BF2S Forums for you catholics,jews w/e if u believe in god read this

People cry because when the person dies and they will never see them again in their life time. I dont think its polite for people to celebrate funerals.

Spark, this is from your article "but many of these have since been redescribed as trace fossils or pseudofossils" and  "several supposed Vendian-like forms have been identified from the Cambrian" AND "Many of these fossils are difficult to interpret" it also says most if not all of them belong to 1 phyla.

Skruples i already know about all those fossils. They had the fish-land fossil on colbert report last night . But what separates that from a normal animal that lives in shadow water? I think its too new so there arent many articles on this one. How do they know it even evolved and didnt die out?

This is for the whale http://www.trueorigin.org/ng_whales01.asp

The human-ape fossils most of the time are humans or apes(this explanation is in talk origins). And they are found in small fragments and put together by evolutionists based on what they already know as a missing link should look like(notice the fossil on the front page of talk origins thats half filled in with clay and the rest is tiny pieces that can be arranged in any way theyd like). Also some are found when they are young chimps and dont have fully grown bodies/skulls. I dont have much time right now ill try to get a better explanation later or when u reply.

Last edited by JaMDuDe (2006-05-19 12:18:12)

Forgive me for not reading through all 48 pages...what is the issue here? please?

THANKS!

Skruples wrote:

Mmm. yes. Clearly Trueorigins is an unbiased website. The 'exposing the myth of evolution' headline must be a coincidence. And look at this part:

trueorigins wrote:

The magazine is a major source of information in a great number of important areas, yet few readers are aware of the extent to which it passes this information through an ideological ‘filter’ before handing it on to its readers, and sometimes even twists the data according to the demands of this ideology and builds-up completely imaginary stories.

If we replace magazine with 'christian websites' and few readers with 'Jamdude', I think we'd have an amazing explanation for why this debate isn't getting anywhere.

Lol, that just answered this:

Jack Bower wrote:

Forgive me for not reading through all 48 pages...what is the issue here? please?

THANKS!

Mcminty.

::walks by::

"You guys are still here? Yeesh. Guess you guys just couldn't stop with this could ya? Or maybe Jamdude is still trying to give arguments based on biased sites and narrow-minded information. Nevertheless, just thought I'd say hi because I haven't been here in awhile. Nice seeing you guys."

A CD has 20 tracks. You play the cd and shuffle the tracks. This gives you a unique order of tracks. The odds of having this unique order is 0.0000000000000000411032% (the odds of getting any order of 20 tracks, played only once). So this is your chance of getting it at random. Now this number is very, very small and yet it happened. Now guess what the odds of this happening are if a "higher power" picks them in that same order. Well the chance of that happening with someone choosing is also 0.0000000000000000411032%. This is because even though the person chose the certain order, the person had that many other possibilities to choose from. So if you don't believe it could randomly happen that we just existed out of nothing, well then your pretty much saying we don't exist. The odds of ANY OTHER POSSIBILITY are the same as us appearing and being created from the big bang. None of these possibilities have been proven as fact, so if you think I'm wrong, guess what that makes you?

Last edited by SilentNoise105 (2006-05-19 15:32:32)

JaMDuDe wrote:

Its just as bias as talk origins. Heres another webiste explaining some of the fossils, still bias but a little less than true origins. http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/sh … php/id/839

That's where you're wrong. You consider anything that does not assume that your side is correct as 'biased', whereas I consider a side that chooses an answer before exploring the question to be biased. In that regard, your primary sources of information thus far have been ludicrous, to say the least. You haven't used Answers in Genesis in a while, which is a good step, but you're still using websites that are primarily christian. Read the caption on trueorigins: "exposing the myth of evolution." Even the name, 'trueorigins' is implying that there are no possibilities other than the ones they give. That doesn't sound like they're open to the possibility of evolution being true, just as you are not open to anything that does not fall into your rigid and juvenile understanding of the universe.

