Patrick.net

Shared without comment.

By Kevin   Follow   Tue, 17 Jan 2012, 10:37pm   6,648 views   50 comments
Watch (1)   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/01/10/1115323109

« First     « Previous     Viewing Comments 11-50 of 50     Last »     See most liked comments

1. marcus Follow Befriend (5) 168 threads 5,084 comments

   11   7:23am Tue 24 Jan 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)   liv4ever says Furthermore, why is it that not a single one of the missing links is still alive today? By definition you're talking about a transitional phase (not that it was destined to be at the time). It would only be in existence if evolution stopped there, or branched off, still basically stopping there. Maybe there are catalysts or forces at play in evolution that we don't understand yet (other than adapting to environments, competing, etc) , or even that we never fully will, still science marches on. If you are religious and want to believe that "god" is involved ( intelligent design), fine, but that has nothing to do with the science, and there's no reason to include it in the teaching of evolution. The same could be said for history. IF you firmly believe that demons or the devil was involved with the third reach and Hitler, doesn't even the most extremely religious person understand that that doesn't have any place in the discussion of what happened ? We're better than that,.. and we leave speculation about such things out of the story. Let's face it, the trying to justify the bible as literally true regarding such things as creation is silly. Even if you are a believer, you need to think of it as symbolic and as put in to terms that were appropriate for the minds that were (and still are) taking it in.

2. Dan8267 Follow Befriend (16) 764 threads 7,710 comments Boca Raton, FL Premium

   12   11:51am Tue 24 Jan 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Protected   liv4ever says So the " cherubs and the flaming blade of a sword that was turning itself continually to guard the way to the tree of life" were no longer necessary. Sort of like god?

3. leo707 Follow Befriend (12) 10 threads 3,516 comments Oakland, CA leo707's website Premium

   13   2:10pm Tue 24 Jan 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)   Protected   liv4ever says The traditional location for the garden of Eden has long been suggested to have been a mountainous area some 225 km (140 mi) SW of Mount Ararat and a few kilometers S of Lake Van, in the eastern part of modern Turkey. The location of the garden of eden is not a settled issue. It could be, as millions believe (including Mitt Romney), to be located in Jackson County, Missouri.

4. leo707 Follow Befriend (12) 10 threads 3,516 comments Oakland, CA leo707's website Premium

   14   2:12pm Tue 24 Jan 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike   Protected   liv4ever says According to you evolution must have stopped conveniently in all the right places. the point still stands- not a single transitionaal creature is alive today Every creature alive today is a transitional species.

5. leo707 Follow Befriend (12) 10 threads 3,516 comments Oakland, CA leo707's website Premium

   15   3:17pm Tue 24 Jan 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Protected   liv4ever says The same as if you picked at random the numbers 1 to 10 from a box, and drew them in consecutive order. No, it is not. Someone with no knowledge, divine or scientific, could reasonably assume that you need things like land, water and light before you can make creatures. No great surprise that they got the basic order correct. Most mythologies do. liv4ever says (1) a beginning; (2) a primitive earth in darkness and enshrouded in heavy gases and water; (3) light; (4) an expanse or atmosphere; (5) large areas of dry land; (6) land plants; (7) sun, moon and stars discernible in the expanse, and seasons beginning; (8) sea monsters and flying creatures; (9) wild and tame beasts, mammals; (10) man. Science agrees that these stages occurred in this general order. Not really, what science are you looking at? You conveniently left some things off your list. I will add them in as we go. liv4ever says (1) a beginning; Left off the list: Both heaven and earth were created in the beginning according to genesis. 1. In the beginning the universe was created, then a long time afterward the earth was created. The earth is about 9-10 billion years younger than the rest of the universe. 2. Science does not view the earth as having been created before the sun and stars. 3. Water did not collect on the earth until well after it cooled. (see bellow for more on this) order fail liv4ever says (3) light; Light crated on step 3? I don't think that any scientist believes that light was "created" before the sun and stars. order fail liv4ever says (4) an expanse or atmosphere; (5) large areas of dry land; In general science views the earth as beginning as a hot ball outgassing into space. You would first have very hot dry land, then after it cools (700 million years or so), you would then second have an atmosphere that is allowed to form. Then third as the earth cools more rain falls and water is added to the surface. This is the exact opposite from your bible list. order fail liv4ever says (6) land plants; What modern scientist would think that land plants were the first life? 1. The list is missing sea plants altogether which were the first life known. 2. Land plants of differing species were created over a long period of time. For example, the first land plants make an appearance about 475 million years ago then flowers -- another land plant -- is not seen until 130 million years ago. 3. Fish i.e. "sea monsters" happen way before land plants. And the first animals in the ocean were even around long before fish. order fail liv4ever says (7) sun, moon and stars discernible in the expanse, and seasons beginning; All these (other than the moon) were first -- light with no sun or stars? -- and the moon was around before any life. order fail liv4ever says (8) sea monsters and flying creatures; (9) wild and tame beasts, mammals; Left off the list: Step 9 in genesis is where the "creeping things" were created. 1. see above for more on sea monsters. 2. Birds came long after mammals and other "beasts". 3. Flowers, a land plant, did not appear until after mammals. order fail liv4ever says (10) man 1. Yes, man did come after all those other things. 2. However, man is but one species in comparison to the very generalized lumps of creatures that the bible cites. I would bet that there are many "newer" species that have come after man. But, what the hell I will give you this one... order correct! yay! the bible finally got one right! So, as you can see -- other than the very generalized steps that even a child would see as the correct order -- the bible gets everything wrong. Mathematical proof is low enough to be nonexistent.

