truckerhucker
Member
ya but alot of people who set out to disprove the bible end up in believing it
‡ bomb hills not countries ‡
‡ bomb hills not countries ‡
Views on the bible
- Thread starter freestyle_rich
- Start date
ATLskier
Active member
Holy crap dude. I find that statement very wise and very true to how people are acting today. Good job.
Anyways, most of the Bible is written from oral tradition, stories passed on from generation to generation. So many stories literal meaning were changed. But that is not what is importnat. Let's take into account some creation stories. In Genisis, it says that God made the world in 6 days and rested the 7th. God may have done that, but he prob. didn't and it sin't important. What's important is that he created the world. For adam and eve, its not so much important that God made adam from the earth and eve from the rib of adam, but that he made humans and gave us free will so that we can choose to do what's right or sin.
So most of the stories in the Bible shouldn't be read literally, but read in consideration with the metaphors, themes, other meanings that exist within them.
Thoughts about the Jews in egypt. I saw a video about some explainations for some of that stuff. For the darkness, a volcano in greece or italy erupted about that time that could have blocked out the sun. The winds wouls have been going south at that time of year, and there are ash particles in layers orf rock or soil in egypt. I can't remember many others.
People don't worship the BIble. They worship God. I have never found one person that worships the bible. If I saw soemone like that I would think they are crazy. Also, I am Catholic, I go to a catholic schooll, and we don't worship mary or the saints. we ask them to intercede our prayers, or pray to God for us.
i cant take him[liam downey] seriously cuz his name reminds me of that downy bear from back when i was a kid -d loc
Imagine the ns outcry if u(lateralis) were banned. There would be countless threads and petitions to bring u back, it would be like when treadway got banned from whistler. Someone would probably make and sell 'Free Lateralis' stickers and shit. -j
Anyways, most of the Bible is written from oral tradition, stories passed on from generation to generation. So many stories literal meaning were changed. But that is not what is importnat. Let's take into account some creation stories. In Genisis, it says that God made the world in 6 days and rested the 7th. God may have done that, but he prob. didn't and it sin't important. What's important is that he created the world. For adam and eve, its not so much important that God made adam from the earth and eve from the rib of adam, but that he made humans and gave us free will so that we can choose to do what's right or sin.
So most of the stories in the Bible shouldn't be read literally, but read in consideration with the metaphors, themes, other meanings that exist within them.
Thoughts about the Jews in egypt. I saw a video about some explainations for some of that stuff. For the darkness, a volcano in greece or italy erupted about that time that could have blocked out the sun. The winds wouls have been going south at that time of year, and there are ash particles in layers orf rock or soil in egypt. I can't remember many others.
People don't worship the BIble. They worship God. I have never found one person that worships the bible. If I saw soemone like that I would think they are crazy. Also, I am Catholic, I go to a catholic schooll, and we don't worship mary or the saints. we ask them to intercede our prayers, or pray to God for us.
i cant take him[liam downey] seriously cuz his name reminds me of that downy bear from back when i was a kid -d loc
Imagine the ns outcry if u(lateralis) were banned. There would be countless threads and petitions to bring u back, it would be like when treadway got banned from whistler. Someone would probably make and sell 'Free Lateralis' stickers and shit. -j
rossignol_rider
Active member
you guys have read/seen harry potter i assume. there we go. harry potter, the bible, tomatoe, tomato. they're both great myths that turned into a good story.
......ohio.....freestyle........
......ohio.....freestyle........
pierceme
Active member
I believe in religion in the sense that its a good thing to teach your kids and to live your life by because it teaches good morals and values. But I also think that people should not look at it as the truth. I dont believe for a second that theres a god and that if we all say the right things and eat what he tells us to then we will get to go hang out in with him for all eternity. It was clearly made back in the day as almost some sort of scare tactic to get people to believe things that would help them live a better life. Now days, its out of date and doesnt fit modern society. Its supposed to instill good values but when u talk to a lot of die hard church-goers today you'll hear things like, "love thy neighbor, be nice to everyone, and care for the good of mankind.... but o yeah, all gay people need to burn in hell!" Thats not what the bible was made for. So basically what im saying is that church is a good thing but dont let it take control of your life.
I ski at the crappiest hill ever...
I ski at the crappiest hill ever...
g-man
Active member
fucked_edges
Member
me and my g\f have talked about this time after time. she was brought up very religously and me not so much. she has explained some of the stories in the bible to me because i will never read it. i belive that it is a lot of stories that people made up. maybe there was some guy named jesus that was cool as fuck and was a really nice guy, but i dont think that it is physicly posible that he did some of the things he did. and if it is, why doesnt something happen like that today. im not saying the bible is usless and it should go fuck itself, im just saying that people follow it far too closly than they should. i belive that the bible is a guide line that people should follow to be a good person and all that heaven stuff is to reasure people that there will be something after death. it might also be that heaven was made up to scare us into being a good person.either way, it doesnt hurt anyone, but helps them get through hard times and to be a better person to people. i belive that people are just moles and moles of carbon molicules bonded to geather and given life by our parents and their parents before that and so on and so on untill there was a chemical reaction between carbons a fuck of a long time ago. just a bunch of organ systems working to geather to create a person. matter and constent chemical reactions. thats all we are. so dont belive me and stick to the bible shit just to reasure yourself.
'ya thats right, im fucking crazy, whats up?'
'ya thats right, im fucking crazy, whats up?'
LineAddiction9
Member
Lets all just go smoke Marijuana!!
d-loc
Active member
who, what, when, where, why bible?
--------------------------------- ------------------------------------
"What the world doesn't understand," says Craven, still zigzagging through the parking lot, "is that what we don't have enough of is cold, not heat."
Some people talk it, some people live it, some people walk it-some people give it... deal with it.
D-Loc AKA Shaky Bones... Original, Unique, and One of a Kind.
--------------------------------- ------------------------------------
"What the world doesn't understand," says Craven, still zigzagging through the parking lot, "is that what we don't have enough of is cold, not heat."
Some people talk it, some people live it, some people walk it-some people give it... deal with it.
