Sad, America, just Sad.

[Starcraftmazter]

Except that you've presented no proof to support any of your claims...

I just summarised all the evidence, I assume you take my word for it, of course I welcome you to have a look at the documentary, "What Happened on the Way to the Moon?". It's available for viewing on google videos I believe.

Bart Sibrel's documentary, "A funny thing happened on the way to the moon" is also quite good, and he goes into a lot of detail with the radiation and the Van Allen belt there.

 

[themoose]

Proof the earth is only 6-10,000 years old

You can't expect to just say crazy things like that without getting any responce. Read bigperm's posts.

No recount of ancestry, if we came from apes, someone should remember looking at his half ape father and mother

They did remember, but you know, that old now - they're probably dead.

Break the national defense systems of the body to prevent the spread of damaging chromosomes.

What? That didn't make much sense. I'm sure I'm not the only one who can't make sense of it either.

 

[Johnson]

This was funny at first, but now I'm starting to think heymrdkhead is serious.

 

[tandoc]

This was funny at first, but now I'm starting to think heymrdkhead is serious.

i think he's like that the same way he probably doesn't own an ipod. not because he can't afford it, he just wants to be different. atm, bashing religion/intelligent design is the cool thing to do :beer:

 

[heymrdj]

i think he's like that the same way he probably doesn't own an ipod. not because he can't afford it, he just wants to be different. atm, bashing religion/intelligent design is the cool thing to do :beer:

You know that comment is seriously stupid. I've owned Ipods and Zens and Sansas and Lyras and even the Archos 604 with Wifi. I've tried tons of them, down the the cheap off brand 128MB players. I still like the Zen's as number 1, followed by the Archos, then the Ipod, the Sansa, and the Lyra.

Anyways I don't see why this thread hasn't been closed. You say my evidence is theoretically, I see plenty of yours is. Why are we arguing theories. We are all wrong in some way, whether eatsjohnsons wants to admit it or not. I have not responded, because as I've said time and time again, I am too busy for this thread. You guys are supposed to be smart, where's your business. Your all too busy bickering on this thread to get any work done.

You can absh religion all you want, anyone can see its the morality that comes with religion that keeps this floundering country afloat. But in the end evil wins, because evil backstabbs its way to power, so until the promised coming, you all will get to see the glorious evil age that you so desire, because there is no stopping America from going down the path of destruction it is now. As people like you continue to have religion and morality removed from every facet of life, you will have to suffer the consquences of it. Well I take that back, many of you are too old, so your children will suffer the consquences as STD's, murders, corrupt business practices, and horrible imoral govenment leadership takes us down the drain hole. I know now, seeing how many of you exist, that we will not see our 500th birthday.

 

[Starcraftmazter]

You know that comment is seriously stupid. I've owned Ipods and Zens and Sansas and Lyras and even the Archos 604 with Wifi. I've tried tons of them, down the the cheap off brand 128MB players. I still like the Zen's as number 1, followed by the Archos, then the Ipod, the Sansa, and the Lyra.

I'm not sure which Sansa you had, but the e200 series pwnz all, especially those crummy ipods, which are the worst.

It can play all music, video, do voice recording, first series of players to have 8 gb capacity, listen to radio, has a memory expansion slot, supports 2 USB transfer protocols, has a 1.8" screen and 20 hour battery life.

I haven't found anything which compares (while being the same size), and the ipod nanos are the worst pieces of trash ever. They are powered by obsolete ARM processors, have the highest product fault rating of any competing product, force you to use ----ty itunes, which doesn't even come for linux, even though more people use linux than crappy macos and are downright crap, having no ability of play video or radio, nor voice record.
Utter crap.

 

[Galaxy-Hosts.com]

I do not think this movie should have been banned from the schools in that district. It would be fine for them to show it with the stipulation it is a theory and then show theories by other scientists that offer other explanations. One thing I never understood is when someone makes the following statement as proof of global warming. "Well this has been the hottest summer on record in (some city) since eighteen hundread and (some year)." Um hello so it was hotter way back in eighteen hundred (and whaterver year)? So there was more pollution back then?