6. marcus Follow Befriend (5) 168 threads 5,084 comments

   16   6:36am Wed 25 Jan 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   liv4ever says marcus says By definition you're talking about a transitional phase (not that it was destined to be at the time). It would only be in existence if evolution stopped there, or branched off, still basically stopping there. ??? so "it" stopped everywhere where life as we see around us today and not a single transitional phase of all the thousands or billions, were "destined" to survive . According to you evolution must have stopped conveniently in all the right places. the point still stands- not a single transitionaal creature is alive today You obviously didn't get my point. What I mean by definition of "transitional" a species that didn't make it, it changed in to something else. If a species is here now, it's because they evolved to where they are now, even if they reached that stage a million years ago, and it was successful so they haven't evolved much since. If a species is not here now, because they evolved in to something else, I don't see how you complain that no such species is here now? Of course it isn't.

7. leo707 Follow Befriend (12) 10 threads 3,516 comments Oakland, CA leo707's website Premium

   17   10:31am Wed 25 Jan 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Protected   liv4ever says Don't you think its strange that the fossil record supports the exact opposite of what you are saying? Hmm... I do think it strange that while the fossil record supports the exact opposite of what you are saying; either through willful ignorance or intentional deception you are sticking to your guns.

8. leo707 Follow Befriend (12) 10 threads 3,516 comments Oakland, CA leo707's website Premium

