASA also exploded a nuke in high orbit, thinking it will make a hole in the Van Allen belt. Instead they added a whole other layer.

3. The insane amount of inconsistencies in the video & photo. Many times video & photos of the same thing have completely different lighting, many times you can see photos are composites of each other, many times you can see studio cameras being reflected in photos, in every single video and photo, the same backdrops are used, photos being shot at impossible angles (unless the Astronauts had jetpacks, which they didn't), etc.

And lets not forget the infamous shot of Earth from one of the Apollo craft, being taken when they were allegedly half way to the moon, then a problem occurs, the lights come on, and you can see they are in fact in Earth's orbit, and covering part of the window with a piece of plastic or something, to make the Earth look smaller.
This is actual footage from one of the Apollo missions, and to this day, NASA refuses to comment on it.


So don't tell me NASA Astronauts ever went to the moon.....successfully.

And no need to call me crazy, I have presented a very legitimate case :evilb:

[Johnson]

Global warming, gremlin Atheists, age of the Earth and now the moon landing -- this thread has it all!

Anyways, I'm getting tired of this thread as heymrdkhead can't come up with any real arguments.

[Tree]

Well actually that never did.

snipped
And no need to call me crazy, I have presented a very legitimate case :evilb:

Except that you've presented no proof to support any of your claims...

[Starcraftmazter]

Except that you've presented no proof to support any of your claims...

I just summarised all the evidence, I assume you take my word for it, of course I welcome you to have a look at the documentary, "What Happened on the Way to the Moon?". It's available for viewing on google videos I believe.

Bart Sibrel's documentary, "A funny thing happened on the way to the moon" is also quite good, and he goes into a lot of detail with the radiation and the Van Allen belt there.

[themoose]

Proof the earth is only 6-10,000 years old
You can't expect to just say crazy things like that without getting any responce. Read bigperm's posts.


No recount of ancestry, if we came from apes, someone should remember looking at his half ape father and mother
They did remember, but you know, that old now - they're probably dead.


Break the national defense systems of the body to prevent the spread of damaging chromosomes.

What? That didn't make much sense. I'm sure I'm not the only one who can't make sense of it either.

[Johnson]

This was funny at first, but now I'm starting to think heymrdkhead is serious.

[tandoc]

This was funny at first, but now I'm starting to think heymrdkhead is serious.

i think he's like that the same way he probably doesn't own an ipod. not because he can't afford it, he just wants to be different. atm, bashing religion/intelligent design is the cool thing to do :beer:

[heymrdj]

i think he's like that the same way he probably doesn't own an ipod. not because he can't afford it, he just wants to be different. atm, bashing religion/intelligent design is the cool thing to do :beer:

You know that comment is seriously stupid. I've owned Ipods and Zens and Sansas and Lyras and even the Archos 604 with Wifi. I've tried tons of them, down the the cheap off brand 128MB players. I still like the Zen's as number 1, followed by the Archos, then the Ipod, the Sansa, and the Lyra.

Anyways I don't see why this thread hasn't been closed. You say my evidence is theoretically, I see plenty of yours is. Why are we arguing theories. We are all wrong in some way, whether eatsjohnsons wants to admit it or not. I have not responded, because as I've said time and time again, I am too busy for this thread. You guys are supposed to be smart, where's your business. Your all too busy bickering on this thread to get any work done.

You can absh religion all you want, anyone can see its the morality that comes with religion that keeps this floundering country afloat. But in the end evil wins, because evil backstabbs its way to power, so until the promised coming, you all will get to see the glorious evil age that you so desire, because there is no stopping America from going down the path of destruction it is now. As people like you continue to have religion and morality removed from every facet of life, you will have to suffer the consquences of it. Well I take that back, many of you are too old, so your children will suffer the consquences as STD's, murders, corrupt business practices, and horrible imoral govenment leadership takes us down the drain hole. I know now, seeing how many of you exist, that we will not see our 500th birthday.

[Starcraftmazter]

You know that comment is seriously stupid. I've owned Ipods and Zens and Sansas and Lyras and even the Archos 604 with Wifi. I've tried tons of them, down the the cheap off brand 128MB players. I still like the Zen's as number 1, followed by the Archos, then the Ipod, the Sansa, and the Lyra.

I'm not sure which Sansa you had, but the e200 series pwnz all, especially those crummy ipods, which are the worst.

