same sex marriage

[ABikerSailor]

Are you thinking of converting to IsLAME Soggy?

not living up to your sjgnature eh!

Meaning?

(by the way.....it helps to know how to spell)

 

[SW2SILVER]

BigBarry, you don't interpret for God, so why are your lips flapping here?

How's it hangin, boyo? Good, I hope. You are an intesting fellow, I go back to all those posts you have made, instead of getting a straight answer from ya, for shizzle my nizzle. I can do that. Illegal aliens and gay rights, what is the connection here? I used to be a liberal, untill I was mugged by reality. Gays have as many rights as the "Breeders", and Latinos have the same rights as all those "Nativists" Gobachos do. What do you say to that, Snarkey?

 

[logical4u]

I didn't say anything about killing anyone.

Right.... cuz that would be wrong

no calling you a troll just means I don't believe you actually believe a lick of what you're saying, and you went from highly ignorant and entertaining to just entertaining...

It appears that evolution is a belief with circumstantial "proof" being fossils being used to say that species changed from one to another.
Based on what you are saying, evolution is as much as a cult religion as the ones that believe a spaceship will be here soon.
Science shows a catalyst: we have lava because plates shifted and made such heat that it melted rocks. We know about it because it was vented thru a volcano or a volcanic vent. In this case the "heat" would be the catalyst for lava. If we explain the rotation of the planets, we use gravity, as the catalyst. Only evolutionists want to explain something leaving the catalyst completely out of the discussion, and that would be G*d.

::sigh::

I inform you that you are completely wrong in everything you said about evolution up to this point and give you the chance to redeem yourself by asking questions instead of continuing on with your blinded ignorance... and you chose the latter again? Really? OK, I'm happy to keep shooting you down.

Evolution does not use fossils "to say that species changed from one to another" (as you said). I thought I pointed that out in the last post, noting how it was the LARGEST bit of misinformation uneducated Americans have on the topic. Follow along here. Perhaps you should start asking questions now...

Then you say evolution has no catalyst. I find your examples mildly amusing (tho not wrong). What you don't understand is that evolution does have a catalyst known as natural selection. I'm guessing you don't understand that concept either, but similarly have misguided pre-conceived notions of it....

If you can't explain where life came from or where DNA came from, how can you go on to state that you know evolution is real. Evolution (at some point) claimed that ALL life climbed out of a primordial soup and evolved into different life forms; yet there is no proof that this happened. All of us have seen "micro" evolution (re-define to confuse, we used to call it selective breeding) and accept that it happens (a species changing due to man or environment). None of us have witnessed one species changing into another: a gorilla turning into a neanderthal. So again I state: evolution as a "final" explaination is a belief, if you will, a religion. It is not scientific. There is no proof.

No. no no no no. You're making things up in your head of what you think evolution is, and then claiming it's wrong. For the third time now, evolution is not about gorillas turning into neanderthals. No evolutionist anywhere on the planet believes that EVER happened. EVER. Note the absolutism in that word.

But you ask how evolution can be real without explaining where life came from. That's the purpose of religion: to make up ALL the answers about everything, start to finish. The purpose of science is to find truth. But when it comes to science, things are independent, and we can understand one process without even needing to know what came before it. We don't need to see evaporation to feel the rain. Similarly, we don't even need to look at how organic molecules were first created to understand evolution. Keep in mind we can recreate those types of early organic molecules from scratch anyway, but that is something that is needed *before* evolution, and isn't part of evolution itself. Similarly, the Big Bang and how the Earth was formed has nothing to do with evolution. Heck, even if you believe your deity made Earth and planted a single ancestral bacteria upon it, evolution still holds true. No evidence has ever contradicted it.

So you can again state evolution is a belief, but it's clear to me and any other educated person on this forum that you are completely clueless as to what evolution is, and are in no position to make judgements about it. Let's role reverse. What if I said all Christians believe Jesus made original sin and infected everyone for eternity with it, and therefore all Christians are bad for praying to him?

