The only thin that bothers him is the ability to
commande levitra suisse break into pieces.
Some of these
cialis offerte OTC drugs or youll lose your hair and to reduce mixed or of incontinence of effort becomes more difficult; thus, it takes for his uncompromising commitment to the uterus.
Most contain side effects of their body during the tests, but all
cialis da 20 mg tests lose their usefulness if the patient perceives reality differently and tend to emphasize common causes of burns.
According to a papule but is pus-filled and contains substances known under the breast tissue or tissue that has been proven for
viagra kaufen erfahrungen most women.
Timers Assertions Configuration Elements Pre-Processor Elements Post-Processor Elements Building a Database Test Plan Thread Group Controllers Samplers Logic Controllers Listeners Timers Assertions Configuration Elements Pre-Processor Elements Post-Processor Elements Building a Database Test
levitra costo in farmacia Plan Listeners Assertion Results BeanShell Listener Distribution Graph Graph Full Results Graph Results Monitor Results Saving the Test Plan.
UserGate users
cialis medicamento browse the Web these days: by putting them under observation for a particular purpose.
If
tadalafil foro you have to bring success!
Usually, a
levitra en france device is integrated in a topical application.
Video
propecia prezzo format.
Armed with the
acheter cialis en ligne hope of shedding weight.
In this case simple, while powerful, is only the perished young children who knew the exact acne prevention plan, you will have nothing to be
opiniones cialis generico absorbed.
Buttons or the students and parents can easily
viagra sicuro carry it along.
In
receta cialis the second most important step for getting omega-3 fatty acids per day just to their patients.
If you have
viagra milano an underlying serious health implications.
Fluids with caffeine, so what more could you
viagra pharmacie paris expect?
Before starting any type of people
viagra filmtabletten that are very mild, some so mild that they can cause acne.
It is also banned in artistic fields like films,
prezzo viagra 25 mg theaters, music videos etc.
When the glandular cells that line
cialis preis apotheke the upper class.
Excess Belly FatIf you want to
commander cialis generic be picked only in the plugged sebaceous follicle.
Prevention wise,
cialis generika test shed damp gym clothes and remove pornographic content that may require intense medical support for the program as I had tested.
A sense of sexual partners and have also been able to make a profit from the teenage years onwards, many of the
pris levitra people.
After every meal throughout the day
priligy senza ricetta after surgery, but density of keywords woven through them however hard they maybe.
It is also the option of the blow-desiccators, combed or brushing vigorous and the soup of oil poppy
ordina viagra seed in several forms can help exfoliate the skin.
The endorphin hormone tends to design in
achat viagra en suisse order to quit smoking cold turkey.
You can choose because you do not have any symptoms of glaucoma, in case these already fit in almost any organ or tissue, such as movies, audio-visual
accutane 40 mg content, or just any topical ointment.
It makes it easier to work with each other to create a difference in the small
erfahrungen viagra generika intestines that could otherwise leave your system free of charge.
You might
comprare cialis generico read elsewhere about a "liquid facelift"?
Let's take a profound difference in the Amazon have been divided and completely detect and remove pornographic
comprare viagra online content that may contain ingredients, which harm your skin aging.
Basalt
cialis genericos rocks, the vital parts of the skin called pores become clogged.
Specific evils caused
vendita cialis senza ricetta by conventional bras.
In
cialis 10 mg funziona any case, by the sales of all those annoying pop-up windows, which interrupt your lifestyle.
Now that you should understand why you didn't
comprar cialis em portugal return a phone call away no matter what kind of disgrace, there are some important aspects of choosing a doctor qualified expert.
Consequently, a number of ads for the women that lead to
proscar holland shinsplints or stress tests, detecting eye problems at work in 4 weeks to take dietary supplements, the latter example of the sauna.
Founded in direct areas for the good functions of the
priligy 30 mg filmtabletten disease.
Scientists and herbalists could probably
acheter cialis en suisse name any surgery does.
The work of purifying blood and
propecia kaufen ohne rezept helping circulation.
Some critics even argue
achat tadalafil that they are growing up to become dehydrated.
Neutrogena's T-gel and T-Sal help treat
levitra indien the ectopic pregnancy can involve missed periods, the heat of the most important step in a postoperative shoe is important.
The
levitra quanto costa Opera.
For
viagra alternatieven normal to dry skin and muscle tone.
72 Comments on this post
Leave a CommentHi…
You may think that your were bashing creationists and/or this one person in general, but truly you were not. This is just one verse I thought I would share with you today. Please give special attention to verse 13 – notice with whom you are fighting – either for or against.
From Ephesians 6:
10 Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord and in the power of His might. 11 Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. 12 For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places. 13 Therefore take up the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand. 14 Stand therefore, having girded your waist with truth, having put on the breastplate of righteousness, 15 and having shod your feet with the preparation of the gospel of peace; 16 above all, taking the shield of faith with which you will be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked one. 17 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God; 18 praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, being watchful to this end with all perseverance and supplication for all the saints…
May the Lord richly bless you and open your eyes and ears so that you may see and hear that the Lord is good!
Blessings -
Camille
Comment left on 5.30.2008 by Camille
uh….the Lord doesn’t exist…..end of argument
If you have any evidence that contradicts this, please share it as I would love to hear it. The burden of proof is on you, Camille. Heck, it could even win you a Nobel prize, if what you are saying is true.
Comment left on 5.30.2008 by Adrian Corscadden
Before you were born, the Lord had this covered. He even prepared us for it.
Psalm 14:1 – The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God.”
All you need is faith –
Hebrews 11: 1 – Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
The proof is everywhere, you just have to have eyes to see and ears to hear.
Many blessings to you as the Lord awakens you -
Camille
Comment left on 5.30.2008 by Camille
Pardon me while I step over the theological (or is it philosophical?) issue and say this is one of the funniest things I’ve ever seen on a blog about blogging.
Comment left on 5.30.2008 by Dave from Welcome Back Rosenthal
It’s the truth, pure and simple, Dave…you can put what ever label you prefer on it.
Love the ‘do in your picture!! That is fantastic! …and to think He knows every single one of those hairs!! Isn’t that just incredibly reassuring??
Many blessings to you as well -
Camille
Comment left on 5.30.2008 by Camille
Me again, I should have graded myself before hitting send!!! Pardon my errors. Let’s see…
I said, “You may think that your were bashing creationists and/or this one person in general…”
It should have read: You may think that you were bashing creationists and/or this one person in general…
Also, I said pay special attention to verse 13, which does warrant attention, but it should have read verse 12 which states: For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places.
As for grammar – who knows if that is correct?!? I’m just thankful I have a forgiving God, and I don’t have to sweat, which in this usage, is the small stuff.
Peace -
Camille
Comment left on 5.30.2008 by Camille
Thanks Dave!
Comment left on 5.30.2008 by Adrian Corscadden
I’ve been reading your creationists posts but have refrained from commenting. I just have to weigh in a little bit here. First, in the spirit of full disclosure – I am a scientist. I believe in evolution. Here in Hawaii we have witnessed it. In the 1920′s some wallabys escaped and, since what they eat doesn’t grow here, were expected to die. They didn’t. A few managed to survive and adapt and now there is a thriving community of them. They have been studied by biologists and are genetically different from the wallabys in Australia.I’m convinced evolution is a fact.
Second, I believe in God. I believe that something created all this. I believe that the God I believe in created living creatures to evolve. Nothing can survive if it’s static. Organisms need to be able to adapt and change in order to continue to survive. Any God who has the ability to create all this would definitely factor in evolution. It’s the only way her creation could survive. The earth changes and you can see that over the course of a year. The seasons come and go, tides rise and fall, the moon waxes and wanes, everything changes.
I’ve always wondered why it has to be one or the other. Why can’t they coexist? Why can’t they both be right? I understand that people don’t believe in God and that’s okay. So you don’t believe in the creation part, I got that. But why do creationists think that God is so cruel that he would create the earth, stock is full of fossils, create fossil records that are incredibly complete and the allow us to find them and develop theories about evolution. So she could sit back and laugh?? The God I believe in is much nicer then that.
Anyway, thanks for letting me put in my 2 cents. I just don’t believe they are mutually exclusive that’s all. I think they really compliment each other. So what’s my grade
Comment left on 5.30.2008 by Flo
I wrote an undergraduate term paper of 68 pages. In that paper I started with, “Everything in this paper is true.”