D-Loc AKA Shaky Bones... Original, Unique, and One of a Kind.
almostaskier
Active member
its great how so many people in this thread, most notably steeze patrol, were pseaking in utter abolutes, as if you guys new and all about eberything, and that because you don't agree with something makes it wrong, or vice versa...
first off, like people have said before, Christians do not worship the Bible, we worship God. the bible is considered, and i believe to be, the inspired word of God, written by his messengers to the world. in the bible is Gods law, and the news that needs to be spread to all nations.
tmack152 or whatever, you are the king of taking things out of context. as the originator of the thread said, the Bible is several thousand years old from the old to the new testament. so the laws of the old testament are, well, old. a lot of things in the old teststament makes little or no sense out of the context of the time. in the Old testament, Gods laws to moses apply to the isrealites of the time: God had chosen this people, and he was molding them into his state and his lights in the world (metaphore unless you hadn't picked up on that). they need to be perfect, and to be so, Gods law to them was very strict, hence the stoning of the children and whatever else you quoted. in muslim states today, where they use some of the old testament in their laws, you cut off the hand of burglars, and you stone cheating wifes. sounds harsh, but only when taken out of context.
im no scholar, and some parts of the bible make no sense to me, like when god sends someone to throws feces at each other. but you have to realize that the tets are really old, and thus make little sense today. we will see how people think about gay marriage or the electric chair centuries form now...
J.D._May, your statement on why God hasn't been pissed off enough to send any other plagues, who are you to say he hasn't? the plagues were disease and other infestations. well, i don't know what God has been up to, but there was the black plague that ravaged europe, cholera, ecoli, AIDS, drought and famine in Somalia, i mena, look at bagladesh to see wether or not there are no epidemics and plagues. hell, some fundamantalists would say the tsunami was a plague. not to say that i do, but you have no ground in saying wether he has or hasn't sent plagues because he is pîssed at us since moses.
as for the bible being old and unreliable, it depends what you you mean by old and unreliable... do you believe that the romans conquered france? that was over 2000 years ago. do you beleive the egyptians had a properous country? that was over 3000 years ago. and the bible is that old, even older, but that does not change much.
also all history is eyewitness accounts. the more account for the same things, the more the history is accurate. so the fact that no one in that particular history has come forward to challenge bible happenings is odd is it weren't true.
the main proof for something happeing is no proof for it not happening. lets take Jesus' death for example, and his resurrection. the most convisting proof for it happening is that fact that the romans, who were in a big dillemma with him raising like he said he would, did not come up with any sort of evidence that he hadn't. no bones found, no arrests that led to confessions of the apostles. because you have to realize people don't die for lies. all the apostles and millions of christians since have died in what they believe, and if there weren't any basis for it, someone would have come out and called the bluff.
now, that you have a beef with organized religion is completely founded. many a horrible thing has come from some fundamentalist using the bible as pretext for war, and abuses of power run amock in the churches history. but organized religion the way the catholic church portrays it isn't a representation of the church God intended. it is first and foremost a personal relation with God, and second is the Body of Christ, the Church, which every person belongs to. i don't think it was ever mùeant to have a ruler over the church. some people ahev the gift of preaching the word of God, and they teach the rest, but that doesn't make anyone any more a christain than the next.
and i think to finsh it off, the bible is indeed written in metaphors. jst for example, in genesis it is said that God walks in the Graden of Eden, does this mean God has feet? it also says that his voice could be heard in the garden, does this mean God has vocal chords? no, it doesn't. these are metaphors to help us understand him; since by definition we cannot. this means that fundamentalists and peole who take the bible literally are wrong in doing so. this is why the bible often needs to be explained or at least tried to be understood. if any christian were to say he understands the whole bible he is a liar.
so don't speak in absolutes, i hope i didn't, you cannot disprove anything by just bnot wanting to believe it. Steeze Patrol, try to disprove the things you don't like, and give some reason to your absolutes. J.D., you can't say what God has and hasn't done and for what reasons, and neither can i and tmack 152, keep it in context.
so i hope this helped some people, or angered others,whatever...
- Patty
*NS Skateboarders* Vas y il l'a cassé!
first off, like people have said before, Christians do not worship the Bible, we worship God. the bible is considered, and i believe to be, the inspired word of God, written by his messengers to the world. in the bible is Gods law, and the news that needs to be spread to all nations.
tmack152 or whatever, you are the king of taking things out of context. as the originator of the thread said, the Bible is several thousand years old from the old to the new testament. so the laws of the old testament are, well, old. a lot of things in the old teststament makes little or no sense out of the context of the time. in the Old testament, Gods laws to moses apply to the isrealites of the time: God had chosen this people, and he was molding them into his state and his lights in the world (metaphore unless you hadn't picked up on that). they need to be perfect, and to be so, Gods law to them was very strict, hence the stoning of the children and whatever else you quoted. in muslim states today, where they use some of the old testament in their laws, you cut off the hand of burglars, and you stone cheating wifes. sounds harsh, but only when taken out of context.
im no scholar, and some parts of the bible make no sense to me, like when god sends someone to throws feces at each other. but you have to realize that the tets are really old, and thus make little sense today. we will see how people think about gay marriage or the electric chair centuries form now...
J.D._May, your statement on why God hasn't been pissed off enough to send any other plagues, who are you to say he hasn't? the plagues were disease and other infestations. well, i don't know what God has been up to, but there was the black plague that ravaged europe, cholera, ecoli, AIDS, drought and famine in Somalia, i mena, look at bagladesh to see wether or not there are no epidemics and plagues. hell, some fundamantalists would say the tsunami was a plague. not to say that i do, but you have no ground in saying wether he has or hasn't sent plagues because he is pîssed at us since moses.
as for the bible being old and unreliable, it depends what you you mean by old and unreliable... do you believe that the romans conquered france? that was over 2000 years ago. do you beleive the egyptians had a properous country? that was over 3000 years ago. and the bible is that old, even older, but that does not change much.
also all history is eyewitness accounts. the more account for the same things, the more the history is accurate. so the fact that no one in that particular history has come forward to challenge bible happenings is odd is it weren't true.
the main proof for something happeing is no proof for it not happening. lets take Jesus' death for example, and his resurrection. the most convisting proof for it happening is that fact that the romans, who were in a big dillemma with him raising like he said he would, did not come up with any sort of evidence that he hadn't. no bones found, no arrests that led to confessions of the apostles. because you have to realize people don't die for lies. all the apostles and millions of christians since have died in what they believe, and if there weren't any basis for it, someone would have come out and called the bluff.
now, that you have a beef with organized religion is completely founded. many a horrible thing has come from some fundamentalist using the bible as pretext for war, and abuses of power run amock in the churches history. but organized religion the way the catholic church portrays it isn't a representation of the church God intended. it is first and foremost a personal relation with God, and second is the Body of Christ, the Church, which every person belongs to. i don't think it was ever mùeant to have a ruler over the church. some people ahev the gift of preaching the word of God, and they teach the rest, but that doesn't make anyone any more a christain than the next.
and i think to finsh it off, the bible is indeed written in metaphors. jst for example, in genesis it is said that God walks in the Graden of Eden, does this mean God has feet? it also says that his voice could be heard in the garden, does this mean God has vocal chords? no, it doesn't. these are metaphors to help us understand him; since by definition we cannot. this means that fundamentalists and peole who take the bible literally are wrong in doing so. this is why the bible often needs to be explained or at least tried to be understood. if any christian were to say he understands the whole bible he is a liar.
so don't speak in absolutes, i hope i didn't, you cannot disprove anything by just bnot wanting to believe it. Steeze Patrol, try to disprove the things you don't like, and give some reason to your absolutes. J.D., you can't say what God has and hasn't done and for what reasons, and neither can i and tmack 152, keep it in context.
so i hope this helped some people, or angered others,whatever...