If we are experiencing warming, and I think we are, there might be other explanations. Like maybe, the sun is getting hotter. Yes some scientists credit the majority of our warming to this. If you do not believe me check out this article http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/mai...18.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/07/18/ixnewstop.html That mightwhy the ice caps on mars are melting. Yes that is correct, earth is not the only planet that is experiencing a warming phase. http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2003/07aug_southpole.htm

Also we should keep in mind that Al Gore also said the world will end in under ten years if we do not force people to quit polluting at the current rate. Every time the man opens his mouth he loses credibilty. Like I said I do not think the movie should be banned. It also should not be presented as cold hard fact. They should present other scientific theories on the subject as well.

 

[Johnson]

I have not responded, because as I've said time and time again, I am too busy for this thread.

You've posted as many times as we have and you sure has hell weren't too busy to start your little argument.

The real reason you haven't responded is because you have no good arguments. You could never answer any of my questions.

 

[heymrdj]

You've posted as many times as we have and you sure has hell weren't too busy to start your little argument.

The real reason you haven't responded is because you have no good arguments. You could never answer any of my questions.

I don't answer idiots. Saying this: You see global warming, you acknowledge it. Then you say "I see no global warming"? K. : was absolutely stupid. You in no way read my statement, you glanced over it and made a half-baked statement. It is clear that I stated WHAt global warming is, and because I don't see THOSE QUALITIES that make global warming, I DO NOT ACKNOWLEDGE IT. Did that get through you're head? Or do I need to get a 1st grader so it's on your level of reading? You have refused to answer my questions, so I simply refuse to answer yours. When you complete a thesis on the origin of man, that is actually possible, then we'll talk. You haven't gotten any solid evidence. Until evolution can leave the theory stage, there's no use believing on it.

All your other questions were answered in the last reply, use your head and you'll pull them out. Its fairly easy to read.

 

[tandoc]

I don't answer idiots. Saying this: You see global warming, you acknowledge it. Then you say "I see no global warming"? K. : was absolutely stupid. You in no way read my statement, you glanced over it and made a half-baked statement. It is clear that I stated WHAt global warming is, and because I don't see THOSE QUALITIES that make global warming, I DO NOT ACKNOWLEDGE IT. Did that get through you're head? Or do I need to get a 1st grader so it's on your level of reading? You have refused to answer my questions, so I simply refuse to answer yours. When you complete a thesis on the origin of man, that is actually possible, then we'll talk. You haven't gotten any solid evidence. Until evolution can leave the theory stage, there's no use believing on it.

All your other questions were answered in the last reply, use your head and you'll pull them out. Its fairly easy to read.

The 'If choose not to/I can't see it, it's not there!' argument. Quality stuff.

 

[themoose]

If I could sum up heymrdj in one word: ignorant.

 

[stuffradio]

I am too busy for this thread.

You're obviously not too busy for the thread because you keep replying how busy you are for this thread, along with paragraph long answers.... doesn't make sense to me :S

 

[heymrdj]

You're obviously not too busy for the thread because you keep replying how busy you are for this thread, along with paragraph long answers.... doesn't make sense to me :S

Mornings before work, and evenings when I'm chilling when it comes to long paragraphs.

And to sum up the atheists: Prideful

You believe scince can do anything, yet its been behind for a book written 5,000 years ago. Such ignorance of the truth.

 

[AMC]

ok, im not jumping into the arguement again, but id like to make 2 points, firstly, heymrdj, breeding dogs and horses captures the principle of evolution exactly, the only difference is that it is an environment controlled by man and is not open to the factors species would normally face over the extensive period that natural evolution takes to occur.

Secondly, you again mis understand evolution, you say that everything is evolving and eventually you get man. This is not the case, man is not the pinnical of human evolution as many would have us believe.

If you consider Evolution to be like a tree, each branch a new species, we humans are merely a branch, and are still evolving ( if slowly due to our own intervention ) to be the best we can be, other animals, in other environments, evolved to have different characteristics to ours, and are evolving, to be the best they can be, hence the confusion about insects gaining open circulatory systems, they wont, they will merely evolve that system to better advance them in their enivironment.

thirdly, if the earth is only 6,000 years old, please explain how we come to find fossils of giant reptiles on our planet that have been dated to several million years old ?? are these aliens, or would that be defying the fact that the earth is the only planet with sentient life, as ordained by god, the universe is infinite there must be something else.