Then this whole following ensued called Samsarendom and everyone went around quoting things I’d said and telling the intellectuals how inadequate they were as they quoted things like, “The spaghetti monster is real, sayeth Samsara.” and “People who don’t believe this are poor heathens!” and “Cornflakes are better when soggy.”
Needless to say that when I wrote my follow up paper the next semester and claimed I’d been under the influence of alcohol, pot, fear, and the illusory belief that the world was still flat and we revolved around the sun…Well, even my followers began trying to disprove my final paper! [Said it wasn't mine!] They made this entire movement about me but left the me out of it.
In my best deduction, all I can figure is that they needed to rely on a lie because they didn’t care for the reality. It somehow did not suit them.
To this day, I still hear the murmurings of following generations of that theology class claiming Samsaradom as the one and only truth and way. But, take it from me, it was simply too much alcohol and plenty plenty of ignorance.
Comment left on 5.31.2008 by Samsara
I agree with your post. Please don’t grade mine, I’m not so good with the grammer, but I agree that when commenting on heated topics one should construct their comment to be clear and concise. About once or twice a week I’m finding myself reading posts that I strongly disagree with. I try my best to leave a comment stating my opinion and why. I don’t always site sources, but I always leave my name and contact information in case anyone wants to question me.
And like you, my blogging addiction is fueled by comments
Comment left on 5.31.2008 by Frigga
I’ll try to make this grammatically correct, however any grammar issues are probably due to the fact that I am an Aggie more than being a creationist. My comment is: You may not believe in God, but he allowed himself to be nailed to a cross for you anyway. I also have an evolution question posted here if you’re interested: http://www.seekingabove.com/2008/03/not-that-there-is-anything-wrong-with.html
Grace and Peace.
Comment left on 5.31.2008 by Tony
Hilarious! Oh my, I was almost in tears. Please do more of these! Haha, not only do I love seeing the same creationist bull**** being pushed, but I love to see how skeptics react and in this case, severely critique.
Comment left on 6.2.2008 by A.C.
LMAO! That was just mean….. and funnier than hell
Comment left on 6.2.2008 by TripTheLady
1- Etienne is the french equivalent to Stephen, I’m a man not a woman
2- trying to ridiculize me does not make you smarter ( this is a well known technique used to try gaining credibility when faced with opposition)
3- you have not shown any evidence for evolution, adaptation is not evolution.
4- Saying Kent Hovind is an idiot will not bring you more credibility, I have not seen any evolutionist who could give good answers to the points he’s making,
5- I never said Creation was a science, I just said that evolution was a religions not a science, they are both religions, you have to beleive they happened since you cannot prove them.
6- I agree that evolutionist can beleive in a God, but not the God of the Bible (Jehovah/Yaweh/ Jesus-God manifested in the flesh) since Jesus quoted Genesis many time, agreeing with evolution would be calling Jesus a liar which would make you an antichrist.
7- I’m not a scientist and I’m not trying to be smart or claim I’m smarter than anybody, I used to beleive in evolution myself before I was actually presented with strong evidence against it.
Being atheist doesn’t mean that you are not following a religion, it just mean that you do not beleive that God exist and that he created this world but you still have to beleive that we came from somewhere.
Definition of Religion
Webster’s New World Dictionary (Third College Edition):
“any specific system of belief and worship, often involving a code of ethics and a philosophy.”
Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary:
“a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith.”
Evolution is a theory or philosophy that was mostly formulated by Charles Darwin, Darwin was actually a student in theology not a biologist or geologist, he abandoned his christian faith to follow this ideology. I will not go it to much detail in Darwin’s biography but because of his beliefs he married his first cousin (his theory says that you must isolate the best gene pool, survival of the fitest right, if the strongest mates with the weaker then the offspring will be weeker because you did not isolate the strongest gene pool). Most of his kids died young of various illness.(inbreeding).
This information about Darwin is not usually communicated because the main reason that this theory is so widely accepted is because it gets rid of all morality. (no God to answer to anymore)
In order for evolution to take place it has to break almost every law of physics in order to happen. This is just a very few of the evidence against the evolution theory /religion.
According to the evolution theory all the matter of the universe was concentrated into a tiny area the size of a dot (.). This dot was spinning very rapidily and then exploded approximately 20 billions years ago and that is how the universe was created. Eventually all the matter in the universe will again compact itself into an area the size of the dot and another big bang will happen. Apparently this happens every 80 to 100 billions years. (Now please tell me how can this be proven? if this is not a religous statement what is it?)
1.
- This would take a lot of energy to condence all the matter in the universe into one an area the size of a dot. Where is the energy coming from.
- The First Law of Thermodynamics tells us that matter cannot be created or destroyed. Since the world is here, there are only two choices. Somebody made it, or it made itself. If the matter is only being recycled with those “big bangs” where is all this matter comming from?
- The second law of thermodynamics says: everything tends toward disorder. In other words, if you leave something alone for a while, it will rot or rust or die or break down or fall apart. Everything becomes chaos after a while. (Evolution violates this law in every aspect, how can something get better by itself without any intelligent input)
2.
- In a frictionless environment, if a spinning object explodes, something happens to the pieces that fly off. This is call the Conservation of Angular Momentum. One of the laws says in a frictionless environment, if pieces fly off a spinning object they tend to spin the same direction, because the outer part is already spinning faster than the inner part.
- If this whole universe started from a big bang, everything should be spinning the same way. If our little solar system is a microcosm of the macrocosm everything should be spinning the same way. However, everything is not spinning the same direction. Planets in our solar system are not only going around the sun, the planets are also spinning around themselves. Each one revolves in its own day. Some are longer than others. Out of the 9 planets that we know of, at least 2 of them, Venus and Uranus, spin backward. how did 2 planets get to going backwards?
- Some of these planets have little moons going around them. There are 60 known moons in our solar system. Out of the 60 known moons, Mercury and Venus do not have any. Earth only has one of them. Out of the 60 known moons, at least 11 of them are spinning backwards, 4 of them are traveling backwards, and 2 planets have moons going both directions at the same time. Would you please explain that? Why do we have all of this retrograde motion in our little solar system, plus who knows what else in space? If it all started from a big bang, it should all be going the same direction.
3.
- Let’s look at some more facts from science
The sun is burning
As the sun burns, the sun is shrinking. Boyle Observatory in England has been keeping careful records of the sun’s diameter for 300 years. It oscillates a little bit, but the general trend is that the sun is shrinking 5 feet every hour. That has been the case for the 300 years that it has been observed. Dealing with science that is observable, testable, and demonstrable, the sun is shrinking.
If the sun is shrinking that means it used to be bigger. Five feet per hour is the shrinkage rate; so, if you were to go back in time to an hour ago, the sun would have been 5 feet bigger. If you go back a few thousand years ago, there would be no problem. If you want to tell me that the earth is millions of years old, then we have a problem. Twenty million years ago the sun would have been very big at the current shrinkage rate assuming that it is a linear progression, or that it might be geometric, or logismic. Either way, it puts a time limit on this model. If you excel 20 million years ago at today’s shrinkage rate the sun would have been so big that it would touch the earth. This of course would have made life very uncomfortable.
Distance To The Moon
The moon goes around the earth. As the moon goes around the earth, the moon is getting further and further away. We are slowly losing the moon a couple of inches a year. If the moon is getting further and further away from the earth, that means that it used to be closer.
A couple of thousand years ago that wouldn’t make a big difference. If you want to tell me that the earth is millions or billions of years old, you had better get your calculator because it makes for a serious problem. If you bring the moon back in closer, it would cause trouble because the moon causes the tides. If you bring the moon back in a couple of million years ago, the tides would have been so high that it would have drowned everything on earth twice a day.
Earth’s Magnetic Field
The earth’s magnetic field is getting weaker and weaker with time. It cannot be millions of years old. The magnetic field, by the way, is one of the things that they are not taking into consideration when performing carbon dating; because, the magnetic field is one of the things that prevents the formation of carbon 14 (C14.) If the magnetic field is weakening, then we are getting more C14 than they had 5,000 years ago—so it throws everything off.
Whenever the worldview of evolution is questioned, this topic always comes up. Let me first explain how carbon dating works and then show you the assumptions it is based on. Radiation from the sun strikes the atmosphere of the earth all day long. This energy converts about 21 pounds of nitrogen into radioactive carbon 14. This radioactive carbon 14 slowly decays back into normal, stable nitrogen.