It can play all music, video, do voice recording, first series of players to have 8 gb capacity, listen to radio, has a memory expansion slot, supports 2 USB transfer protocols, has a 1.8" screen and 20 hour battery life.

I haven't found anything which compares (while being the same size), and the ipod nanos are the worst pieces of trash ever. They are powered by obsolete ARM processors, have the highest product fault rating of any competing product, force you to use ----ty itunes, which doesn't even come for linux, even though more people use linux than crappy macos and are downright crap, having no ability of play video or radio, nor voice record.
Utter crap.

[Galaxy-Hosts.com]

I do not think this movie should have been banned from the schools in that district. It would be fine for them to show it with the stipulation it is a theory and then show theories by other scientists that offer other explanations. One thing I never understood is when someone makes the following statement as proof of global warming. "Well this has been the hottest summer on record in (some city) since eighteen hundread and (some year)." Um hello so it was hotter way back in eighteen hundred (and whaterver year)? So there was more pollution back then?

If we are experiencing warming, and I think we are, there might be other explanations. Like maybe, the sun is getting hotter. Yes some scientists credit the majority of our warming to this. If you do not believe me check out this article http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/07/18/wsun18.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/07/18/ixnewstop.html That mightwhy the ice caps on mars are melting. Yes that is correct, earth is not the only planet that is experiencing a warming phase. http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2003/07aug_southpole.htm

Also we should keep in mind that Al Gore also said the world will end in under ten years if we do not force people to quit polluting at the current rate. Every time the man opens his mouth he loses credibilty. Like I said I do not think the movie should be banned. It also should not be presented as cold hard fact. They should present other scientific theories on the subject as well.

[Johnson]

I have not responded, because as I've said time and time again, I am too busy for this thread.
You've posted as many times as we have and you sure has hell weren't too busy to start your little argument.

The real reason you haven't responded is because you have no good arguments. You could never answer any of my questions.

[heymrdj]

You've posted as many times as we have and you sure has hell weren't too busy to start your little argument.

The real reason you haven't responded is because you have no good arguments. You could never answer any of my questions.

I don't answer idiots. Saying this: You see global warming, you acknowledge it. Then you say "I see no global warming"? K. : was absolutely stupid. You in no way read my statement, you glanced over it and made a half-baked statement. It is clear that I stated WHAt global warming is, and because I don't see THOSE QUALITIES that make global warming, I DO NOT ACKNOWLEDGE IT. Did that get through you're head? Or do I need to get a 1st grader so it's on your level of reading? You have refused to answer my questions, so I simply refuse to answer yours. When you complete a thesis on the origin of man, that is actually possible, then we'll talk. You haven't gotten any solid evidence. Until evolution can leave the theory stage, there's no use believing on it.

All your other questions were answered in the last reply, use your head and you'll pull them out. Its fairly easy to read.

[tandoc]

I don't answer idiots. Saying this: You see global warming, you acknowledge it. Then you say "I see no global warming"? K. : was absolutely stupid. You in no way read my statement, you glanced over it and made a half-baked statement. It is clear that I stated WHAt global warming is, and because I don't see THOSE QUALITIES that make global warming, I DO NOT ACKNOWLEDGE IT. Did that get through you're head? Or do I need to get a 1st grader so it's on your level of reading? You have refused to answer my questions, so I simply refuse to answer yours. When you complete a thesis on the origin of man, that is actually possible, then we'll talk. You haven't gotten any solid evidence. Until evolution can leave the theory stage, there's no use believing on it.

All your other questions were answered in the last reply, use your head and you'll pull them out. Its fairly easy to read.

The 'If choose not to/I can't see it, it's not there!' argument. Quality stuff.

[themoose]

If I could sum up heymrdj in one word: ignorant.

[stuffradio]

I am too busy for this thread.

You're obviously not too busy for the thread because you keep replying how busy you are for this thread, along with paragraph long answers.... doesn't make sense to me :S

[heymrdj]

You're obviously not too busy for the thread because you keep replying how busy you are for this thread, along with paragraph long answers.... doesn't make sense to me :S

Mornings before work, and evenings when I'm chilling when it comes to long paragraphs.

And to sum up the atheists: Prideful

You believe scince can do anything, yet its been behind for a book written 5,000 years ago. Such ignorance of the truth.