Im not denying religion, i merely think that religion and science should be able to embrace each other as two different and co-existing areas of fact.

please consider what i have said, and one more thing, if any evidence we present you can be knocked down by the phrase its just science, how are we suppose to present evidence at all ??

Best Regards,

AMC

 

[heymrdj]

ok, im not jumping into the arguement again, but id like to make 2 points, firstly, heymrdj, breeding dogs and horses captures the principle of evolution exactly, the only difference is that it is an environment controlled by man and is not open to the factors species would normally face over the extensive period that natural evolution takes to occur.

Secondly, you again mis understand evolution, you say that everything is evolving and eventually you get man. This is not the case, man is not the pinnical of human evolution as many would have us believe.

If you consider Evolution to be like a tree, each branch a new species, we humans are merely a branch, and are still evolving ( if slowly due to our own intervention ) to be the best we can be, other animals, in other environments, evolved to have different characteristics to ours, and are evolving, to be the best they can be, hence the confusion about insects gaining open circulatory systems, they wont, they will merely evolve that system to better advance them in their enivironment.

thirdly, if the earth is only 6,000 years old, please explain how we come to find fossils of giant reptiles on our planet that have been dated to several million years old ?? are these aliens, or would that be defying the fact that the earth is the only planet with sentient life, as ordained by god, the universe is infinite there must be something else.

Im not denying religion, i merely think that religion and science should be able to embrace each other as two different and co-existing areas of fact.

please consider what i have said, and one more thing, if any evidence we present you can be knocked down by the phrase its just science, how are we suppose to present evidence at all ??

Best Regards,

AMC

You say that the insect's circulatory system could evolve to open to better adapt it, but what about the transitional forms? I have never seen a creature survive with a circulatory system that is half open and half closed.

As for breeding, breeding is within a kind. Dingos, dogs, wolves, hyenas, all canine. A dog has never mated with a horse to create a half equine and half canine species. Never has and never will. If you take the gametes of one species and place it with the gametes of another, then it simply fails.

As I said before on the dating system, it is flawed. Anyone remember that article that circulated a few years back where they dated a bologna sandwich made that morning and 3 out of the 8 tests showed it was a 600 year old sandwich? Might want to take a look at these articles on the dating system used by scientists.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v14/i3/fossil.asp
http://www.godsaidmansaid.com/topic3.asp?Cat2=262&ItemID=668
http://www.trueorigin.org/dating.asp
http://www.sloppynoodle.com/csotalk2-6.shtml

Thats just a few from a quick google search.

 

[AMC]

Im not saying them make a transition to an open circulatory system im saying they IN GENERAL, will evolve to better suit their particular environment, and of course you dont get different species mating, thats why i talked about the branches on the tree, once a new branch/species is formed it wont join back to the others, just grow and expand, and possible grow new branches ( ok i get it, not the most full proof analogy, but the best i could come up with)

Ill just write a little story in order to illustrate what evolution actually is.

Within a species, there is always going to be variation, some have pale skin, some have dark, some are tall some are short, some have large feet some small ...etc. ( you get the point )

so lets think about the origin of the Giraffe,

REMOVING god from the equation, as we are ( for the moment) talking of my arguement, not yours.

Giraffes did not always have long necks, these creatures lived on the savanna planes, Giraffes eat tree foliage, but.... without their long necks, the food is often out of reach.

Taking this into account, many giraffes ( especially the short ones ) will starve to death, and will in many cases, not survive to mate.

On the other hand, if a giraffe is born who's neck is slightly longer than normal, then that giraffe will have an advantage and will be more likely ( and on a larger scale, will more often ) reach the age of mating, since the same is true of both sexes in this scenario, it is also more likely that the giraffes mate has a slightly longer neck ( you cant think of this as a coincidence, the numbers of animals involved in evolution are so huge that the coincidence is bound to happen quite often )

So, ( enough of the pre-amble ) eventually, (possibly after many generations)
Giraffes will consistently mate with Giraffes, which have slightly longer necks ( like themselves ) this is a genetic characteristic, and is therefore passed on in the gamete. I dont have time to write much more, but you see, this process can continue for many millenia, and has produced the wide range of species we see today. ( the braches on a tree )

hope you can at least accept what im saying as a theory that is at least as plausible as any other that we humans have presently devised.

