Creepier Belief system (1 Viewer)

[Jericho]

How do we not hold that whole filed at fault for crap like that?

Because that would be moronic. It's like reading a story about somebody dying in a hospital and holding the entire medical field in contempt and never going to a doctor. Or hearing about weakening support structures on a local bridge and therefore holding the entire structural engineering field in contempt and never crossing a single bridge again ever in your life. That's ludicrous.

 

[CrossEyed]

I suppose you could argue that nothing is free due to opportunity costs.  But when you step back and look at the big picture, the opportunity cost for not accepting Christ is FAR greater than the opportunity cost for accepting Him.

That's what you think. Maybe I value sodomy more than salvation.

You wouldn't if you were truly seeing the big picture. But to each his own.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Every other human myth has a basis in reality, except dragons...

This is ridiculous.

really?which one do you think has NO basis AT ALL with something that is real?

I don't think there's ever been a creature with the head of a man and the body of a lion. Or the head of a man and the body of a goat. Or a humanoid species with one eye in the middle of its forehead. Need I go on?

 

[CrossEyed]

But when you step back and look at the big picture, the opportunity cost for not accepting Christ is FAR greater than the opportunity cost for accepting Him.

Pascal's Wager. The first sign of concession. That didn't take long.

You're right Jericho. I am no match for your superior wisdom and knowledge and concede to your superiority.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

I suppose you could argue that nothing is free due to opportunity costs.  But when you step back and look at the big picture, the opportunity cost for not accepting Christ is FAR greater than the opportunity cost for accepting Him.

That's what you think. Maybe I value sodomy more than salvation.

You wouldn't if you were truly seeing the big picture. But to each his own.

Even if you're right, that still just makes salvation a great offer. It doesn't make it free. That was the only point I was trying to convey.

 

[CrossEyed]

I suppose you could argue that nothing is free due to opportunity costs.  But when you step back and look at the big picture, the opportunity cost for not accepting Christ is FAR greater than the opportunity cost for accepting Him.

That's what you think. Maybe I value sodomy more than salvation.

You wouldn't if you were truly seeing the big picture. But to each his own.

Even if you're right, that still just makes salvation a great offer. It doesn't make it free. That was the only point I was trying to convey.

OK, how's this? It's a great offer with no strings attached.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

I suppose you could argue that nothing is free due to opportunity costs.  But when you step back and look at the big picture, the opportunity cost for not accepting Christ is FAR greater than the opportunity cost for accepting Him.

That's what you think. Maybe I value sodomy more than salvation.

You wouldn't if you were truly seeing the big picture. But to each his own.

Even if you're right, that still just makes salvation a great offer. It doesn't make it free. That was the only point I was trying to convey.

OK, how's this? It's a great offer with no strings attached.

Sure, that's fine.

 

[CrossEyed]

I suppose you could argue that nothing is free due to opportunity costs.  But when you step back and look at the big picture, the opportunity cost for not accepting Christ is FAR greater than the opportunity cost for accepting Him.

That's what you think. Maybe I value sodomy more than salvation.

You wouldn't if you were truly seeing the big picture. But to each his own.

Even if you're right, that still just makes salvation a great offer. It doesn't make it free. That was the only point I was trying to convey.

OK, how's this? It's a great offer with no strings attached.

Sure, that's fine.

I still say it's free.

 

[larry_boy_44]

If this isn't what happened, where did the dragon theories come from? Every other human myth has a basis in reality, except dragons...

Minotaurs, Chimeras, Hydras, Mermaids, Centaur, Sphinx, Unicorns, etc.Somehow dragons are different?

minotaurs, mermaids, centaurs, & Sphinx... um... how is putting a human head on something ultimately creative? Seriously... not really all that big of a stretch...Chimeras... Lion + Eagle = Chimera (snake too maybe)... its REAL THINGS!! maybe mixed some, but real...Hydras... can I just point out that most hydras look just like dragons with multiple heads... again, not exactly that much of a stretch... especially if they looked at bones how we do... I'm surprised we havne't found remains of 35 legged dog/cat/bird/lizards yet with how some fossils are found }=OP

 

[larry_boy_44]

Every other human myth has a basis in reality, except dragons...

This is ridiculous.

really?which one do you think has NO basis AT ALL with something that is real?