- Patty
*NS Skateboarders* Vas y il l'a cassé!
Quinny
Active member
The bible should not be taken literally, and neither should any holy text from any religion. Many people become misguided in religion because they are bogged down by taking everything literally. This is why religion can be a dangerous political tool. What is important are some of the good values that it teaches.
The text in the Bible is written the way it is for many historical, social, and political reasons. Many atheists and agnostics criticize it because of how dated the text is. But regardless of context, many overarching values of the Bible endure.
I question the intelligence of anyone who takes religious text literally. Its like making the Lord of the Rings a religion. People should look for values that make a good life, not how to punish people.
------------------------
Q: How many NS.com members does it take to answer a simple question?
A: 10. One to answer, three to say 'How fucking stupid are you?', three to say 'This has already been asked a thousand times', and three to say 'Who the fuck cares anyway?'
-kamikaze
The text in the Bible is written the way it is for many historical, social, and political reasons. Many atheists and agnostics criticize it because of how dated the text is. But regardless of context, many overarching values of the Bible endure.
I question the intelligence of anyone who takes religious text literally. Its like making the Lord of the Rings a religion. People should look for values that make a good life, not how to punish people.
------------------------
Q: How many NS.com members does it take to answer a simple question?
A: 10. One to answer, three to say 'How fucking stupid are you?', three to say 'This has already been asked a thousand times', and three to say 'Who the fuck cares anyway?'
-kamikaze
almostaskier
Active member
but humans can create nothing unless you count imaginating creating... and its insulting to everyone that humans imagined a thing that surpasses them, because it cannot surpass them if theyimagined it... so did we need an ego blocker? and what proof do you have that God doesn't exist? abolutes once again...
- Patty
*NS Skateboarders* Vas y il l'a cassé!
- Patty
*NS Skateboarders* Vas y il l'a cassé!
truckerhucker
Member
well i question the intellengence of anybody that takes evoloution literally, how can you beleve that man came frum a big bang its just like believing that man came from a puddle of dna zapped by lightning. it has about the same chances of happning as a hurricane picking up a whole load of bricks and dropping them out of the sky creating a house
‡ bomb hills not countries ‡
‡ bomb hills not countries ‡
Quinny
Active member
On the topic of questioning intelligence…good job steering this into another direction.
The big bang theory has little to do directly with the theory of evolution. You are marching in the direction of creationism. I’m not discrediting anything. Many scientific findings are pointing at evolution and the big bang at the moment. That doesn’t necessarily make them true, but it is currently among the best explanations of how things became what they are now.
If you are trying to compare that to the book of Genesis, you are going to have to think a bit deeper. While the bible is a moral compass, it was also a method of explaining the unexplainable. I don’t know about anyone else, but on a literal level, the Garden of Eden sounds a bit far fetched. While there is some historical backings to the book, much of it is also exaggerated of total bunk. People need to treat it more like a storybook and less like a history text book. As far as we know, Genesis could even be an allegory, but there is little to conclusively prove that.
------------------------
Q: How many NS.com members does it take to answer a simple question?
A: 10. One to answer, three to say 'How fucking stupid are you?', three to say 'This has already been asked a thousand times', and three to say 'Who the fuck cares anyway?'
-kamikaze
The big bang theory has little to do directly with the theory of evolution. You are marching in the direction of creationism. I’m not discrediting anything. Many scientific findings are pointing at evolution and the big bang at the moment. That doesn’t necessarily make them true, but it is currently among the best explanations of how things became what they are now.
If you are trying to compare that to the book of Genesis, you are going to have to think a bit deeper. While the bible is a moral compass, it was also a method of explaining the unexplainable. I don’t know about anyone else, but on a literal level, the Garden of Eden sounds a bit far fetched. While there is some historical backings to the book, much of it is also exaggerated of total bunk. People need to treat it more like a storybook and less like a history text book. As far as we know, Genesis could even be an allegory, but there is little to conclusively prove that.
------------------------
Q: How many NS.com members does it take to answer a simple question?
A: 10. One to answer, three to say 'How fucking stupid are you?', three to say 'This has already been asked a thousand times', and three to say 'Who the fuck cares anyway?'
-kamikaze
Quinny
Active member
Damn it, typo.
exaggerated of total bunk
*exaggerated or total bunk
------------------------
Q: How many NS.com members does it take to answer a simple question?
A: 10. One to answer, three to say 'How fucking stupid are you?', three to say 'This has already been asked a thousand times', and three to say 'Who the fuck cares anyway?'
-kamikaze
exaggerated of total bunk
*exaggerated or total bunk
------------------------
Q: How many NS.com members does it take to answer a simple question?
A: 10. One to answer, three to say 'How fucking stupid are you?', three to say 'This has already been asked a thousand times', and three to say 'Who the fuck cares anyway?'
-kamikaze
truckerhucker
Member
props to quinny for alling eveloution a theory because thats what it really is actually it should still be a hypothesis
‡ bomb hills not countries ‡
‡ bomb hills not countries ‡
almostaskier
Active member
well, Quinny, i would say there is much evidence for the universe spawning from one specific point and then expanding, but there is no proof whatsoever for the origin out of nothingness that is the big bang. in fact, it can be disproved by simple math: probability of something existing or being formed out of nothing=0. and that probability is the same for ever, no matter how long it takes. so the mass and energy needed for the theory have to be present already, everlasting basically, so if you believe in the big bang account of creation, then you basically believe in an eternal God, just replace God by mass and energy.
as for the evolution theory, the only part of it that is proven and that everyone agrees on is the micro evolution part of it, basically adapatation of species due to natural selelection. this involves a species over time adapting to a new place, and changing to the point that it can no longer reproduce with fertile offspring with the previous species, thus a new species is formed. no question that is true, but it remains the same animal, a bird is a bird and cannot be a reptile.
from then on the leaps of faith that need to be taken for changing phyla completely due to adapation require more faith than i ever will have, or just more ignorance. i could go on forever on why evolution, MACRO evolution i should say, is absolutely impossible.
you are very right in saying that if something points in a certain direction that it doesn't make it true. the main thing to remember when talking about evolution and the like is that similarity does not equal relationship.
i believe that the bible accounts for Creation are to be taken literally to some extent, meaning God created all living cratures according to their kind. the time frame, really doesn't matter, but it could be literal aswell...