   18   11:49am Wed 25 Jan 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike   Protected   liv4ever says All the fossils, fragments and scarce few whole skeltons of so-called 'missing links' fit in one (1) container. the numbers are against you OVER A MILLION TO ONE. Nope. liv4ever says Aid to Bible Understanding, published by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc., 1971, p. 393. Ahh..... I see the problem now... yeah... I hate to be the one to break it to you, but the watchtower is not taken seriously by a vast majority of the population. liv4ever says “No myth has yet been found which explicitly refers to the creation of the universe” and the myths “are marked by polytheism and the struggles of deities for supremacy in marked contrast to the Heb[rew] monotheism of [Genesis] 1-2.” The Illustrated Bible Dictionary, Tyndale House Publishers, 1980, Part 1, p. 335. It is not in the least bit shocking that a christian book publisher would try and distance its creation myth from others. Your bias quote means nothing to me. Anyone who is not indoctrinated in your ideology would clearly see the direct parallels between genesis and many other creation myths. liv4ever says Genesis does NOT say the earth was created before or after the universe. And I quote (emphasis mine): Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. So... you are saying there were two beginnings? Hmmm... sounds like a lot of uncalled for justification... liv4ever says Genesis does NOT say the earth was created before the sun and stars. Yes, it does. I don't even see how you can justify this at all. Perhaps there is an issue of the watchtower you can cite that changes the bible. DAY 1 Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. DAY 4 Genesis 1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. Umm... how is there any question that the earth was created first? On day three there were already plants! liv4ever says The Rotherham bible explains... So what? I guy rewrote the bible to add his interpretations, making it more "accurate". Sounds a lot like Joseph Smith... Why should I take Joseph Bryant Rotherham's word over Joseph Smith? Or any of the others who have an interpretation of the bible for that matter. liv4ever says The Rotherham bible explains that light gradually became discernable from the earth's viewpoint. it wasn't like flipping on a lightswitch. Who cares how fast the lights came on. On day 1 there was light, enough to tell night from day. In-fact this was this whole start of the day to night cycle. This was with no moon, sun, or stars yet! They were not created until day 4. read: not science Genesis 1:5And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day. liv4ever says ??? what you refer to happened between "the beginning" and the first creative period. Are you holding the list upside down ???? No, as stated the earth was created in the beginning with heaven. It does not say "In the beginning the heavens were created, and then sometime later the earth was created." I doubt that is even in the Joseph Smith's or Joseph Bryant Rotherham's interpretations. Perhaps you need to write your own. liv4ever says Genesis does NOT say land plants came before sea plants. Right, according to genesis no sea plants were created at all. It very specifically calls dry land "earth" and that is the only place where plants were created. liv4ever says Genesis does not contradict that either Yes, it does. All plants were created on day 3 and fish and fowl on day 5 then animals on day 6. It does not say, "...and then some more plants were created on day 6." Evolution science explains the creation of new plant species after the existence of animals, the bible does not. liv4ever says Now, had there been an earthly observer, he would be able to discern the sun, moon and stars, which would “serve as signs and for seasons and for days and years.” (Genesis 1:14) Night and day were already created during day 1. Thanks for pointing out another contradiction, buddy. Sooo.. many it is hard for me to keep up. Who cares what an earthly observer would see? We are discussing about when things came to be, not when they could be perceived by a man standing on the earth. liv4ever says Did each creative period always finish what it started? No, not according to evolution. The bible however has discrete days when god "popped" things into existence. Are you telling me that you kind-of believe in a little bit of evolution during the 6 days of creation? I guess we are getting somewhere then. liv4ever says In keeping with that approach, the Genesis record does not separately list winged insects, flying reptiles, and birds but lumps them together under the general, all-embracing Hebrew term translated “flying creatures.” Ok... but, "flying creatures" are still created on day 5, and then creeping things with other animals on day 6. Science still does not agree with flight before any land creatures. liv4ever says what does that prove? I am willing to bet my life that you are wrong about that. Uh, Oh... don't worry I will not make you "pay-up" for loosing the bet. Quick search reveled that when modern humans came into existence there were no Polar Bears on the earth. I am sure you can find more if you do a little bit of digging, especially when looking at plants, viruses, bacterias, etc. liv4ever says Thank you for the discussion. Thank you.

9. leo707 Follow Befriend (12) 10 threads 3,516 comments Oakland, CA leo707's website Premium

   19   11:57am Wed 25 Jan 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Protected   liv4ever says the burden of proof is on you... pictures, references ? The proof is out there you just don't seem interested. BTW, any pictures of god creating the universe?

10. marcus Follow Befriend (5) 168 threads 5,084 comments

    20   9:06pm Wed 25 Jan 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   liv4ever says Or any other species to it's 'next level' ? And yet ALL these fossils fit in one container? I wonder how many containers all the good pre homo sapiens fossils fit in? We know that good fossils from that far back aren't that plentiful. Usually after a couple million years, there's nothing left. And then I'm also sure that good fossils naturally wouldn't have been found yet. OF all the ones we do have, how many containers of each type do we have? I don't have an agenda here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil

11. marcus Follow Befriend (5) 168 threads 5,084 comments

    21   9:07pm Wed 25 Jan 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_evolution_fossils#7_million_-_5.3_million_years_old

12. thunderlips11 Follow Befriend (13) 52 threads 2,638 comments Premium

    22   10:28pm Wed 25 Jan 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)   Protected   leoj707 says Genesis 1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. Umm... how is there any question that the earth was created first? On day three there were already plants! Not only that Leo, but I notice that it says that God created "Two Lights". One could grant the "Greater Light" as the sun being a poetic flourish, but the "Lesser Light" - the moon - doesn't give off it's own light, it merely reflects the Sun's light. Something we know today, but something the primitive Iron Age inhabitants of Judah did not realize. Or the Babylonians who transmitted their basic Creation Myth to them and their Canaanite forebears.

