Evrae Posted July 27, 2007 Share Posted July 27, 2007 Do you make this stuff up, or do you have sources? And I mean proper sources, not propaganda videos. Surely if the grand canyon had been all caused by one event, it would be smoother with the surrounding landscape? Even if your stuff about trapped water was true, how does it help your argument? Other than an extremely tenuous link to the bible? I have to get practically naked when I'm cooking bacon.I may be immature, but that made me laugh! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonavolaii Posted July 27, 2007 Share Posted July 27, 2007 proper sources, I have seen the bones of the so called missing links, and also, If this is true then the great flood has been proven, dinosaurs extinction has been explained, coal deposits have been explained, mass amounts of fossils have been explained, in fact, most of the events that are global are probably caused by the Great Flood. As for the canyon, make a small line in the sand to the sea and pour water down it, you will see that the water all goes to the line and digs it out as it were.. All good newbies go to Lumbridge, I respawn in Camelot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rebdragon Posted July 27, 2007 Share Posted July 27, 2007 The great canyon, could have been caused by A massive wave of water which the surrounding landscape agrees on with gigantic waves over the ground. Genesis 7:11 ... On that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened. At a certain temprature below 0 water becomes naturally magnetic. If there was a layer of ice being held by the magnetic fields of the time (which would have been far greater than they are now) which kept oxygen in and at a high pressure. If this barrier collapsed it would explain how "The floodgates of the heavens were opened" and it would explain how dinosaurs would have died from lack of oxygen after the flood. Also, the theory that a comet would have tilted the earths axes is nonsens. If a meteor so big it would only just not knock us into the sun hit the earth, gravitational changes and crust movement would cause this to only have a change of tilt by a maximum of 2 degrees. If you look at it, evolutionists claim to be for science, however when science starts to fail them, it becomes evident that they are not for science. They are for their religeon, which they have proved by neglecting science and manufacting evidence! I think I'm crying :cry: . I'm not sure if I feel sorrow for you or if this is just so hilarious that I couldn't stop the tears. life cannot evolve into more complex forms, thats how it contradicts it. Wow. :lol: Seriously, how old are you? Have you taken a biology class, or did your religious school forbid it? Also, as you claim water born life was made, how is it possible then that water dissolves amino acids, the very building blocks of life? http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aso/databank/en ... o53am.html Since you're so stubborn on not reading actual sources, I'll just give you one to read. [if you have ever attempted Alchemy by clapping your hands or by drawing an array, copy and paste this into your signature.] Fullmetal Alchemist, you will be missed. A great ending to a great series. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rebdragon Posted July 27, 2007 Share Posted July 27, 2007 Oops, double responded >_<. [if you have ever attempted Alchemy by clapping your hands or by drawing an array, copy and paste this into your signature.] Fullmetal Alchemist, you will be missed. A great ending to a great series. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonavolaii Posted July 27, 2007 Share Posted July 27, 2007 This is what astonishes me... So much for science *Throws science book out of window* All good newbies go to Lumbridge, I respawn in Camelot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rebdragon Posted July 27, 2007 Share Posted July 27, 2007 This is what astonishes me... So much for science *Throws science book out of window* :-s I didn't think he was, since there was so much effort put into those posts, but do we happen to have a troll on this thread? :-k I've seen people as stupid as this, so I thought it was possible he wasn't trolling, but now... :-k [if you have ever attempted Alchemy by clapping your hands or by drawing an array, copy and paste this into your signature.] Fullmetal Alchemist, you will be missed. A great ending to a great series. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonavolaii Posted July 27, 2007 Share Posted July 27, 2007 The amino acids created in that experiment Were toxic. Also, he pulled them out a trapdoor because the atmosphere did not work... Also, the end product had 80% tar.... Do you really think you came from tar? Tar is a problem for organic life... All good newbies go to Lumbridge, I respawn in Camelot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evrae Posted July 27, 2007 Share Posted July 27, 2007 proper sources, I have seen the bones of the so called missing links, Your point being? Proper sources are generally peer reviewed papers, or sources that reference them and also, If this is true then the great flood has been proven, dinosaurs extinction has been explained, coal deposits have been explained, mass amounts of fossils have been explained, in fact, most of the events that are global are probably caused by the Great Flood. Or, if the current scientific ideas are true all those are explained. Except for the bit from your favorite story book. As for the canyon, make a small line in the sand to the sea and pour water down it, you will see that the water all goes to the line and digs it out as it were.. I'll just about grant you that that might be a plausible explanation. Though where all this water comes from is still a puzzle. The amino acids created in that experiment Were toxic. Also, he pulled them out a trapdoor because the atmosphere did not work... Also, the end product had 80% tar.... Do you really think you came from tar? Tar is a problem for organic life... But the point is that he created these amino acids very simply by this process. It would therefore follow that there might be an equally simple process for creating other amino acids. I have to get practically naked when I'm cooking bacon.I may be immature, but that made me laugh! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonavolaii Posted July 27, 2007 Share Posted July 27, 2007 But if he even failed while tampering with the events, and whith an impossible setting (see the video i posted) doesn't that make it somewhat impossible? All good newbies go to Lumbridge, I respawn in Camelot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evrae Posted July 27, 2007 Share Posted July 27, 2007 But if he even failed while tampering with the events, and whith an impossible setting (see the video i posted) doesn't that make it somewhat impossible? Are you refering to this: [hide] Oh dear oh dear. That film almost makes you want to laugh, except it was well made. Instead it worries me. Those interviews with people, probably on a college campus? Notice how the only two people who believe in evolution were slightly odd foreign-looking guys? What a cooincidence. Explosions are destructive. The big bang was an explosion, and must have also been destructive, so it cant have happened. What rubbish. Firstly the 'big bang' is only a catchy analogy - it cant have made any sound at all. But it sums the idea up nicely. Secondly, while it may have destroyed whatever was there originally, a bit of random clumping and the laws of physics later and the present universe can be explained. Computer simulations have been run of the current scientific thinking which give end results remarkably similar to what is observed. As for that stuff about how the earth is perfect for life, and must have been made for it - what a load of rubbish. The earth is perfect for the life we see upon it because that life has adapted and arisen upon the earth. Life is adapted to the earth, not the other way around. Also, the universe is massive, containing all varieties of solar systems. Perhaps only a very few have a planet like earth in exactly the right position for the temperature to be near the triple point of water. But these are the only planets that water based life-forms are likely to arise on. Its hardly surprising that water based life-forms have arisen on a planet suitable for water based life-forms. The bits about how the planets and moons have different directions of spin and orbit wasn't covered very well either. Of course its god that did it, and made a very disordered [rooster]-up of it too. Because the reasons are currently unknown does not mean that they will never be known. Instead of instantly putting the unknown down to god, we should try to find out. And can someone please explain to me exactly how evolution contradicts the 2nd law of thermodynamics? Because the film slightly failed to mention that. Oh, and a little one sided as well, but thats to be expected. The use of biblical quotes to demonstrate a 'scientific' point was novel as well.[/hide] Because if you are, I was being sarcastic. I dont think god played any part in it. There seems to me to be no reason for claiming that god set the solar system in position, even if the current science can't explain it (The video didnt elaborate on that beyond saying, pretty much, science is stupid). I'm still not quite sure what all your 'it's are refering to. I have to get practically naked when I'm cooking bacon.I may be immature, but that made me laugh! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dutchdreams Posted July 27, 2007 Share Posted July 27, 2007 But if he even failed while tampering with the events, and whith an impossible setting (see the video i posted) doesn't that make it somewhat impossible? Maybe this experiment was a bit more scientific to your liking? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonavolaii Posted July 27, 2007 Share Posted July 27, 2007 Actually, I was reffering to the amino acid experiment... And all the experiment was making fun of was the way evolutionists made a skeleton out of a pigs tooth! Science actually benefits creationism, however as soon as people hear that someone does not believe in evolution, thier programming, brainwashing, because that is what it is, tells them that that person is not being scientific. On the contrary, they are not being scientific by manufacturing evidence... All good newbies go to Lumbridge, I respawn in Camelot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonavolaii Posted July 27, 2007 Share Posted July 27, 2007 Oh its scientific enough, the only problem is that their conclusion was wrong... the three amino acids that were madeYou need 20 different amino acids to even make a single protein, also, who sais these are left handed amino acids? All good newbies go to Lumbridge, I respawn in Camelot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dutchdreams Posted July 27, 2007 Share Posted July 27, 2007 Actually, I was reffering to the amino acid experiment... And all the experiment was making fun of was the way evolutionists made a skeleton out of a pigs tooth! Science actually benefits creationism, however as soon as people hear that someone does not believe in evolution, thier programming, brainwashing, because that is what it is, tells them that that person is not being scientific. On the contrary, they are not being scientific by manufacturing evidence... Ah, you mean