I don't think there's ever been a creature with the head of a man and the body of a lion. Or the head of a man and the body of a goat. Or a humanoid species with one eye in the middle of its forehead. Need I go on?

there have been humans with one eye, however... combine that with "snowballing" of the story over time and you get a dude with one eye....

 

[larry_boy_44]

How do we not hold that whole filed at fault for crap like that?

Because that would be moronic. It's like reading a story about somebody dying in a hospital and holding the entire medical field in contempt and never going to a doctor. Or hearing about weakening support structures on a local bridge and therefore holding the entire structural engineering field in contempt and never crossing a single bridge again ever in your life. That's ludicrous.

yes, but if a large portion of bridges were falling and none of the structural engineers really cared enough to try and make bridges that would stand, woudl we hold them accountable then? Yes... we don't with the paleontology field... why does it take 50 years to realize it was a pig toe? Seriously...

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Larry boy has convinced me. Obviously the human imagination could invent a lion with a human head, but there's no way that anyone could imagine a giant lizard that breathes fire. We're just not that creative.

 

[larry_boy_44]

Larry boy has convinced me. Obviously the human imagination could invent a lion with a human head, but there's no way that anyone could imagine a giant lizard that breathes fire. We're just not that creative.

except for this:there are creatures who "breath" (more like shoot) fire...there also "were" giant lizards...besides, how do we know there wasn't an extint species of lizards that did spit fire?there are creatures (at least one) that spit fire...

 

[Jericho]

ok, so how did everything get here? it cannot just be because matter can NEVER be created nor destroyed, so EVENTUALLY there has to be a creator...

A) Matter can too be created and destroyed. Never heard of E=mc²? Matter and energy can be interchanged and this has been scientifically observed. In Hiroshima, for example, but also under controlled conditions.B) Your logic is extremely fla\/\/ed. Any 'Creator' hypothesis begs the 'who created the creator?' counter. You can't say 'nothing cannot just be' and then pre-suppose something that just is. Completely invalidated.

C) Why do we have to be able to answer 'how did everything get here' right now? Go back and ask somebody 2000 years ago to explain breathing and see how much they know about aerobic metabolism. People learn stuff. Not everything is answerable at every point in time. It's okay to say 'we don't know yet'. It's not okay to just make stuff up until then, unless you can test your hypothesis.

How did life start? It can't start itself, it is IMPOSSIBLE (alright, maybe no "impossible", but so unlikely its laughable) for life to start by itself...

There are many decidedly unimpossible theories for how life starts. First of all, it is not only possible, but also been demonstrated, that complex organic molecules (amino acids and nucleic acids, the building blocks of proteins and DNA respectively) will spontaneously form in lab conditions simulating the conditions of the early Earth. And we're not talking a few stray molecules here. We're talking about huge proliferations of these molecules. Even in the smallest scientific recreations, experimenters find their containers absolutely caked with these molecules. That these develop is no fluke, is is a biological certainty on any planet with those conditions.Development into self-replicating RNA and the requisite enzymes is a little luckier, but when you're talking about the time frame involved and the sheer volume of building blocks to work with, it almost becomes a statistical inevitability.

There has to be an outside, eternal "force" that CHOSE to create things... otherwise the world and everything in it would not be able to be here...

You have done absolutely nothing to demonstrate that. And that's not even getting into how this entire argument is self-defeating ('who created the creator?' yada yada yada). You, sir, are fla\/\/ed. This is a perfect example of why creationists get put into 'who's creepier?' polls with Scientologists.

 

[larry_boy_44]

oh yeah, the ohter thing about like those creatures...imagine you are in an army and another army attacks you and they have bulls with them... you get thouroughly beaten and when you get home go "they had bulls with people" and then the person you told goes "they were bull-people" 'cuz they heard you wrong...eventually teh story goes that the people who attacked the army were half human, half bull, thus a minotaur...

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

there also "were" giant lizards...

You're just being stubborn. Do you really think humans are incapable of imagining really big lizards without there actually being a really big lizard?

 

[larry_boy_44]

There are many decidedly unimpossible theories for how life starts. First of all, it is not only possible, but also been demonstrated, that complex organic molecules (amino acids and nucleic acids, the building blocks of proteins and DNA respectively) will spontaneously form in lab conditions simulating the conditions of the early Earth. And we're not talking a few stray molecules here. We're talking about huge proliferations of these molecules. Even in the smallest scientific recreations, experimenters find their containers absolutely caked with these molecules. That these develop is no fluke, is is a biological certainty on any planet with those conditions.

how in the world is something done in a lab spontaneously forming?seriously, they were MAKING the things appear...