- Patty
*NS Skateboarders* Vas y il l'a cassé!
as for the evolution theory, the only part of it that is proven and that everyone agrees on is the micro evolution part of it, basically adapatation of species due to natural selelection. this involves a species over time adapting to a new place, and changing to the point that it can no longer reproduce with fertile offspring with the previous species, thus a new species is formed. no question that is true, but it remains the same animal, a bird is a bird and cannot be a reptile.
from then on the leaps of faith that need to be taken for changing phyla completely due to adapation require more faith than i ever will have, or just more ignorance. i could go on forever on why evolution, MACRO evolution i should say, is absolutely impossible.
you are very right in saying that if something points in a certain direction that it doesn't make it true. the main thing to remember when talking about evolution and the like is that similarity does not equal relationship.
i believe that the bible accounts for Creation are to be taken literally to some extent, meaning God created all living cratures according to their kind. the time frame, really doesn't matter, but it could be literal aswell...
- Patty
*NS Skateboarders* Vas y il l'a cassé!
Quinny
Active member
A scientific theory cannot be proved, only disproved. This is one of the first things you should know when studying anything like that.
And to that first paragraph, science has something called “string theory� that attempts to partially explain the “0� factor. String theory is currently one of the most popular subjects in the scientific community. “0� is a very complex puzzle, but what about the other end of the spectrum? Infinity, an equally intangible concept. You can't have a structure without a boundary.
As for evolution. Constant change is always occurring. The difference between one species to another isn’t always so clearly defend. “a bird is a bird and cannot be a reptile,� but what of the relation between the bone structures of dinosaurs and the modern bird? Or the differences between a fox and a wolf? We could all have very well come from the same “elixir,� but changed differently than others? God could have originally put us hear and we have changed to adapt to his ever changing world. Heck, something could have put us here and is making it changes for us.
The human mind is very sequential, and we try to put things into a sequence. But, in many instances, things don’t always fall into simple sequences. I think its likely that the ultimate creation (the true beginning) is probably unfathomable to the human mind. People can speculate and create theories, but I think the “how where we created� puzzle will never truly be solved.
------------------------
Q: How many NS.com members does it take to answer a simple question?
A: 10. One to answer, three to say 'How fucking stupid are you?', three to say 'This has already been asked a thousand times', and three to say 'Who the fuck cares anyway?'
-kamikaze
And to that first paragraph, science has something called “string theory� that attempts to partially explain the “0� factor. String theory is currently one of the most popular subjects in the scientific community. “0� is a very complex puzzle, but what about the other end of the spectrum? Infinity, an equally intangible concept. You can't have a structure without a boundary.
As for evolution. Constant change is always occurring. The difference between one species to another isn’t always so clearly defend. “a bird is a bird and cannot be a reptile,� but what of the relation between the bone structures of dinosaurs and the modern bird? Or the differences between a fox and a wolf? We could all have very well come from the same “elixir,� but changed differently than others? God could have originally put us hear and we have changed to adapt to his ever changing world. Heck, something could have put us here and is making it changes for us.
The human mind is very sequential, and we try to put things into a sequence. But, in many instances, things don’t always fall into simple sequences. I think its likely that the ultimate creation (the true beginning) is probably unfathomable to the human mind. People can speculate and create theories, but I think the “how where we created� puzzle will never truly be solved.
------------------------
Q: How many NS.com members does it take to answer a simple question?
A: 10. One to answer, three to say 'How fucking stupid are you?', three to say 'This has already been asked a thousand times', and three to say 'Who the fuck cares anyway?'
-kamikaze
almostaskier
Active member
very true, the fact that you can only really disprove, but you do need some kind of backing to your theory. and in the case of a theory such as that of the big bang, you can only notice that wave lengths of light measurements point to an expanding universe from a single point, but not that of the creation of all things.
it is very flawed in that sense. and also, if any kind of theory needs such concepts as dark matter and string theories to keep it aloft, then i think it needs to be rethought. there is so much speculation within the theory to make it work that i can only wonder how it is deemed scientific.
as i said, similarity does not equal relationship. dinosaurs and birds have a wide variety of similiarities, yet that does not point to any kind or relation. for example, almost all animals have 5 digit bones, even whales do, but that does not mean that a whale is related to a mokey. here is a bit of text from In 6 Days, why 50 scientiest choose to believe Creation. . this may be a bit long, but bear with me:
Avian evolution and flight, a creationists perspective:
"For the evolutionist, there is the scenario of flight evolving at least three times independently!The wings of the three main current groups of flying creatures today are substantially different: birds’ wings are made of feathers; insect wings are made of scales, membranes, or hairs; and bat wings use skin spread out over a skeleton. So the evolutionist is faced with not just one [seemingly] impossible hurdle — that some reptiles grew feathers and began to fly — but two further hurdles. These are that flight evolved again when some rodents (mice? shrews?) developed a skin- like surface over their front legs to become bats, and then, quite separately, some insects grew very thin wings of scales, membranes, or hairs to becomes flies, bees, and butterflies!
Birds
A bird’s wings are made of feathers. A feather is a marvel of light weight engineering. Though light, it is very wind-resistant. This is because there is a clever system of barbs and barbules. Each barb of a feather is visible to the naked eye and comes off the main stem. What is not generally realized is that on either side of the barb are further tiny barbules which can only be seen under a microscope. These are of different types, depending on whether they are coming from one side of the barb or the other. On one side of the barb, ridged barbules will emerge, while on the other side, the barbules will have hooks. Thus, the hooks coming out of one barb will connect with ridges reaching in the opposite direction from a neighboring barb. The hooks and ridges act like “velcro,� but go one stage further, since the ridges allow a sliding joint, and there is thus an ingenious mechanism for keeping the surface flexible and yet in-tact.
The next time you see a flight feather on the ground, remem ber it is a marvel of lightweight, flexible, aerodynamic engineering. Reptile scales have no hint of such complicated machinery. Stahl has freely admitted, “No fossil structure transitional between scale and feather is known, and recent investigators are unwilling to found a theory on pure speculation.�
There is no genetic information within reptile scales to allow such a unique device as the sliding joint of a feather to be made. The tortuous route suggested by some of small “advantaged mutations� to scales leads to clumsy structures which are, in fact, a disadvantage to the creature. Not until all the hook and ridge structure is in place is there any advantage, even as a vane for catching insects! Unless one invokes some “thinking ahead� planning, [Mommy Nature making selections?] there is no way that chance mutations could produce the “idea� of the cross- linking of the barbules to make a connecting lattice. Even if the chance mutation of a ridge/hook occurs in two of the barbules, there is no mechanism for translating this “advantage� to the rest of the structure. This is a classic case of irreducible complexity which is not consistent with slow evolutionary changes, but quite consistent with the notion of design.