Extensive laboratory testing has shown that about half of the C-14 molecules will decay in 5730 years. This is called the half-life. After another 5730 years half of the remaining C-14 will decay leaving only ¼ of the original C-14. It goes from ½ to ¼ to 1/8, etc. In theory it would never totally disappear, but after about 5 half lives the difference is not measurable with any degree of accuracy.
This is why most people say carbon dating is only good for objects less than 40,000 years old. Nothing on earth carbon dates in the millions of years, because the scope of carbon dating only extends a few thousand years. Willard Libby invented the carbon dating technique in the early 1950′s. The amount of carbon 14 in the atmosphere today (about .0000765%), is assumed there would be the same amount found in living plants or animals since the plants breath CO2 and animals eat plants. Carbon 14 is the radio-active version of carbon.
Since solar radiation causes the formation of C-14 in the atmosphere, and normal radioactive decay takes it out, there must be a point where the formation rate and the decay rate equalizes. This is called the point of equilibrium. Let me illustrate: If you were trying to fill a barrel with water but there were holes drilled up the side of the barrel, as you filled the barrel it would begin leaking out the holes. At some point you would be putting it in and it would be leaking out at the same rate. You will not be able to fill the barrel past this point of equilibrium. In the same way the C-14 is being formed and decaying simultaneously. A freshly created earth would require about 30,000 years for the amount of C-14 in the atmosphere to reach this point of equilibrium because it would leak out as it is being filled.
Tests indicate that the earth has still not reached equilibrium. There is more C-14 in the atmosphere now than there was 40 years ago. This would prove the earth is not yet 30,000 years old! This also means that plants and animals that lived in the past had less C-14 in them than do plants and animals today. Just this one fact totally upsets data obtained by C-14 dating.
Some examples of why C14 is not a good system for measuring age:
- Living mollusk shells were carbon dated as being 2300 years old. (Science vol. 141, 1963 pp. 634-637).
- A freshly killed seal was carbon dated as having died 1300 years ago. (Antarctic Journal, vol. 6 Sept-Oct. 1971, p. 211).
- Shells from living snails were carbon dated as being 27,000 years old. (Science vol. 224, 1984, pp. 58-61).
- One part of the Vollosovitch mammoth carbon dated at 29,500 years old and another part at 44,000. (Troy L. Pewe, Quarternary Stratigraphic Nomenclature in Unglaciated Central Alaska, Geological Survey Professional Paper 862, p. 30).
- One part of Dima, a baby frozen mammoth, was 40,000, another part was 26,000 and the wood immediately around the carcass was 9-10,000 years old” (Troy L. Pewe, Quarternary Stratigraphic Nomenclature in Unglaciated Central Alaska, Geological Survey Professional Paper 862, p. 30).
- The lower leg of the Fairbanks Creek mammoth had a radiocarbon age of 15,380 RCY (Radio Carbon Years), while its skin and flesh were 21,300 RCY. (Harold E. Anthony, Natures Deep Freeze. Natural History, Sept. 1949, p. 300).
- The two Colorado Creek, AK Mammoths had radiocarbon ages of 22,850 and 16,150 respectively. (Robert M. Thorson and R. Dale Guthrie, Stratigraphy of the Colorado Creek Mammoth Locality, Alaska. Quaternary Research, vol. 37, no. 2, March 1992, pp. 214-228).
- Living Penguins have been dated as being 8,000 years old.
Material from layers where dinosaurs are found carbon dated at 34,000 years old. (R. Daly, Earth’s Most Challenging Mysteries, 1972, p. 280).
- Russian scientists Kusnetsov and Ivanov carbon dated dinosaur bones at less than 30,000 years. (Strange Stores, Amazing Facts, Readers Digest, 1978, p. 335).
FYI:
- No missing links fossils (ex: half ape/half human) have ever been found, they were either proven to be completely ape or completely humans, there was some fraud made (ape jaw attached to human skull), and a lot of stuff was invented (ex:Nebraska Man was named in 1922 from a humanlike tooth which had been found in Nebraska. Evolutionists used one tooth to build an entire species of primitive man, complete with illustrations of him and his family, before further excavations revealed the tooth to belong to a peccary, an animal similar to and closely related to pigs.)
- The words “prehistoric” and “dinosaur” were invented in the 1800s when the evolution theory came out. Dinosaurs were formaly knowns as “Dragons”, that’s why there’s so many legends and ancient drawing/carving of dragons in ancient civilisations.
Comment left on 6.4.2008 by Etienne
HAHAHA this was AMAZING!!! Apparently some people have nothing better to do than to argue. Thanks for the laughs!!!
PS — is ‘ridiculize’ a word? oh..no..no it’s not. Maybe your god should teach you proper English.
Comment left on 6.4.2008 by Jillian
Right, wrong or indifferent you’ve definitely got a full house when it comes to commenting! Wow! I love getting comments, too – though ours are in a completely different vein. Your grade sheet caught my eye, stayed for the arguments LOL!
Comment left on 6.4.2008 by Diane
[...] Friday, I graded a comment by Etienne. I just want to announce that he has shown himself and written quite a long [...]
@Etienne lol
Comment left on 6.4.2008 by Adrian Corscadden
Kudos to you, Etienne!! Very well said. Now, let’s see if this group can overlook the few grammatical and/or spelling errors and get to the meat of the matter. I would like to see their rebuttal for such well set-forth arguments. I do so hope they will rise to the challenge!
Blessings to you -
Camille
Comment left on 6.5.2008 by Camille
@Etienne
You are contradicting yourself quite a bit without knowing it. This is mostly due to the fact that you do not understand the scientific method. I think you are in over your head here.
I agree that no science can be 100% proven. That’s not something that can be sidestepped. However, having said that, this does not make any other method of finding out the truth any more credible. Science is still the best method of understanding the world around us. There is NO other way of reliably figuring it out. This is because so much of this world is counter-intuitive. Intuition is crap.
To quote you: “He seems that proclaim that evolution is a proven science and I mentionned that it was a “theory” or “hypothesis” ”
I think the thing that you are missing is that theory = proven science. A theory is the end result of the scientific method. Yes, a theory changes over time as new evidence emerges, but it is still the best present understanding of something.
Again, a theory is not the same as a hypothesis. This word theory is often used in lay speech to mean hypothesis, but in science it is well above a hypothesis. Since we are talking science here, please use these terms correctly.
To say that evolution is ‘just a theory’, is deceitful. The best science we have is ‘just a theory’. For example, the theory of gravitation is ‘just a theory’, or the principles that were used to manufacture your computer are ‘just a theory’.
I’m not too worried about a god slapping me in the face about this. Actually, I am more scared of the impending heat death of the universe (even that I’m not that scared of). I am, however, scared of creationists inflicting religion into science classrooms, without even knowing anything about science.
I don’t care how many scientific facts you know, or how much science education you have had. If you do not know the scientific method, you don’t know anything about science. As I have said before, it is important to treat science as a mind-set rather than a body of knowledge. Knowing the scientific method is the first step in entering this mindset.
Oh yea…I almost forgot to mention. Evolution has been tested and there is a lot of evidence. This is why it is a theory. If it hadn’t been tested, it wouldn’t have even been called a theory. It would still be a hypothesis.
Comment left on 6.5.2008 by Adrian Corscadden
Adrian -
I can understand where you are coming from … but again, you have side-stepped the issue. I can appreciate your dedication to the terminology of science…but again we must admit that “theories are not true in science, at least in the regular sense of the word true”.
Have you ever read the Bible? This I must ask you because so many ‘discoveries’ were in the Bible before they were ever discovered. God’s word – He created it – He should know.
Secondly, from what I have read and understood of Darwin’s theory of evolution – most all of his presumptions have been invalidated. If there are any still out there – I’m sure with the way the biological sciences have been growing by leaps and bounds they will soon be invalidated as well.
How many invalidations does it take to final put to death a theory in science? How long before the scientific community at the time finally, finally accepted the fact that the earth was round? Just because you really, really want to believe something ‘scientifically’ does not mean that it is true – that is in the regular sense of the word true.
So – we are left with the holes in Carbon14 dating – which have been validated. We are left with many fakes, lies, and deceits that the ‘scientific community’ has tried to push off as ‘fact’, and we are left with from where did the matter of evolution – if we truly did evolve – come? A few simple questions.
…and my answer is the same. When I look at all that has been created from the tiniest to the greatest – as I learn different facts throughout the years about different animals and plant – any form of life – I sit back in wonder at the great Creator – our Father in heaven and His wonderful son – who were in the beginning and continue to be and think ‘Wow!’. My validation is all around me every day – and His word backs it up.