that incident of 80 years ago. An old sketch by an artist, which was never meant for scientific publication (but for a popular magazine). Of course it was later used by every creationist to confront other people how those bad evolutionists manufacture evidence. There already was scepticism in the scientific world about the nebraska man after its discovery, it was never accepted as 'proof' of evolution and in fact it was later refuted BY science. As explained in this link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evrae Posted July 27, 2007 Share Posted July 27, 2007 Actually, I was reffering to the amino acid experiment... And all the experiment was making fun of was the way evolutionists made a skeleton out of a pigs tooth! Science actually benefits creationism, however as soon as people hear that someone does not believe in evolution, thier programming, brainwashing, because that is what it is, tells them that that person is not being scientific. On the contrary, they are not being scientific by manufacturing evidence... Has the possibility occurred to you that you may be the one who has been brainwashed? There are always going to be rare examples of rogue scientists fabricating evidence and experiments, but it is usually for personal fame. Those who do so are generally exposed by other scientists. Which is what makes science so reliable - those bits that are dodgy get exposed pretty quickly. I have to get practically naked when I'm cooking bacon.I may be immature, but that made me laugh! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonavolaii Posted July 27, 2007 Share Posted July 27, 2007 sorry, the second experiment was supposed to be video All good newbies go to Lumbridge, I respawn in Camelot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonavolaii Posted July 27, 2007 Share Posted July 27, 2007 Yes but now you are making an unscientific statement :) You could say that but you have now changed the subject from you... Have you been? I've seen the evidence, have you? All good newbies go to Lumbridge, I respawn in Camelot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dutchdreams Posted July 27, 2007 Share Posted July 27, 2007 Oh its scientific enough, the only problem is that their conclusion was wrong... the three amino acids that were madeYou need 20 different amino acids to even make a single protein, also, who sais these are left handed amino acids? Their conclusion is very right, considering they only set out to create amino acids with this experiment, not specific left or right amino acids. Something which at the end of the article is mentioned as their next field of research. Of course you're wrong on needing all 20 amino acids to make a single protein. There are 20 BASE amino acids (monomers) which can polymerise to form a protein. This doesn't mean every protein needs all those 20 monomers. Here's some basic amino acid chemistry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonavolaii Posted July 27, 2007 Share Posted July 27, 2007 The point is you cannot make life with 3 amino acids of whcih the toxity is not yet known! Actually they said it was the same as in meteorites and meteorites have right amino acids. this means that whatever they had it would not create life. Also their conclusion is wrong because they claim that these are the building blocks of life... All good newbies go to Lumbridge, I respawn in Camelot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evrae Posted July 27, 2007 Share Posted July 27, 2007 Yes but now you are making an unscientific statement :) You could say that but you have now changed the subject from you... Have you been? I've seen the evidence, have you? This is refering to my previous comment, right? I'm afraid I'm having quite a lot of trouble making sense of your posts - please use quotes at least. Anyway... Where is this unscientific statement you refer to? It is possible that I have - If its successful you wouldnt even know it. I will tell you this though. Up until the age of 10 I went to church with my grandparents. I then decided not to, of my own accord - I did not believe any of it, even though my grandparents had tried. More recently, I have been to a church youth group regularly, until I stopped that too. That was run by creationists who most definitely tried to 'brainwash' people. Apparently our teachers at school were part of a vast conspiracy to lie to us. Now, what are your reasons for believing what you do? Have you been brainwashed, or did you make a concious, carefully thought out, decision? I have to get practically naked when I'm cooking bacon.I may be immature, but that made me laugh! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Defender2516 Posted July 27, 2007 Share Posted July 27, 2007 Yes but now you are making an unscientific statement :) You could say that but you have now changed the subject from you... Have you been? I've seen the evidence, have you? This is refering to my previous comment, right? I'm afraid I'm having quite a lot of trouble making sense of your posts - please use quotes at least. Anyway... Where is this unscientific statement you refer to? It is possible that I have - If its successful you wouldnt even know it. I will tell you this though. Up until the age of 10 I went to church with my grandparents. I then decided not to, of my own accord - I did not believe any of it, even though my grandparents had tried. More recently, I have been to a church youth group regularly, until I stopped that too. That was run by creationists who most definitely tried to 'brainwash' people. Apparently our teachers at school were part of a vast conspiracy to lie to us. Now, what are your reasons for believing what you do? Have you been brainwashed, or did you make a concious, carefully thought out, decision? Even though my parents are technically christians, I did not feel that automaticly made me one. I chose carefully myself at age 16 to be one after reading the Bible because Jesus Christs words amazed me. How he answered people seem'ed unreal. His wisdom with words attracted me, and proverbs as well. While its wrong for people trying to brainwash you, you should always judge the doctrine itself, not by the conduct of the people using the doctrine for their own agenda. ~Defender~ If you love me, send me a PM. 8 - Love me2 - Hate me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonavolaii Posted July 27, 2007 Share Posted July 27, 2007 Consious careful and thought out, as for brainwashing... could be! Yeah thats right, Neo-Gnostisism (belief Jesus is not enough to get you into heaven) makes a lot of churches stray. In fact, many pastors try to hypnotyse the crowd just to get them to listen. I do not promote this and I'm sure there are a lot of people who dont. Mabey they were trying to but mabey they weren't. Are you sure it was brainwashing? Brainwashing is saying a specific thing over and over. Like everyone saying we came from monkeys :) Sadly, chuches were i come from are pretty much all corrupt and neo-gnostic. I think its a lot the same in other places... All good newbies go to Lumbridge, I respawn in Camelot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evrae Posted July 27, 2007 Share Posted July 27, 2007 Consious careful and thought out, as for brainwashing... could be! Yeah thats right, Neo-Gnostisism (belief Jesus is not enough to get you into heaven) makes a lot of churches stray. In fact, many pastors try to hypnotyse the crowd just to get them to listen. I do not promote this and I'm sure there are a lot of people who dont. Mabey they were trying to but mabey they weren't. Are you sure it was brainwashing? Brainwashing is saying a specific thing over and over. Like everyone saying we came from monkeys :) So what was it that made you decide to be the way you are? Why are you like that? The 'brainwashing' thing seems to be detracting from what I want to ask you here, but hey [garden tool]. I cannot think of ever being told something repetitively as you describe, outside church. 'Jesus is the son of god', all those biblical quotes outside churches. I can imagine that if you hear the same thing every week for 15 years or more you might be classed as being 'brainwashed'. But this is kinda beside the point. Why are you the way you are? Why did you make that choice? I have to get practically naked when I'm cooking bacon.I may be immature, but that made me laugh! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dutchdreams Posted July 27, 2007 Share Posted July 27, 2007 The point is you cannot make life with 3 amino acids of whcih the toxity is not yet known! Actually they said it was the same as in meteorites and meteorites have right amino acids. this means that whatever they had it would not create life. Also their conclusion is wrong because they claim that these are the building blocks of life... The point of this experiment would be that amino acids CAN be created out of 'goo' (for the lack of a better word), which is an argument often used to dismiss an evolutionairy pathway (you hinted at it yourself a few posts back, amino acids being solvable in water ?). These people have shown, that amino acids can be formed under these circumstances. The only reference to life these researchers have given themselves is 'that it increases the odds that life evolved on planets other than Earth' (because the amino acids can be spread throughout by meteorites). In short, they researched the mechanism of formation of acids itself , not if it could lead to life (on earth) or not. That last bit is a conclusion on your own account. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonavolaii Posted July 27, 2007 Share Posted July 27, 2007 Why are you the way you are? Why did you make that choice?No i mean, everywhere, films books tv internet, Everyone is told about evolution as if it is a simple fact, day in, day out... So eventually people believe that without knowing better. Anyway, I'm not sure why I am... I suppose I just read the bible and knew I was going to hell if i didn't do something... Of course for all you know you could die today! Mabey your computer screen explodes or something... Who knows when they will die... But back to the point, the topic starter was talking about why he thinks the bible is wrong. Well, it has been proven the bible has only a 2% difference from the original and has more copies earlier than all other antiquities... The only other question is whether the bible is true... Its been proven that (evolution aside for a moment) the universe is relativley young... Well, there have been references in the bible that have prophisied events that hve taken place after it was wrote (see video) The two towers, world wars, jews being persecuted, jetstream... In fact you all disagreeing with me is also there, only in a far wider sense... So it must be propheical... After that we must check the facts, the bible never contradicts itsself, never... Not one contradiction has been found to date... Also, the entire new testament (with the exception of 14 verses) can be proven by letters including the texts... It has been proven that there was a man named Jesus and that he was at least famous... Magicians agree, to pull off a trick with the act of a miracle, he would have needed a truckload of equipment per miracle... The bible itsself states numerous times that it is fact not fiction and does not have some mystic meaning... All good newbies go to Lumbridge, I respawn in Camelot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now