Best regards,
AMC

 

[heymrdj]

Im not saying them make a transition to an open circulatory system im saying they IN GENERAL, will evolve to better suit their particular environment, and of course you dont get different species mating, thats why i talked about the branches on the tree, once a new branch/species is formed it wont join back to the others, just grow and expand, and possible grow new branches ( ok i get it, not the most full proof analogy, but the best i could come up with)

Ill just write a little story in order to illustrate what evolution actually is.

Within a species, there is always going to be variation, some have pale skin, some have dark, some are tall some are short, some have large feet some small ...etc. ( you get the point )

so lets think about the origin of the Giraffe,

REMOVING god from the equation, as we are ( for the moment) talking of my arguement, not yours.

Giraffes did not always have long necks, these creatures lived on the savanna planes, Giraffes eat tree foliage, but.... without their long necks, the food is often out of reach.

Taking this into account, many giraffes ( especially the short ones ) will starve to death, and will in many cases, not survive to mate.

On the other hand, if a giraffe is born who's neck is slightly longer than normal, then that giraffe will have an advantage and will be more likely ( and on a larger scale, will more often ) reach the age of mating, since the same is true of both sexes in this scenario, it is also more likely that the giraffes mate has a slightly longer neck ( you cant think of this as a coincidence, the numbers of animals involved in evolution are so huge that the coincidence is bound to happen quite often )

So, ( enough of the pre-amble ) eventually, (possibly after many generations)
Giraffes will consistently mate with Giraffes, which have slightly longer necks ( like themselves ) this is a genetic characteristic, and is therefore passed on in the gamete. I dont have time to write much more, but you see, this process can continue for many millenia, and has produced the wide range of species we see today. ( the braches on a tree )

hope you can at least accept what im saying as a theory that is at least as plausible as any other that we humans have presently devised.

Best regards,
AMC

I can see it as a theory, but the chances are astronomical that two giraffes would happen to come togetehr, both be long necked, and both in the same evolved stage at the same time. But that doesn't explain how a giraffe jumped its species. If I may just put the idea out, are you sure you're not confusing Scientific Creationism, the fact that the kinds of animals ect were created and evolved into the species we have today, rather than the evolution you think you're trying to explain, the Darwin kind of evolution. I have looked up evolution, but all I can find is the same fact that its supposed to be mr. single cell evolving into all that we have today.

 

[influct]

chawow. heymrdj have you never heard of dominant and and recessive genes.
just because an animal does not have the "long neck" does not mean it cannot pass on the recessive gene, which means the child CAN have a long neck.
This allows evolution to continue.

 

[heymrdj]

chawow. heymrdj have you never heard of dominant and and recessive genes.
just because an animal does not have the "long neck" does not mean it cannot pass on the recessive gene, which means the child CAN have a long neck.
This allows evolution to continue.

Read my post again. You'll see my post has nothing to do with the question I asked AMC. Do you know the difference between species and kinds influct? I mean your post is WAY out of the ballpark of what I asked.

If you want to get into genes, then we can also get into the point that if its long neck is a recessive trait, its chances for a longneck are less than 1/16, and if both are recessive longnecks, well lets not even do that math. A quick try at it in my head would put it at about 1/256, but I think thats just one side of the equation.

 

[AMC]

Im not a teacher, and im not really good at expaining it, but what i am reffering to IS evolution, a single animal does not evovle, but if it has an advantageous characteristic -- that will be passed to its offspring, who will in turn have the same thing, and whos offspring will also have the same thing, THEN they will start to be the ones who survive to mate and THEN the genetic characteristics will be amplified. dont forget, in the BILLIONS of years the earth has been around, evolution has had a lot of time to do its magic.

If you want the best explanation, talk to a teacher , or a biology PHD, and ask them to properly explain the concept of evolution to you , what it is, how it works, and then comment on whether it should be thoroughly discounted as a theory for the origin of species,

i personally find it much harder to believe that each and every species was individually created, even if they were, their environments will change over many millions of years, so either they go extinct, as many have , or they adpat as many also have, this process of adaption over many generations is evolution. the concentration and amplification of advantageous characteristics in some members of a species living in an un ideal climate,

if you want to have evolution proved to you, look at the Galapagos islands, i spent a month doing a case study there, and if you can, after knowing about a place like that, deny some form of evolution, then your never going to accept it and we may as well stop now

Best regards,
AMC