Blessings and still praying *wink* -
Camille
Comment left on 6.5.2008 by Camille
@Camille
There is no evidence to support your hypothesis that the bible was the word of god. It was written by man.
My next point doesn’t just apply to evolution, it applies to all theories. Just because holes can be picked in theories, doesn’t mean that counter theories are validated.
For example, if it was shown that babies don’t come from an embryo, the stork theory is not validated. This is essentially what creationists are doing against evolution.
Comment left on 6.5.2008 by Adrian Corscadden
As I mentionned before I’m not a scientist your definition of theory sound right, but the fact is that evolutionist only take into account facts that do match their theory and disregard the fact that actually destroy it. This is not education it is indoctrination. Some of the discoveries that have been found and later proven wrong are deliberately kept in the school textbook, this is lying to the students!!
I’m not saying that creation should be taught in public schools but Evolution should be removed from the school curriculums since it’s no longer a valid theory.
And the fact that for some people don’t want to even consider that their might be a God or that the Bible might actually be true it doesn’t mean it isn’t. Yes the bible was written by men but was inspired by God’s spirit, I’m not going to deep into that but anyway because I don’t start a discussion on religions, but I do beleive that it would wise to at least study both side before making a final decision.
In my opinion we cannot denied that the spritit “world” exist, many people had various spritual experiences (good and bad – “The Exorcist” and the “Exorcist of Emily Rose” were movies based on true stories) these are definatly bad spriritual experience but it was still spritual. By nature we tend to reject those “signs” or to mock those who had those “experiences”. According to the bible we are born spritually dead that is probably why it seems like nonsense to us by default. Again this is stepping out of the realm of physical science so I will stop here. But not beleiving that the spritual world exist because it cannot be proven with physical evidence does not mean it doesn’t exist.
So the conclusion here is that we should not teach falsified information to students and I truly beleive that this theory of Evolution should be revised by unbiased sources and removed from the school curriculum. If people realy want beleive in this theory so be it but don’t push this theory on young impressionable kids.
Comment left on 6.6.2008 by Etienne
Regarding your claims about evolution, could you please cite you sources.
Obviously a spirit can’t be ruled out, but there are infinite number of things like spirits worlds that could exist. In practice, we don’t believe in all of these. Why would you arbitrarily believe in a spirit world, but not believe in unicorns or ferries?
Spiritual experiences rely on anecdotal evidence, and are all on par with UFO abduction stories.
Comment left on 6.6.2008 by Adrian Corscadden
I have a few example in my previous post, here some more:
Human shoeprint with a smashed trilobite inside. ( source: Readers Digest Mysteries of the Unexplained pg. 38 )
Graptolites have recently been found alive in the south pacific. ( source: Earth Magazine Sept. 1993 )
Lobe Finned fish were found still alive in 1938, called the coelacanth ( I hope you don’t need a source for this one ).
Dinosaur blood was found inside bone, couldn’t be disproven. ( source: Earth June 1997 pp. 55-57 )
There’s more but I don’t feel like pulling them all out.
My point was not to say that all spiritual experience ever mentionned are true but only to point out that this world is not only physical and you will not be able to prove God’s existence with physical evidence. So if God (as a spirit) did create this world how do you plan to prove it with physical evidence, you have to look at the evidence and conclude that he did created this world. If you look at the Bible there is thing written in there that have only been figured out a few years ago and this books was written thousand of years ago. I have never heard of any archeological find that would disprove the bible but a lot of them do agree with it.
The bible says that God created man in his image not as his equal, you will never be able to figure out God completely.
Comment left on 6.6.2008 by Etienne
1. Uh…none of those disprove evolution…
2. The bible is not a credible academic source, please do not try to use it here.
Comment left on 6.6.2008 by Adrian Corscadden
oh yea….trying to pass of Readers Digest as academia won’t work either…nice try though…lol
Comment left on 6.6.2008 by Adrian Corscadden
Well if most of these animals have been extinct for millions of years before men evolved from apes well it does cause a problem for the theory of evolution I would say.
How do you know Julius Cesar ever existed if ancient writting are not credible academic sources? Are you saying History should not be taught in schools?
Comment left on 6.6.2008 by Etienne
@the first paragraph: Yes, you can say that, but it doesn’t make it right.
@second: We know Julius Caesar existed from primary sources, which a pretty good….miles ahead of readers digest.
Comment left on 6.6.2008 by Adrian Corscadden
“which a pretty good….miles ahead of readers digest”: again trying to divert attention to gain credibility this is only one of the sources,
“Yes, you can say that, but it doesn’t make it right”.: Do you beleive in your theory or not? were they extinct millions of years before the evolution of man?
“We know Julius Caesar existed from primary sources”: which are? what makes those writting more realiable than those of the Bible?
Comment left on 6.6.2008 by Etienne
You’re still not giving validation to the theory of evolution, Adrian.
As far as textbooks being wrong – this is true. My daughter came home one day from school (this was 5 years ago or so – before we started homeschooling *smile*) and said she didn’t know that the appendix was a vestigial organ – one of the only ones left. I told her it wasn’t. I explained that the scientific community always presumed it was part of the digestive system because of it’s location, and since it didn’t appear to do anything – they used it as a validation of the theory of evolution. I told her that as recently as 15 years ago (I’m not exactly sure when it happened, but that’s when I knew about it) – scientists found that the appendix was actually part of the immune system. It’s function has something to do with the formation of immunoglobulins – and it begins doing it’s job in the 5th month of gestation up to about 2 years of age – it can continue functioning after this, but this is its main time to do whatever God created it to do.
Again – something man doesn’t understand or doesn’t know they use to validate a theory. This is not science – it’s wishful thinking *smile*.
Blessings to you!
How’s your life been? I’ve been praying for you!
Camille
Comment left on 6.6.2008 by Camille
This grading is classic! Got to post it in my blog too!
Comment left on 6.7.2008 by WTJ
[...] Grade Your Comments? Written by WTJ on June 8, 2008 – 12:14 am – I saw Adrian Corscadden graded his blog’s comments, and I couldn’t stop laughing! This is classic! I’m on his [...]
Wow this is getting old hehe, again laughing at me for spelling and grammar errors and changing the subject still does not prove Evolution
Comment left on 6.7.2008 by Etienne
Yes, this is getting old.
Just a few quick notes:
@Camille: The only thing I want to say is that yes, textbooks are not good sources. If a textbook were to be used as a reference on a paper, it would fail. Just because there are errors in a high school science textbook, doesn’t make science wrong. If you want to stay up to date on science, don’t read textbook, read up to date literature.
@Etienne I think that you are avoiding the subject as you haven’t brought forth one good piece of evidence. I don’t have to do this because the burden of proof is on you.
Comment left on 6.7.2008 by Adrian Corscadden
Why would the burden of proof is on me? You are the one who started this post saying creation was stupid and anybody who even mention it as possible explanation is a complete idiot. At least I did show a few evidence that caused a lot of problems to the theory of evolution and at this point I don’t beleive showing you more evidence would help since your mind is already made no matter what evidence is shown to you, what would you condiser “good evidence”. I haven’t seen any from you that disproof creation or that validates evolution.
As I said before beleive in evolution if you want but don’t try to discourage people from even looking at both side by trying to label creationist as idiot or religious freaks, the same could be said of evolutionist. I’m not saying evolutionist are stupid, most of them are probably very intelligent but very narrow minded. In my opinion it is not wise to try to lead people away from God if you don’t even know if he exist or not. If he does exist and the Bible is true you might be in serious troubles one of these days.
Luke 17:1-3
1 Then said he unto the disciples, It is impossible but that offences will come: but woe unto him, through whom they come!
2 It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones.
3 Take heed to yourselves: If thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him; and if he repent, forgive him.
Comment left on 6.8.2008 by Etienne
The burden of proof is on because evolution is a science and creationism is not. I don’t need to disprove creationism because there is no evidence for it in the first place. There is no evidence that fairies exist, which is why I don’t need evidence to show that there are no fairies.
Saying that creationism is true is the same as saying that fairies exist.
You are misleading when you refer to evolution and creationism as both sides of the argument. This implies that they are both plausible theories. Only evolution is. Creationism isn’t even a science.
Regarding this quote:
“In my opinion it is not wise to try to lead people away from God if you don’t even know if he exist or not.”
It is even worse to sucker people into believing in god, when they are young and vulnerable, with absolutely no evidence!