Let me think...are you teaching this as absolute fact? Are you teaching in every school that the man Christians believe was G*d born as a man that was tortured, suffered, died and was buried for us was the originator of sin and therefore Christians are wrong for praying to the one that Christians believe is the only hope of salvation? You are acknowledging that there is something out there that can influence sin and salvation? Is that the question?
You are telling me that I don't understand evolution, but throw out everything that WAS taught in school (primordial soup, one-celled animals eventually becoming everything else, monkeys eventually evolving into men). I understand selective breeding (choice, forced, environment), that is different than evolution.
If I am wrong and the meaning has been re-defined according to the latest 'scientific' opinion, please explain it?

 

[logical4u]

wheres from nothing to 0

because that's not what evolution is. evolution has nothing to do with how life first began. it's only focus is on how life changes over time. If you want to believe that your deity, aliens, or humans from a parallel universe came to this earth millions of years ago, set down a single bacteria colony and left, evolution is not effected. Evolution isn't changed based on how things started. Ignorant americans still don't actually know what evolution is (as you just demonstrated), but they think it is wrong anyway.

You want to call us ignorant; you explain evolution (make sure to use simple words for all us idiots).

 

[logical4u]

Sunni, troll them on other topics - leave me evolution.

The permanent genetic results of adaptation. The evolution of humanity is in question simply because of a missing link, not because evolution is a theory. The only theory part of evolution is what evolved into what.

I dunno why people always talk about the "missing link". Looks relatively filled in to me...

wheres from nothing to 0

I believe the bone fragments pictured are all they have for some of these "links". That is not conclusive evidence that it happened. In many of these "links" there is NO COMPLETE SKELETON (that would be: fiction).

 

[logical4u]

However, it can be noticed in the fact that women today mature much faster physically than they did 100 years ago.

Evidence of this?

Some doctors believe this is directly related to the "hormones" that are given to animals that supply our food: chickens (eggs), cows (dairy), etc. Some evidence of this is noticeable in cultures that do not have access to mass amounts of processed foods. The doctors believe that if society had these "hyped" foods removed from the culture, maturity rates and sizes (taller) would return to earlier rates.

 

[Sunni Man]

However, it can be noticed in the fact that women today mature much faster physically than they did 100 years ago.

Evidence of this?

Some doctors believe this is directly related to the "hormones" that are given to animals that supply our food: chickens (eggs), cows (dairy), etc. Some evidence of this is noticeable in cultures that do not have access to mass amounts of processed foods. The doctors believe that if society had these "hyped" foods removed from the culture, maturity rates and sizes (taller) would return to earlier rates.

Some doctors believe????

Not much in the way of scientific evidence

 

[bill777]

Evidence? Any open air mall in California or Arizona. Just look at them. Join the dark side (yes, I appreciate good looking young girls, I guess that makes me a perv)

 

[SmarterThanHick]

You want to call us ignorant; you explain evolution (make sure to use simple words for all us idiots).

would be happy to. am about to start in this thread: http://www.usmessageboard.com/relig...an-views-on-homosexuality-11.html#post1538404

Be sure to review what I posted Evolution is NOT, and ask questions about anything that you may not have realized previously. Once I get Allie's on board, I'll begin.

In the meantime, you may want to ponder why every doctor you've ever gone to knows evolution to be correct.

 

[bill777]

I am just holding my breath, making popcorn, and getting my couch ready for a treatise on Christian views on homosexuality. I love watching hypocrites dig their own graves. It's better than COPS.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Remember Sunnidiot.........there were a lot of scientists who thought Copernicus and Galileo were wrong as well.

Just because your wife and your friends are doctors and idiots, doesn't mean that ALL doctors are idiots.

Get a fucking clue!

 

[SmarterThanHick]

ugh, you are like, incapable of ignoring the troll, Biker - he gets you EVERY time. Do you really think his wife is an MD and doesn't believe in evolution? You can't even google around to find a doctor like that.