13. thunderlips11 Follow Befriend (13) 52 threads 2,638 comments Premium

    23   10:31pm Wed 25 Jan 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Protected   liv4ever says proof? references? The Enuma Elish, The Babylonian Myth, has many similarities to Genesis:

14. freak80 Follow Befriend (4) 52 threads 4,416 comments Corning, NY Premium

    24   7:42am Thu 26 Jan 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Protected   Liv, The writing style of the creation account is not technical writing. It's an artistic presentation of how the universe came into being. The point is that God created the universe. The details are left to the interpreters imagination. Did you know that "The Bible" also says "the earth is firmly established, it shall not be moved"? Those passages were quoted during the Galileo affair. To this day, the Galileo affair is an ebarrassment to Christianity. The simplest explanation is that those passages are poetry and not meant as technical information on astronomy. Christianity already made the mistake of using non-technical poetic language in the Bible as a technical description of the universe, and the results were disastrous.

15. freak80 Follow Befriend (4) 52 threads 4,416 comments Corning, NY Premium

    25   8:26am Thu 26 Jan 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)   Protected   Liv, You can get anything you want from Revelation too. Same problem I described earlier. Remember Harold Camping's predictions of Christ's return, supposedly based on Revelation? Epic Fail. It's amazing how some Christians obsess over every detail in poetic, non-technical sections of the Bible and try to get specific, technical information from it.

16. thunderlips11 Follow Befriend (13) 52 threads 2,638 comments Premium

    26   9:39am Thu 26 Jan 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)   Protected   wthrfrk80 says You can get anything you want from Revelation too. Same problem I described earlier. Yep, the City of the Seven Hills was destroyed from the North and East (Visigoths) and South (Vandals) in the 4th and 5th Centuries BC. Famine, Disease, endemic War, etc. followed: The population of the Western Roman Empire collapsed, whole cities were abandoned, etc. resulting in the Dark Ages. Thus, one could make a reasonable case the prophecies of Revelations came true around 400 AD. Strange, just after adopting Christianity, the Western Roman Empire was obliterated. God rewards his followers very strangely if you ask me.

17. marcus Follow Befriend (5) 168 threads 5,084 comments

    27   7:29pm Thu 26 Jan 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)   liv4ever says On the basis of the facts alone, on the basis of what is actually found in the earth, the theory of a sudden creative act in which the major forms of life were established fits best I have my own view of "god" which is not an intervening being or personal god. In my view, if there must have been some sudden event, it would far more likely be the intervention of some sort of alien life form than an all powerful God creator. Again; I do believe in a sort of intelligence that is beyond our comprehension, but not a "creator" as you imagine, suddenly bringing man out of nowhere.

18. Kevin Follow Befriend 40 threads 2,652 comments

    28   4:11am Fri 27 Jan 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   liv4ever says Why do people come to Patrick. net? Because it's one of the top google results for [housing crash]. Because main stream media dominates and controls the flow of info. On the internet? Are you fucking kidding me? Patrick.net offers an alternative point of view and no doubt we generally agree on this. To suggest that the scientific community is playing that same game is not far fetched. Yes, it is. It's a heaping load of bullshit. While I'll certainly concede that there is some dubious science being done (and dubious papers written about it), the institution as a whole is vastly more transparent, open, and honest than any other entity that might claim authority on a matter. It's fun to pretend that there's some conspiratorial scientific cabal who's just fleecing everyone out of their money, but that's just not happening. The rest of your posts are...interesting. I hope you're not responsible for anything that requires actual scientific knowledge.