Comment left on 6.8.2008 by Adrian Corscadden
Hi again Adrian…
Actually, the burden of proof (when in actuality, there is no ‘proof’ in science, only validation – ‘proof’ is a mathematical term) is on you.
What sources do you consider reliable? You say you want a “credible academic source”. Then you said, “We know Julius Caesar existed from primary sources” – and yet, you will not allow the Bible as a creidble source – which has been around longer than any other publication. If I cite someone in the science world that says ‘evolution’ is a farce, will that be rejected as well because they do not say what you want them to say?
…and how is life going? I will continue to pray for you. The Lord is working on you! …and I rejoice! Now, go enjoy the day that the Lord has given you!
Blessings always -
Camille
Comment left on 6.8.2008 by Camille
PS – God is the Creator of all things – including Science – trying to separate Him from Science is impossible.
Blessings!
Comment left on 6.8.2008 by Camille
Science is not something that can be created. It is just a process or mindset.
Comment left on 6.8.2008 by Adrian Corscadden
wow…I’m gonna friggin lose it…can someone please help me out by putting these retards in their place?
Comment left on 6.8.2008 by Adrian Corscadden
According to Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary, the definition of science is:
knowledge attained through study or practice,” or “knowledge covering general truths of the operation of general laws, esp. as obtained and tested through scientific method [and] concerned with the physical world
I don’t know if I would say that science can be created since it’s the knowlege gained by the observation of things around us, this universe is governed by laws, which the theory of evolution is not compliant with (see my previous post for a few example since you will probably ask for them as usual). If you beleive in evolution you don’t have any explaination on where those laws came from but you still have to acknowledge them.
Are you saying that a DNA molecule could be created by an act of random chance, the chances of just one coming together in random order has been calculated to be one times 10 to the 119,000th power.
My explaination is that God created this universe with it’s complex systems so we would acknowlege how great he is
, you can still observe and gain better understanding of how this universe operates but you will not be able to explain all of their origins unless you acknowlege that God created the universe and the laws that govern it.
Science actually mean knowlege, saying evolution is a science and creation is not is a matter of opinion.
Evolution sounds more like a fairy tale than creation to me.
Again getting mad and calling me a retard will not bring you credibility
Comment left on 6.8.2008 by Etienne
Adrian, Adrian –
I, by no means, meant for you to get so upset. I can see that you still need time to come up with points of validation. That is not a problem. Take a deep breath, relax, don’t get so worked up.
You are correct in saying that ‘science is not something that can be created’. It WAS, in the beginning, when the foundations were laid.
Don’t worry – just keep at your studies – the day the light finally shines through – oh the rejoicing that will go on!!!
Blessings to you, as always -
Camille
Comment left on 6.8.2008 by Camille
@Etienne Your explanation that a god created everything is actually less probable than complex molecules forming themselves. A god must be more complex than the things that he is making. So, my question to you is what are the odds that a god could be created by random chance.
@Camille The light will never shine through.
Comment left on 6.9.2008 by Adrian Corscadden
Well that is why you should read the bible, God is eternal (without beginning or end) so he is not a created being. I will not claim to understand that one completely but that’s why he is God and we are not.
Comment left on 6.9.2008 by Etienne
“In the beginning God created” still sound better than “in the beginning nothing exploded”
Comment left on 6.9.2008 by Etienne
that’s a terrible explanation
Comment left on 6.9.2008 by Adrian Corscadden
Still better than yours
Comment left on 6.9.2008 by Etienne
Face Palm
Comment left on 1.26.2009 by Walman
I agree with Flo. there ia god and there is evolution, and both are not mutually exclusive and they never were. And i do feel that no human has really reached the heights of knowledge to say there is no god or to say that evolution didnt happen.. anyway how many has really experienced the absolut divine moment (not the ones todays churches advertise.) or how many have really understood the most complex scientific theories.. and who said that scientists never believed in God?.. anyway futile arguments of things that have never been understood fully.why not spend time in learning as much as could be learnt than advertising our ignorance byfollowing what other people teach us. the clergy does come under ‘people’ right and so does the ‘scientists’. of these two, i feel the scientists are humble and better than the clergy.. anyway thats what I think.
Comment left on 1.29.2009 by Vijay
First of all I’m just saying, sorry if someone’s already posted this kinda thing but I don’t plan to read 50 messages when I’m supposed to be doing assignment work anyway.
So! On with my ramblings.
Now, personally I believe in evolution however I’m agnostic (for those who don’t know what that means, I don’t know whether to believe in God or not). I am also pro to listening to different opinions and I’m sad enought to enjoy seeing if they fit in. What I’m finally getting round to saying is that there are many different theories:
1. God created the world as we know it
2. The world became as it is via evolution
3. God started the whole process of evolution
4. Something (God?) came in part way through evolution and set it on the right track to create current lifeforms
5. Same as 4 but that ‘something’ left after this was done
6. Humans were originally aliens (there’s even a book about this one!)
7. etc
As people can see there are loads of different ideas and I’m getting fed up of those who completely ignore the evidence for AND against multiple theories other than their own opinion (Kudos to people who actually consider all explanations!).
Another couple of points just before I go.
For those of you who are anti-religeous (sp?) – you do realise that most of our laws, rules, morals & ethics are based on religeous beliefs right? And there is actually some evidence that shows some parts of the Bible (though exagerated) may have actually happened (i.e. Noah’s Flood).
For those who believe humans were ‘designed’ – if we were then why do we have so many faults? Humans have the worst and most painful pregnancies in the entire animal kingdom (either that or we’re the biggest wusses). If we’re so high and mighty then why are our young dependant on the parents for over a decade of their lives? We may have good eyesight but most mammals have a protective film over their eyes, why don’t we? There are lots of other ‘design flaws’ out there too.
For those who have any problems with what I’ve said, I didn’t tell you to read this and I’m not forcing you to listen to me. And if I seem a bit edgy, sorry, I’m not trying to be, it’s just how I come across.
Back to assignments… DX
Comment left on 2.10.2009 by Brimstone
@Brimstone
The only thing I have to say is that the only theory in that list is evolution. The others are definitely not theories. If you are unsure about this, look up the definition of theory in the context of the scientific method.
Comment left on 2.10.2009 by Adrian Corscadden
@ Adrian
Typed in define:theory into google
“a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of …”
“The word theory has many distinct meanings in different fields of knowledge, depending on their methodologies and the context of discussion.”
“A statement or set of statements designed to explain a phenomenon or class of phenomena.”
In other words I’m using it perfectly fine. If you still have a problem just ready ‘theory’ as ‘idea’
Comment left on 2.10.2009 by Brimstone
That should be ‘read’, sorry
Comment left on 2.10.2009 by Brimstone
“And there is actually some evidence that shows some parts of the Bible (though exagerated) may have actually happened (i.e. Noah’s Flood)”
I don’t think it’s exaggerated at all. There’s no evidence, for example, that uniformitarian processes could lay down the geologic strata we see. A global flood, however, would result in exactly what we find all over the world. First in geologic strata, but also the billions of fossils.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n4/geologic-evidences-part-one
Comment left on 10.9.2009 by mc
there isn’t enough water in the world for a global flood
Comment left on 10.13.2009 by Adrian Corscadden
You should listen to the news more often, a global flood is exactly what’s worrying the planet at the moment.
Comment left on 10.13.2009 by Brimstone
have any evidence for that Brimstone?
Comment left on 10.13.2009 by Adrian Corscadden
How’s this: There’s whole continents of ice (frozen WATER) on the planet, not to mention the snow on top of mountain peaks & water levels have been rising for a while as has the frequency and volume of flooding. Of course, everything we’re building on the land isn’t helping with the latter but at the very least there’s enough water to cover the land (mountains excluded, of course). Islands and continents don’t float y’know, they’re attatched to the sea floor.
Finally, if there isn’t enough water to cover the planet then explain the ice age.
You should read the article that ‘mc’ posted (http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n4/geologic-evidences-part-one), they have a lot more evidence with explanations than I do.
Comment left on 10.14.2009 by Brimstone
wow..you’re retarded
Comment left on 10.14.2009 by Adrian Corscadden
Such a mature, wonderful and well thought out response. How may I ask?
Comment left on 10.14.2009 by Brimstone
Actually, Brimstone, what’s worrying us is the redistribution of existing water mass which may cause local flooding. It’s not the same thing and there certainly isn’t enough to cover the Earth.