[AMC]

ok, im not jumping into the arguement again, but id like to make 2 points, firstly, heymrdj, breeding dogs and horses captures the principle of evolution exactly, the only difference is that it is an environment controlled by man and is not open to the factors species would normally face over the extensive period that natural evolution takes to occur.

Secondly, you again mis understand evolution, you say that everything is evolving and eventually you get man. This is not the case, man is not the pinnical of human evolution as many would have us believe.

If you consider Evolution to be like a tree, each branch a new species, we humans are merely a branch, and are still evolving ( if slowly due to our own intervention ) to be the best we can be, other animals, in other environments, evolved to have different characteristics to ours, and are evolving, to be the best they can be, hence the confusion about insects gaining open circulatory systems, they wont, they will merely evolve that system to better advance them in their enivironment.

thirdly, if the earth is only 6,000 years old, please explain how we come to find fossils of giant reptiles on our planet that have been dated to several million years old ?? are these aliens, or would that be defying the fact that the earth is the only planet with sentient life, as ordained by god, the universe is infinite there must be something else.

Im not denying religion, i merely think that religion and science should be able to embrace each other as two different and co-existing areas of fact.

please consider what i have said, and one more thing, if any evidence we present you can be knocked down by the phrase its just science, how are we suppose to present evidence at all ??

Best Regards,

AMC

[heymrdj]

ok, im not jumping into the arguement again, but id like to make 2 points, firstly, heymrdj, breeding dogs and horses captures the principle of evolution exactly, the only difference is that it is an environment controlled by man and is not open to the factors species would normally face over the extensive period that natural evolution takes to occur.

Secondly, you again mis understand evolution, you say that everything is evolving and eventually you get man. This is not the case, man is not the pinnical of human evolution as many would have us believe.

If you consider Evolution to be like a tree, each branch a new species, we humans are merely a branch, and are still evolving ( if slowly due to our own intervention ) to be the best we can be, other animals, in other environments, evolved to have different characteristics to ours, and are evolving, to be the best they can be, hence the confusion about insects gaining open circulatory systems, they wont, they will merely evolve that system to better advance them in their enivironment.

thirdly, if the earth is only 6,000 years old, please explain how we come to find fossils of giant reptiles on our planet that have been dated to several million years old ?? are these aliens, or would that be defying the fact that the earth is the only planet with sentient life, as ordained by god, the universe is infinite there must be something else.

Im not denying religion, i merely think that religion and science should be able to embrace each other as two different and co-existing areas of fact.

please consider what i have said, and one more thing, if any evidence we present you can be knocked down by the phrase its just science, how are we suppose to present evidence at all ??

Best Regards,

AMC

You say that the insect's circulatory system could evolve to open to better adapt it, but what about the transitional forms? I have never seen a creature survive with a circulatory system that is half open and half closed.

As for breeding, breeding is within a kind. Dingos, dogs, wolves, hyenas, all canine. A dog has never mated with a horse to create a half equine and half canine species. Never has and never will. If you take the gametes of one species and place it with the gametes of another, then it simply fails.

As I said before on the dating system, it is flawed. Anyone remember that article that circulated a few years back where they dated a bologna sandwich made that morning and 3 out of the 8 tests showed it was a 600 year old sandwich? Might want to take a look at these articles on the dating system used by scientists.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v14/i3/fossil.asp (1)
http://www.godsaidmansaid.com/topic3.asp?Cat2=262&ItemID=668 (2)
http://www.trueorigin.org/dating.asp (3)
http://www.sloppynoodle.com/csotalk2-6.shtml (4)

Thats just a few from a quick google search.

[AMC]

Im not saying them make a transition to an open circulatory system im saying they IN GENERAL, will evolve to better suit their particular environment, and of course you dont get different species mating, thats why i talked about the branches on the tree, once a new branch/species is formed it wont join back to the others, just grow and expand, and possible grow new branches ( ok i get it, not the most full proof analogy, but the best i could come up with)

Ill just write a little story in order to illustrate what evolution actually is.

Within a species, there is always going to be variation, some have pale skin, some have dark, some are tall some are short, some have large feet some small ...etc. ( you get the point :P)

so lets think about the origin of the Giraffe,

REMOVING god from the equation, as we are ( for the moment) talking of my arguement, not yours.