The primary difference I've seen thus far between scientists and creationists is that scientists accept that they think they know how life began, but they do not know it for a fact. They accept that they do not know there is a God, just as they do not know there is not a God. Creationists, on the other hand, take for granted that they know everything, or at least the cause for everything. They know for a fact that there is a God. They know He created life. They know everything, and everyone who does not agree with them is either a fool or a liar. You, sir, fall into the second category, and your unwillingness to consider anything but that which you already believe to be true is painting you in a poor light. I have sometimes wondered if you are homeschooled, because I cannot see any other way that you would have been so sheltered from anything that disagrees with your religious viewpoints.

Anyway, I have accepted at this point that I am not going to change your mind about a damn thing, but I hope that the other viewers of this thread can see the creationist perspective for what it really is: A feeble attempt to explain a universe that is beyond comprehension through faith. That in and of itself is fine, I have no problems with religion in general terms. It is when the religious begin to believe that they are better than everyone else because of their belief that the problem arises, and it can be seen in the United States today. The evidence for evolution is very strong, but some Christians (like JaMDuDe) feel that their beliefs supercede science, and that their beliefs should be taught hand in hand with science. I for one will do everything in my admittedly limited power to make sure that religion stays out of school and science, and I urge everyone else to do the same.

im christian, and many scientist are religious, i think some science things have no answer but the only answer goes with the bible

Flavius Aetius wrote:

so what is the meaning of life? why are we here?

There is no reason. You just have a cortex (unlike other species) that makes you think that "surely there must be a reason"


Sorry, I just watched the matrix, and i felt like saying that.

Flavius Aetius wrote:

so what is the meaning of life? why are we here?

One of the problems that is caused by our intelligence is our sudden conviction that life must have some greater meaning than just existance and reproduction.

No other creature in the KNOWN world shares this conviction.

Consider lichen. They will survive the harshest environments - from your misty churchyard to the barren wastes of Antarctica. They live for upwards of 400 years or more. And what do they do in those 400 years?

Grow. Very, very, very, very, very, very slowly.

To us, it would seem like doing abosultely nothing. We would lose the will to live if we were told we had to sit on a fence and grow at the rate of a few mm a year for 400 years.

They don't.

Lichens, uncoincidentally, are one of the world's most successful life-forms. There are thousands upon thousands of species, and thousands upon thousands more yet to be seen/documented.

Havent u ever doubted your faith? with science proving more and more things like the big bang theory and finding more and more evidence its hard not to quesiton your faith. What if God or whoever you believe in isnt real what if u die u die thats it, its over no nothing for the rest of eternity. So iunno i would like to know what you guys think. It would be a shame for all the people in the world to have a crummy life then noting forever. makes you think...

Well actually look at it in a reverse perspective. If you think there is nothing and then find out god really does exist where does that put you? at least my way of belief is safe. besides I like believing that someone up stairs has my best interests at heart.

Can you read? Do you have any logic at all? Or can't you tell that I was talking about your last statement in my quote?

I said evolution ahs been observed in the lab.

Oh, and by the way, did anyone see the news article about birds, apes etc. displaying very human-like behaviour? I'll try to get a link, but it's kinda hard. Saw it in the newspaper.

i said there are some animals without them

Once again you forget the paucity of the fossil record. Using scientific calculations, the number of human fossils from this era in North America (in a few humdred million years) would be less than one. Very, very, very, very, very, very, very few land animals are preserved in the fossil record. The habitat and the nature of some animals mean there is no chance that they will be preserved - somebody worked out the chances of being preserved is about 1 in a few hundred million.

Once again, I state: If I have a rock that is 10 years old, and that is the oldest rock I've found, then I would be led to believe that the earth is 10 years old, correct?

Last edited by Spark (2006-05-20 18:09:29)

Then they didn't NEED to evolve, did they? Most organisms evolve very slowly - some don't need to evolve at all. Evolution is only necessary when the environment changes.

Jesus H. Christ, is this thread really still going after 49 pages?  New people saying the same old crap.  Get a hint and realize this debate will never end and there will never be a winner.  Why bother for 49 pages?