But that is not all. Even if one had the feather, the delicate lattice structure would soon become frayed, unless there was also oil to lubricate the sliding joint made by the hooked and ridged barbules. Most of us realize that once the barbs of a feather have been separated, it is difficult to make them come back together.The feather becomes easily frayed in the absence of oil, which a bird provides from its preening gland at the base of its spine. Some of this oil is put on its beak and spread throughout the feathers, which for a water bird also gives waterproofing of its surface (thus, water slides off a duck’s back). Without the oil the feathers are useless, so even if a supposed land-dwelling dinosaur got as far as wafting a wing, it would be no use after a few hours!
As one might expect, however, the story does not end there either, for a bird can fly only because it also has an exceedingly light bone structure, which is achieved by the bones being hollow. Many birds maintain skeleton strength by cross members within the hol low bones. Such an arrangement began to be used in the middle of this century for aircraft wings and is termed the “Warren’s truss arrangement.� Large birds, such as an eagle or a vulture, would sim ply break into pieces in midair if there were some supposed halfway stage in their skeletal development where they had not yet “devel oped� such cross members in their bones.
Furthermore, birds breathe differently. The respiratory system of a bird enables oxygen to be fed straight into air sacs, which are connected directly to the heart, lungs, and stomach, bypassing the normal mammalian requirement to breathe out carbon dioxide first before the next intake of oxygen. Human beings breathe about 12 times a minute, whereas small birds can breathe up to about 250 times a minute. This is thus a perfect system for the high metabolic rate of birds, which uses up energy very quickly. In fast forward ffight particularly, birds could not sustain exhaling against the on coming airstream. Note also that birds are warm-blooded, which presents a vast biological hurdle for those who maintain a reptile ancestory for birds.
this is a very good example of how it is impossible for 1 animal to evolve into another completely different creature. surely you concede that foxes and wolves are basically the same animal if you want to prove evolution in that sense: they are both carnivorous land animals, they both have 4 legs, live in the same kind of climate etc. so its not like a link between these two animals is not impossible, they are pretty much the same animal.
yet i am pretty sure there are some major diffences that evolution could not have gotten around when you are talking about a fish to amphibian evolution.
the fish would have had to get rid of its gills partially to have lungs, develop a new breating system, a new digestive system adapted to food it wouldn't know exists yet, sense to help it hunt the food on land it hasn't encountered yet, grow legs and replace the fins, all the while managing to feed, reproduce and not get eaten by the predator or surving the conditions it is evolving away from.
there is not cahnce whatsoever for this happening in any amount of time, the stages are the same beit quickly or slowly. and for it to arrive to where we are now with our own person and mind is just absurd to believe.
so bear with me on that long text. sorry about it, but i feel it is very important.
- Patty
*NS Skateboarders* Vas y il l'a cassé!
the previous might have been pure genious, but it wasn't my intention. sorry.
it is very flawed in that sense. and also, if any kind of theory needs such concepts as dark matter and string theories to keep it aloft, then i think it needs to be rethought. there is so much speculation within the theory to make it work that i can only wonder how it is deemed scientific.
as i said, similarity does not equal relationship. dinosaurs and birds have a wide variety of similiarities, yet that does not point to any kind or relation. for example, almost all animals have 5 digit bones, even whales do, but that does not mean that a whale is related to a mokey. here is a bit of text from In 6 Days, why 50 scientiest choose to believe Creation. . this may be a bit long, but bear with me:
Avian evolution and flight, a creationists perspective:
"For the evolutionist, there is the scenario of flight evolving at least three times independently!The wings of the three main current groups of flying creatures today are substantially different: birds’ wings are made of feathers; insect wings are made of scales, membranes, or hairs; and bat wings use skin spread out over a skeleton. So the evolutionist is faced with not just one [seemingly] impossible hurdle — that some reptiles grew feathers and began to fly — but two further hurdles. These are that flight evolved again when some rodents (mice? shrews?) developed a skin- like surface over their front legs to become bats, and then, quite separately, some insects grew very thin wings of scales, membranes, or hairs to becomes flies, bees, and butterflies!
Birds
A bird’s wings are made of feathers. A feather is a marvel of light weight engineering. Though light, it is very wind-resistant. This is because there is a clever system of barbs and barbules. Each barb of a feather is visible to the naked eye and comes off the main stem. What is not generally realized is that on either side of the barb are further tiny barbules which can only be seen under a microscope. These are of different types, depending on whether they are coming from one side of the barb or the other. On one side of the barb, ridged barbules will emerge, while on the other side, the barbules will have hooks. Thus, the hooks coming out of one barb will connect with ridges reaching in the opposite direction from a neighboring barb. The hooks and ridges act like “velcro,� but go one stage further, since the ridges allow a sliding joint, and there is thus an ingenious mechanism for keeping the surface flexible and yet in-tact.
The next time you see a flight feather on the ground, remem ber it is a marvel of lightweight, flexible, aerodynamic engineering. Reptile scales have no hint of such complicated machinery. Stahl has freely admitted, “No fossil structure transitional between scale and feather is known, and recent investigators are unwilling to found a theory on pure speculation.�
There is no genetic information within reptile scales to allow such a unique device as the sliding joint of a feather to be made. The tortuous route suggested by some of small “advantaged mutations� to scales leads to clumsy structures which are, in fact, a disadvantage to the creature. Not until all the hook and ridge structure is in place is there any advantage, even as a vane for catching insects! Unless one invokes some “thinking ahead� planning, [Mommy Nature making selections?] there is no way that chance mutations could produce the “idea� of the cross- linking of the barbules to make a connecting lattice. Even if the chance mutation of a ridge/hook occurs in two of the barbules, there is no mechanism for translating this “advantage� to the rest of the structure. This is a classic case of irreducible complexity which is not consistent with slow evolutionary changes, but quite consistent with the notion of design.
But that is not all. Even if one had the feather, the delicate lattice structure would soon become frayed, unless there was also oil to lubricate the sliding joint made by the hooked and ridged barbules. Most of us realize that once the barbs of a feather have been separated, it is difficult to make them come back together.The feather becomes easily frayed in the absence of oil, which a bird provides from its preening gland at the base of its spine. Some of this oil is put on its beak and spread throughout the feathers, which for a water bird also gives waterproofing of its surface (thus, water slides off a duck’s back). Without the oil the feathers are useless, so even if a supposed land-dwelling dinosaur got as far as wafting a wing, it would be no use after a few hours!
