2 registered members (AndrewAMD, NeoDumont),
761
guests, and 1
spider. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Re: Science vs Wack Jobs
[Re: PHeMoX]
#69271
09/14/07 10:13
09/14/07 10:13
|
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 20
Arathas
Newbie
|
Newbie
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 20
|
Quote:
when it comes to actually being born, we were all winners
That's true, but then again, you find yourself permanently wondering why the hell this damn stupid person you have to deal with did make it. There's so many STUPID people on earth that you have to wonder if all the other sperms would have been equally stupid ...
|
|
|
Re: Science vs Wack Jobs
[Re: Arathas]
#207824
05/22/08 14:02
05/22/08 14:02
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177 Netherlands
PHeMoX
Senior Expert
|
Senior Expert
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
|
That's true, but then again, you find yourself permanently wondering why the hell this damn stupid person you have to deal with did make it. There's so many STUPID people on earth that you have to wonder if all the other sperms would have been equally stupid ... There definitely could have been changes, but yeah I guess we have to learn to live with it without going postal. Sometimes children are pretty much predestined to not become very smart because both their parents weren't very smart or think of situations like children born from incestuous relationships and so on. Still, it's in neither case guaranteed that the children inevitably will become stupid. By the way, for those people that still demand half-monkeys, fish-people and what not for proof of evolution, I'd recommend reading; Shubin's "Your inner fish". It was written in 2008 and is both interesting and a good read.
|
|
|
What the evolutionists havn't mentioned so far
[Re: PHeMoX]
#210701
06/12/08 12:00
06/12/08 12:00
|
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 128 Papua New Guinea
Impaler
Member
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 128
Papua New Guinea
|
I am impressed that this thread has gone so far; it's good for people to actually think about these issues rather than accept the standard belief without thinking about it. First of all, there are a huge number of reasons why life could not have originated on earth by natural occurrences. 1.) The Urey-Miller experiment: This experiment was very strong evidence against evolution 50 years ago, but is still being quoted in text books today as the origin of life. The aim of the experiment was to be able to create extremely simple amino acids from a mixture of gases and an electrical spark, supposedly similar to the atmosphere of a "Primitive earth". The only problem is that to create these simple acids, hydrogen must be present in the mixture. Is there any hydrogen in earth's lower atmosphere, where there happens to be lightning? I don't think so. Being the lightest existing element, it will be sitting on top of all those other gases, on the edge of space. 2.)Lets just pretend that there is hydrogen in earth's lower atmosphere and an amino acid happens to form. What then? There are 22 amino acids used to make proteins in a living cell, and this experiment managed to produce two or three. A protein, by the way, is nothing compared to a cell. It is a building block of cell components, and many, many cell components must make up a single cell. DNA is totally out of the question: You need this monster to even make proteins, and it is composed of tens to hundreds of millions of nucleotides, all in the glitch free "programming" to construct the basic components of a cell. No matter how hard for how long you try, you will never arrive at DNA by chance with a couple of amino acids. 3.) The flagellum on a bacterium is composed of 50 parts that work together like an electric motor: if just one of them is out of place, the bacteria will not have propulsion. This in itself is massive proof against evolution: if this device was built up by natural selection, how was a non-functioning appendage on the back of the bacterium favoured by natural selection over the “millions of years” that it took to perfect it? Wouldn’t these bacteria have the disadvantage of extra drag and weight that would impair the cell, and cause it to die? Also, the flagellum’s “motor” is made up of parts that are all different. The cell wasn’t manufacturing these parts by chance, they were clearly part of a greater intelligence. 4.) The bombardier beetle: This is probably an overused example, but it is an essential fact: The bombardier beetle could not have evolved it’s combination of reactive chemicals without destroying itself; not only are there two separated reactive chemicals within it’s body, but it also has suppressant chemicals to stop these reactants from blowing it up. How all these could have possibly evolved at any early advantage to the organism is anybody’s guess. I can quote more to you if you want them, but right now I have just finished my final exams and don’t have much motivation to do more essay writing. And by the way, if the 6000 years belief is mere sentimentalism, what does that make evolution? An attempt to escape from God, at the expense of rational thinking. Now you can all tell me why I'm wrong
Last edited by Impaler; 06/12/08 13:45.
Murphey's Law: << if anything can go wrong, it will >> (Murphey was an optimist).
|
|
|
Re: Science and Creation
[Re: Roel]
#210707
06/12/08 12:09
06/12/08 12:09
|
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 128 Papua New Guinea
Impaler
Member
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 128
Papua New Guinea
|
Roel, I believe that the Hebrew term used in Genesis can only be interpreted as a literal day, and there is very little point in expanding that by multiples of 1000; If God can create the universe in 1000 X 6 days, why not make it six? He is infinitely powerful...so why should we assume that he took such a long time? If you believe that God exists and created the Universe, you might as well take His Word for it. but I guess we're not supposed to talk about the bible, hey?
Last edited by Impaler; 06/12/08 12:10.
Murphey's Law: << if anything can go wrong, it will >> (Murphey was an optimist).
|
|
|
Re: Science and Creation
[Re: Lukas]
#210796
06/12/08 22:42
06/12/08 22:42
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 3,538 WA, Australia
JibbSmart
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 3,538
WA, Australia
|
what about right in the beginning: "let there be light!"? God was illuminating everything before He began the rest of the creation.
plants needn't die.
julz
Formerly known as JulzMighty. I made KarBOOM!
|
|
|
Re: Science and Creation
[Re: Lukas]
#210807
06/13/08 01:06
06/13/08 01:06
|
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 128 Papua New Guinea
Impaler
Member
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 128
Papua New Guinea
|
Lukas, the coccyx is far from being a "vestigial tail". It is clear evidence for design: not only is it an anchor point for nine vital muscles (including the Gluteus Maximus, the largest muscle in the body), but it also provides cushioning when you sit down. Without a cocyyx, you would not even be able to defecate. Do you expect the spinal column to be cut straight off at the sacrum? No, it must taper down to a point to allow maximum strength of conection to the pelvis while maximizing space to be used by the internal organs. Many people have this attitude towards creationism, because it implies that there is a God. To some, this is so frightening that they turn to evolution for answers. Denying God's existence doesn't make Him any less real, and I can't imagine it would make Him that happy, either.
Murphey's Law: << if anything can go wrong, it will >> (Murphey was an optimist).
|
|
|
Re: Science and Creation
[Re: Impaler]
#210810
06/13/08 02:05
06/13/08 02:05
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,010 analysis paralysis
NITRO777
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,010
analysis paralysis
|
but it also provides cushioning when you sit down. ya, it actually gives in as the weight is applied to it, and acts as a shock absorber. not only is it an anchor point for nine vital muscles (including the Gluteus Maximus gluteus maximus, levator ani, coccygeus are the ones I know of,but there probably is more, you need the last two muscles in order to defecate.
|
|
|
|