diverborg

Who said my theories were based on the bible? You don't have to believe in any religion to see that evolution is fundamentally flawed. And, for the record I do believe the bible, I just haven't seen how any actual scientific findings contradict it. It's just the theories behind the findings that contradict it. The bible was not meant to be a science book, and I'm not arguing that we teach the bible in science class. We just need to come to grips that the evolutionary theory is outdated, and flawed. And, I've already heard all the arguments on how science does contradict the bible, so don't waste your time. I use to believe evolution at one time.

It's taught as the only theory too. I know your next response will be "because its the best and most scientific that we have" Then my response will be "then we need to start working on a new theory" Then I don't know what you're next response will be Then my next response will be "I have to go skydive now and then drink lots of beer. Have a good weekend."

Fair enough, I have no problem with it being taught as a theory, although I will always think it's a really bad one. However it is taught as a fact, and most scientists would never consider anything else. I'm not trying to say that in the classroom, we need to say God did it, and that's it. We just need to get our minds unglued from the current evolutionary theory, and maybe just maybe allow some of the scientific findings that contradict the current theory into science books instead of throwing them out as if they were never discovered.

I read a good portion of it, but do not have the desire to read that entire thing, since I've have already heard everything I read in the first half. But all I really care to do in SC, since it is nothing more than a silly internet debate, is the "point-by-point" refutation.

What scientific evidence is there that honestly proves evolution? I don't have the desire to waste my time getting into a huge science debate. Your calling me out prove my point. I'll do the same, try to come up with a valid answer for any of those questions I've posted. Anyone educated in this area should know that it's going to take more than just a little internet debate to make any leeway on this subject. Besides, it's friday and I don't have the desire to sit at my computer all night and write a thesis paper on the faults with evolution. If you're interested there's plenty of material available for research. I would look up a video put out by Illustra Media called "Unlocking the Mystery of Life." It's simply a scientific video with no religious bias. It doesn't have all the answers, but it's what got me questioning everything I've been taught all my life.

I have taken college level biology courses as well as geology, and they teach everything you guys are arguing, but I've never seen or been taught in these classes anything that could answer even one of these questions. However, I have researched the other arguments as well, and I just can't see how evolution can continue to be taught as a legitimate theory or a fact as almost any school or college teaches it. But don't mind me, i'm just a religious nut with no common sense even though nothing I've said had anything to with God, just the faults with the current system. At least I gave the thought of evolution a chance, since that's all i've been taught my whole life, but fortunately I was able to realize what a shitty theory it was.

there ya go alex Here's a few questions you could ask yourself if you believe the evolutionary theory. I use to waste a lot of breath on these arguments because it's a area of high interest and I've studied it much. Instead of trying to convince people that true collected science contradicts evolution. I'll let them use a little common sense. Now come on you liberals brag about being so open-minded, think about these a little bit. 1. Where has macroevolution ever been observed? (See page 6.) What’s the mechanism for getting new complexity, such as new vital organs? (See pages 6–8.) If any of the thousands of vital organs evolved, how could the organism live before getting the vital organ? (Without a vital organ, the organism is dead—by definition.) If a reptile’s leg evolved into a bird’s wing, wouldn’t it become a bad leg long before it became a good wing? How could metamorphosis evolve? (See page 15.) 2. Do you realize how complex living things are? (See page 13.) How could organs as complex as the eye, ear, or brain of even a tiny bird ever come about by chance or natural processes? (See page 8.) How could a bacterial motor evolve? How could such motors work until all components evolved completely and were precisely in place? (See page 18.) 3. If macroevolution happened, where are the billions of transitional fossils that should be there? Billions! Not a handful of questionable transitions. Why don’t we see a reasonably smooth continuum among all living creatures, or in the fossil record, or both? (See page 10.) 4. Textbooks show an evolutionary tree, but where is its trunk and where are its branches? For example, what are the evolutionary ancestors of the insects? (See page 11.) 5. How could the first living cell begin? That’s a greater miracle than for bacteria to evolve into man. How could that first cell reproduce? (See page 14.) Just before life appeared, did the atmosphere have oxygen or did it not have oxygen? Whichever choice you make creates a terrible problem for evolution. Both must come into existence at about the same time. (See page 13.) 6. Please point to a strictly natural process that creates information. What evidence is there that information, such as that in DNA, could ever assemble itself? What about the 4,000 books’ worth of coded information that are in a tiny part of each of your 100 trillion cells? If astronomers received an intelligent signal from some distant galaxy, most people would conclude that it came from an intelligent source. Why then doesn’t the vast information sequence in the DNA molecule of just a bacterium also imply an intelligent source? (See pages 9 and 14.) 7. Which came first, DNA or the proteins needed by DNA, which can only be produced by DNA? (See page 15.) 8. How could sexual reproduction evolve? (See page 17.) How could immune systems evolve? (See page 18.) 9. If it takes intelligence to make an arrowhead, why doesn’t it take vastly more intelligence to create a human? Do you really believe that hydrogen will turn into people if you wait long enough? 10. If the solar system evolved, why do three planets spin backwards? Why do at least 30 moons revolve backwards? (See page 24.) 11. Can you name one reasonable hypothesis on how the moon got there—any hypothesis that is consistent with all the data? Why aren’t students told the scientific reasons for rejecting all the evolutionary theories for the moon’s origin? What about the other 138+ moons in the solar system? (See page 26.) 12. Where did matter, space, time, energy, or even the laws of physics come from? (See page 27.) What about water? (See page 24.) 13. How could stars evolve? (See pages 27–30.) 14. Are you aware of all the unreasonable assumptions and contradictory evidence used by those who say the earth is billions of years old? (See pages 34–38 and 262–267.) 15. Why are living bacteria found inside rocks that you say are hundreds of millions of years old and in meteorites that you say are billions of years old? Clean-room techniques and great care were used to rule out contamination. (See page 33.) 16. Did you know that most scientific dating techniques indicate that the earth, solar system, and universe are young? (See pages 32–38.) 17. Why do so many ancient cultures have flood legends? (See page 45.) 18. Have you heard about the mitochondrial Eve and the genetic Adam? Scientists know that the mitochondrial Eve was the common female ancestor of every living person, and she appears to have lived only about 6,000–7,000 years ago. (See pages 259–261.) These page references are to the website these questions came from, but because I'm computerly impaired I'm not sure how to give you the link to the website.

I pick number 2

I think all of my employees charge an extra $20 for a blowjob if the male is uncircumsized. So I'm sure it's less desirable. Oh well, I wish everyone was uncircumsized, that way my ladies would bring me home a bigger CUT every night.$$$

Man, I'm sure glad my parents circumsized me as a baby. That way I don't have to remember it. I couldn't imagine having to go through that now.

Yeah I don't mind any of the hard working Mexicans coming over. What worries me most is our northern border. We need to close it off to make sure no lazy socialist Canadians can make it over.

Might as well throw in the rest of em too. (Japan, Germany, France, etc.)

In that case we shouldn't let any Britains fly the British flag in the US either. That flag is nothing but a symbol of tyrrany, oppression, and religious persecution, and those fu*&%rs taxed our tea. Well they lost the war too.

Amen, I'm glad to hear someone say that. I went to two different state colleges, and it was just ridiculous. These kids take a few classes and think they know how the world works. The professors I encountered were so biased, the kids were just damn near brainwashed into their opinion. You've got to keep in mind that most professors haven't succeeded in their field, or they've just been schooled to go on to school others (referring mostly to humanities and english) They've got nothing better to do than to vent their frustrations with society or keep on pushing the same ideals that they were pushed. LIBERALISM HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH HOW YOU WERE EDUCATED, BUT WITH HOW YOU WERE SCHOOLED. I think any person who has lived and worked in the real world and knows how to become successful has a much better idea of how the world works than some college student. AND YES I DO HAVE A DEGREE FROM A LIBERAL STATE COLLEGE, AND I'M WORKING ON ANOTHER.

Actually, ethanol is quite a bit more expensive than gasoline right now. The only reason its cheaper at the pump is because of government subsidization. I personally think we need another solution besides ethanol. For the amount of corn needed to produce ethanol and the cost of corn it would be quite the longshot for ethanol to ever be economical. Kelloggs will give a lot more money for that corn than we would be willing to spend to have it at the pump. Also ethanol is shit fuel. It burns hotter, and doesn't produce near the power of gasoline. It's only benefit is that it burns cleaner. We could never afford even 50% ethonal without government involvement. So we need to boycott Kelloggs, General Mills, and Quaker corn products and only eat cereal made from wheat or oats. This is the best way to bring the price of corn down so we can afford ethanol. OHH shit, I forgot our farmers will go bankrupt and won't even be able to afford to produce corn. Guess that won't work either. Hmm, how about hydrogen? Anyone got any info on that?

You must have the most bizarre arguments that I've seen from anyone on this website. It's pretty hard to think you're serious. I'm wondering if I'm not the only one who has thought you just post wierd shit to get a reaction.

I did a little research. This Michael Crook guy had originally made a site called "forsakethetroops.info" This domain is now owned by usaf and they have a link on it with this guy being scolded on Hannity & Colmes (pretty funny). Michael Crook claims that this "forsakethetroops.net" is a fraudulent website that is using his name, but have twisted his original website. According to his interview with Hannity & Colmes, it doesn't seem that his views are that far off from this new website.

Seems like these losers have their own little cult going. I hope they all get together and drink some special kool-aid.

I was only trying to be humorous, and I realize the silliness of what I said. I usually try to avoid these war arguments because I honestly don't know if Iraq was a good idea or not. The problem is that we only see the negative effects of our actions and not the negative effects of our inactions(until its too late). We may never know if Iraq was truly worth the sacrifice because we will never know the consequences if we didn't invade. However, trying to place all the blame on Bush and saying that his lies are what convinced everyone to go to war is just ridiculous. Like the other threads have discussed, there was a lot of leftwingers that supported the war too and believed the intel. Bush didn't create this intel, and a lot of it didn't even come from the US, but the UN itself.

Ahhh, this is true. I think instead of going to war, we should buy the bad guys a puppy and see if they will be nicer to everyone. There is always another solution besides war, right?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In Reply To -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The dog's name was Princess. It was probably a little fluffy white doggy about the size of a kitty with hair so long you can't see it's legs when it walks, and it has a tiny little high pitch pathetic woof. I can't picture it being too fierce. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Picture of the dog here. Looks like it could kick my ass. Quote Wow, I guess my stereotype was incorrect

The dog's name was Princess. It was probably a little fluffy white doggy about the size of a kitty with hair so long you can't see it's legs when it walks, and it has a tiny little high pitch pathetic woof. I can't picture it being too fierce.

Now that's loyalty!

funny ain't it, i was gonna post that myself, but you beat me to it.

Sheeeit, this is has gone on forever. I just watched a documentary on cannibalism. Some tribes consider it respectful to eat their love ones after they die. (don't know about killing them or stabbing your daughter in the head though).