Giraffes did not always have long necks, these creatures lived on the savanna planes, Giraffes eat tree foliage, but.... without their long necks, the food is often out of reach.

Taking this into account, many giraffes ( especially the short ones ) will starve to death, and will in many cases, not survive to mate.

On the other hand, if a giraffe is born who's neck is slightly longer than normal, then that giraffe will have an advantage and will be more likely ( and on a larger scale, will more often ) reach the age of mating, since the same is true of both sexes in this scenario, it is also more likely that the giraffes mate has a slightly longer neck ( you cant think of this as a coincidence, the numbers of animals involved in evolution are so huge that the coincidence is bound to happen quite often )

So, ( enough of the pre-amble ) eventually, (possibly after many generations)
Giraffes will consistently mate with Giraffes, which have slightly longer necks ( like themselves ) this is a genetic characteristic, and is therefore passed on in the gamete. I dont have time to write much more, but you see, this process can continue for many millenia, and has produced the wide range of species we see today. ( the braches on a tree )

hope you can at least accept what im saying as a theory that is at least as plausible as any other that we humans have presently devised.

Best regards,
AMC

[heymrdj]

Im not saying them make a transition to an open circulatory system im saying they IN GENERAL, will evolve to better suit their particular environment, and of course you dont get different species mating, thats why i talked about the branches on the tree, once a new branch/species is formed it wont join back to the others, just grow and expand, and possible grow new branches ( ok i get it, not the most full proof analogy, but the best i could come up with)

Ill just write a little story in order to illustrate what evolution actually is.

Within a species, there is always going to be variation, some have pale skin, some have dark, some are tall some are short, some have large feet some small ...etc. ( you get the point :P)

so lets think about the origin of the Giraffe,

REMOVING god from the equation, as we are ( for the moment) talking of my arguement, not yours.

Giraffes did not always have long necks, these creatures lived on the savanna planes, Giraffes eat tree foliage, but.... without their long necks, the food is often out of reach.

Taking this into account, many giraffes ( especially the short ones ) will starve to death, and will in many cases, not survive to mate.

On the other hand, if a giraffe is born who's neck is slightly longer than normal, then that giraffe will have an advantage and will be more likely ( and on a larger scale, will more often ) reach the age of mating, since the same is true of both sexes in this scenario, it is also more likely that the giraffes mate has a slightly longer neck ( you cant think of this as a coincidence, the numbers of animals involved in evolution are so huge that the coincidence is bound to happen quite often )

So, ( enough of the pre-amble ) eventually, (possibly after many generations)
Giraffes will consistently mate with Giraffes, which have slightly longer necks ( like themselves ) this is a genetic characteristic, and is therefore passed on in the gamete. I dont have time to write much more, but you see, this process can continue for many millenia, and has produced the wide range of species we see today. ( the braches on a tree )

hope you can at least accept what im saying as a theory that is at least as plausible as any other that we humans have presently devised.

Best regards,
AMC

I can see it as a theory, but the chances are astronomical that two giraffes would happen to come togetehr, both be long necked, and both in the same evolved stage at the same time. But that doesn't explain how a giraffe jumped its species. If I may just put the idea out, are you sure you're not confusing Scientific Creationism, the fact that the kinds of animals ect were created and evolved into the species we have today, rather than the evolution you think you're trying to explain, the Darwin kind of evolution. I have looked up evolution, but all I can find is the same fact that its supposed to be mr. single cell evolving into all that we have today.

[influct]

chawow. heymrdj have you never heard of dominant and and recessive genes.
just because an animal does not have the "long neck" does not mean it cannot pass on the recessive gene, which means the child CAN have a long neck.
This allows evolution to continue.

[heymrdj]

chawow. heymrdj have you never heard of dominant and and recessive genes.
just because an animal does not have the "long neck" does not mean it cannot pass on the recessive gene, which means the child CAN have a long neck.
This allows evolution to continue.

Read my post again. You'll see my post has nothing to do with the question I asked AMC. Do you know the difference between species and kinds influct? I mean your post is WAY out of the ballpark of what I asked.

If you want to get into genes, then we can also get into the point that if its long neck is a recessive trait, its chances for a longneck are less than 1/16, and if both are recessive longnecks, well lets not even do that math. A quick try at it in my head would put it at about 1/256, but I think thats just one side of the equation.

