does anybody care?

Originally Posted by: Danny C.And seriously, not trying to be a jerk or anything, but how is evolution easier to prove than the Bible, isnt evolution a theory? I am not trying to say you are wrong but I really am curious how some of you feel.

The Earth rotating around the sun is also a theory. Yet no one seems to jump on its case about that even though the Bible doesn't support that theory any more than it does evolution.

Originally Posted by: PonyOneso suddenly you're an expert on fossils??? so unless we find something that's half fish and half cow you refuse to believe evolution is valid? You say there are none, I provide a list, and you backtrack to explain why they aren't transitional fossils? :rolleyes: [/QUOTE]

Oh Im so sorry. Scientists said it, must be true!! What was I thinking by contradicting what scientists say? My deepest apologies. :rolleyes: What is the median between 2 creatures? Something with half an organ or bone structure. Am I correct?

Originally Posted by: PonyOne
and again, what about fossils found in the strata before Cambria? Guess that would make some problems with the notion of all life starting at one point... that and the lack of human remains within it. [/QUOTE]

Well, there was tiny bit of water swishing around according to my theory if you didnt remember. Who cares if they didnt find a human fossil? Theyve got all 7 phylas with complicated internal structures in the Cambrian layer with nothing but the occasional algae fossil in the lower preCambrian layer. What happened?

Originally Posted by: PonyOne
The laws of thermodynamics do not apply to a closed environment (i.e. a planet, an ecosystem, an organism). They apply to the universe as a whole; life is an example of reverse entropy... it doesn't in any way negate the 2nd law because the 2nd law was not in any way an explaination of life. It's just utterly irrelevant; it's an explaination of the universe in which life lives. [/QUOTE]

Did you come up with this one yourself? Youre confusing growth with evolution. 2 entirely different things.
[QUOTE=PonyOne]
The 1st law is relevant if we're talking about burning a piece of paper and creating ash, rather than removing the paper from existence. Matter doesn't disappear, though it can take on different chemical forms.... what does this have to do with anything??? And only life can produce life... well... we aren't really 100% sure about that yet; it's the right arrangement of quarks, atoms, and molecules. What is that arrangement? You got me. But that's what it is; the answer is in there somewhere, and there is no denying that... and we're (by this i mean humans) pushing ahead trying to figure out what that arrangement is.

By all means, argue the laws of physics all you want, but I can assure you they do have application in contradicting the Evolutionary theory.
[QUOTE=PonyOne]
actually Borel's single law of chance says that it's mathematically unlikely but still possible. There was plenty of time (eons) in which molecules could align into just the right formation to create life; indeed, life very well could have formed numerous times but failed ultimately and we are just the progeny of one strain of life.

And another part of the theory that is based on RIDICULOUS and I mean FRIGGIN RIDICULOUS coincidal events. And not just one either. The equation for the chance of these things happened once was 10 to the 50 power. And thats for one time!
[QUOTE=PonyOne]
So, the three laws I base my "faith" on actually do support my stance.

Dead wrong.

Originally Posted by: stackny's momOh, that boy of mine! I just don't know what to do with him!

.......................

Originally Posted by: earthman buck.......................

HHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAH!!!!

Originally Posted by: stacknyNothing. They should be taught to keep an open mind. I dont have a problem with evolution being taught simply as theory but they also need to show all the problems and holes in the theory which isnt even close to being adequately done and never will be. Life doesnt come from nowhere and the kids dont see that side of it, because somehow its not considered scientific. (yet its a scientific law) They need to realize that a Creator makes as much sense, if not more, than what theyre being taught.

Don't they preach in churches that God started it all and that science is wrong. Then the schools talk about science and evolution, so technically theres a balance of learning evolution and god creating. People realize the options, its just a matter of what they believe more. A strong belif of god or a strong belief of nature running its course.

Originally Posted by: Cryptic ExcretionsNo. The stories of Horus and Jesus both have similarities in that Jesus died and was resurrected, while Horus was the resurrected Osiris. Both of which followed very similar nature in that they both held their virginity, had a god for a father. Even Jesus' mother Mary has her connections. Neith was the mother of Ra who is directly associated with Horus (sky/sun). The word "beloved" was tied to Neith excessively. Coincidentally the Egyptian word for "beloved" is "Mery."

But Mary isn't a deity.

Originally Posted by: Jolly McJollysonBut Mary isn't a deity.

I would say she's sort of a half-deity. Deity usually means God, but it can also simply mean something, with or without supernatural powers, which is worshipped. Mary is certainly worshipped, especially in Catholicism. Not as much as God or Jesus, but still.

Originally Posted by: earthman buckI would say she's sort of a half-deity. Deity usually means God, but it can also simply mean something, with or without supernatural powers, which is worshipped. Mary is certainly worshipped, especially in Catholicism. Not as much as God or Jesus, but still.

I don't worship Mary.

Originally Posted by: PonyOneso in lieu of an actual argument you accuse me of following science blindly... OK stack you win. I'm sorry. I'll let you go ahead and decide what a valid median is between two creatures, as opposed to people who devote their lives to studying and classifying such things. I guess they need to go to (your) church more often, then they'll see.[/QUOTE]

The only reason I said that was because you said that I went back and argued that those were transitionals like I was just supposed to accept it. Also, my church has nothing to do with my beliefs. This really isnt something addressed often. This is all from my own readings.

Originally Posted by: PonyOne
i've already addressed that. you haven't responded other than to repeat your question, ignoring the evidence i present as well as the explaination: gradual change from soft bodies (which dominated the early cambrian layer) to exo- and endoskeletons, as well as an accumulating number of creatures to reproduce and create more creatures = more creatures. we're dealing with millions of years here, not a decade or two.[/QUOTE]

It shouldnt have happened this way anyways. There is no time where all 7 phylas should have been found with nothing before hand. I can keep repeating and you can keep ignoring if you like. There was no gradual change in this strata. You say "dominated" the early layers, but that means that there were also others down there. This would fit in well with a Great Flood.

Originally Posted by: PonyOne
Also, "big deal" if we didn't find a human skeleton amid all the other creatures... or a bunny or a hippo... there were enough other things there that prove that it MUST have all been put there at once??? Wow, you're sounding a lot like your stereotype of an evolution adherent! You have no proof that we existed at the same time as these other creatures.[/QUOTE]

Humans are on top of the food chain. There arent that many skeleteons to go around, especially that far back. Its a needle in a hay stack to say the least. Thats why your people havent found the half human half ape yet. (that and it doesnt exist but thats besides the point
[QUOTE=PonyOne]
no, not at all... you're confusing the laws of thermodynamics completely... or maybe you just got your definition of it from someone who doesn't understand?

The First Law of Thermodynamics: The total sum of all matter and energy in the universe is constant, it is not now being created nor destroyed.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics: All matter and energy go from a state of order and complexity to a state of less order and less complexity.

[QUOTE=PonyOne]
I bolded two key areas: it works on a macroscopic scale as opposed to a microscopic scale; it works great for the study of the universe (macro), and it works excellently for the study of transfer of energy in its numerous forms, but has nearly nothing to do with evolution.

To reiterate: it has next to nothing to do with the explaination of life... however, if we want to figure out what material will make a more efficient engine block, or for that matter a more efficient fuel to propel rockets, we've found our topic!

Have either of these laws ever been defied in nature?



[QUOTE=PonyOne]
Hey the chances may seem far off, but, they weren't impossible bud. That seems to be more your forte than anyone else's, since the belief you adhere to is arguably more ridiculous in absentia of any coherent details. Especially since it's contingent on disproving evolution, as opposed to proving itself (since it is based on blind faith) and it picks and chooses from evolution ("see? buncha fossils in the Cambrian strata, few in the precambrian strata! it proves that it must have been all at once! never mind the other fossils, never mind the implication that the cambrian strata existed, oh, a few million years ago, which directly contradicts what we say about the world being 6,000 years old... it's OBVIOUSLY another example of evolution's fallacy!").

Dude. Heres your number. I was mistaken before, its actually 1 in 10 to the 250.
Chances are

1 in:

10,00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

Borels law says its impossible for that to occur more than once.

Originally Posted by: Jolly McJollysonI don't worship Mary.

Are you Catholic? Ah, never mind. I can tell from the way you said it that you are.

Originally Posted by: elklanderccDon't they preach in churches that God started it all and that science is wrong. Then the schools talk about science and evolution, so technically theres a balance of learning evolution and god creating. People realize the options, its just a matter of what they believe more. A strong belif of god or a strong belief of nature running its course.

No. Thats not a just reason. Because they learn one thing in church and something else in school doesnt even things off. There isnt proof for either and evolution takes more faith than creation to believe. Church requires faith in God and Evolution happens to shoot that faith down and the Church doesnt want people to lose faith because of what scientists tell them. Not to mention, most people dont go to church. So there is no balance.

Id also like to add, Pony thanks for keeping it civil. Im inn the same debate on another board right now and people have been less than friendly.

Originally Posted by: Jolly McJollysonBut Mary isn't a deity.

If you ever wanted to know anything about Egyptian mythology, here's your chance.

Note, I never accused them of being exactly the same. Technically Jesus wasn't a god either, he was just of godly descent. And that's where the adaptations or evolution, if you will, in religion comes in. The similarities between Horus and Jesus are very evident. And like Christianity, Egyptian religion had its variations. Some parts of Egypt adhered to Set while others held to Ra, so there's never really a completely consistent story, but the similarities out-weigh the differences. Osiris was the ruler of the world, in short. His brother Set and he fought to see who would own the world and Osiris died.

Now, Osiris impregnated Isis (I've also read that the word mery had been associated with Isis as well, but not to the extent of Neith) from the dead (think virgin Mary) who later gave birth to Horus (believed to be the resurrected Osiris). Horus then fought with Set and won, but not without losing one of his eyes (hence the moon) while Set lost his ability to have kids. Isis then declared Horus the ruler of the world. Of course, times changed and people declared that Ra be the king of all the people (keep in mind these were political decisions for the era, y'know, deciding which god is the ranking supreme), I guess they thought Horus was being arrogant or something, but that didn't get them very far since Horus ended up being associated with the sun anyway. But that's where the mythology turns Horus to being the son of Ra and held to him being the resurrected Osiris even more (unfortunately when he was associated with the sun he became his own son. Never saw jesus do that).

So anyway, now he's the sun and Neith is his apparant mother. Neith, mother of her beloved(mery) Horus-Osiris (kinda like Jesus, only he kept the same name after he rose). There are more similarities, but I think you've all got your Egyptian mythology lesson for the day.

Originally Posted by: stackny
Borels law says its impossible for that to occur more than once.

It should say improbible then. If there's a chance, regardless of the odds, it's still possible, just not likely.

Originally Posted by: Cryptic ExcretionsIt should say improbible then. If there's a chance, regardless of the odds, it's still possible, just not likely.

Very friggin improbible.

Originally Posted by: stacknyVery friggin improbible.

And yet possible.

Originally Posted by: stacknyNo. Thats not a just reason. Because they learn one thing in church and something else in school doesnt even things off. There isnt proof for either and evolution takes more faith than creation to believe. Church requires faith in God and Evolution happens to shoot that faith down and the Church doesnt want people to lose faith because of what scientists tell them. Not to mention, most people dont go to church. So there is no balance.

But many still know about the posibility that god may have started it all, regardless if they don't go to church.

Originally Posted by: stacknySo there is no balance.

It all depends on how you experience your faith. Some find a middle ground between the two, but it takes some compromise from at least one side.

What it comes down to is that you simply can't compare creationism to evolution. One can't be "better" or "make more sense" than he other. One is a theory based on faith, the other is a theory based on science, which renders this whole discussion pretty much useless.

Originally Posted by: SPLIt all depends on how you experience your faith. Some find a middle ground between the two, but it takes some compromise from at least one side.

What it comes down to is that you simply can't compare creationism to evolution. One can't be "better" or "make more sense" than he other. One is a theory based on faith, the other is a theory based on science, which renders this whole discussion pretty much useless.

I think any of us could've told you that. These debates are always useless. I just have this thing for butting heads in a debate, regardless of how stupid.

Originally Posted by: Cryptic ExcretionsI think any of us could've told you that.

Alrighty then. Just putting it out there...