19. thunderlips11 Follow Befriend (13) 52 threads 2,638 comments Premium

    29   7:46am Fri 27 Jan 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)   Protected   Here is a list of prominent Hominid Fossils. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html

20. leo707 Follow Befriend (12) 10 threads 3,516 comments Oakland, CA leo707's website Premium

    30   9:53am Fri 27 Jan 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Protected   liv4ever says Then where are they ? Hiding behind Halley's comet? Why don't they contact us? Are they afraid of us? FYI, it always looks a little -- maybe a lot -- silly when someone uses a line of reasoning that could also be used to disprove the religious beliefs of the person stating said line of reasoning.

21. leo707 Follow Befriend (12) 10 threads 3,516 comments Oakland, CA leo707's website Premium

    31   10:39am Fri 27 Jan 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)   Protected   liv4ever says leoj707 says line of reasoning. is as follows: liv4ever says Isn't it more reasonable to stop and consider what the life we see all around us reflects? If you strip away the pollution, war and human-caused misery, what remains? Natural beauty teaches us what the maker of them is thinking. An artist paints a beautiful landscape with WHAT in mind? What is the artist communicating? He didn't paint it for himself, did he? I am sorry, but you are going to have to be more clear on what you are getting at. I don't see your point and how that is supposed to be reasonable. It looks kind of like a mishmash of two different standard religious arguments for the existence of god(s).

22. leo707 Follow Befriend (12) 10 threads 3,516 comments Oakland, CA leo707's website Premium

    32   12:33pm Fri 27 Jan 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)   Protected   liv4ever says does that not suggest that Jehovah, “the happy God,” has a sense of humor? Yeah, he must get a lot of Yuks from harlequin babies, after all they are by design. Ohhh, Jehovah, you scamp that is quite a sense of humor you got! https://www.google.com/search?q=harlequin+babies&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=RDE&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&prmd=imvns&source=lnms&tbm=isch&ei=qgkjT6a1NKPTiAKa9JH1Bw&sa=X&oi=mode_link&ct=mode&cd=2&ved=0CAsQ_AUoAQ&biw=1228&bih=756

23. leo707 Follow Befriend (12) 10 threads 3,516 comments Oakland, CA leo707's website Premium

    33   1:06pm Fri 27 Jan 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Protected   Hey Liv4ever Using what is written in the bible as an argument for gods existence is a circular argument. You need to first prove -- in a method other than saying it is divine because god wrote it -- that the bible is a divine work. Your continuous postings, referencing the bible, are not convincing to anyone who does not trust the bible as being divinely inspired and quite frankly a waste of your effort. It is highly unlikely that you have some evidence of the bibles divinity that has not been heard before and all evidence to date is... unconvincing...

24. marcus Follow Befriend (5) 168 threads 5,084 comments

    34   5:24pm Fri 27 Jan 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   liv4ever says Your philosophy doesn't take into account the fact that God has his own view Actually, since I don't claim to know or comprehend very much about god at all, other than that we are discussing something that I can't really know, that is, something which is beyond human comprehension, I therefore feel somewhat confident that my misconceptions aren't too great. But what can I tell you, that's just how I roll.

25. marcus Follow Befriend (5) 168 threads 5,084 comments

    35   7:00pm Fri 27 Jan 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   liv4ever says the nuts and bolts DISprove evolution liv4ever says "It's an ape not a human," said Wolpoff. "Toumai did not walk on two legs. And that is what is unique about humans that we didn't find in this specimen." After examining scars left on the fossilized bones from its neck muscles, Wolpoff and his team concluded Toumai was a quadruped -- walked on four legs not two. Okay, but if it's not an ape that exists now, it would seem to prove evolution rather than disprove it.

26. marcus Follow Befriend (5) 168 threads 5,084 comments

    36   7:01pm Fri 27 Jan 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Are you okay with evolution of other animals such as horses and other primates, but not man?

27. Kevin Follow Befriend 40 threads 2,652 comments

    37   12:25pm Sat 28 Jan 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)   liv4ever says marcus says Are you okay with evolution of other animals such as horses and other primates, but not man? i am okay with whatever empirical evidence exists. Your "Empirical evidence" seems to consist of "it says this in the Bible, and if you squint hard enough and only maintain a vague understanding of how stuff works, this observation supports it".

28. Kevin Follow Befriend 40 threads 2,652 comments

    38   11:13pm Sat 28 Jan 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Please explain to me how evidence suggesting that Lucy was not actually a human ancestor "disproves" evolution. All human ancestors (including your parents) are apes.