I'm not saying that it can't happen, but until they get more than the "building block of protiens and DNA" you can't say life formed that way...

there is more "evidence" for Creation than Evolution...

 

[Jericho]

How do we not hold that whole filed at fault for crap like that?

Because that would be moronic. It's like reading a story about somebody dying in a hospital and holding the entire medical field in contempt and never going to a doctor. Or hearing about weakening support structures on a local bridge and therefore holding the entire structural engineering field in contempt and never crossing a single bridge again ever in your life. That's ludicrous.

yes, but if a large portion of bridges were falling and none of the structural engineers really cared enough to try and make bridges that would stand, woudl we hold them accountable then? Yes... we don't with the paleontology field... why does it take 50 years to realize it was a pig toe? Seriously...

That's because the paleontology field doesn't do that. Seriously, 50 years of hundreds of thousand of paleontologists working all the time, and you find one toe? That's a stunningly amazing performance rate. I'm sure you'll now dig up 3 or 4 more cases, it's still far less than cases of negligent death in hospitals. Listing all the accurate and important work that paleontologists have done would take up a ridiculous amount of space, and it might even make your head spin. Seriously. Spin right off like a bloody propellor or something.

 

[larry_boy_44]

there also "were" giant lizards...

You're just being stubborn. Do you really think humans are incapable of imagining really big lizards without there actually being a really big lizard?

they probably were... BUT the thing is... we have fossils that are big, and many of those fossils are the same as lizards that we have in smaller versions now...we have bones of giant lizards that match the bone structures of lizards alive today...the chances of evolution are like 1 in hundreds of hundreds of billions...what are the chances of the same lizard evolving twice?

 

[larry_boy_44]

How do we not hold that whole filed at fault for crap like that?

Because that would be moronic. It's like reading a story about somebody dying in a hospital and holding the entire medical field in contempt and never going to a doctor. Or hearing about weakening support structures on a local bridge and therefore holding the entire structural engineering field in contempt and never crossing a single bridge again ever in your life. That's ludicrous.

yes, but if a large portion of bridges were falling and none of the structural engineers really cared enough to try and make bridges that would stand, woudl we hold them accountable then? Yes... we don't with the paleontology field... why does it take 50 years to realize it was a pig toe? Seriously...

That's because the paleontology field doesn't do that. Seriously, 50 years of hundreds of thousand of paleontologists working all the time, and you find one toe? That's a stunningly amazing performance rate. I'm sure you'll now dig up 3 or 4 more cases, it's still far less than cases of negligent death in hospitals. Listing all the accurate and important work that paleontologists have done would take up a ridiculous amount of space, and it might even make your head spin. Seriously. Spin right off like a bloody propellor or something.

yes, but most of those "important works" were them forcing what they found to fit what htey wanted to find and, many years later, proven wrong...especialy when we are talking about "ancient" man...

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

there also "were" giant lizards...

You're just being stubborn. Do you really think humans are incapable of imagining really big lizards without there actually being a really big lizard?

they probably were... BUT the thing is... we have fossils that are big, and many of those fossils are the same as lizards that we have in smaller versions now...we have bones of giant lizards that match the bone structures of lizards alive today...the chances of evolution are like 1 in hundreds of hundreds of billions...what are the chances of the same lizard evolving twice?

This is a completely different argument than the one you were making before. Are you giving up on the previous one?

 

[CrossEyed]

How did life start? It can't start itself, it is IMPOSSIBLE (alright, maybe no "impossible", but so unlikely its laughable) for life to start by itself...

There are many decidedly unimpossible theories for how life starts. First of all, it is not only possible, but also been demonstrated, that complex organic molecules (amino acids and nucleic acids, the building blocks of proteins and DNA respectively) will spontaneously form in lab conditions simulating the conditions of the early Earth. And we're not talking a few stray molecules here. We're talking about huge proliferations of these molecules. Even in the smallest scientific recreations, experimenters find their containers absolutely caked with these molecules. That these develop is no fluke, is is a biological certainty on any planet with those conditions.

