go to bed and sober up

I have a horrible feeling LeatherTrumpet will turn out to be Stephen King's Carrie.

it's 12:56am here and I freelance so I'll be on while you on :P

http://www.theaspectratio.net/carrie.jpg



My passport photo should dispel that thought

was that pic taken at SS officer training?

I agree :P

Not sure about evolution here but well done for proving the truth of Godwin's Law

:bored:

Now for some more clarifications

• The Bible says God created the world in six days not seven. He rested on the seventh
• Dinosaurs were present in the creation story, because as LeatherTrumpet cites, the book of Job mentions them, both Behemoth* and Leviathan
• The creationist belief is that dinosaurs were not able to adapt to a changed world after the global flood and became extinct.
• Creationism says that the fossils we find are the result of the global flood rather than annimals dying over eons
• If you actually look at the evidence for fossil man you will find that most of it is "reconstrucions" according to one source the actual finds would "fit into a coffin with room to spare"
• It is a poor argument to say evolution can not be true because mokeys and apes are not turning into people. Evolution teaches that all these animals and our selves descended from a common ancestor.

That said, currently I am wading through Charles Darwin's origin of species and some of the objections he does try and address.

My main problems with evolutionary theory is at the beginning and part of the process.

The origin is spontaneous generation, or creating life. With our finest methodology and most brilliant minds have yet to do this feat which somehow "just happend" in nature, an open system.

The other issue, and this relates to genetics which came after Darwin published. The process for change put forward is genetic mutation, however mutations by definition is an error in the copying of DNA. In nature we have yet to document an example of a good mutation**

I could also go on about radiometric rock dating and some of the assumptions made that are hard to justify but this is contentious and debated thouroughly on Talkorigins.

From the Biblical perspective, my contention is that Genesis is not the problem. The problem lies in Exodus 20:11, which states the reason why the world is created in six literal days. To give the Israelites the pattern for the working week and the sabbath.

Then again, although we hear of Christian and Islamic fundamentalists who refer to the six literal days of creation, I am not sure I ever hear of Jewish fundamentalists or any rabbis advocating that position.

* In some Bibles they have a footnote saying that Behemoth is probably a hippotamous, but if you look at the description of the tail being like a cedar (tree) it does not fit. One person took the decription in the Book of Job and read it out to school children, who said it sounded like one of the bracheosaurs possibbly diplodicus.

** We are aware of bacterial resistance to antibiotics, however this is to do with plasmids floating through the population and nothing to do with mutations

from the site you posted.....
“The rule does not make any statement about whether any particular reference or comparison to Adolf Hitler or the Nazis might be appropriate, but only asserts that the likelihood of such a reference or comparison arising increases as the discussion progresses “.
It's appropriate in this case given every second thread he creates has the word “muslim” in it ( relgious fear mongering) and like the Nazi's ( lol and al queda) he hides his intolerance behind a “divine rightiousness”. Godwin's law doesn't mean every use of the nazi analogies is incorrect, just that the longer an argument goes on the more likely the analogy will be used.

We don't come from apes - apes come from us.

"Dinosaurs were present in the creation story, because as LeatherTrumpet cites, the book of Job mentions them, both Behemoth* and Leviathan"
This isn't proof of the existence of dinasaurs during the time of man. "Creation stories" aren't science or proof. If you argue that YOUR froof is faith alone then that's fine but in a logical debate of science and proofs these "creation myths have no place. The bible is NOT a history book nor was it intended to be read as such.
If they'd described a animal with 16 heads and 5 arms that doesn't prove it existed. Besides people who wrote the bible spent most of their time living very locally. Any odd animal would have been described as a "monster".

Dinosaurs pre-date man by man millions of years. Palentologist never find human and dinosaure fossils in the same strata layers nor when they carbon date them do any of these two types of fossils over lap.

Do you think dinosaurs were around when the old or new testament were written?

hi Karezza, neither is true ... we've a common ancestor. But that can be said for most life on earth.
Wait just realized your sh*t stirring. :P

"If you actually look at the evidence for fossil man you will find that most of it is "reconstrucions" according to one source the actual finds would "fit into a coffin with room to spare"

Since when was archeological proof measure in coffins? Lol. How many coffins full of proof would satisfy you...10 ...20 coffin worth.
I don't believe the evidence of human fossil would "fit into a coffin with room to spare". There are many thousands of examples of fossil that point to human evolution. I noted you didn't site the where you heard this so googled it for you
“http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC030.html”
Morris, Henry M., 1974. Scientific Creationism
Watchtower Bible and Tract Society

!!??!!??
"1974", "Creationism" and "Watchtower".
None of these reassure me of the "datas" accuracy nor it's unbiased nature. No wonder you didn't quote your source.

"My main problems with evolutionary theory is at the beginning and part of the process."
Evolution doesn't rely on creation theories. Scientist may have no proofs of how it all kicked of but that doesn't undermine evolutionary theory.

"The other issue, and this relates to genetics which came after Darwin published. The process for change put forward is genetic mutation, however mutations by definition is an error in the copying of DNA. In nature we have yet to document an example of a good mutation**"

There are examples all around. You mentioned you were reading up on Darwin. He uses the finches on the gallapagus ( spelling?) islands as an example. “Good mutaions” or mutations that gave some finches an advantage over others were documented … finches with larger beaks were more successful because during the season when their normal food source was less plentiful these larger beaked finches could crack other larger nuts that the normal finches couldn't.

Other finches over many generation evolved thinner beaks. Their advantage was that they could eat juicy cactus plants during the season when food was scarce. This mutation was clearly positive and a "good mutation". Infact the very presence of every living thing on earth is an example of a good mutation in it's genetic ancestry. It's why they are still around and have not died out. They've adapted and changed via evolution to more efficiently survive and reproduce. Those that didn't obviously aren't around any more.

Evolution is our best explanation currently for the origins of man, it may be superseded in the future, tends to be the way.

The Bible is not in a contest with scientific thought and was not written to be so. The Bible is a love story.

A love story, eh? Do you think he gave Mary Magdalene a good seeing to?

he was all seeing, as you know

I often wonder how he'd fair in spreading the word of God in todays society. All Satan would have to do is give him a laptop and the poor fella would be liable to give in to temptation. lol. One google and he's toast.

no. he would have strict safe search ON

Hugh Grant is playing Moses in the romcom adaptation.