[AMC]

Im not a teacher, and im not really good at expaining it, but what i am reffering to IS evolution, a single animal does not evovle, but if it has an advantageous characteristic -- that will be passed to its offspring, who will in turn have the same thing, and whos offspring will also have the same thing, THEN they will start to be the ones who survive to mate and THEN the genetic characteristics will be amplified. dont forget, in the BILLIONS of years the earth has been around, evolution has had a lot of time to do its magic.

If you want the best explanation, talk to a teacher , or a biology PHD, and ask them to properly explain the concept of evolution to you , what it is, how it works, and then comment on whether it should be thoroughly discounted as a theory for the origin of species,

i personally find it much harder to believe that each and every species was individually created, even if they were, their environments will change over many millions of years, so either they go extinct, as many have , or they adpat as many also have, this process of adaption over many generations is evolution. the concentration and amplification of advantageous characteristics in some members of a species living in an un ideal climate,

if you want to have evolution proved to you, look at the Galapagos islands, i spent a month doing a case study there, and if you can, after knowing about a place like that, deny some form of evolution, then your never going to accept it and we may as well stop now :)

Best regards,
AMC

[heymrdj]

Im not a teacher, and im not really good at expaining it, but what i am reffering to IS evolution, a single animal does not evovle, but if it has an advantageous characteristic -- that will be passed to its offspring, who will in turn have the same thing, and whos offspring will also have the same thing, THEN they will start to be the ones who survive to mate and THEN the genetic characteristics will be amplified. dont forget, in the BILLIONS of years the earth has been around, evolution has had a lot of time to do its magic.

If you want the best explanation, talk to a teacher , or a biology PHD, and ask them to properly explain the concept of evolution to you , what it is, how it works, and then comment on whether it should be thoroughly discounted as a theory for the origin of species,

i personally find it much harder to believe that each and every species was individually created, even if they were, their environments will change over many millions of years, so either they go extinct, as many have , or they adpat as many also have, this process of adaption over many generations is evolution. the concentration and amplification of advantageous characteristics in some members of a species living in an un ideal climate,

if you want to have evolution proved to you, look at the Galapagos islands, i spent a month doing a case study there, and if you can, after knowing about a place like that, deny some form of evolution, then your never going to except it and we may as well stop now :)

Best regards,
AMC

I've seen the galapagos island thing....didn't see where all that much proof of anything was there.

Your definition still doesn't explain how we went from kind to kind, your explaining species withing species.

Also in my view the earth isn't billions of years old. If you looked at the links, (cough) Mr. Johnson (cough), you can see the flawed research and evidence used to date the earth.

EDIT: WOOOT I'm an NLC :D.

[AMC]

ok, lets look at the rate of expansion of the atlantic ( just in case you hadnt guessed im reffering to the pangea theory)

If you look at the current rate of expansion of the atlantic ocean ( in other words the rate at which south america and africa are growing apart) and then measure the width of the atlantic ocean from any one point of the one continent to the other.

and divide that figure by the yearly rate of expansion yyou come up with a figure MUCH larger than 10,000 years --

Furthermore, i still fail to see how you see fit to argue with hundreds of the cleverest men on the planet with access to far greater knowledge and research to those authors of the old testament from thousands of years ago that you follow so virulently, these men, scientists i might add are far cleverer than you or I :P

[heymrdj]

ok, lets look at the rate of expansion of the atlantic ( just in case you hadnt guessed im reffering to the pangea theory)

If you look at the current rate of expansion of the atlantic ocean ( in other words the rate at which south america and africa are growing apart) and then measure the width of the atlantic ocean from any one point of the one continent to the other.

and divide that figure by the yearly rate of expansion yyou come up with a figure MUCH larger than 10,000 years --

Furthermore, i still fail to see how you see fit to argue with hundreds of the cleverest men on the planet with access to far greater knowledge and research to those authors of the old testament from thousands of years ago that you follow so virulently, these men, scientists i might add are far cleverer than you or I :P

Genesis easily provides the explanation. The flood separated the parts of the land, which also explains many of the quircks, such as animals in the artic with food still in their mouths, the fault lines, reversed geological strata and more.

[Johnson]

You have refused to answer my questions
Which ones?

[heymrdj]

Which ones?