29. Nomograph Follow Befriend (1) 104 threads 2,851 comments

    39   6:18am Sun 29 Jan 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   liv4ever says when you get down to it, the nuts and bolts DISprove evolution. Do you believe that the Devil buried all those fossils to mislead us?

30. Nomograph Follow Befriend (1) 104 threads 2,851 comments

    40   6:21am Sun 29 Jan 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)   Here's what REALLY happened to the dinosaurs: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/1999/11/05/dinosaurs-and-the-bible

31. marcus Follow Befriend (5) 168 threads 5,084 comments

    41   8:19am Sun 29 Jan 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Nomograph says http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/1999/11/05/dinosaurs-and-the-bible Hey, I read it on the internet. That author is what I guess we might consider a proponent of de-evolution. No scientist was there to see the dinosaurs live through this supposed dinosaur age. In fact, there is no proof whatsoever that the world and its fossil layers are millions of years old. No scientist observed dinosaurs die. Scientists only find the bones in the here and now, and because many of them are evolutionists, they try to fit the story of the dinosaurs into their view. Yes, it's the scientists who work backwards from their desired conclusion, and the creationists who are the truly objective ones. I guess the author is thinking "don't even get me started on the silly concept of exponential decay, and carbon dating." I find the bible literalists who say maybe each of gods 6 days is a million years long to be more creative than this guy. Then again, this guy probably doesn't even believe what he's writing, which is presumably intended for children.

32. Dan8267 Follow Befriend (16) 764 threads 7,710 comments Boca Raton, FL Premium

    42   12:53pm Sun 29 Jan 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Protected   Silly creationists... And that's why you'll never see a unicorn to this very day. Too bad, because unicorns kick ass! IMHO, they are the most manly of the mythical creatures. They totally could kick a dragon's ass. Can you believe god would kill such a lovely and innocent creature?

33. Kevin Follow Befriend 40 threads 2,652 comments

    43   5:44pm Sun 29 Jan 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   I wish I could figure out some way to fit two of every living land animal into a 1.5M cubic foot boat. I find it really weird how people try to find scientific justifications for their religious beliefs.

34. Bap33 Follow Befriend (3) 12 threads 3,098 comments

    44   7:03pm Sun 29 Jan 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)   Nomograph says liv4ever says I assume you believe that Jesus was a real person I believe. Jesus and Eduardo mow my lawn every Tuesday. bwaaa haaa haaaaa haa .... that is funny, no matter who you are! quick joke: A drunk dude was walking along a river and came upon a baptisim going on. He stopped to watch. After a bit the Pastor called out to the drunk and said, "Brother would you like to find Jesus?" The drunk nodded his head and so the Pastor told him to come on down to the river .... when the drunk got into the river the Pastor grabbed hold of the drunk in the common way baptizing is done and dunked the drunk!! When he pulled the drunk up to standing postion he asked the drunk in a strong and power voice, "DID YOU FIND JESUS??" .. and the drunk kinda stammered, "nnnooo sir..." so the Pastor dunked him again. Once again he brought the drunk to standing position and once again asked the drunk if he found Jesus and once again the answer was "no". So, on the third attempt the Pastor held the drunk down a little longer than normal ...... and when he pulled up the gasping drunk he asked the drunk in a loud and booming voice, "DID YOU FIND JESUS??!!" ..... the drunk wiped his eyes and said, "are you sure he fell in near here?"

35. Bap33 Follow Befriend (3) 12 threads 3,098 comments

    45   7:18pm Sun 29 Jan 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Kevin says I wish I could figure out some way to fit two of every living land animal into a 1.5M cubic foot boat. I find it really weird how people try to find scientific justifications for their religious beliefs. no reason to feel that any of the animals carried on the ark were full grown ... except Noah and his family. No need for them to be full grown, I don't think. Plus, there were only a few specialized breeds within any species. No need for anything but the base models to create more. mammals could have all been young and small. birds and reptiles could have all been eggs. swimming things were ok I dunno .... not too tuff to fit everything on a boat. Plus, lets not forget, God is into doing things in a manner that messes with science!

