User Tag List

First 123 Last

Results 11 to 20 of 25

  1. #11
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,540

    Smile A Loving Father

    Quote Originally Posted by OrionzRevenge View Post
    The possibility that just jumps right out at ya is that...well, maybe
    Just maybe
    Those writers of old didn't have a pipeline to Omnipotent Knowledge.
    I mean, we have to consider the possibility don't we?
    It's possible, of course, but on the other hand we all long for an omnipotent father who loves us. And desire holds the trump card. We want to believe in Dad. We don't want to believe God is dead; we want to believe God is Dad.

    Of course as child rearing practices improve, from the sacrificial, to the abusing, to the authoritarian, to the helping, the reality of a loving father enters the realms of possibility too.

  2. #12
    Starcrossed Seafarer Aquarelle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Posts
    3,532

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OrionzRevenge View Post
    ^^^ I am.
    Below is prolly the biggest news in that area of study for quite some time.

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0718085329.htm
    Yes! Totally fascinating that apparently early humans and Neanderthals mated! I think that's totally cool. We're all part Neanderthal!
    Masquerading as a normal person day after day is exhausting.

    My blog:
    TypeC: Adventures of an Introvert
    Wordpress: http://introvertadventures.wordpress.com/

  3. #13
    Certified Sausage Smoker Elfboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Socionics
    SLI None
    Posts
    9,635

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aquarelle View Post
    Yes! Totally fascinating that apparently early humans and Neanderthals mated! I think that's totally cool. We're all part Neanderthal!
    so that's where my big nose and pointy skull cap came from
    ENFP: We put the Fi in Fire
    ENFP
    5w4>1w9>2w1 Sx/Sp
    SEE-Fi
    Papa Bear
    Motivation: Dark Worker
    Alignment: Chaotic Neutral
    Chibi Seme
    MTG Color: black/red
    Male Archtype: King/Lover
    Sunburst!
    "You are a gay version of Gambit" Speed Gavroche
    "I wish that I could be affected by any hate, but I can't, cuz I just get affected by the bank" Chamillionaire

  4. #14
    Senior Member Sanctus Iacobus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    MBTI
    STP
    Posts
    286

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OrionzRevenge View Post
    ...
    None of this supports the theory of evolution... that humans have worse eyesight than an Octopus? Didn't we supposedly evolve from water-dwelling creatures?

    It is also not sufficient evidence against intelligent design. There is lots of sufficient evidence against evolution, though, which is what I stated.


    The theory of evolution requires a couple elements to be valid: existence itself spontaneously appeared, planetary systems formed and organized, life formed and organized from non-life, this new life reproduced itself (for whatever reason), and these reproductions diversified themselves.

    All of this is fine, it is of course made up but like any theory we have to consider it as plausible unless there is direct evidence against it. Because evolution is made up, we can't really come up with evidence against it, however, the theory requires millions+ years in order to be plausible, and this is something we can prove is untrue. Also, the hard evidence for evolution rests on bones in sedimentary layers and dating techniques, all of which can and have been proven untrue.

    First, the evidence for the million+ year old age of the earth has been debunked leaving no direct evidence to support the theory any more than the Atheist's beloved parody, the flying spaghetti monster. Carbon dating and radon dating have been thoroughly debunked. Remember all those dinosaur bones? The entire timeline of dinosaur evolution is dependent on sedimentation levels, which have been debunked in many cases where trees of a single age were found standing through all of the levels. Of course, a gigantic flood would explain this dispersion easily. The evidence against the million+ year old age of the earth is growing, and unlike radon and carbon dating, has proven reliable and consistent.

    As far as the million+ years it would take to evolve life, the oldest living organisms on the earth are bristle cone pine and the great barrier reef, both less than 5,000 years old (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristle...ving_organisms) this aligns with the ~6,000 year age estimates from the Bible, it does not, however, allow enough time for evolution to be possible at the scale evolution believers claim.