As one might expect, however, the story does not end there either, for a bird can fly only because it also has an exceedingly light bone structure, which is achieved by the bones being hollow. Many birds maintain skeleton strength by cross members within the hol low bones. Such an arrangement began to be used in the middle of this century for aircraft wings and is termed the “Warren’s truss arrangement.� Large birds, such as an eagle or a vulture, would sim ply break into pieces in midair if there were some supposed halfway stage in their skeletal development where they had not yet “devel oped� such cross members in their bones.
Furthermore, birds breathe differently. The respiratory system of a bird enables oxygen to be fed straight into air sacs, which are connected directly to the heart, lungs, and stomach, bypassing the normal mammalian requirement to breathe out carbon dioxide first before the next intake of oxygen. Human beings breathe about 12 times a minute, whereas small birds can breathe up to about 250 times a minute. This is thus a perfect system for the high metabolic rate of birds, which uses up energy very quickly. In fast forward ffight particularly, birds could not sustain exhaling against the on coming airstream. Note also that birds are warm-blooded, which presents a vast biological hurdle for those who maintain a reptile ancestory for birds.
this is a very good example of how it is impossible for 1 animal to evolve into another completely different creature. surely you concede that foxes and wolves are basically the same animal if you want to prove evolution in that sense: they are both carnivorous land animals, they both have 4 legs, live in the same kind of climate etc. so its not like a link between these two animals is not impossible, they are pretty much the same animal.
yet i am pretty sure there are some major diffences that evolution could not have gotten around when you are talking about a fish to amphibian evolution.
the fish would have had to get rid of its gills partially to have lungs, develop a new breating system, a new digestive system adapted to food it wouldn't know exists yet, sense to help it hunt the food on land it hasn't encountered yet, grow legs and replace the fins, all the while managing to feed, reproduce and not get eaten by the predator or surving the conditions it is evolving away from.
there is not cahnce whatsoever for this happening in any amount of time, the stages are the same beit quickly or slowly. and for it to arrive to where we are now with our own person and mind is just absurd to believe.
so bear with me on that long text. sorry about it, but i feel it is very important.
- Patty
*NS Skateboarders* Vas y il l'a cassé!
the previous might have been pure genious, but it wasn't my intention. sorry.
truckerhucker
Member
I think people need about the same amount of faith to believe in creathion as eveloution or the string theory or any other form of creation or whatever
and to adress many people are you absouutly shure there are no absolutes
‡ bomb hills not countries ‡
and to adress many people are you absouutly shure there are no absolutes
‡ bomb hills not countries ‡
Quinny
Active member
Don’t worry about your post length. I’m not one of those people that gets freaked out by long stuff. I have read that before, and it brings a valid case. But it doesn’t dismiss gradual change. It only really considers that there was a single spawning point as opposed to the possibility of there being more than one. Once again we are back to the sequence thing. Who says that we all came from the same pool of muck? What if there was another on the opposite corner of the planet? Furthermore, they couldn’t have necessarily occurred at the same time. Things don’t operate on a schedule, as what many theories imply.
------------------------
Q: How many NS.com members does it take to answer a simple question?
A: 10. One to answer, three to say 'How fucking stupid are you?', three to say 'This has already been asked a thousand times', and three to say 'Who the fuck cares anyway?'
-kamikaze
------------------------
Q: How many NS.com members does it take to answer a simple question?
A: 10. One to answer, three to say 'How fucking stupid are you?', three to say 'This has already been asked a thousand times', and three to say 'Who the fuck cares anyway?'
-kamikaze
almostaskier
Active member
yet, as i pointed out, it doesn't matter wether the changes were gradual or in a short period of time, because the "levels" of the evolution of the species are the same, they just last more or less. and even though i would agree with you about everything not having to be sequenced, yet these are the steps that need to have haopened according to the theory.
wether it started in one pool of muck somewhere or another, the same macro evolution process would have had to happen in at least one of them to produce the life on earth as we know it according to the theory, and this is completely impossible, so it does'nt account for life on earth, unless the pools of muck contained that life before.
also, i would like to say this: science, as we know it, is observation. humans cannot create anything. we observe, deduce and try to replicate what we have observed. if we replicate it, it is then observed, and when something is observed enough, its is considered "proven". so in this case, the evolution theory can hardly be considered scietific, seeing as it has yet to be observed, either in fossil records or in our world today. not once has any intermidiate species been found.
i know that only like 10% of all animals are fossilized, not even? but you would think that someone would have found some kind of fossil of any animal that would be intermediary between to animal species, or a living animal today mid way though his random chance muations; to be observed and "prove" the viability of the theory. yhet none has ever been observed. but archaeoptorixs (?) you might say? that was a bird, not a cross. it had all feathers and fully formed wings. it was not a mid way point.
when science observes the happenings that go on in the evolution process, then i will reconsider. but no proff has ever been found to observe and replicate.
however, the variety of species and the order you see in nature is an observation of intelligent design. to quote a jars of clay song: i see the art in me.
i would say i observe my proof everyday in school looking at my classmates. rabdom assembly of chemicals cannot be behind this. and also, the fact that man cannot create anything from nothing or a new being from its building blocks ( at leats a little, we are not that technologically advanced, but i think something might have been possible by now) proves an intelligent design i think to beyond a resonable doubt, since "Nature" cannot be held accountable since it suffers the changes. replace Nature by God, and voilà . christian faith.
- Patty
*NS Skateboarders* Vas y il l'a cassé!
the previous might have been pure genious, but it wasn't my intention. sorry.
wether it started in one pool of muck somewhere or another, the same macro evolution process would have had to happen in at least one of them to produce the life on earth as we know it according to the theory, and this is completely impossible, so it does'nt account for life on earth, unless the pools of muck contained that life before.
also, i would like to say this: science, as we know it, is observation. humans cannot create anything. we observe, deduce and try to replicate what we have observed. if we replicate it, it is then observed, and when something is observed enough, its is considered "proven". so in this case, the evolution theory can hardly be considered scietific, seeing as it has yet to be observed, either in fossil records or in our world today. not once has any intermidiate species been found.
i know that only like 10% of all animals are fossilized, not even? but you would think that someone would have found some kind of fossil of any animal that would be intermediary between to animal species, or a living animal today mid way though his random chance muations; to be observed and "prove" the viability of the theory. yhet none has ever been observed. but archaeoptorixs (?) you might say? that was a bird, not a cross. it had all feathers and fully formed wings. it was not a mid way point.
when science observes the happenings that go on in the evolution process, then i will reconsider. but no proff has ever been found to observe and replicate.
however, the variety of species and the order you see in nature is an observation of intelligent design. to quote a jars of clay song: i see the art in me.
i would say i observe my proof everyday in school looking at my classmates. rabdom assembly of chemicals cannot be behind this. and also, the fact that man cannot create anything from nothing or a new being from its building blocks ( at leats a little, we are not that technologically advanced, but i think something might have been possible by now) proves an intelligent design i think to beyond a resonable doubt, since "Nature" cannot be held accountable since it suffers the changes. replace Nature by God, and voilà . christian faith.