I told you make a full thesis on the origin. Explain out the theory you have from Day 1 to Day present, how we got to where we are now. You seem so defined in it, you apparently know how. So lets hear your answers.

[stuffradio]

Genesis easily provides the explanation. The flood separated the parts of the land, which also explains many of the quircks, such as animals in the artic with food still in their mouths, the fault lines, reversed geological strata and more.
That doesn't answer the question

[iBrightDev]

heymrdj seems to be a bible thumper, and you just cant win with those types, so, i suggest just leaving it alone before it gets blow into a huge argument. and on that note, Carl, CANADA SUCKS!. :P man, i love that avatar.

[Johnson]

I told you make a full thesis on the origin. Explain out the theory you have from Day 1 to Day present, how we got to where we are now. You seem so defined in it, you apparently know how. So lets hear your answers.
Those weren't questions and you never answered mine.

[themoose]

I told you make a full thesis on the origin. Explain out the theory you have from Day 1 to Day present, how we got to where we are now. You seem so defined in it, you apparently know how. So lets hear your answers.

You want him to write a book..?

I hardly think that's fair, the questions he asked you weren't even essay answers.

[influct]

Read my post again. You'll see my post has nothing to do with the question I asked AMC. Do you know the difference between species and kinds influct? I mean your post is WAY out of the ballpark of what I asked.

If you want to get into genes, then we can also get into the point that if its long neck is a recessive trait, its chances for a longneck are less than 1/16, and if both are recessive longnecks, well lets not even do that math. A quick try at it in my head would put it at about 1/256, but I think thats just one side of the equation.

were assuming its recessive, it could be dominant, it could even be co-dominant.
the fact is that regardless it gets passed on, we have the genes inside us necessary to fly (no bull) but they are turned off.

[heymrdj]

You want him to write a book..?

I hardly think that's fair, the questions he asked you weren't even essay answers.I said a thesis, not a book. I couldn't care less how long it was, but since he needs to cover 10 billion years of stages, he's gonna need some space.


were assuming its recessive, it could be dominant, it could even be co-dominant.
the fact is that regardless it gets passed on, we have the genes inside us necessary to fly (no bull) but they are turned off.

And what happens when some of these genes activate? 99% of the time we die, thanks to our bodies own mutational defense system. Alot of miscarriages are caused by that system you know.

[themoose]

I said a thesis, not a book. I couldn't care less how long it was, but since he needs to cover 10 billion years of stages, he's gonna need some space.

I doubt anybody's going to waste that much time on you. You wouldn't respond to it anyway.

[influct]

And what happens when some of these genes activate? 99% of the time we die, thanks to our bodies own mutational defense system. Alot of miscarriages are caused by that system you know.

yay, thank you for falling into that:P
so surely the peoples who mutate successfully survive and so do these mutations, in the process surviving to pass on these mutations. those who dont - die. wham, evolution.

[heymrdj]

yay, thank you for falling into that:P
so surely the peoples who mutate successfully survive and so do these mutations, in the process surviving to pass on these mutations. those who dont - die. wham, evolution.

Actually the pleasures all mine because your theory, again, is fluked.

Great you successfully gave birth to a snake with a beak rather than a snout. It will now shortly die because it can't eat.

Whats this, this closed circulatory system animal has a hole in its veins for it to slowly become an open circulatory system...whoops...it died of internal bleeding.

A rat with webbed feet? Cool, too bad it can hardly walk, so it got eaten by a predator.

A bird with fur rather than feathers. Well, too bad it never did mate, no plumage to attract a female.

Any other holes in that chain of yours?

[Johnson]

heymrdkhead, you do know that evolution doesn't happen overnight, don't you? Fish don't just grow legs with one birth.

Anyways, the comedy of your posts are wearing off, taken over by your pretentiousness and ignorance. I'm no longer posting in this thread, and unlike you, I actually mean it.

[Adam]

The success of a genetic mutation on a large scale depends on the current population of the species. If the local population of a given species was 1000 that mutation would have little chance of surviving because the current population still carries a diversely dominant gene pool. If the local population dropped to below 20 then the mutation would have a better chance of surviving into the next generation due to a lack of mating possibilities and serious isolation of the species.

Fish keepers do this all the time. They find mutations in the fish they keep and isolate that mutation using a single pair. This forces the mutation to be passed on to the next generation of offspring. But only a very small portion of these offspring will carry the mutation. So then to strengthen this mutation they mate the father back to the daughters in order to establish a line. This would take several crosses between the father of the mutation and each generation of the offspring as well as mating brother to sister numerous times. Problem with this is by crossing among siblings you dilute the gene pool and eventually other undesired mutations occur. So occasional back crosses are required to keep the gene pool diverse.

Chances of this happening in the wild are rather slim. The mutations usually die off within its current lifetime. The mutations that do survive are passed on to the next generation but are more often retained as a recessive gene and a very insignificant fraction of the species will actually display the mutation.

[influct]

Actually the pleasures all mine because your theory, again, is fluked.

Great you successfully gave birth to a snake with a beak rather than a snout. It will now shortly die because it can't eat.

Whats this, this closed circulatory system animal has a hole in its veins for it to slowly become an open circulatory system...whoops...it died of internal bleeding.

A rat with webbed feet? Cool, too bad it can hardly walk, so it got eaten by a predator.

A bird with fur rather than feathers. Well, too bad it never did mate, no plumage to attract a female.

Any other holes in that chain of yours?

my theory is fluked?:S

anyway, you just proved me right again, due to survival of the fittest my snake with a beak dies, and the snake with a snake mouth survives! yay! and so the fittest survives to pass on its lack of beakness:P

[bigperm]

Yep, heymrdj, you just explaned to us how evolution works. Thanks.

[themoose]

Actually the pleasures all mine because your theory, again, is fluked.

Great you successfully gave birth to a snake with a beak rather than a snout. It will now shortly die because it can't eat.

Correct. Not all mutations are for the good.


Whats this, this closed circulatory system animal has a hole in its veins for it to slowly become an open circulatory system...whoops...it died of internal bleeding.

It obviously doesn't happen like that. And I'm not a scientist so I won't answer it, but I'm sure there are many that can. Positively sure.


A rat with webbed feet? Cool, too bad it can hardly walk, so it got eaten by a predator.

No, it can't walk - but it can swim. Much faster than the other water animals because it has webbed feet. Faster than it's supposed predators. It survived long enough to breed.


A bird with fur rather than feathers. Well, too bad it never did mate, no plumage to attract a female.

Feather's don't mutate into fur in one mistake.


Any other holes in that chain of yours?

The "other" doesn't quite fit in this sentance - you havn't bought up any valid ones.

heymrdj, I think you should read up PROPERLY on evolution & mutation - just assuming what you think it says isn't going to work.

[heymrdj]

Correct. Not all mutations are for the good.



It obviously doesn't happen like that. And I'm not a scientist so I won't answer it, but I'm sure there are many that can. Positively sure.


No, it can't walk - but it can swim. Much faster than the other water animals because it has webbed feet. Faster than it's supposed predators. It survived long enough to breed.



Feather's don't mutate into fur in one mistake.



The "other" doesn't quite fit in this sentance - you havn't bought up any valid ones.

heymrdj, I think you should read up PROPERLY on evolution & mutation - just assuming what you think it says isn't going to work.

What you're doing is making exceptions to my proofs, trying to give yours base.

No a rat could not survive with one webbed foot. No, all his feet wouldn't be webbed. Remember people, SLOW!!!. It is only a hinderence, not a blessing.

Influct, are you so dumb to actually think I proved you right? How do you get from reptiles to birds if a snake doesn't get a beak. Put some thought into your answers. Take an animal we have today, mutate a vital, life dependent part of his body, and think to yourself, will he survive.

In fact, lets see if your imaginations are working correctly. Make a scenario. Lets see how much you know about anatomy, and the use of a systems vital organs, that you apparently could be skipped for a million or two years till he got better ones.

[themoose]

heymrdj, first of all - almost all of what you just said is false or has flaws.

Secondly, after reading Mr Johnson's last post, I have decided to also leave the thread.

Third, I do not want you to think that you have "won" - you have not. You have simply proven yourself to be one of the most ignorant, arrogant & blind faith follower that I have ever known of. I do not want to waste anymore of my time on arguing with you about hard facts, when all you're going to do is shun them - because of what some mistranslated musty old unliteral book tells you to do.

Good day.

[heymrdj]

heymrdj, first of all - almost all of what you just said is false or has flaws.

Secondly, after reading Mr Johnson's last post, I have decided to also leave the thread.