    Of course, evolutionists will say, they are not around because they've been evolved from. This is not supported by evidence, as none of the earlier organisms have been found... 1 or 2 monkey skeletons were enough, I guess, to say we have evolved. Never mind the 2-5% difference (I have seen both) in the genome, when 2% of is the entire gene strand itself, and that is still millions of pairs, and that altering as little of 3 of these can kill you. No, it's fine, 1 or 2 monkey skeletons totally prove it. http://www.wired.com/medtech/health/news/2003/03/57892

    The Sahara desert goes through a consistent, measurable process of desertification, which (ruling out unmeasurable guesses and theories) "began" 4,000 years ago, although it is more likely this is due to the great flood. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/390097.stm)

    The earth's magnetic field decreases (http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...that-the-stren) Although we've made up this theory that the field reverses, which explains why at the current rate the earth would not be only about 6,000 years old instead of millions+. Unfortunately for that theory, the strength of the field and reversal would make the world unlivable, thus cutting the timeline required for evolution of life short by all but about 25,000 years.

    There are other examples, such as ocean salinity levels (this one is questionable, imo), world population patterns, mitochondrion mutation, even the erosion of Niagra falls (which by measurable rates ought to be gone already) which easily align with a 6,000 y/o world age and ~2,000BC world flood.

    Oh, and dinosaurs (and dragons) are in the Bible. It's fallacy to say they would write about dinosaurs much, only because dinosaurs are extinct and if we were in that time we'd certainly find it so novel that not doing so would seem crazy. It's actually described more thoroughly than many other animals. The Bible is not the only place were creatures like this are described. They don't call them dinosaurs, more like "behemoth", "leviathan", or "dragon"... dinosaur was coined in the early 1800s.

  5. #15
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,540

    The Sequenced Genome

    Quote Originally Posted by Sanctus Iacobus View Post
    None of this supports the theory of evolution...
    The biggest problem for you is the sequencing of the genome, which we do swiftly every day. And the sequenced genome shows we are all part of the same tree of life, each with the four letter alphabet of DNA.

    And the genome arranges itself over three and half billion years into the evolutionary family. We can now measure with digital precision exactly where on the evolutionary tree any species lies.

    So to the reasonable mind, evolution is an established fact.

  6. #16
    Senior Member Sanctus Iacobus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    MBTI
    STP
    Posts
    286

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Victor View Post
    The biggest problem for you is the sequencing of the genome, which we do swiftly every day. And the sequenced genome shows we are all part of the same tree of life, each with the four letter alphabet of DNA.

    And the genome arranges itself over three and half billion years into the evolutionary family. We can now measure with digital precision exactly where on the evolutionary tree any species lies.

    So to the reasonable mind, evolution is an established fact.
    This is not evidence of evolution, though. If anything, the DNA correlation illustrates a single designer, not genetic diversification which would be a byproduct of the evolutionary process.

  7. #17
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,540

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sanctus Iacobus View Post
    This is not evidence of evolution, though. If anything, the DNA correlation illustrates a single designer, not genetic diversification which would be a byproduct of the evolutionary process.
    Pehaps we have a misunderstanding. Evolution does not know how life began. It may well be that God began life, but once it began we know species evolved into species.

    We knew this more than one hundred and fifty years ago with, "The Origin of Species", and since then it has been confirmed by the sequencing of the genome.

    So there is no reason you can't believe that God created life and let it evolve through the species.

  8. #18
    Member OrionzRevenge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    82

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sanctus Iacobus View Post
    Because evolution is made up, we can't really come up with evidence against it, however, the theory requires millions+ years in order to be plausible, and this is something we can prove is untrue. Also, the hard evidence for evolution rests on bones in sedimentary layers and dating techniques, all of which can and have been proven untrue.

    First, the evidence for the million+ year old age of the earth has been debunked leaving no direct evidence to support the theory any more than the Atheist's beloved parody, the flying spaghetti monster. Carbon dating and radon dating have been thoroughly debunked. Remember all those dinosaur bones? The entire timeline of dinosaur evolution is dependent on sedimentation levels, which have been debunked in many cases where trees of a single age were found standing through all of the levels. Of course, a gigantic flood would explain this dispersion easily. The evidence against the million+ year old age of the earth is growing, and unlike radon and carbon dating, has proven reliable and consistent.
    The time frame is actually about 4 billion years for a solid planet and 3.8 billion years for the origins of life.

