does anybody care?

Originally Posted by: stacknyOk, heres our 2 options. All humanity sprung from 2 human beings, reproduced, and their offspring reproduced or everything started from a primordial soup where single celled organisms formed and evolved, defied the laws of physics, and encoutered the most coincidal conditions ever to occur in nature. Now, you pick which one would actually make more sense.

and living to be 900 doesn't defy laws of physics? and the point that adam and eve's children had to bang their siblings, yet this didn't cause birth defects doesn't defy logical concept? how about them theories stating we went from 2 people to over 6 billion in about 4-10 thousand years. if we all came from 2 people, explain the different races.

the canopy theory, wouldn't that block out all the sun? causing life not being able to exist. or worse, the water magnifying the sun's effects, like being a giant magnifying glass, burning everything into a crisp.

Originally Posted by: 6strngs_2hmbkrsand living to be 900 doesn't defy laws of physics? and the point that adam and eve's children had to bang their siblings, yet this didn't cause birth defects doesn't defy logical concept? how about them theories stating we went from 2 people to over 6 billion in about 4-10 thousand years. if we all came from 2 people, explain the different races.

the canopy theory, wouldn't that block out all the sun? causing life not being able to exist. or worse, the water magnifying the sun's effects, like being a giant magnifying glass, burning everything into a crisp.

Yeah I always wanted to know... The bible apparently condemns Homosexuality but Incest is Ok? Can someone explain?? Because I don't get it....

Originally Posted by: 6strngs_2hmbkrsand living to be 900 doesn't defy laws of physics? and the point that adam and eve's children had to bang their siblings, yet this didn't cause birth defects doesn't defy logical concept? how about them theories stating we went from 2 people to over 6 billion in about 4-10 thousand years. if we all came from 2 people, explain the different races.

the canopy theory, wouldn't that block out all the sun? causing life not being able to exist. or worse, the water magnifying the sun's effects, like being a giant magnifying glass, burning everything into a crisp.

No, living to 900 doesnt defy the laws of physics. The pre-flood atosphere was different, and allowed for longer life spans. There is no law of physics that says how long an organism can live, its simply determined by the conditions. Not all inbreds have birth defects. Different races? Differences in genetic material somewhere in time that caused a different skin pigment. Wasnt a change that hurt the species, so it stayed in the genetic code.

Do you know what the Canopy theory is first thing? The Canopy theory was the theory that there was about 2 miles of water vapor within the Earth's atmosphere. When the sun penetrated this, the greenhouse effect came into play, causing larger amounts of oxygen and different climates which explain a huge amount of things such as giant human footprints, tropical plants found in the poles, long life spans, etc. Canopy falls, along with water spewing up from the Earth, and we got ourselves a massive flood on our hands.

Originally Posted by: Tonja_ReneeYeah I always wanted to know... The bible apparently condemns Homosexuality but Incest is Ok? Can someone explain?? Because I don't get it....

Bible didnt exist at the begining of time, and incest was the only means for species survival. Plenty of people now where incest is quite avoidable.

so, it defies the laws of physics to live 900 years, but not to grow, become more intelligent and complex with each generation, A.K.A. evolve.

giant footprints? so, you're basically saying that before the flood, people were larger, and now are smaller... does being able to change and adapt ring any bells? oh yeah, it's called evolution.

btw, going back to what this thread was originally about... I'm feeling real depressed again tonight, not as bad as last time, but it still sucks.

Originally Posted by: 6strngs_2hmbkrs

btw, going back to what this thread was originally about... I'm feeling real depressed again tonight, not as bad as last time, but it still sucks.

Hey me too. Actually today I was feeling more like you were at the beginning of this thread. Anyways, it's 2 am and I'm feeling too sh**ty to sleep. I rarely get in a funk like this, but when I do I want to kick the s**t out of everyone who comes my way.

The only times I laughed today were when me and my brother were playing soccer in the kitchen with one of thoses wal mart smiley face basketballs, the ball was bouncing and he went to kick it, missed and landed a clean shot in my cojones :eek: , and during snl.

meh.

I ain't quoting a bunch of stuff so here it is.

A human being isn't living for 900 years regardless of the enviornment. A living cell only replicates a few times before dying. Hyclef limit? Heathcliff? One of those guys has some data.

I'll take primordial soup and lightening for 200 Alex. As for defying the "Laws" of Physics? I bet humans don't have them "Laws" all nailed yet.

2 miles of water vapor? Pneumonia would've killed anything with lungs.