36. Bap33 Follow Befriend (3) 12 threads 3,098 comments

    46   7:22pm Sun 29 Jan 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   marcus says Are you okay with evolution of other animals such as horses and other primates, but not man? selective breeding - yes morphing DNA that results in a new species and the old species keeps going along just fine - nope That's what I come up with using my mind and reading what I can find. But, I'll ask Peter when I hit the gates!! lol

37. thunderlips11 Follow Befriend (13) 52 threads 2,638 comments Premium

    47   8:31am Mon 30 Jan 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Protected   liv4ever says The ark (Heb., te·vah′; Gr., ki·bo·tos′) was a rectangular chestlike vessel presumably having square corners and a flat bottom. It needed no rounded bottom or sharp bow to cut rapidly through the water; it required no steering; its only functions were to be watertight and to stay afloat. A vessel so shaped is very stable, cannot be easily capsized, and contains about one third more storage space than ships of conventional design. The ammonia smell must have been overpowering. Did it have abundant exhaust fans? Not to mention shoveling all that literal crap. Too much for a dozen people or so. What about the bees and ants? Not only do you need a colony, not just a Queen and her mate, but for bees, flowers for sure. Don't hummingbirds and other creatures need living flowers for nectar? What did the carnivorous animals eat? Many will only eat a fresh kill. No refrigeration mentioned, so how did the meat for the carnivorous animals not spoil for 40 days? Why are there only koalas in Australia, separated from the main Asian land mass by sea, but no koalas in India or SE Asia or elsewhere? liv4ever says Queen Elizabeth 2... Titanic Both are boats made of metal and screw-driven. Naval Architecture isn't my strong point, but I think it's reasonable to assume that no BC era boat design could be so large using ancient methods. Even the great Naos of the Portugese and the biggest Galleons of the Spanish would have been dwarfed by the Ark. The Golden Hind of Francis Drake would be a fraction of the size of the Ark. Who manned the bilge? Noah and all his sons must have been full time at them, assuming it floated at all.

38. Kevin Follow Befriend 40 threads 2,652 comments

    48   1:19am Tue 31 Jan 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Again, attempts at scientific justification for bible stories is amusing. It wouldn't matter one tiny bit how big the boat was, how large the animals are, whether they're in suspended animation, or whatever. God was in control. Why do you feel the need to try to find scientific reasoning here? You're already starting from a world view that says that a divine being not only exists, but created the earth and man in its present form, talks to people from burning bushes, can bring the dead back to life, and has performed who knows how many other works that can't possibly be explained by actual science. Is this some desire to not be seen as backwards and ignorant amongst educated people? Because, no matter what you do, that is going to happen anyway. You're not going to convince anybody that you're right and you're not going to be accepted as making a rational argument. I just don't understand. If you want to believe that there's a magical being who created life on earth more or less as it exists today, go right ahead and do that. If such were true, there would clearly be no value in learning the truth of the universe anyway, because the bible has already told you how everything works.

39. Kevin Follow Befriend 40 threads 2,652 comments

    49   8:50pm Tue 31 Jan 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)   "plausible" -- at a stretch. "concrete"? Not really. Far to many "mights" "could possibly" and circular references to the bible itself. "Actual science" means using the scientific method. Testing a hypothesis. Performing experiments. Looking at anecdotal evidence and deciding that that must have been what the Bible is referring to is not science. How on earth can you claim that Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein disagree with me? Newton was certainly ignorant (we only knew a fraction of what we know now). Einstein was not a creationist. Let me guess -- did you find one of the misattributed quotes about christianity and god and think he did? I have little problem with people who choose to believe in a higher power in a broad sense, and I'll even accept people who want to believe in the divinity of jesus if they keep it out of the classroom and congress, but creationism is pure and utter bullshit no matter how you slice it. There are certainly plenty of scientists who are christians. Not a credible one is a creationist though. I think they're misguided and are simply clinging to tradition, but they aren't going around trying to convince everyone that the earth is 6000 years old and that god created man, so they're fine.

40. Kevin Follow Befriend 40 threads 2,652 comments

    50   1:41am Wed 1 Feb 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)   Yeah, like I said: Not a creationist. I don't know why I'm even arguing with you.

« First     « Previous comments