How does this demonstrate that something can start by itself? It doesn't. You've stated that "complex organic molecules (amino acids and nucleic acids, the building blocks of proteins and DNA respectively) will spontaneously form in lab conditions simulating the conditions of the early Earth." In no way does that even come close to validating the idea that something can start from nothing. Your starting point is a time that the earth already existed. How did the earth start? How did what started the earth start? It always has to come back to one of two things. Either matter is eternal, or whatever created matter is eternal.

 

[bigfun54]

Okay, I'm officially flip-flopping. I originally voted Creationism, but that was a snap judgment. After reading some links and really thinking about it, I now think Scientology is the much creepier belief system. That being said, I would love to know how people get hooked into this. I mean, most of them are fully functioning adults. Creationism I can at least accept that people believe that for a time because most of them are children who don't know any better when they are exposed to it. Also at least creationism is in some line with thousands of years of thoughts, that while I hate the fact that we can't question it, still gives it some lasting appeal. But Scientology, I mean have you seen L. Ron Hubbard?

 

[Jericho]

how in the world is something done in a lab spontaneously forming?

seriously, they were MAKING the things appear...

I'm not saying that it can't happen, but until they get more than the "building block of protiens and DNA" you can't say life formed that way...

there is more "evidence" for Creation than Evolution...

What the hell? Scientists aren't sitting there with tweezers assempling cytosine. What a completely uninformed thing to say. The experiment goes like this: this is what we thing the conditions of the earth were. Here's some water, some carbon dioxide, some methane, blah blah blah, all the things that would have been on primitive earth. Then they turn on some electricity and see what happens. They don't manipulate it in any way. The first time this was done, they had no idea what was going to happen. But ta-da, there's the cytosine. It wasn't consciously made by the scientists. To claim it was is sheer ignorance.As for your second bit, wtf? Of course you can. It's FAR more plausible than any other theory to date.

And, crikey would get this through your head, THERE IS ZERO EVIDENCE FOR CREATION. None. Zip. Zilch. NADA! Seriously. NOTHING.

 

[larry_boy_44]

This is a completely different argument than the one you were making before. Are you giving up on the previous one?

how so? Because I'm disproving what you think it means I'm arguing something different?

 

[CrossEyed]

how in the world is something done in a lab spontaneously forming?

seriously, they were MAKING the things appear...

I'm not saying that it can't happen, but until they get more than the "building block of protiens and DNA" you can't say life formed that way...

there is more "evidence" for Creation than Evolution...

What the hell? Scientists aren't sitting there with tweezers assempling cytosine. What a completely uninformed thing to say. The experiment goes like this: this is what we thing the conditions of the earth were. Here's some water, some carbon dioxide, some methane, blah blah blah, all the things that would have been on primitive earth. Then they turn on some electricity and see what happens. They don't manipulate it in any way. The first time this was done, they had no idea what was going to happen. But ta-da, there's the cytosine. It wasn't consciously made by the scientists. To claim it was is sheer ignorance.As for your second bit, wtf? Of course you can. It's FAR more plausible than any other theory to date.

And, crikey would get this through your head, THERE IS ZERO EVIDENCE FOR CREATION. None. Zip. Zilch. NADA! Seriously. NOTHING.

So how did the earth happen?

 

[Marvelous]

why is that so ludicrous?

Well, for one, there's this part:

Creation happened

ok, so how did everything get here? it cannot just be because matter can NEVER be created nor destroyed, so EVENTUALLY there has to be a creator...How did life start? It can't start itself, it is IMPOSSIBLE (alright, maybe no "impossible", but so unlikely its laughable) for life to start by itself...There has to be an outside, eternal "force" that CHOSE to create things... otherwise the world and everything in it would not be able to be here...

I believe evolution does not address the question of the first living organism. Otherwise, it would have to claim that the first living organism somehow evolved from a non-living organism as a result of adapting to its environment.

 

[Jericho]

Why do you guys have to start interesting threads on days when I'm busy at work? Anyway, creationists are as loony as a bag of yams for reasons I've already stated. There's no getting through to them other than hitting them over the head with a shovel, but that's not very nice to do.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

This is a completely different argument than the one you were making before. Are you giving up on the previous one?

how so? Because I'm disproving what you think it means I'm arguing something different?