Third, I do not want you to think that you have "won" - you have not. You have simply proven yourself to be one of the most ignorant, arrogant & blind faith follower that I have ever known of. I do not want to waste anymore of my time on arguing with you about hard facts, when all you're going to do is shun them - because of what some mistranslated musty old unliteral book tells you to do.

Good day.

Your to thickheaded to even admit the belief you follow is wrong. You didn't even admit that your billion year dating system is a load of rubbish.

[Tree]

Earlier you have said that atheists or agnostics are "prideful", as they can't accept that there is an higher power, and believe science will solve everything. However, who's to say that Christians are ignorant and don't want to believe science because it contradicts their beliefs.

[stuffradio]

who's to say that Christians are ignorant and don't want to believe science because it contradicts their beliefs.

Me, because I am one, I R TEH WINNAHZ0rz.

Plus there is a difference between science, and science that tries to prove some things in the bible wrong or something :S lol ionno... w/e

I just believe what I believe, sometimes I try to tell people my point.... and others I just leave it alone. In the end, if they start to believe in the same thing, great. If not, I tried :)

[heymrdj]

Me, because I am one, I R TEH WINNAHZ0rz.

Plus there is a difference between science, and science that tries to prove some things in the bible wrong or something :S lol ionno... w/e

I just believe what I believe, sometimes I try to tell people my point.... and others I just leave it alone. In the end, if they start to believe in the same thing, great. If not, I tried :)

Someone who finally makes some sense in this thread.

[Tree]

Me, because I am one, I R TEH WINNAHZ0rz.

Plus there is a difference between science, and science that tries to prove some things in the bible wrong or something :S lol ionno... w/e

I just believe what I believe, sometimes I try to tell people my point.... and others I just leave it alone. In the end, if they start to believe in the same thing, great. If not, I tried :)
Let me clarify, Christians like heymrdj. People like that are exactly why I am no longer Christian. stuffradio, if there were more like you, it'd be great.

Someone who finally makes some sense in this thread.
Only because he didn't contradict something you said.

[heymrdj]

Let me clarify, Christians like heymrdj. People like that are exactly why I am no longer Christian. stuffradio, if there were more like you, it'd be great.

Only because he didn't contradict something you said.

I think what Tree is saying is he doesn't like serious Christians. The kind that if you shove, you get shoved back. You guys have problems coming up with proof and you know it. Your belief is just as much faith as ours is. You should just admit that and believe what you want to.

[Tree]

I think what Tree is saying is he doesn't like serious Christians. The kind that if you shove, you get shoved back. You guys have problems coming up with proof and you know it. Your belief is just as much faith as ours is. You should just admit that and believe what you want to.
Serious Christians? No problem with them. Ignorant and closed-minded Christians are what I have a problem with.

[Adam]

Earlier you have said that atheists or agnostics are "prideful", as they can't accept that there is an higher power, and believe science will solve everything. However, who's to say that Christians are ignorant and don't want to believe science because it contradicts their beliefs.

Most religions contradict the beliefs of other religions. Even religions that date further back than Christianity are contradicted by another religion. Take all the major religions in this world and throw them in a room and all you will get is argument after argument on who's religion is right and who's is wrong. Every major religion on this planet is guilty of persecution of other religions. Christians even persecuted other Christians because their beliefs of Jesus and the bible contradicted their own. Christians even forced non Christians into Christianity with the ultimatum of convert or die. Many Muslim groups still persecute Christians to this day and they even persecute other Muslims that do not believe as they do. This is why the Middle East is the biggest melting pot of hatred, because the two religions can't agree on anything. Religions continually prove their cause is not a righteous one when they persecute and seek to convert those that contradict their beliefs. So its really only fitting that some Christians reject science because it contradicts their beliefs. But it all boils down to being Closed Minded which people are very good at because it conflicts their interests.

[stuffradio]

@k1nj0 the Romans persecuted Christians, and also the Bible does contradict itself... why? I dunno lol, but it does :)

[heymrdj]

@k1nj0 the Romans persecuted Christians, and also the Bible does contradict itself... why? I dunno lol, but it does :)

You can read the KJV, the Weslyan, and other Masoretic derivitives and not see any contradictions. Thats the oldest/most useless argument of them all. But hey if you see one, happily point it out.

[Jan]

The majority of this thread is sad. Closed.