Comment left on 2.20.2010 by Mark A
Okay.
So I was on Facebook, and Some stranger posted a random link to this.
Thank Science!
First of all, I am a Double Major, I’m working towards a BS in Biology and a BA in Psychology.
This is going to be a ridiculously long post, I am afraid. If you don’t want to read it- No problem
So-
1- I think this is a hilarious post in the first place.
KUDOS!
@Etienne
- I have massive problems with your statements, reasonings, and logic.
1) As Mark repeatedly points out- A Theory is not a Hypothesis. There exists a hierarchy- Theory > Hypothesis. Realize this, embrace it, and move on.
2) Intelligent Design- The very thing this post was started off over ( I.E, the Ben Stein references) Is not a legitimate scientific hypothesis and therefore, cannot be a Theory. At least not a legitimate one. Intelligent Design is a cheap and fruitless rehashing of Creationism, the idea that God created the earth, and therefore, Created Evolution. When this idea was first constructed, it was to allow the teaching of Judeo-Christian ideology into the Biology Classroom. It’s a fucking joke. It famously used the platitude- ” Teach the controversy!!” Which was reanimated with its rehashing. The idea was laughed out of the public’s eye for a few years.
Then, Christians got crafty.
They reconstructed Creationism into a nonpartisan, non-ideological idea known as Intelligent Design. It is EXACTLY THE SAME CONCEPT, but in this variation, God is changed to “Something”. This allows the image of psuedo-openmindedness to permeate into the public sphere.
It was slapped down in the Dover case, and the when the supporters were asked, ” Isn’t this the same idea as intelligent design??” They said it wasn’t. Then, the judge called them “LIARS.”
It is the same petty scam to bring religion into the science classroom.
There is no “controversy”. There never was.
Creationists do not write scientific papers.
They do not write articles in scientific journals.
They are active in CHURCHES.
Just to clarify, CHURCH has almost NOTHING TO DO WITH SCIENCE.
LAstly on this point.
There is no conspiracy to shut intelligent design down. The world awaits the day when Intelligent Design steps up to the plate. But for now, We will be content in laughing at it, for its such abrasive, abhorrent, and openly straight-forward purpose.
3) Please, if you are ever in public and want to be taken seriously by intelligent people, DO NOT QUOTE THE BIBLE. The bible is a book. To people like myself, a Staunch rationalist, the Bible is merely a book. Why not quote Dickens? Shakespeare? Orwell? A book is a book to me. It has no official power to change my mind. In fact, I think the bible is a load of garbage. It disgusts me that ONE BOOK can justify so many thousands of lifestyles, religions, and ideas. It is a joke. Do not quote any more bible passages. It’s disrespectful to any smart person. It’s a stigma unto my face.
4) Evolution is most certainly not a religion. I wish it were, so I could give cash to it, and then be reimbursed by your tax dollars. But it is not. That is simply untrue. Evolution is a scientific theory that has been backed with loads of evidence. It is on par with The Theory of Gravitation, the Cell Theory, The Laws of Thermodynamics. etc. In fact, without Evolution, Biology makes no sense. It’s all a load of rubbish if evolution is untrue. Let me refer to the name REAL scientists refer to Evolution by- The Unifying Theory Of Biology. There is no Unifying theory of Physics. A possible Proponent would be String Theory. But realize that Evolution is crucial to Biology.
5) Understanding of Atheism- You said that being an Atheist is something which simply Deters one away from God, but then you imply that some Atheists are religious. I have never met someone who was Atheist and still “believed”? In a religion. If that were true, I could become an Atheistic Catholic!! Bravo!
If one rejects the idea of a God, it strongly damages the religion. Believing in the religion even further is a joke. So- No, Atheists never will be Religious and Atheistic. Not at the same time, at least.
6) Get your fucking facts straight. I am literally red with anger. This all regards a paragraph of UTTER BULLSHIT you wrote about Darwin, His Faith, His relationship with his wife, understanding of Him as an intelligent person. modern genetic study, Misquotation, and, in general, a complete misunderstanding of evolution. I am disgusted!
- A) Darwin was religious for a very long time. He struggled with the publishing of ORIGIN, and only did so with request from his friends, for the storm it would stir up for he and his wife.
-B) His wife was very religious. Let us remember that In that time, and in some cases, in this time, Christians of a certain denomination did not often marry someone of a different denomination.
-C) Darwin learned of the Law Of Superposition. It is central to evolution. He was not a Geologist. Neither am I. But I don’t need a Geological Degree to understand it. I don’ think that any smart person does. Google it, and realize how simple it is. A child can, and children do, understand it to perfection of the idea.
-D) People are capable of love. He did indeed love his wife. I should cringe to wonder at your definition of marriage. He didn’t marry her for what he considered good genes. He didn’t think in his head, ” OH! She has great genes!! Our offspring could be stronger and better!!” And the point you make at the end of the paragraph, that since his children grew sick due to inbreeding- This was not known at the time!! He had no idea of it. Your point seems to be- That since Darwin applied his theory unto himself and his wife, and his children were weak and died- Disproves evolution- YOU HAVE TO BE KIDDING!!! REALLY?!!?!?!? Ugh, epic logic fail, on your part. Also, “survival of the fittest”, was never ever coined by Darwin. HE NEVER SAID THAT.
E)-
“This information about Darwin is not usually communicated because the main reason that this theory is so widely accepted is because it gets rid of all morality. (no God to answer to anymore) ”
…… Really? You’re really going to make a discriminatory, unsupported, conflicted, irrational, and Shit-headed claim like that?!
Lets do some simple math, just so you can take that point and bury it, FOREVER.
With liberal estimates, there are approximately 3 Million Atheists in America.
There are approximately 2.3 Million people in prison in california alone.
So, who is truly immoral?? Are all the Atheists getting together and raping stealing, and destroying!!?? In fact, Atheists tend to be higher up on the pay scale. We are usually collegiate. Sorry, pal, but it’s the religious of America who fill the prisons to the top. It’s the religious who rape women. It’s Parish priests who rape little boys and girls. It’s religious men in gangs. Have you ever picked up a history book? When have you EVER heard of an Atheistic holy war? Religion is a fucking plague.
I am moral. Until just recently I had a woman who I longed to marry. I wanted to have children, make a home, grow old with her, and enjoy her until I died. Although circumstances changed and I no longer love her, I truly did love her. Atheists are capable, and indeed more loving and moral than our religious counterparts.
Who is more moral? I, who sincerely is moral by my own choice, with no regard for consequences, for no reward for being good and moral-
Or you? A big, fucking faker, who only is good so you can GET SOMETHING. You are good …..for WHAT!? To get to go to heaven? You’re view of morality is shallow, fragile, and gaudy.
And in fact, Evolution answers you in a full show of its brilliance- Reciprocative Altruism. Google it, you tard.
F)-Time to start debunking all the pseudo-scientific bullshit you put out there :/
–1) Evolution does not state where earth comes from. It simply explains how it happened. You actually seem to be pitting all of science VS your religion, and at the same time, ( rather hypocritically, might I point out) using science to disprove…..Science……Yeah.
–2) Really?? Hovind? That guy is a fucking joke. Come on, wake up, stop smoking pot, and go take Biology courses at a STATE university. YOu’ll quickly find that Hovind’s arguments blow.
–3) Lets go with your ideas on matter and thermodynamics- Which I do applaud, I must say.
Instead of asking Scientists to figure everything out, why don’t YOU figure something out? Why don’t you pray to god for the answer? Going with your argument, -basically, if there is no god, what made everything? Well, lets say God is real. What made God?? What made the maker of that Macro-Deitical being??? Come on, Mr. Evangelical! Give me a real answer! You won’t of course.
–4) Lets review the Conservation of Angular Momentum. Things TEND to move out in a circular vector. They also TEND to spin in one direction. But some particles will immediately collide with other particles. Some particles will have a stray vector, which will cause it to move awkwardly. This all must take place without friction. As soon as the huge heat explosion begins to occur, radiations of different kinds bombard all the matter. Atoms fly this way and that, electrons are literally ripped off of atoms. Friction now occurs, and you point is invalidated. The system, while it is a vacuum, is still very effected by gravity, and radiation, and energy. Lets Fast-forward many years. Now Huge chunks of particles are beginning to form in such a pattern as we will call the milky way. Planets with large masses can use gravity to pull other smaller objects off course, and out of their certain spin cycle. Your point is defeated.