    Since you haven't provided sources or even notions as to the nature of the 'evidence' that debunks evolution or Earth's longevity, I can't respond further.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sanctus Iacobus View Post
    As far as the million+ years it would take to evolve life, the oldest living organisms on the earth are bristle cone pine and the great barrier reef, both less than 5,000 years old (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristle...ving_organisms) this aligns with the ~6,000 year age estimates from the Bible, it does not, however, allow enough time for evolution to be possible at the scale evolution believers claim.
    If we lived where there were no Bristle Cones or Coral Reefs, but we knew of a Turtle that lived 150 years, would it then be reasonable for us to assume that the age of the planet was 150 years????

    Quote Originally Posted by Sanctus Iacobus View Post
    Of course, evolutionists will say, they are not around because they've been evolved from. This is not supported by evidence, as none of the earlier organisms have been found... 1 or 2 monkey skeletons were enough, I guess, to say we have evolved. Never mind the 2-5% difference (I have seen both) in the genome, when 2% of is the entire gene strand itself, and that is still millions of pairs, and that altering as little of 3 of these can kill you. No, it's fine, 1 or 2 monkey skeletons totally prove it. http://www.wired.com/medtech/health/news/2003/03/57892
    To suggest that a mechanism for evolution (Natural Selection) is not a reality is to be willfully ignorant of what humans have been able to achieve in a few hundred years employing an Absolute Selection.





    Quote Originally Posted by Sanctus Iacobus View Post
    The Sahara desert goes through a consistent, measurable process of desertification, which (ruling out unmeasurable guesses and theories) "began" 4,000 years ago, although it is more likely this is due to the great flood. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/390097.stm)
    Humans these days are greatly concerned about the rapid shrinkage of the polar ice caps and the desertification of lush regions within our lifetimes.
    None of this was caused by a supernatural power but rather super stupid humans.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sanctus Iacobus View Post
    The earth's magnetic field decreases (http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...that-the-stren) Although we've made up this theory that the field reverses, which explains why at the current rate the earth would not be only about 6,000 years old instead of millions+. Unfortunately for that theory, the strength of the field and reversal would make the world unlivable, thus cutting the timeline required for evolution of life short by all but about 25,000 years.
    It is a VERY reasonable notion that the Earth's magnetic fields could flip.
    Fact is, before the advent of GPS, when we relied on magnetic compasses to do accurate navigation and cartography, they had to publish yearly charts so that you could compensate for an enormous amount of drift.


    Ask an old sailor.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sanctus Iacobus View Post
    ...even the erosion of Niagara Falls (which by measurable rates ought to be gone already) which easily align with a 6,000 y/o world age and ~2,000BC world flood.
    I 'spose this is to infer that if a solid Earth were 4 billion yeas old, and IF nothing ever changed, THEN the falls would have long eroded away.
    But the very fact that the falls DO erode points to the flaw in this supposition.
    In 4 billion years continents have came and gone,
    The Ice sheets rolled back the last time about 10,000 years ago and the basins that became the great lakes slowly filled from the melt.
    Only once full did the lakes start spilling into the Atlantic
    ...and that's when the clock starts on that.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sanctus Iacobus View Post
    Oh, and dinosaurs (and dragons) are in the Bible. It's fallacy to say they would write about dinosaurs much, only because dinosaurs are extinct and if we were in that time we'd certainly find it so novel that not doing so would seem crazy. It's actually described more thoroughly than many other animals. The Bible is not the only place were creatures like this are described. They don't call them dinosaurs, more like "behemoth", "leviathan", or "dragon"... dinosaur was coined in the early 1800s.
    Oh, come on dude!

    Humans living in caves painting with their fingers by the torch light were able to depict animals that we can easily recognize.



    As a primitive tribal band, the ancient Jews were able to accurately record the histories of their conquest and defeats. And there were advanced civilizations in the Nile Delta, the Fertile Crescent, and China that were much more capable of record keeping and artistic expression.