And get this ,going back to Adam and Eve. Why in all his wisdom would God, when Adam & Eve screwed up, just not erase two people from his chalkboard and start again with two more humans? Seems a whole lot better than dooming humanity to pain and suffering.


The Bible has great teachings and morals but it is seriously flawed, as is with any religious scripture.

I can respect people who say "I live my life by the Bible." Even if they have never set foot in a church. It's the ones who say "This is the way it is, and you are going to hades for not believing" that worry me. These people are in my eyes disillusioned and are building thier lives around a false hope that in the end God will make everything better for them. When in reality the Bible is supposed to be the blueprint to make everything right for them here and now.

That's what I think anyway.

*Tips hat to Sean*

Originally Posted by: 6strngs_2hmbkrsso, it defies the laws of physics to live 900 years, but not to grow, become more intelligent and complex with each generation, A.K.A. evolve.

giant footprints? so, you're basically saying that before the flood, people were larger, and now are smaller... does being able to change and adapt ring any bells? oh yeah, it's called evolution.

btw, going back to what this thread was originally about... I'm feeling real depressed again tonight, not as bad as last time, but it still sucks.

-DNA has never occured in nature and hasnt even been made in a lab under controlled conditions.

-Even if DNA could have occured in nature it would still need a living cell to carry out its function and replicate.

-Amino Acids have never been found to occur in nature and only have been made in a lab under intensely controlled conditions.

-If organisms could arise from the primordial soup, then there couldnt have been oxygen in the atmosphere or else they wouldve been oxidized into simpler substances. This creates a bigger problem than it destroys because without oxygen, there is no ozone and they woudve been exposed directly to ultraviolet rays, burning them to a crisp.

-There is a severe lack of fossil evidence supporting the theory of evolution. Transitional fossils should be everywhere.

-Heres a quote from the father of the evolutionary theory himself on transitionals.

“But just in proportion as this process of extermination has acted on an enormous scale, so must the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed, be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record”. {Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, First Collier Books Edition, p. 308}.

-No mutation has ever been found to increase genetic information and is always a loss of existing information. Mutations have been found to almost always make an organism worse off from what it originally was.

- Evidence against a gradual evolution can be found through the Cambrian Explosion. This is where animal fossils essentially appeared from nowhere in the Cambrian Strata. Fossils from every phyla have been found in the Cambrian Strata, supporting the fact that all these organisms coexisted. The fossils in the Precambrian layer (next deepest layer) have shown comparatively many fewer fossils than the Cambrian layer and have little relation to the fossils found in the Cambrian layer.

-The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that everything breaks down, not becomes more complex. (this makes the idea of something as complex as DNA arising from the primordial soup a scientific impossibility)

As you can see, this entire evolutionary theory is based upon the most coincidal conditions ever to be explained by science. Its just not possible.

Oh Jesus Christ. This thread was almost gone. Stackny, I won't argue that you've read into religion and Chrstianity as much as is assumed, but it shows that you've not read into evolution in an equal ration. It sounds more like you've grabbed what you wanted to hear and filled the blanks in yourself. Are you sure you've got your facts straight?

Originally Posted by: Cryptic ExcretionsOh Jesus Christ. This thread was almost gone. Stackny, I won't argue that you've read into religion and Chrstianity as much as is assumed, but it shows that you've not read into evolution in an equal ration. It sounds more like you've grabbed what you wanted to hear and filled the blanks in yourself. Are you sure you've got your facts straight?

Yes, Im sure Ive got my facts straight. None of those are my own assumptions, theyre all from reading. I know more about Evolution than you may think. I took Bio 121 last semester and Bio 122 this semester and Ive shut both my professors up.

im still trying to find where this thread turned from 6strngs wanting to commit suicide into talking about the bible and evolution. why do most thread always change subject when they get too big? i think you all get bored about it and then change it into something more interesting

Originally Posted by: stackny-DNA has never occured in nature and hasnt even been made in a lab under controlled conditions.[/QUOTE]
So you're not creating new DNA when you procreate?

Originally Posted by: stackny
-Even if DNA could have occured in nature it would still need a living cell to carry out its function and replicate.[/QUOTE]
Well, if DNA did spontaneously occur then there's probably a good chance there was a living cell nearby.

Originally Posted by: stackny
-Amino Acids have never been found to occur in nature and only have been made in a lab under intensely controlled conditions.[/QUOTE]
Didn't we discuss in the "and that's it..." thread how amino acids actually have been created in a lab? Didn't someone post a link to a news article discussing this? And didn't you deny its validity even though it was still amino acid which was what you were saying hasn't been created in the first place?

Originally Posted by: stackny
-If organisms could arise from the primordial soup, then there couldnt have been oxygen in the atmosphere or else they wouldve been oxidized into simpler substances. This creates a bigger problem than it destroys because without oxygen, there is no ozone and they woudve been exposed directly to ultraviolet rays, burning them to a crisp. [/QUOTE]
Well, no one's said that life spontaneously occurred. Even spontaneous combustion isn't as sponatneous as the name implies. Things take time to develop. And while, yes we would become a simpler organism, that completely ignores the entire basis of evolution. Starting as something simple and growing into something more complex.

Originally Posted by: stackny
-There is a severe lack of fossil evidence supporting the theory of evolution. Transitional fossils should be everywhere.[/QUOTE]
That's simply just not true. There have been transitional fossils everywhere. Just because there aren't as many as you seem to think are necessary, doesn't mean that there aren't any.


[QUOTE=stackny]
-Heres a quote from the father of the evolutionary theory himself on transitionals.

“But just in proportion as this process of extermination has acted on an enormous scale, so must the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed, be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record”. {Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, First Collier Books Edition, p. 308}.

And that helps your case how? It doesn't disprove anything. It just suggests that a different approach needs to be taken.

[QUOTE=stackny]
-No mutation has ever been found to increase genetic information and is always a loss of existing information. Mutations have been found to almost always make an organism worse off from what it originally was.

Probably because when a mutation survives it's calle adaptation. Mutations are chemical imperfections, which is the opposite of evolution, so of course things are going to have a hard time evolving through mutations.

[QUOTE=stackny]
- Evidence against a gradual evolution can be found through the Cambrian Explosion. This is where animal fossils essentially appeared from nowhere in the Cambrian Strata. Fossils from every phyla have been found in the Cambrian Strata, supporting the fact that all these organisms coexisted. The fossils in the Precambrian layer (next deepest layer) have shown comparatively many fewer fossils than the Cambrian layer and have little relation to the fossils found in the Cambrian layer.

Because after all animals don't migrate and would never walk there on their own.

[QUOTE=stackny]
-The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that everything breaks down, not becomes more complex. (this makes the idea of something as complex as DNA arising from the primordial soup a scientific impossibility)

So essentially we should all be rocket scientists at birth and be complete morons without a developed bone structure in our later years. Y'know, if we start out as something complex and break down over time.


[QUOTE=stackny]
As you can see, this entire evolutionary theory is based upon the most coincidal conditions ever to be explained by science. Its just not possible.

To say that adaptation occurs? Adaptation isn't possible? Change your entire living environment to match that of the Amish lifestyle. Then live that way for a couple years. After a while it'll be like second nature. Why's that? Because you've changed your environment and you've adapted to it. How is it "just not possible" to say that two creatures procreate and their genetics go on to another creature who procreates with another creature thus creating a whole different mish-mash of genes and so on and so on?

Originally Posted by: Cryptic ExcretionsSo you're not creating new DNA when you procreate?


Well, if DNA did spontaneously occur then there's probably a good chance there was a living cell nearby.


Didn't we discuss in the "and that's it..." thread how amino acids actually have been created in a lab? Didn't someone post a link to a news article discussing this? And didn't you deny its validity even though it was still amino acid which was what you were saying hasn't been created in the first place?


Well, no one's said that life spontaneously occurred. Even spontaneous combustion isn't as sponatneous as the name implies. Things take time to develop. And while, yes we would become a simpler organism, that completely ignores the entire basis of evolution. Starting as something simple and growing into something more complex.


That's simply just not true. There have been transitional fossils everywhere. Just because there aren't as many as you seem to think are necessary, doesn't mean that there aren't any.



And that helps your case how? It doesn't disprove anything. It just suggests that a different approach needs to be taken.


Probably because when a mutation survives it's calle adaptation. Mutations are chemical imperfections, which is the opposite of evolution, so of course things are going to have a hard time evolving through mutations.


Because after all animals don't migrate and would never walk there on their own.


So essentially we should all be rocket scientists at birth and be complete morons without a developed bone structure in our later years. Y'know, if we start out as something complex and break down over time.



To say that adaptation occurs? Adaptation isn't possible? Change your entire living environment to match that of the Amish lifestyle. Then live that way for a couple years. After a while it'll be like second nature. Why's that? Because you've changed your environment and you've adapted to it. How is it "just not possible" to say that two creatures procreate and their genetics go on to another creature who procreates with another creature thus creating a whole different mish-mash of genes and so on and so on?

woah, some stong opinions here! :eek:

266 replies in 9 days, obviously somebody cares.

Originally Posted by: pure266 replies in 9 days, obviously somebody cares.

I care so much I'm gonna go play Castlevania.

and hes a better man for it.

Originally Posted by: Cryptic ExcretionsSo you're not creating new DNA when you procreate?[/QUOTE]

DNA is passed on from a parent. It varies in its structure between the 2 parents. No youre not creating new DNA.

Originally Posted by: Cryptic Excretions
Well, if DNA did spontaneously occur then there's probably a good chance there was a living cell nearby.[/QUOTE]

Alright, think about what you just said. All living cells have genetic material, aka DNA. Where did this "living cell nearby" come from then if DNA just spontaneously occured in nature? That made no sense at all.

Originally Posted by: Cryptic Excretions
Didn't we discuss in the "and that's it..." thread how amino acids actually have been created in a lab? Didn't someone post a link to a news article discussing this? And didn't you deny its validity even though it was still amino acid which was what you were saying hasn't been created in the first place?[/QUOTE]

No...I didnt deny its validity. I said earlier that amino acids had not even been synthesized in a lab, but my info mustve been outdated or something.
Check out pg 21 of "and thats it?". I didnt deny it, I just said I didnt know. But, even so. The conditions theyre generated in in a lab are still controlled carefull. Take a pretty big conincidence for that to happen in nature.

Originally Posted by: Cryptic Excretions
Well, no one's said that life spontaneously occurred. Even spontaneous combustion isn't as sponatneous as the name implies. Things take time to develop. And while, yes we would become a simpler organism, that completely ignores the entire basis of evolution. Starting as something simple and growing into something more complex.[/QUOTE]

Youre confusing growth with evolution. 2 completely different things.

Originally Posted by: Cryptic Excretions
That's simply just not true. There have been transitional fossils everywhere. Just because there aren't as many as you seem to think are necessary, doesn't mean that there aren't any.[/QUOTE]

Cryptic, they should be everywhere! They think this takes however many odd billion years for these things to happen. And its common knowledge that "populations evolve, not individuals." There should be tons. Yet there are no lines that can be traced well enough to determine if they evolved or not. In fact, evolutionists love the whole evolution of a horse thing as it can be "easily traced" yet out in Oregon they found a 1 toed and a 3 toed horse buried in the same strata. These things shoudve been wayyyyyy far apart, yet they were found together.


[QUOTE=Cryptic Excretions]
And that helps your case how? It doesn't disprove anything. It just suggests that a different approach needs to be taken.

How does that help my case? The father of evolution admitted his theory was based on things they cant find. Thats how it helps my case.


[QUOTE=Cryptic Excretions]
Probably because when a mutation survives it's calle adaptation. Mutations are chemical imperfections, which is the opposite of evolution, so of course things are going to have a hard time evolving through mutations.

No. Mutations are random and by chance. That is not an adaptation.

[QUOTE=Cryptic Excretions]
Because after all animals don't migrate and would never walk there on their own.

And another response that makes absolutely no sense. What is your point? We're talking all 7 phylas in the same strata, and ancestors in the strata below that have little to no resemblance. Where did these things come from then, and why were they all inhabiting the same time period?

[QUOTE=Cryptic Excretions]
So essentially we should all be rocket scientists at birth and be complete morons without a developed bone structure in our later years. Y'know, if we start out as something complex and break down over time.

Once again, youre confusing growth with evolution. We as humans start as babies, grow, then die. We dont grow and grow and grow and grow. We hit a point then break down. Evolution is the theory that organsims are becoming more and more complex, when thats never found to be the case anywhere in nature.

[QUOTE=Cryptic Excretions]
To say that adaptation occurs? Adaptation isn't possible? Change your entire living environment to match that of the Amish lifestyle. Then live that way for a couple years. After a while it'll be like second nature. Why's that? Because you've changed your environment and you've adapted to it. How is it "just not possible" to say that two creatures procreate and their genetics go on to another creature who procreates with another creature thus creating a whole different mish-mash of genes and so on and so on?

Apples and oranges. I can change my mentallity and I can change my lifestyle, but Im not gonna change my physical structure.

Originally Posted by: stackny Alright, think about what you just said. All living cells have genetic material, aka DNA. Where did this "living cell nearby" come from then if DNA just spontaneously occured in nature? That made no sense at all.

RNA???????

Originally Posted by: elklanderccRNA???????

Ribonucleic acid. That answer your question? ;)