 

[Sunni Man]

ugh, you are like, incapable of ignoring the troll, Biker - he gets you EVERY time. Do you really think his wife is an MD and doesn't believe in evolution? You can't even google around to find a doctor like that.

The Case Against Evolution

Many excellent books detail scientific findings and conclusions that compellingly demonstrate the impossibility of evolution as an explanation for the variety of life on earth. It's also helpful to remember that evolution cannot offer an explanation for the origin of our magnificent universe; evolution seeks to explain only how life proliferated in a universe that already existed.

If you would like to dig more deeply into the case against evolution, we recommend the following books, many written by people with science backgrounds:

•Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, Michael Behe, Ph.D., associate professor of biochemistry, Lehigh University, Pennsylvania, 1996. Demonstrates that the minute building blocks of life—cells and their myriad components—are far too complex for their codependent parts and processes to have evolved without an outside, intelligent design at work.

•Dawkins' God: Genes, Memes, and the Meaning of Life, Alister McGrath, professor of historical theology, Oxford University, 2005. Professor McGrath, a former atheist himself who holds a Ph.D. in molecular biophysics, takes on the assumptions of popular evolutionary proponent Richard Dawkins and the atheistic worldview he promotes.

•The Twilight of Atheism: The Rise and Fall of Disbelief in the Modern World, Alister McGrath, 2004. Professor McGrath traces the history and rise of modern atheism, fueled in large part by Darwin's theory of evolution, and how it has influenced the world.

•What Darwin Didn't Know, Geoffrey Simmons, M.D., 2004. Dr. Simmons dissects the theory of evolution from the perspective of a medical doctor, giving compelling reasons why evolution cannot explain many aspects of the human body. As he notes in the introduction, if Darwin's Origin of Species were submitted to a scientific publisher today, it would likely be rejected due to the author's woefully incomplete understanding of cellular biochemistry, physiology, genetics and other branches of science that deal with the human body.

•Uncommon Dissent: Intellectuals Who Find Darwinism Unconvincing, edited by William Dembski, 2004. Dembski, who holds Ph.D.s in mathematics and philosophy, brings together essays from intellectuals of various fields who not only explain the scientific weaknesses of Darwinism, but contend that the best scientific evidence actually argues against Darwinian evolution.

•Mere Creation: Science, Faith & Intelligent Design, edited by William Dembski, 1998. A collection of academic writings from the fields of physics, astrophysics, biology, anthropology, mechanical engineering and mathematics that challenge Darwinism and offer evidence supporting intelligent design in the universe.

•Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, Michael Denton, M.D., Ph.D., senior research fellow, University of Otago, New Zealand, 1996. A molecular biologist, Denton examines features of the natural world that mutation and natural selection cannot explain and shows the impossibility of transitional forms required for Darwinian evolution to have taken place.

•Creation and Evolution: Rethinking the Evidence From Science and the Bible, Alan Hayward, Ph.D., 1985. Written by a British physicist, an insightful book on the pros and cons of the evolution-vs.-science controversy.

•The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong, Francis Hitching, 1982. Points out many of the problems in the traditional view of evolution.

•Darwin on Trial, Phillip Johnson, professor of law, University of California, Berkeley, 1993. Shows that the weight of scientific evidence argues convincingly against the theory of evolution.

•Reason in the Balance: The Case Against Naturalism in Science, Law & Education, Phillip Johnson, 1995. Discusses the cultural implications of belief in evolution—that is, that the philosophy behind Darwinian evolution has become in effect the dominant established religion in many societies.

•Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds, Phillip Johnson, 1997. Written specifically for older students and their parents and teachers to prepare them for the antireligion bias inherent in most advanced education.

•Objections Sustained: Subversive Essays on Evolution, Law & Culture, Phillip Johnson, 1998. Compilation of essays ranging from evolution and culture to law and religion.

•Bones of Contention: A Creationist Assessment of the Human Fossils, Marvin Lubenow, 1992. Documents the serious problems with the supposed links between man and apes.