    Are you trying to tell me in all of 1500 years of effort that never once is there an accurate description or visual depiction of the creatures from the fossil record???

    That no one ever depicted a dragon that could have actually flown supported by a full-body flight membrane similar to a bat???



    Or when the writer of Genesis wanted to show God's dominion over the animals that he chose the puny-ass Lion when he could have made a more powerful demonstration of God's dominion by saying "And the T. Rex laid down with the Lamb"????

    If you want to cling to every word of scripture hook, line, and sinker, then that's you.
    But there is no reason to bring it to the SCIENCE sub-forum and shit on a thread where people want to apply critical thought.
    "The only real valuable thing is intuition." Albert Einstein
    "My mind seems to have become a kind of machine for grinding general laws out of large collections of facts." Charles Darwin

  9. #19
    Senior Member Sanctus Iacobus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    MBTI
    STP
    Posts
    286

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OrionzRevenge View Post
    If we lived where there were no Bristle Cones or Coral Reefs, but we knew of a Turtle that lived 150 years, would it then be reasonable for us to assume that the age of the planet was 150 years????
    Not really, but it would be a better indication than carbon or radon dating, which is entirely inconsistent.


    Quote Originally Posted by OrionzRevenge View Post
    To suggest that a mechanism for evolution (Natural Selection) is not a reality is to be willfully ignorant of what humans have been able to achieve in a few hundred years employing an Absolute Selection.

    http://www.dogbreed4u.com/sites/dogb...dog-breeds.jpg

    http://soupscoop.files.wordpress.com...2/tomatoes.jpg
    Natural selection and evolution are not the same thing. That would be like saying, because we engineered all the best design features of previous models into our latest car that it will one day turn into a jet airplane. You can say different types of dogs prove evolution, but dogs will never be able to mate with horses, because they are not the same type. So how do we have all these different types of animals that can't reproduce outside of their type if they have a common origin as Darwin claims? It seems like they're awfully similar, as if they came from the same origin, and yet they are different types. How can this be? A common designer doesn't make sense, it's probably that they came from an amoeboid. Yeah.

    The funny thing about the theory of evolution is that it would say the dogs and tomatoes are related. But no, of course this is not the case, and all we have seen is a given type developing into sub-types, which is in the Bible and, IMO, suggests a common designer.

    "And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind."

    "And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind."

    "And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so."

    So as we can see, having different types of dogs coming from dogs is normal, and it is not an example of evolution or proof of the theory of evolution. Now, if we could prove the whale turned into a dog, we'd have a start. But even then, that's still life to life. Evolution requires life from non-life, so it's more like that dog came from a rock. I mean, why not? They both contain carbon.

    I know this sounds ridiculous, but don't blame me, it's evolution.


    Quote Originally Posted by OrionzRevenge View Post
    Humans these days are greatly concerned about the rapid shrinkage of the polar ice caps and the desertification of lush regions within our lifetimes.
    None of this was caused by a supernatural power but rather super stupid humans
    Desertification is caused by wind, which occurs naturally.


    Quote Originally Posted by OrionzRevenge View Post
    It is a VERY reasonable notion that the Earth's magnetic fields could flip.
    Fact is, before the advent of GPS, when we relied on magnetic compasses to do accurate navigation and cartography, they had to publish yearly charts so that you could compensate for an enormous amount of drift.
    http://mtnspirit.files.wordpress.com...pole-drift.jpg

    Ask an old sailor.
    Not at all the same thing. The last pole shift supposedly occurred 780,000 years ago... what you have there is it drifting laterally nearly 15 degrees in only 200 years, which would go around in about 2,400 years at that rate. At the average statistical rate of 10km/year, it would take 2,000 years. So how come it hasn't flipped since supposedly 780,000 years? The reason: it never has. The poles may move around but they don't flip, and because they don't flip the original rate of demagnification is accurate, thus cutting the evolutionary time scale way to short to be even remotely plausible.

    Embracing the obscure and unlikely in order to explain away the obvious is not the path to finding the truth, and it certainly shouldn't be called science.