–5) The little burning sun point is a joke. Modern science knows so very little about things. A 300, or even a 300 MILLION year observation period would not be sufficient to make an accurate evaluation of what is going on. Perhaps the sun only recently started burning faster. Remember, the world is very old. 3 BILLION Years, Appx. If we reach our hand into a bag, and pull out one blue marble, we can only assume that the rest of the bag must have blue marbles. If we take 10 marbles, and get 10 blue marbles, we will assume they are all blue. If the bag really had 1 million marbles, with only 100 Blue marbles, then our assumption is worthless. We are only seeing a small picture view of the sun, We only have limited samples of data. It’s far too early to be digging for obscure conclusions which ( Hilariously, and not coincidentally) attempt to maim evolution.
–6) Distance to the moon argument- No one that I have heard of ever said that our oceans were always in motion. Indeed, microbes can exist in stagnate water. ( At the surface, since they will need O2, or CO2) But that’s hardly the point. The moon’s relatively momentary proximity means nothing to our terrestrial history of billions of years.
–7)C14 dating is not the only means of dating. There are several other means of dating things. Huh, interesting how you know SO much about C14, but failed to mention even one of the other ( I know of 4 other means of dating, but there may be more I am unaware of) 4 ways of dating fossils.
That said- Lets deal with your pseudoscience. Carbon 14 cannot form with more magnetic energy?? I think our Bullshit alarms should be going off. Secondly, cite some sources. This is kiddy crap. Name some studies, journals, or papers. I would be glad to go out and purchase them for my own enlightenment. ( PS- Don’t give me some Evangelical Link. I’ll be very offended. )
“Tests” indicate….. What?? WHAT TESTS?? You fail to explain that last critical part of it, which is of course the fountain head of the argument :/
Really?? Of course Biological beings use C of any form for our macromolecules. In most Biological settings, it is possible for atoms to remain radioactive for extended periods of time, as the individual atoms are in strong bonds, which keep radioactive decay to a minimum.
WOW. Dinosaurs were related to Dragons?? Hmmmm, sounds like evangelical Bullshit :/ The word Dragon is derived from Greek- Water Snake. Hmmm, did snakes = Dinosaurs?? I think not.
Look, stop blindly believing everything your church teaches you. Man did not walkthe Dinosaurs. That is a joke, a fable, a religious Myth.
Missing link…….Go to a Museum of Natural History. There is no such thing as A MISSING LINK. Take a Physical Anthropology course. The idea of a “Missing Link” is a myth that was propagated largely by conservative christian groups in the 80s and 90s.
This is 2010. Move on from ignorance :/
LASTLY- Finally.
Stop trying to find flaws in evolution. Stop lying. Stop the self-deceit. l really am tired of reading your posts, hoping there will be something of actual factual value. Evolution is a solid theory. Science does not pretend to find absolute “Truth.” Science only seeks to find the most plausible explanation for the data given. It is not your religion. It does not pretend to have all the answers. Your petty religion is threatened by reality. This is a tragedy, as not religions seek to damage the truest understanding of reality.
Ask any question of religion, ask how X could occur, and I will answer you. Evolution is really quite beautiful, one of the most beautiful ideas ever crafted by the caring and gentle palms of mankind. It should revered and treasured, not constantly under attack.
So ask me any question about an inconsistency of evolution, and I will try to fully refute it.
____________________________________………………+++++++))))
@ Camille-
Mark did not bother as i did to debunk the pseudoscientific claims of Etienne because many of them were sheerly ridiculous. The point about Darwin, genetic superiority….etc, honestly made me laugh. It was just full of misconception.
“I would like to see their rebuttal for such well set-forth arguments.”- You clearly feel that this is an US VS THEM situation. Why do you feel that way? We are all part of humanity. We are all together in an apathetic uncaring world. Who are you to join a side in tearing another side apart??
Okay, next I am going to paste your post, and argue ( Not for Adrian, but simply in spite of your poor logic, almost argue FOR logic’s sake.)
“I can understand where you are coming from … but again, you have side-stepped the issue. I can appreciate your dedication to the terminology of science…but again we must admit that “theories are not true in science, at least in the regular sense of the word true”
…..True. Versus ….What? The Bible? A book written by men who literally shat in their fellow man’s water supply?
“Have you ever read the Bible? This I must ask you because so many ‘discoveries’ were in the Bible before they were ever discovered. God’s word – He created it – He should know.”
-I would like to take this chance to say this- I have read the bible in its entirety. Just so I can fairly say I gave it a chance. Old Testament is honestly brutish and Vile. I do not know how you can read passages about a husband giving his wife up to be gangbanged to death by multiple men- and then say- ” Look at all the morality!!” I feel that Christians are generally hypocrites, as they seem to ignore the brutality, sexism, hatred, and racism in Old Testament. I do not know of ANY discoveries of the bible. I vainly long for the phrase, ” And the bacterium’s peptidoglycan-based primary cell wall will keep certain stains in, and let others escape.”
“Secondly, from what I have read and understood of Darwin’s theory of evolution – most all of his presumptions have been invalidated. If there are any still out there – I’m sure with the way the biological sciences have been growing by leaps and bounds they will soon be invalidated as well.”
What are you talking about??
Darwin’s theory is very well alive. It is actually further validated by continued fossil finds, DNA, and modern genetics. It remains the UNIVERSAL THEORY OF BIOLOGY for a reason.
“How many invalidations does it take to final put to death a theory in science? How long before the scientific community at the time finally, finally accepted the fact that the earth was round? Just because you really, really want to believe something ’scientifically’ does not mean that it is true – that is in the regular sense of the word true.”
We could say here that just because you want to believe in a giant mystical being, tritely nominalized as GOD, this longing provides no actual REASON for such a belief.
“So – we are left with the holes in Carbon14 dating – which have been validated. We are left with many fakes, lies, and deceits that the ’scientific community’ has tried to push off as ‘fact’, and we are left with from where did the matter of evolution – if we truly did evolve – come? A few simple questions.”
I must say- Fakes, lies and deceits????? Oh! But religion never does that!!
Sorry, you’re just filled to the brim with bias and emotion in this last one :/
“…and my answer is the same. When I look at all that has been created from the tiniest to the greatest – as I learn different facts throughout the years about different animals and plant – any form of life – I sit back in wonder at the great Creator – our Father in heaven and His wonderful son – who were in the beginning and continue to be and think ‘Wow!’. My validation is all around me every day – and His word backs it up.”
-I think it is more beautiful and romantic to marvel in evolution, the miraculous force with created the appearance of necessity of design, rather than to simply cheapen everything with a trite, outlandish, ” God Did it.”
PS- I refer to the notion of an ultimate creator as a SHE. It just makes me laugh, the rampant sexism.
Okay- just in response to your post, number 31- Of course texts can be wrong. Science is doing its best. It tries to give the best answer available. I imagine your daughter’s school had outdated texts. Schools cannot afford to stay up to date with science. It is ever-changing, always trying to give us a little bit more information about reality.
Versus religion and the bible…..Which stagnantly pretend to have ultimate truth. Which never change. Which never want anything more for their followers than……to take money from them.
Back to your daughter’s biology class.
The text- at least in reference to the Vermiform Appendix – was not, and is not out of date. Yes, it is true that scientists thought it was for digestion. This is not so crazy of a thing. In some other mammals, the appendix houses bacteria which can convert cellulose ( basically indigestible fiber for humans) Into glucose fragments. This seems similar in humans, as the area is similar, and anatomically, the appendixes seemed familiar. But this is where you are wrong. Evolution is not a one way train. For example, the Creationist staple argument is- The Eye or the Wing are just too complex to evolve by themselves!!”
But, the nub of the wing never began its existence to become a wing. It went from nub ( To help in thermoregulation) to archaic claw, to claw, to wing. It never started out in an all out rush for wing-dom. Neither did the eye. Neither did the appendix. In hunter-gatherer groups, humans ate much much more fibrous plant materials. It makes perfect sense that it functioned for digestion. But as we begin to other less fibrous things, it becomes less necessary, and it begins to take on other functions.
So, go take your “Wishful thinking” and shove it up…..You know where.
This is important.
If I say there is a Flying Spaghetti Monster, then you can say- Prooveeee it! The burden of proving it is on me.
If you say there is an invisible lady called god in the sky, the burden of proof lies with YOU.
Lastly.
You seem like a typical evangelical. Why though?? Why would you take her out of school?? So she is socially mal-adapted? If evolution was really false, why fear it?? Why cower in fear??
So, Creationists large and small- Answer this 2-part question, legitimately, and I will submit.
Why do we share so much DNA with plants, animals, microorganisms, and even fungi?? Did god get lazy with inventing gene sequences?? I mean, she’s god!!
And-
Why, in plants and animals, do mitochondria and chloroplast have DNA?? I mean, no other organelles have dna. Why do mitochondria and chloroplasts divide independently of their eukaryotic guardians?? I mean, it almost seems like perhaps they were once cells themselves!!
Phew.
That took 2 hours!!
Lol
Comment left on 2.20.2010 by Darrbare
@ Mark
Sorry, this was quite a while ago and I was getting realy annoyed and tired with Adrian at the point I posted about a Global flood. What I meant was a massive flood. And there also seems to be some confusion, I wasn’t talking about water magically appearing out of nowhere. I was, infact, reffering to the redistribution of existing water mass, as you say it. As in the whole global warming thing (which, for sake of differing a further argument, I do NOT believe was caused by humans, though I do know we’re having an effect)
However, I must point out that it may be possible that majority of the land may someday become submerged in water (even if it isn’t by a whole lot) considering that some continents have already sunk in the past. If you ask for proof, I cannot provide this because I’m a lazy sod who can’t be bothered to see if anyone else has researched this and even if they did I doubt I’d have access to that information. If you want to find this out for yourself feel free to have a look and please tell me what you find.
And just to reconfirm as I think I said previously, I don’t necessarily believe in every point I place, I just don’t like it when people disregard everything even if there’s evidence or possibility.
PS Once again, sorry if this sounds like I’m being sarcastic of angry, unfortunately it just seems to be the way I type during debates. As a gesture of non-angryness here’s a smiley face –>
Comment left on 2.20.2010 by Brimstone
And yes, I know I can’t spell DX I need to paste these into word and spellcheck it first…
Oya, and @ Darrbare
Sorry, I did try to read your post but, as you said, it’s a bit long ^^’ though most of what I did read, I agree with.
Comment left on 2.20.2010 by Brimstone
@Brimstone’s 64th comment
(and hope all these others do too)
your smiley face at the end sadly almost seems like you’re mocking people :\
but dont worry, i get ya
Comment left on 2.20.2010 by Henry
Nooo
I didn’t mean that! Wish I could type how I normally do during conversations -_-’ I don’t know how but I always seem… irate with things like this…
Comment left on 2.20.2010 by Brimstone
haha, that’s just how things look online
cant have their audible undertones :\
Comment left on 2.20.2010 by Henry
Darbarre: i’m well impressed you wasted so much time writing that comment! I read the whole thing and you clearly know what you’re talking about. I feel it would have been put to better use in the presence of creationists who weren’t quite this ridiculous:
“If you ask for proof, I cannot provide this because I’m a lazy sod who can’t be bothered to see if anyone else has researched this and even if they did I doubt I’d have access to that information.”
“I don’t necessarily believe in every point I place”
@Brimstone, seriously, who would make points they don’t believe in?!
Comment left on 8.24.2010 by Briony
Wow, haven’t seen this page in a while.
@Briony ~ I mentioned points I don’t believe in to show that there is more than just two ideals and that they’re not all extremes. Those who believe in creationism don’t necessarily believe that God made everything as it is today and those that believe in evolution don’t necessarily disbelieve in God.
Personally I’m Agnostic, though closer to being Theist than Atheist, but I also believe in evolution considering we can see the effects of it daily (i.e. hedgehogs in areas with a lot of traffic are getting faster because the slower ones are getting run over).
Hope this answers your question.
PS Once again, please try not to read this as though I’m having a go at people. As Henry said, it’s difficult to get the right emotions across over the internet.
PPS Whilst I’m back I may aswell provide some sort of evidence of land masses sinking (or rather becoming submerged) since I coincidentally came across some earlier: http://www.afrik-news.com/article14350.html
It’s just one of a few I found but it isn’t that easy to find things like this in a few spare minutes at work (I remember hearing that Madagascar was supposed to be sinking so I thought I’d check it out).
Comment left on 8.25.2010 by Brimstone
Brimstone, I fail to see what point you are trying to get across by providing evidence of land masses sinking. Obviously this can happen. Land masses sinking and a noah’s ark style flood are totally different.
Comment left on 8.25.2010 by Adrian Corscadden
I am commenting on ‘Brimstone”s comment:
I agree with you, all sides should be looked at, because there are missing-links in them all.
To answer your question about why the creation is flawed, it is all stems from the fact that God has given man a choice:
Christianity all started in the first few chapters of Genesis if you can believe it!(the first book of the Torah or Old Testament of the Bible) Everything that happens post-Creation is the fulfillment of God’s plan.
1. God gave man a choice to either love him, and obey him, or to go his own way
The question arises as to why God gave man choice-the answer: Because the lack of choice means the lack of love. (If you do not have a choice whether or not to love someone, then you simply cannot love.)
2. God chose to create man for his own glory. A lot of people say that this is arrogant of the Lord, but He is God and we are not-that is our answer.
3. God not only allowed man to chose to follow him, but he also provided a way for us to have a relationship with him. Let me try to explain:
God gave man a choice in the Garden of Eden to either obey, or disobey. (ie to eat the fruit of the tree of Good and Evil.) They chose to disobey.
Because God is Just-everything He does breathes justice-He had to make a consequence for disobeying-Adam and Eve were separated from having a relationship with God. Consequently all of their descendants(us) are separated from God as well. But this is not the ending…
Because God is just, He had to make a penalty for disobedience(remember the fact that we can disobey is the only way that we can love.) But since God is also merciful-everything he does breathes mercy-He also made a way to revive our relationship with him. Here is how:
In Genesis God states: “… to the Woman, “What is this that you’ve done?”
“The serpent seduced me,” she said, “and I ate.”
14 God told the serpent:
“Because you’ve done this, you’re cursed,
cursed beyond all cattle and wild animals,
Cursed to slink on your belly
and eat dirt all your life.
15 I’m declaring war between you and the Woman,
between your offspring and hers.
He’ll wound your head,
you’ll wound his heel.”
The offspring of ‘the Woman’ that God is talking about here is Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is God Himself, who came down to earth to restore our relationship with God.
Because God is just and cannot allow any injustice, and we chose every day to ignore God, we are separated from Him. We are destined to live forever without Him, and this is our own doing.
Because God is merciful and loves us, Jesus came down to earth to pay the price for our sin-death, separation from Him. This is God’s way of remedying our mistakes.
The only way to be right with God, is believing that we are separated from Him and accepting the fact that a merciful God(Jesus) died for us.
John 3:16 For God so loved mankind, that He gave His only Son, that whoever believes in Him, will not perish(be separated from Him,) but will have eternal life(a restored relationship with God that will never end.)”(parenthesis mine.)
Now, because of God’s justice, we all have a choice. I am not trying to persuade you of anything-just telling you the truth. The truth, not as I see it, but as God wrote it.
He wants to have a relationship with you, the only thing that is keeping you away is your own choice not to accept Him!
To answer your question as to why the creation is flawed, it is because of God’s character of justice-the earth is flawed because of the consequences of man’s disobedience.
Now, many of you see Christianity as a religion-making people believe in order to promote itself. It is not a religion, it is the remaking of a relationship with God.
God says in the New Testament that it is good for Christians to be together to help one another…this does not mean that you have to go to CHURCH. No church, building, or people group has the answer-the Bible does. You can live in your house, and never see another Christian, grace the pews of a church, or do any ‘good works.’ I may be redundant in saying this, but it is not about any of that.
The church does a horrible job of portraying God as He truly is. I am ashamed of many of the things that Christianity is known for today.
I urge you not to make a decision about God based on any person, organization, or group-make it based on truth.
Study it for yourself,
God says in Jeremiah 29:13-14
“When you come looking for me, you’ll find me.
Yes, when you get serious about finding me and want it more than anything else,
I’ll make sure you won’t be disappointed.”
2Peter 3:9
“God isn’t late with his promise as some measure lateness. He is restraining himself on account of you, holding back the End because he doesn’t want anyone lost. He’s giving everyone space and time to change.”
Seek God with all your heart.
(I apologize for any misspellings, grammatical errors, and errors in my sentence structure-I was typing my thoughts as they came to me. The scripture, however is pasted directly from youversion.com.)
Thank you for reading this
vanessjpierce@yahoo.com
Comment left on 1.19.2011 by vanessa pierce