|
|
Post by The Admin on Jan 3, 2005 21:23:29 GMT -6
;D
|
|
|
|
Post by newyorkpattie on Jan 3, 2005 21:49:45 GMT -6
awww....i'm sorry for calling you a monkey worlin!
|
|
|
|
Post by The Admin on Jan 4, 2005 21:24:12 GMT -6
Hmm... he's a Gollum.
I wonder if it's possible that that places him even lower on the evolutionary chain of things...
|
|
|
|
Post by newyorkpattie on Jan 4, 2005 21:43:19 GMT -6
no....golum is definitely more advanced than humans!
|
|
|
|
Post by The Admin on Jan 11, 2005 21:27:59 GMT -6
Yes, precious, we are much better then filthy hobbetses and clumsy humans.
|
|
|
|
Post by newyorkpattie on Jan 12, 2005 18:21:30 GMT -6
is punctuated equilibrium crap?
|
|
|
|
Post by The Admin on Jan 12, 2005 22:03:33 GMT -6
Evolution is SHITSA, modifed versions of evolution are still SHITSA. The only version of evolution that's even remotely possible goes as follows:
In the beginning God was really bored, so he decided to make a world. But he wanted to do it the hard way. So he made life spontaniously appear of of mud and evolve into fish into dinosaurs into birds into mammels into people etc. Naturally this was all highly improbably and much of it was impossible, but this is God we're dealing with after all. If he wants to do things the hard way, who's going to stop him?
It was actually proposed by Arthur C. Clark, and I think it's pretty silly, but it holds an advantage over most theories of evoltuion because at least it's possible.
|
|
|
|
Post by newyorkpattie on Jan 13, 2005 17:54:39 GMT -6
and so the question remains....is creation more realistic than evolution?
|
|
|
|
Post by PinkPaisleyDebate on Jan 29, 2005 10:20:06 GMT -6
Yes, just look at the book of Genesis and then the Gospels. It says in Genesis, something along the lines of "God created man in his own image." Then in one of the Gospels it says something along the lines of "Jesus was true man and true God." It also says that people couldn't even recognize Jesus at all in various places because his disciples looked just like him. And Jesus died 2000 years ago. This is saying that the theory of human evolution is just pure shit.
|
|
|
|
Post by newyorkpattie on Jan 29, 2005 23:36:03 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by UNKNOWN on Feb 5, 2005 11:33:20 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by UNKNOWN on Feb 5, 2005 11:34:02 GMT -6
Why?
|
|
|
|
Post by newyorkpattie on Feb 5, 2005 17:00:47 GMT -6
ughh....you retard...no one knows how to spell JerOD's name right except for him. You're JerOD, but I would be happier if you were Worlin. And stop polluting this thread.
|
|
|
|
Post by HCMBrainCandy on Feb 9, 2005 7:25:14 GMT -6
Evolution is silly in that it has at its heart a core wholistic belief. i.e. they make a leap of faith beyond the bounds of strict reductionism.
|
|
|
|
Post by JerOD on Feb 9, 2005 10:01:54 GMT -6
That's true. Not only is it silly, it is stupid.
|
|
|
|
Post by newyorkpattie on Feb 9, 2005 21:28:20 GMT -6
I could say the same about you and it would make it no more true.
Evolution cannot be scientifically proven, nor can creation.
Both sides have valid points and at this point in time, I haven't decided who I agree with.
|
|
|
|
Post by JerOD on Feb 10, 2005 8:20:54 GMT -6
Creation can be proven. It's called the Holy Bible which was written by the Creator.
|
|
|
|
Post by newyorkpattie on Feb 10, 2005 15:50:53 GMT -6
What if I wrote a book about existence and then signed it "by, the creator" does that make it any more legitimate. Just conceed, neither can be proven, it's a matter of opinion, and religious ones at that, which makes it not black or white. It's a gray area.
|
|
|
|
Post by JerOD on Feb 11, 2005 10:13:21 GMT -6
If you did that you would be a liar. It is possible that people would know that you're a liar, but God would be sure and punish you if you don't repent.
|
|
|
|
Post by newyorkpattie on Feb 11, 2005 18:16:46 GMT -6
um, yeah....you refuted absolutely no arguements in your post of sheer stupidity. ...so I have nothing to go on.
|
|
|
|
Post by HCMBrainCandy on Feb 11, 2005 18:30:05 GMT -6
Maymer, ultimately you must reject evolution because fundementally it's saying it's one thing while it's really another. Don't you wonder why I call it pseudo-reductionism? It's not true reductionism, which would be it's only real distinction from other world-creation hypothesises. Since it ultimatly is core-wholisitc sprinkled with reductionism, it is a fraud.
Plain and simple.
|
|
|
|
Post by newyorkpattie on Feb 11, 2005 22:29:20 GMT -6
okay, super fantabulous, you attempt to defeat evolution. That's nice, but what about creation. Defeating evolution does not prove creation.
|
|
|
|
Post by JerOD on Feb 12, 2005 11:19:51 GMT -6
DO YOU EVEN LISTEN?  I told you all the evidence you need on creation is written by God. The Word of God is in the Bible. |
|
|
|
Post by HCMBrainCandy on Feb 12, 2005 15:42:00 GMT -6
You are correct in that, Maymer. However if you recall the whole question is which of the two theories is the right one. I just killed evolution's only real incentive, so what does that leave you in respect to the original question?  |
|
|
|
Post by newyorkpattie on Feb 14, 2005 20:43:38 GMT -6
I could bash the crap out of creation and it would make evolution no more valid. I don't think it's a matter of creation vs. evolution.
|
|
|
|
Post by JerOD on Feb 15, 2005 6:53:52 GMT -6
Then, what is it a matter of?
|
|
|
|
Post by newyorkpattie on Feb 15, 2005 14:41:47 GMT -6
I wasn't asking you nor wishing a response from you. I would like to have an intelligent discussion with Worlin about this. Kindly stay out of it. Thank you ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by JerOD on Feb 16, 2005 7:32:07 GMT -6
How can you have an intelligent conversation with someone who you say is not intelligent?
|
|
|
|
Post by newyorkpattie on Feb 16, 2005 14:45:37 GMT -6
You know what, you are right, I can't have an intelligent conversation with you because you are mentally not capable of it. Worlin is stupid about some things, and intelligent about others. You are stupid all the time. At least its possible to have an intelligent conversation with worlin half the time.
|
|
|
|
Post by HCMBrainCandy on Feb 16, 2005 19:08:33 GMT -6
He's right Maymer, what else is it of? If the universe wasn't created and it didn't just evolve, how exactly do you propose that it came about, hmm?
|
|