    Quote Originally Posted by OrionzRevenge View Post
    I 'spose this is to infer that if a solid Earth were 4 billion yeas old, and IF nothing ever changed, THEN the falls would have long eroded away.
    But the very fact that the falls DO erode points to the flaw in this supposition.
    In 4 billion years continents have came and gone,
    The Ice sheets rolled back the last time about 10,000 years ago and the basins that became the great lakes slowly filled from the melt.
    Only once full did the lakes start spilling into the Atlantic
    ...and that's when the clock starts on that.
    I have done some more research on this and found that it was actually a claim to support the evolutionary time scale which was later removed because it supported the creationist time scale in the manner that it was presented, so I will concede this as it was never actually a point presented pro-ID.


    Quote Originally Posted by OrionzRevenge View Post
    Oh, come on dude!

    Humans living in caves painting with their fingers by the torch light were able to depict animals that we can easily recognize.

    As a primitive tribal band, the ancient Jews were able to accurately record the histories of their conquest and defeats. And there were advanced civilizations in the Nile Delta, the Fertile Crescent, and China that were much more capable of record keeping and artistic expression.

    Are you trying to tell me in all of 1500 years of effort that never once is there an accurate description or visual depiction of the creatures from the fossil record???

    That no one ever depicted a dragon that could have actually flown supported by a full-body flight membrane similar to a bat???
    I never said they didn't, the matter at hand here is the timeline, and none of those drawings mean a thing.

    Who says dragons flied? It's irrelevant. The issue is that the evolutionary time scale requires that dinosaurs came before humans, and this is because it's one of the symptoms you'd have if the sedimentary layer dating were real. It's irrelevant because we know they are not. If anything, as soon as the sedimentary layer dating was debunked, it should then be accepted that "scientifically" (if you could have ever called it that) it was more likely that the two occurred at the same time. But that makes things awfully uncomfortable for evolutionists, so we skipped that.


    Quote Originally Posted by OrionzRevenge View Post
    Or when the writer of Genesis wanted to show God's dominion over the animals that he chose the puny-ass Lion when he could have made a more powerful demonstration of God's dominion by saying "And the T. Rex laid down with the Lamb"????
    Those animals were used, I believe (because this is deviating from the topic quite a bit, this is just my personal opinion), to depict character traits. It is both literal, and an illustration to the heart of what the world became after the fall of man.

    Quote Originally Posted by OrionzRevenge View Post
    there is no reason to bring it to the SCIENCE sub-forum and shit on a thread where people want to apply critical thought.
    There's no reason to believe in evolution either, except that the undeniable existence of a Creator makes evolutionists squirm in their seat. It has nothing to do with critical thought.

  10. #20
    Intriguing.... Quinlan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    MBTI
    ISFP
    Enneagram
    9w1
    Socionics
    Booo
    Posts
    3,005

    Default

    You can say different types of dogs prove evolution, but dogs will never be able to mate with horses, because they are not the same type.
    What does dogs mating with horses have to do with evolution?

    So how do we have all these different types of animals that can't reproduce outside of their type if they have a common origin as Darwin claims? It seems like they're awfully similar, as if they came from the same origin, and yet they are different types. How can this be? A common designer doesn't make sense, it's probably that they came from an amoeboid. Yeah.
    Why should common origin = being able to reproduce? They have diverged a lot from their common origin. Different "types" have evolved to fill different niches.

    The funny thing about the theory of evolution is that it would say the dogs and tomatoes are related. But no, of course this is not the case, and all we have seen is a given type developing into sub-types, which is in the Bible and, IMO, suggests a common designer.
    "Types" and "kinds" are arbitrary designations.
    Act your age not your enneagram number.

    Quinlan's Creations

Similar Threads

  1. [MBTItm] The haiku thread...
    By anii in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: 01-22-2017, 11:03 PM
  2. The Beer Thread
    By Noel in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 309
    Last Post: 02-03-2010, 12:07 PM
  3. The GHOST thread
    By swordpath in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 03-14-2008, 08:47 AM
  4. The Hundredth Thread
    By Rajah in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 04-24-2007, 12:22 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO