Curches Celebrate Darwin's Birthday

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Hey, don't beat yourself up too bad- it couldve happened to anyone. :wink:

---

It took me more than a day before to figure it out too. :idea2:
Nice one, Xiahou.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Byzantine Mercenary

Is this quote from the old testament? the new testament makes the rules on sex outside marriage clear, perhaps sleep realy means sleep?

---

Why does everyone automaticlly assume that's from the Bible? I just said "holiest of holy books"!

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I'm trying to make a point here... my opportunity has not yet arisen.

Ah! Zorba the Geek, holy book of Zorbastrians?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zorba

I just said "holiest of holy books"!

---

I believe the quote was from Pimps 3:16.

I believe the quote was from Pimps 3:16.
No you are a little out , its Pimps half past 3.

:laugh4: Bartix got it. But now I can't remember what my point was... something about the fact that everyone has their own beliefs and noone has the right to push their beliefs on anyone else... then it had something to do with God laughing at man after creating him, because he thought man looked so ridiculous that it had to be a mistake.

Why do churches celebrate Darwin NOW?
Modern science is now leaning AWAY from darwins theory,
And now claim there were 3 or 4 diferent species of humans all alive at the same time.
And We did not evolve from apes as they were here at the same time as well.
(apes evolved from apes, we evolved from a species of humans. the sealacanth was the fish that linked darwins tree together, and that things still alive. it did not start walking on land its still in the sea Is still alive And above all is still Exacty the same as its 350 million year old fossils, Apart from the fact its still alive and swiming Not walking about)


Seems DUMB to accept this theory Now 1ce its being disproven...
"Is being disproven a nessecity for addition to religious circles? ."

And i see you guys are doing it again...

World was made in 7 days. "Well 6 and a day off"
you say a God day is diferent length to ours.

Then he made light (not the sun)
"We already know there were a WHOLE bunch of suns before ours came about, Guess they dint produce any light before he switched the power on or something"

Then he made adam Who lived HOW LONG???!
And god days are Thousands of years long.
(lets say 1 thousand to keep the figures down)
so thats 365.2 Thousand years old in one god year...

and with adam living almost a thousand years...
That makes him 365200000 Years old.
Either that Or the bull about god days Is just bull.

Im prety sure moses was in his 200's So no better there.
all this is with-in the new testament,
so time spans would be the equivalent of those 1st 7 days.

Its prety dumb reading.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

P.S. The funny thing is you don't even attach yourself to a denomination.

---

How is that funny?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Incorrect. A percentage of human interpation states what you have stated. Normally it is the interpation of fundmentalistic idealogues who use the Old Testiment to justify violence against others, while ignoring the teachings of Christ in the New Testiment.


I have seen your type of message before Navaros it usually comes from those who bomb abortion clinics, shoot doctors, burn negro churches and beat homosexuals to death.

---

Ouch!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Incorrect. A percentage of human interpation states what you have stated. Normally it is the interpation of fundmentalistic idealogues who use the Old Testiment to justify violence against others, while ignoring the teachings of Christ in the New Testiment.

---

I wonder what will happen if Jesus himself made a few human mistakes in his preaches? Then we could justify our apathy or outright intolerance on the words of the old master...right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Just A Girl

Why do churches celebrate Darwin NOW?
Modern science is now leaning AWAY from darwins theory,
And now claim there were 3 or 4 diferent species of humans all alive at the same time.
And We did not evolve from apes as they were here at the same time as well.
(apes evolved from apes, we evolved from a species of humans. the sealacanth was the fish that linked darwins tree together, and that things still alive. it did not start walking on land its still in the sea Is still alive And above all is still Exacty the same as its 350 million year old fossils, Apart from the fact its still alive and swiming Not walking about)

---

Dude, Darwins theory said that the specie most able to respond to change, survives. The ape controversy is a consequence of that.
Darwins theories still counts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Viking

Dude, Darwins theory said that the specie most able to respond to change, survives. The ape controversy is a consequence of that.
Darwins theories still counts.

---

Don't worry about it Viking lots of people don't know that Darwin used selective breeding practiced on farms to prove artifical selection that breeds traits into animals for certain qualties, and that the proof of artifical selection proves natural selection as a theory is worth looking at - and as a theory is valid, and remains valid. Science will improve upon Darwin's Theory of Evolution, but as a base I don't think science nor religion will defeat the basic concept of what Darwain stated in the theory of evolution.

Many get wrapped around the axel about what they think Darwin's Theory of Evolution is about, verus looking at what the man actually stated.

Hence individuals like Navaros and it would seem Just a Girl find themselves confused about what the theory states.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Soulforged

I wonder what will happen if Jesus himself made a few human mistakes in his preaches? Then we could justify our apathy or outright intolerance on the words of the old master...right?

---

Well, he did...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GoreBag

Well, he did...

---

Wich notorious mistake you've to show?

Darwins theory of evolution is the same as his theory of natural selection.
They both tie in together.

Darwin Linked the selercanth as the 1st fish to walk out of the sea then showed diferent types of scelital structures that then adapted,
Then he showed how they could have mutated in to apes, and then on in to humans.

He then went on to say that Natural selection and adaptation is what lead to Humans evolving from apes.

This is wrong.

Survival of the fitest,
And adaptation to enviroment were Known factors for survival before darwin.
He just added on that we evolved from apes.

If you had bothered to read what some of the other posts had said, you wouldn't be claiming Darwin said humans came from apes.

The idea of evolution existed before Darwin but he was the first to formulate a scientific theory about it.

Time for EDUCATION AS I KNOW IT.
feel free to tell me im wrong.
Knowlage is good.

Creation

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

It is now assumed that the universe itself burst into existence some 15 billion years ago. For the first few hundred thousand years matter and radiation intermingled to form a thick fog. Then, around 300,000 years after the ‘Big Bang’ temperatures fell and electrons began to bind into hydrogen and helium nuclei to form the first stable atoms. Soon the universe began to fill with gas clouds and these eventually formed galaxies. Four billion years after the Big Bang, these galaxies spawned the first stars and as these stars aged and collapsed, new generations of stars were born from newly created elements.

After a further 10 billion years, a small star ignited on the third spiral arm of our unremarkable galaxy. This star gave light and heat to dust and rubble caught in its gravitational pull, and from this debris four rocks formed in gravitational eddies, each attracting other space ‘leftovers’ as their own gravitational pull developed. The star also led to the formation of larger ‘gas’ planets further out in its ‘solar’ system.

The first of these rocks, Mercury, became a barren planet, similar to the size of the Earth’s Moon. It was first photographed in detail in March 1974 by the Mariner 10 spacecraft and, although having craters mountains and ridges, it’s massive temperature fluctuations, (which can be as high as 425° C on the equator at noon, and plummeting to -180° C just before sunrise) make for the existence of life there ‘as we know it’ being more than improbable.

The second rock from the Sun is Venus. This planet is the closest to Earth and the brightest object in the sky, apart from the Sun and Moon. This light is due to its covering of dense clouds that reflect over three-quarters of the sunlight received by the planet.

These clouds actually conceal a deadly atmosphere, for although the main atmospheric gas is carbon dioxide, traces of other substances have been detected, including hydrogen sulphide, carbon monoxide, sulphur dioxide and hydrochloric acid.

The surface was photographed for the first time in October 1975 by the then Soviet Spacecraft Venera 9. This showed the planet’s surface to be rocky with stones scattered across it with what appears to be soil in between. Conditions on Venus also suggest that it could not support life as we know it.

Then there is the third rock from the Sun. A planet different from all others in the Solar System; for it is teeming with life, vegetation, water, and incredible scenery (– at least to human eyes.)

The blue planet is almost 8000 miles in diameter, and moves around the sun in harness with its Moon at a distance of approximately 93 million miles.

Images from space show the familiar face of the planet, however the continents have not always occupied their current positions. Up to 225 million years ago, most of the land on the planet was combined into one ‘super-continent’ named ‘Pangaea’ by geologists.

This composite land-mass made for the easy and rapid spreading of life forms and vegetation.

periods

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

The planet’s historical periods have been broken down by geologists into the pre-Cambrian period (4600-590 millions of years ago) when there were few fossils. The Paleozoic (590-225 millions), by the end of which reptiles were dominant. This period also saw a major extinction when many species of plants and animals died out. The Mesozoic period (225-65 millions) ended with the Earth probably being struck by a huge asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs and allowed mammals to dominate through the subsequent Cenozoic period which ended two million years ago with modern type animals scattered across the planet surface.

Throughout its history, the planet has also seen many ice-ages, with the Mendenhall Glacier in Alaska formerly reaching well into the United States and as far south as present day London, England during the last of these periods.

How's and questions of life and origin

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Until the 18th Century however, few were curious about the planet’s history, nor did many question the tradition that all life on it had been created in 4004 BCE; a date calculated by Archbishop Ussher, who merely added up the ages of figures in the Christian Bible back to Adam and Eve. This orthodox Christian view demanded literal acceptance of the origin of all things as described in the book of Genesis in the Bible. Each and every thing on the planet – and only on this planet – was especially created by God, and humankind was the crowning achievement of this rather hectic six days.

Any suggestion that living things could change through time inherently suggested that they were imperfect, and God would not have created something imperfect unless s/he was imperfect as well. Creationists also argued that God would not create an animal or plant only to let it become extinct later.

Yet the fossil record throughout the world could not be ignored. Shells, teeth, coiled ammonites, and bones, all made out of rock, were constantly being unearthed to provide a challenge to the creationist theory. Early ideas on their origin were vague and diverse. Some believed that the fossils were the workings of a life force in the Earth, straining to make images of the creatures of God’s creation. Others suggested that the eggs of real animals had lodged in the rocks and developed as rocky tumours (1). In order to explain these findings in religious terms, the fossils were said to be the remains of creatures drowned in the flood, a theory which also explained how the fossils of sea creatures were found on the top of mountains. (2)

Evolution

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Whilst this remains the position of many Christians throughout the world, others recognised that living things do change, and the concept of ‘evolution’ was born. This theory has generally been credited to Charles Darwin, although, in fairness, others made significant contributions to the idea: They just didn’t happen to be English so were, in the main, forgotten about.

Eight years after publication of Darwin’s book, naturalist Ernst Haeckel made one of the first attempts to deal with the specifics of evolution. Although his genealogical chart , starting with a blob of protoplasm and continuing to a ‘modern’ Papuan is filled with misconceptions and fictitious characters, the concepts were broadly accurate considering the paucity of knowledge in his day.

The general concept of Darwin’s evolution is that there is a continuous struggle for existence and those species which adapt (evolve) are the most likely to survive.

This is no longer an accepted view of the theory. Many now agree that some changes are merely random mutations, which happened to suit the environment and survived. However such mutations would only have taken hold if they occurred in small, isolated populations. (3)

Evolution. and multiple humans.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Whatever its process, evolution has led to the development of approximately 30 million separate species on Earth at the present time and it is estimated that a further 3 billion species may have previously existed but become extinct (4).

Evolutionists contend that small living organisms first appeared on Earth 630 million years ago and some 500 million years later a tiny shrew-like creature appeared on the planet’s surface. About 60 million years ago, after the dinosaurs’ extinction, the early primates on the planet diversified rapidly and by 50 million years ago monkeys and apes had evolved.

The ape-human divergence happened relatively recently, between five and eight million years ago (5) and the first members of our genus, Homo, evolved from the African australopithecines approximately 2 to 1.5 million years ago. The number of skulls and skeletons that have been found indicate that most Australopithecus died before they reached the age of 20 suggesting a large number of orphaned children who would have been raised by surviving ‘elders’. (6)

It is generally recognised that "two million years ago, this first certain ancestor of man walked with a foot which is almost indistinguishable from the foot of modern man. The fact is that when he put his foot on the ground and walked upright, man made a commitment to a new integration of life…" (7)

This first real man is known as a maker of simple stone tools and the upper cavity of his skull suggests a brain volume of only half that of a modern human, but with a zone of the cerebral cortex known to be responsible for speech production (8). This man could walk upright and talk.

Then one million years ago, Homo erectus appeared and spread far beyond Africa. One find of this kind was made in China and called ‘Peking Man’; a 400,000-year-old creature that was the first to use fire.

By this time a ‘brain explosion’ had occurred with the human brain inexplicably expanding by another third, with most of that growth occurring in the cerebrum, the area of the brain used for thinking.

Neanderthal man then appeared some 150,000 years ago, however this line of man died out to be replaced (or displaced) as Cro-Magnon man established himself as the enduring human life form on the planet some 100-90,000 years ago.

(Some have speculated that Cro-Magnon man, Homo sapiens, actually destroyed Neanderthal man.
It is an unattractive thought that our race may have survived because we were prepared to kill our fellow man.)

Taken from
http://www.violations.org.uk/index.htm
(Book 1. A Briefer history of time. Part 1.)

http://www.violations.org.uk/book1/t.../Image169a.gif <--- Top left corner came 1st in darwins theory. Bottom right Last.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Just A Girl

Time for EDUCATION AS I KNOW IT.
feel free to tell me im wrong.
Knowlage is good.

---

Yes, knowledge is good. Just posting a link is even better, mf.

Go to: Book 1. A Briefer history of time. Part 1.

I tried the link, but it kept going back to the Index.
I found it in google so didnt know which link from the index it was.
So posted like so.
(then made it easier to digest, and locate individual sections of the text)
this is prety much exactly my stance on the matter.
So it works well enough for me.

Like i said Link took me back to the index, and i didnt know which link it was from there.

but now i know which link it would be from the index. (thanks to your post above)
I added it to the post.

LV... don't use the my friend acronym it gets people in trouble.

Also even if it means my friend most people read that as sarcastic.

If you do it in the Entrance Hall you would get a 1 or 2 point warning BTW.

Quote:

---

I tried the link, but it kept going back to the Index.
I found it in google so didnt know which link from the index it was.

---

Rubbish. It took you all but two minutes after my previous post to find out how to provide that link and edit it into your post.

Look, you copy-pasted content and presented it as your own.

Editing your post every two minutes to first add a link, and then to put the text in spoiler tags and then to add a rather unconvincing excuse in your -also (twice) edited- second post is just plain childish.

Kinda obvious it was plagiarized since it lacked his usual poesy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

LV... don't use the my friend acronym it gets people in trouble.

Also even if it means my friend most people read that as sarcastic.

If you do it in the Entrance Hall you would get a 1 or 2 point warning BTW.

---

Just a Girl knows exactly what 'MF' means on the internet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Just a Girl

In all my time on the internet MF has Always meant My freind,

---

See?

Then maybe you want to ask him the trouble it got him into.

The link i added is the link to the index...

I only added it after you told me which Link from the index i was quoting.

Hence the (a brefier history thingy) {copied from your Text in your post}
in brackets under the newly added link.

I havent stated that it was my work neither did i portray it to be so.
I did not say "EDUCATION THE WAY I TELL IT."
It is The way I KNOW it though.

You guys tell me I dont make sence when i tell you things,
And thats becous you guys dont utilize the subtle diferences between 1 word and the other.

"Seem's to me, Is not a definate statement.
CAN do. does not mean Will do...
Is capable of, does not mean Always does."

-------------

I know That the text in question to be How i see things.
So That is EDUCATION AS I KNOW IT.

It was not education BY me
It was not Literature by me.
It was As I Know it. Not as I tell it.

Once you guys grasp the subtle difrences in the english language Prehaps then you will not be so ready to accuse.

The picture i used, comes from the Web page. and if i was portraying it as my work id have mooved it to my server to prevent You finding where it origionaly came from.
( i found the pick on google and it opens the page it is on, But provides no direct link to the page)
also if i was trying to portray it as my work. i would have deleted the irelivant parts of the text That arent accosiated with darwin. to make it more acceptable to the topic.
And make it more dificult to asociate what I posted, to the origional text.

I did not.
For the simple reason I was not trying to portray that i wrote it.

And your accusations just imply to me that Stealing others work is something you do and there for assume every 1 els does the same.
(see the subtle sentance there "Implys to me"?
That does not mean You definatly do..)

Like a lier wont trust any 1.
or an adulterous person thinks his/her partner is cheating.
Some 1 who passes others work off as there own will inevitably assume every 1 is the same as them.

Any way if you go around and look at all my posts.
They all get edited.
(some small exeptions when i could not edit)
So i dont know what you mean By editing my posts are childish.
Its just how i go about posting.

P.S

MF does mean My freind..
And i NEVER take it to mean anytyhing els.
(I dint even register MF was writen in previous posts I just read My freind. I had to go scrolling to find where it happend)
http://www.filelodge.com/files/hdd4/62692/mf.JPG
Read the conversation.

I have about 100 More screen dumps i have taken since I was Given a hard time for saying MF.
proving that decent people use it to mean MY freind.

Personaly i dont care what vulgar people use it to mean,
It means MY freind to decent people.

So if any 1 hears MF and thinks it means somthing other than MY freind.
That is the readers fault for being crude and vulgar.

And yes saying MF got me in to trouble,
as it seems the predomenant % of this forum Must be crude and vulgar,
So there for dont Instantly read My freind when they see MF.
But instead go through all the vulgar sayings that Could be accosiated with it then asume that that is what it means.

That is the readers problem, Prehaps they should not be so crude.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Just A Girl

You guys tell me I dont make sence when i tell you things,
And thats becous you guys dont utilize the subtle diferences between 1 word and the other.

---

must resist tempation, but its very hard.... to resist such a statement as this coming from a person who does not present coherent arguements :dizzy2:

Quote:

---

Once you guys grasp the subtle difrences in the english language Prehaps then you will not be so ready to accuse.

---

Hmm, still resisting the tempation..... :sweatdrop:

But I find the whole thing rather ironic given the nature of someone's posts.

whats your problem now red leg?

Grammer?

when you can Spell. Maths Armour valour colour and labour correctly Il listen to your Words.
But aslong as you dont speak english your self.
Im not going to listen much.

A nother alternative is...
go take tickle webs Literature iq test.
score 180 iq or above,
and il listen to you.

Took a retest.
Werent the Best results ever, but seeing as they were prety High.
it Looks like Bragging.
So I Deleted the results from here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Just A Girl

whats your problem now red leg?

---

Nothing just resisting tempation.

Quote:

---

Grammer?

---

What Grammer?

Quote:

---

when you can Spell. Maths Armour valour colour and labour correctly Il listen to your Words.

---

Hell your not spelling them correctly yourself. :juggle2:

Quote:

---

But aslong as you dont speak english your self.
Im not going to listen much.

---

Since this is a type form - not voice, your not listening anyway. :oops:

Quote:

---

A nother alternative is...
go take tickle webs Literature iq test.
score 180 iq or above,
and il listen to you.

---

You don't really want to know my IQ. :book:

Quote:

---

Took a retest.
Werent the Best results ever, but seeing as they were prety High.
it Looks like Bragging.
So I Deleted the results from here.

---

So your inablity to present a logical arguement comes from?

I beleive its your inabilaty to Comprehend logical argument's that stems from something.

Possibly some thing army related If your sig is anything to go by.
You seem to have been brainwashed somewhere along the line..

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

"Our loyalty is due entirely to the United States. It is due to the President only and exactly to the degree in which he efficiently serves the United States. It is our duty to support him when he serves the United States well. It is our duty to oppose him when he serves it badly.Teddy "

In my opinion to quote such Pitiful tat is to prove
That you are a brain washed patriot.

Note the words.
Possibly,
SEEM
and
In My opinion.

They make a HUGE diference to the statment. as oposed to me not using those words.

Inabilaty to see how these words change the The contex in which the argument is put forth. Is where you guys mess up.

I use certain words over others for a reason, and you guys seem to be inable to comprehend those reasons. And there for dont comprehend A logical argument.

Thats not my problem.

Any way The way i see it.
Only the same Few people complain. and they are the same few people who cant answer the questions i ask.

This implys That they understand just fine.
but as they cant answer.
They resort to insults.

Its funny how when i explain How to fix something.
Or write a tutorial for something.
Every 1 understands.
Then when i put forth a logical argument that Some people cant Debate. And expecialy if it goes against what they believe.

They come out with.
I dont understand you.
You cant put forth an argument logically.
You spell badly.
Your grammer sux

That Just makes me laugh.

That is what you'd call "inabilaty to put forth a logical argument. "
And that Is what you do redleg.

(This text is compiled of seems and opinions. No direct statements, No direct claims. Try to comprehend that.)