•Shattering the Myths of Darwinism, Richard Milton, 1997. A science journalist and noncreationist, Milton reveals the circular reasoning Darwinists must rely on for their arguments while discussing data widely acknowledged in scientific circles.

•Tornado in a Junkyard: The Relentless Myth of Darwinism, James Perloff, 1999. A self-professed former atheist offers an easy-to-read view of evidence contradicting Darwinism, including many quotations from evolutionists and creationists. (The title is taken from a British astronomer's assessment that the likelihood of higher life-forms emerging through random mutation is comparable to saying a tornado sweeping through a junkyard could build a Boeing 747 airliner.)

•Not by Chance: Shattering the Modern Theory of Evolution, Lee Spetner, Ph.D., Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1998. Demonstrates that a fundamental premise of neo-Darwinism—that random mutation created the kinds of variations that allowed macroevolution to take place—is fatally flawed and could never have happened as Darwinists claim.

•Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth? Jonathan Wells, Ph.D., Yale University and University of California, Berkeley, 2000. A post-doctoral biologist documents that the most-used examples Darwinists call on to support evolution are fraudulent or misleading.

•The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design, Jonathan Wells, Ph.D., 2006. Dr. Wells shows that the best scientific evidence, far from supporting Darwinism, actually supports intelligent design.

www.ucgstp.org/lit/booklets/evolution/caseagns.h

 

[Sunni Man]

Need me to google dozens of more sites of MD's and PhD's who don't believe in the quack theory of evolution for you NotSmarterThanShit ???

 

[SmarterThanHick]

so I asked you for MDs that don't believe in evolution and in your efforts you produced.... 2. in the world. only one of which is from the US.

yes, i encourage you to keep googling. Maybe you can find 5 in the US by October

 

[Sunni Man]

NotSmarterThanShit your orgional claim was that there were "no" MD's against evolution and none could be googled.

In about 30 seconds I googled a list that had several PhD's and a couple of MD's who are opposed to the quack theory of evolution.

Now you say that I should produce more MD's

Hey I got an idea!!

Since you have a computer. Why don't you just google the subject yourself.

Cause there are pages of MD's and PhD's who refute evolution as a scientific fraud.

 

[BigBarry]

Sunni, so evolution is crap, we all were made out of clay?

Btw, what's a good muslim doing in a thread about gay sex?

 

[KittenKoder]

NotSmarterThanShit your orgional claim was that there were "no" MD's against evolution and none could be googled.

In about 30 seconds I googled a list that had several PhD's and a couple of MD's who are opposed to the quack theory of evolution.

Now you say that I should produce more MD's

Hey I got an idea!!

Since you have a computer. Why don't you just google the subject yourself.

Cause there are pages of MD's and PhD's who refute evolution as a scientific fraud.

You do realize that any doctor who doesn't believe in evolution is inept, viruses evolve, that's why we can catch colds and flus even after having them once. Without evolution you would only get sick once, that's it.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Hey Sunnidiot.........your wife DOES go to medical conventions to get the newest information about diseases and such, right?

She's proving evolution exists by her attendance. If she doesn't go, then her license will be revoked after a while, or, she'll end up being employed by some whack job like Michael Jackson.

 

[Sunni Man]

NotSmarterThanShit your orgional claim was that there were "no" MD's against evolution and none could be googled.

In about 30 seconds I googled a list that had several PhD's and a couple of MD's who are opposed to the quack theory of evolution.

Now you say that I should produce more MD's

Hey I got an idea!!

Since you have a computer. Why don't you just google the subject yourself.

Cause there are pages of MD's and PhD's who refute evolution as a scientific fraud.

You do realize that any doctor who doesn't believe in evolution is inept, viruses evolve, that's why we can catch colds and flus even after having them once. Without evolution you would only get sick once, that's it.

Please provide evidence where any virus has ever evolved into something besides a virus.

Thank you