- Patty
*NS Skateboarders* Vas y il l'a cassé!
the previous might have been pure genious, but it wasn't my intention. sorry.
Kevo
Active member
When the bible was written, people used all of their knowledge from that time to help understand the universe as they knew it. The creation story in the bible is all that they would have been able to understand. That being said, modern chirstians should use what we now understand to be how the universe began to help understand God. So there was a big bang. Without getting into extreme detail, it is very probable that all things in the universe emerged from a small area. There is a mountain of evidence out there to prove this (cross universe equalities in background radition, increased redshifting of light waves being directly related to distance, etc, etc). There is also a mountian of evidence to prove evolution. What people need to understand is that it is no less miraculous that things happened this way instead of the strict creation story in Genesis. This does not lead people away from religion, but instead it actually points to intelligent design. There are so many anthropic coincidents that lead to the conclusion of intelligent design. The gravitation constant, the strong force constant, the quantum mechanics that are just perfect so that orbiting electrons don't collapse on the nucleus of an atom, the half-life of berilium being perfect within a millionth of a second to allow for the fusing of helium and the development of heavy elements. All of these point to intelligent design. I think it is time for people on both sides of this arguement to stop being so close minded and fuse both the things we know from modern science and the belief in a higher power.
To love the times we have
To like what makes us sad
To live when others die
To lose and say goodbye
To last until our moment comes
To love the times we have
To like what makes us sad
To live when others die
To lose and say goodbye
To last until our moment comes
Quinny
Active member
I’m not taking sides on the issue and I mostly agree with you. Its mainly up to the interpretation of the individual. Nothing is bullet proof and no belief or theory is necessarily more credible than another. Intelligent design could very well be true, but remember that its intelligent by human eyes, of whom can’t even see the entire picture of how everything is put together.
A combination of theories could be addressed. God could have created the universe and its basic structures, but not necessarily us. Or vise versa. Why is intelligent design always changing? Who or what created God? And so forth…
Moving somewhat back to the original query of the thread, that is why people should not lean on the Bible as a means of explaining things in a literal sense. The people who do that commonly turn to it to find a simplified answer to a complex question. With that in mind, the Bible should be treated as a rather cryptic piece of writing. With all conditions being considered under which it was written (regardless of religious persuasion or lack thereof), there exists a highly likely potential that some yet to be known truth could be buried in that text.
Someone could be on the right track, or totally off. As far as I am concerned, its in the air.
------------------------
Q: How many NS.com members does it take to answer a simple question?
A: 10. One to answer, three to say 'How fucking stupid are you?', three to say 'This has already been asked a thousand times', and three to say 'Who the fuck cares anyway?'
-kamikaze
A combination of theories could be addressed. God could have created the universe and its basic structures, but not necessarily us. Or vise versa. Why is intelligent design always changing? Who or what created God? And so forth…
Moving somewhat back to the original query of the thread, that is why people should not lean on the Bible as a means of explaining things in a literal sense. The people who do that commonly turn to it to find a simplified answer to a complex question. With that in mind, the Bible should be treated as a rather cryptic piece of writing. With all conditions being considered under which it was written (regardless of religious persuasion or lack thereof), there exists a highly likely potential that some yet to be known truth could be buried in that text.
Someone could be on the right track, or totally off. As far as I am concerned, its in the air.
------------------------
Q: How many NS.com members does it take to answer a simple question?
A: 10. One to answer, three to say 'How fucking stupid are you?', three to say 'This has already been asked a thousand times', and three to say 'Who the fuck cares anyway?'
-kamikaze
almostaskier
Active member
well, i guess thats a good conclusion to this. i for one do not think it is that high up in the air, but nice conversing Quinny.
and as for right above Quinny, that is a conclusion you could come to, about the limited knowledge of the person who wrote down the creation story (moses), but the text does not claim to be that: its claims to be the definitive truth about what happended, ie that God created all living things according to their kind. according to their kind is show for no evolution, he did not say that it was some animals to become others, but according to their kind? the wording is important.
i do however think that genesis and the rest of the bible is not be taken literally 100% all the time, yet there are some parts, inclusing the creation accounts, that claim to be the truth. and there is proof for it, or rather disproof for the theory against it.
with that said, im off to bed...
- Patty
*NS Skateboarders* Vas y il l'a cassé!
the previous might have been pure genious, but it wasn't my intention. sorry.
and as for right above Quinny, that is a conclusion you could come to, about the limited knowledge of the person who wrote down the creation story (moses), but the text does not claim to be that: its claims to be the definitive truth about what happended, ie that God created all living things according to their kind. according to their kind is show for no evolution, he did not say that it was some animals to become others, but according to their kind? the wording is important.
i do however think that genesis and the rest of the bible is not be taken literally 100% all the time, yet there are some parts, inclusing the creation accounts, that claim to be the truth. and there is proof for it, or rather disproof for the theory against it.
with that said, im off to bed...
- Patty
*NS Skateboarders* Vas y il l'a cassé!
the previous might have been pure genious, but it wasn't my intention. sorry.
truckerhucker
Member
science and the bible cant be fused together or compared they conflict
‡ bomb hills not countries ‡
‡ bomb hills not countries ‡
Quinny
Active member
WOW, you totally failed to read anything that I or almostaskiier wrote.
------------------------
Q: How many NS.com members does it take to answer a simple question?
A: 10. One to answer, three to say 'How fucking stupid are you?', three to say 'This has already been asked a thousand times', and three to say 'Who the fuck cares anyway?'
-kamikaze
------------------------
Q: How many NS.com members does it take to answer a simple question?
A: 10. One to answer, three to say 'How fucking stupid are you?', three to say 'This has already been asked a thousand times', and three to say 'Who the fuck cares anyway?'
-kamikaze
Kevo
Active member
Do you realize that you are as close minded as the people that you so fervently disagree with on the subject of the bible? If you think that you are open minded and intellectual by blindly refuting religion without an intelligent argument, you are sorely mistaken.
To love the times we have
To like what makes us sad
To live when others die
To lose and say goodbye
To last until our moment comes
To love the times we have
To like what makes us sad
To live when others die
To lose and say goodbye
To last until our moment comes
Kevo
Active member
Or bilindly refuting science. You cannot pick and choose what science you believe! You can't say, well I agree that we understand more about biology now than ever and we can create vaccines and understand this and that, but I don't want to agree with that just becuase it conflicts with something that I don't want it too. Sure, what we know about science today is only part of the overall truth of the universe. There are still things we don't understand, but you can't tell me that our collective knowledge now isn't much more correct than it was 2 or 3 thousand years ago.
To love the times we have
To like what makes us sad
To live when others die
To lose and say goodbye
To last until our moment comes
To love the times we have
To like what makes us sad
To live when others die
To lose and say goodbye
To last until our moment comes
pierceme
Active member
I know u havent been taking a side on this and i do agree with what u said, but just to put in my 2cents... all the things u said are good arguments that a lot of creationism believers will use. But it makes me mad when they do because where as they are good arguments, basically all they're saying is that it's unrealistic or too vague to be believable. When at the same time they'll turn around and say that it all started by a giant thing thats there but not really and that thing decided to just snap its "fingers" and create this huge world and make and control everything in this world. There is no good argument for creationism, the only thing that keeps it going is that it's literally impossible to disprove. Im not saying i believe in evolution but I definetely dont believe in creationism and i give evolution much more credit because it's at least a step towards finding out the truth due to scientific tests and theories.
I ski at the crappiest hill ever...
I ski at the crappiest hill ever...
jonsimpson
Member
Basically, there are enough arguments on each side for this discussion to go on forever. You Become a christian because of your own experiences of God which give you faith. People dont start believeing in God from theological discussions on how true the bible is or the existence of God. Its all about Faith. It takes as much faith to be an aetheist as it does to be a christian. Im a christian because i got to know God, he did stuff in my life that built my faith in him. With the bible, the thing i find most interesting is that whenever you pray and read it, you nearly always find something thats really relevant to your life, to what your going through at that moment, or something that you read and remember it when you are going through it later on.
almostaskier
Active member
haha, yea, well, i was trying to take a side.
but as Quinny pointed out, you can only disprove, and not prove really, and thats what im trying to do with such theories as that of the big bang and the evolution theory. often these theories take such leaps and make the wrong conclusions, so much that i cannot comprehend how it has gotten such backing.
a freind of mine works in the petroleum industry, and he knows more about physics than anyone i know, even my teachers. and i trust what he has to say. and his study of physics has only reenforced his faith. the world physics is all too complicated and adjusted for it to be pure coincidence. that, right there, is the main argument us creationist have: random chance cannot account for all of the physical and biologcal happenings that we can observe in science today. there has to be some kind of other intervention to make it all come together like we see today, and that is why we believe in God creating all things as they are today.
to quote Jars of Clay again: i see the art in me. that is the main proof for intelligent design and a biblical account of creation, and i belive that the eveolution theory is flawed, and that it is wrong. the impossibilities within it are overwhelming. read michael dentons evolution a theory in crisis, or scroll up to my quote from In 6 days. if that doesn't cast some doubt into the evolution theory as it is today, nothing will.
im not saying that there is no evidence for adaptaion of species, that is completely accepted, its Macro eveolution that is just plain impossible. and there is eveidence for an expanding universe, meaning it could ahve all come from a single point, but that does not mean in any strech on any imagination that all of creation was created out of nothing in that single point. in fact, it would prove someone/thing set things into motion. nothing can come out of nothing.
anyways, i think i have made my point. peace to you dude...
- Patty
*NS Skateboarders* Vas y il l'a cassé!
the previous might have been pure genious, but it wasn't my intention. sorry.
but as Quinny pointed out, you can only disprove, and not prove really, and thats what im trying to do with such theories as that of the big bang and the evolution theory. often these theories take such leaps and make the wrong conclusions, so much that i cannot comprehend how it has gotten such backing.
a freind of mine works in the petroleum industry, and he knows more about physics than anyone i know, even my teachers. and i trust what he has to say. and his study of physics has only reenforced his faith. the world physics is all too complicated and adjusted for it to be pure coincidence. that, right there, is the main argument us creationist have: random chance cannot account for all of the physical and biologcal happenings that we can observe in science today. there has to be some kind of other intervention to make it all come together like we see today, and that is why we believe in God creating all things as they are today.
to quote Jars of Clay again: i see the art in me. that is the main proof for intelligent design and a biblical account of creation, and i belive that the eveolution theory is flawed, and that it is wrong. the impossibilities within it are overwhelming. read michael dentons evolution a theory in crisis, or scroll up to my quote from In 6 days. if that doesn't cast some doubt into the evolution theory as it is today, nothing will.
im not saying that there is no evidence for adaptaion of species, that is completely accepted, its Macro eveolution that is just plain impossible. and there is eveidence for an expanding universe, meaning it could ahve all come from a single point, but that does not mean in any strech on any imagination that all of creation was created out of nothing in that single point. in fact, it would prove someone/thing set things into motion. nothing can come out of nothing.
anyways, i think i have made my point. peace to you dude...
- Patty
*NS Skateboarders* Vas y il l'a cassé!
the previous might have been pure genious, but it wasn't my intention. sorry.
BrandonCool
Member
I fuckin hate the bible!!.........there is no fuckin god!!
S.W.E.D 420
S.W.E.D 420
Quinny
Active member
Great contribution to the conversation! Lets hope many can learn from your wisdom and insight.
Asshat.
------------------------
Q: How many NS.com members does it take to answer a simple question?
A: 10. One to answer, three to say 'How fucking stupid are you?', three to say 'This has already been asked a thousand times', and three to say 'Who the fuck cares anyway?'
-kamikaze
Asshat.
------------------------
Q: How many NS.com members does it take to answer a simple question?
A: 10. One to answer, three to say 'How fucking stupid are you?', three to say 'This has already been asked a thousand times', and three to say 'Who the fuck cares anyway?'
-kamikaze
almostaskier
Active member
yeesh, bust your butt to contribute something intelligent and thats your reward?
- Patty
*NS Skateboarders* Vas y il l'a cassé!
the previous might have been pure genious, but it wasn't my intention. sorry.
- Patty
*NS Skateboarders* Vas y il l'a cassé!
the previous might have been pure genious, but it wasn't my intention. sorry.
fucked_edges
Member
i belive god is something people made up to explain what they do not understand, i think it is a very good idea for people because it gives them hope and faith in something in their times of need. i feel that i do not need such tom-foolery.
'ya thats right, im fucking crazy, whats up?'
'ya thats right, im fucking crazy, whats up?'