Here's what you initially wrote:

If this isn't what happened, where did the dragon theories come from? Every other human myth has a basis in reality, except dragons...where did they get teh giant lizards from? There is no way ancient man knew enough about lizards to know they never stopped growing, so how'd they come up, in thier heads, with giant lizards?

Your point apparently was that dragons must equal dinosaurs because the people who told stories about dragons could never have come up with such tales on their own. When challenged on that point, you started making different arguments about how lizards today look similar to dinosaur bones. That's a completely different argument.

 

[larry_boy_44]

What the hell? Scientists aren't sitting there with tweezers assempling cytosine. What a completely uninformed thing to say. The experiment goes like this: this is what we thing the conditions of the earth were. Here's some water, some carbon dioxide, some methane, blah blah blah, all the things that would have been on primitive earth. Then they turn on some electricity and see what happens. They don't manipulate it in any way. The first time this was done, they had no idea what was going to happen. But ta-da, there's the cytosine. It wasn't consciously made by the scientists. To claim it was is sheer ignorance.

As for your second bit, wtf? Of course you can. It's FAR more plausible than any other theory to date.

And, crikey would get this through your head, THERE IS ZERO EVIDENCE FOR CREATION. None. Zip. Zilch. NADA! Seriously. NOTHING.

wait, no... that isn't right...I have a few issues with your experiment...

1. how do they know there was water?

2. how do they know there was carbon dioxide?

3. how do they know there was methane?

4. how do they know there was electricity?

5. ARen't they FORCING the electricty to react with the chemicals in the mix to FORCE amino acids to form? Yet...

evolution is not plausible... it is NOT SCIENCE!!!

how the world got here is NOT SCIENCE!!! you cannot re-create the creation of the world and life on it... it is a HISTORICAL EVENT!!!

That is why creation has more proof than evolution... evolution is proved by science, but it is an event that is not scientific...

Creation has a diety creating things, making it not only a historic, but religious event... There is a leg to stand on when you say you believe that God created things...

there is no leg for evolution because how the world got here is outside the bounds of science...

 

[Jericho]

So how did the earth happen?

Go look up the best theories on-line. There are many.

 

[larry_boy_44]

Why do you guys have to start interesting threads on days when I'm busy at work? Anyway, creationists are as loony as a bag of yams for reasons I've already stated. There's no getting through to them other than hitting them over the head with a shovel, but that's not very nice to do.

and you are different how?*wishes he knew how to put the "pot calling kettle black" emoticon thinger up*

 

[Jericho]

What the hell? Scientists aren't sitting there with tweezers assempling cytosine. What a completely uninformed thing to say. The experiment goes like this: this is what we thing the conditions of the earth were. Here's some water, some carbon dioxide, some methane, blah blah blah, all the things that would have been on primitive earth. Then they turn on some electricity and see what happens. They don't manipulate it in any way. The first time this was done, they had no idea what was going to happen. But ta-da, there's the cytosine. It wasn't consciously made by the scientists. To claim it was is sheer ignorance.

As for your second bit, wtf? Of course you can. It's FAR more plausible than any other theory to date.

And, crikey would get this through your head, THERE IS ZERO EVIDENCE FOR CREATION. None. Zip. Zilch. NADA! Seriously. NOTHING.

wait, no... that isn't right...I have a few issues with your experiment...

1. how do they know there was water?

2. how do they know there was carbon dioxide?

3. how do they know there was methane?

4. how do they know there was electricity?

5. ARen't they FORCING the electricty to react with the chemicals in the mix to FORCE amino acids to form? Yet...

evolution is not plausible... it is NOT SCIENCE!!!

how the world got here is NOT SCIENCE!!! you cannot re-create the creation of the world and life on it... it is a HISTORICAL EVENT!!!

That is why creation has more proof than evolution... evolution is proved by science, but it is an event that is not scientific...

Creation has a diety creating things, making it not only a historic, but religious event... There is a leg to stand on when you say you believe that God created things...

there is no leg for evolution because how the world got here is outside the bounds of science...

Oh my goodness, you're as high as a kite on crack. You could use some book-learnin', son.

 

[larry_boy_44]

This is a completely different argument than the one you were making before.  Are you giving up on the previous one?

how so? Because I'm disproving what you think it means I'm arguing something different?

Here's what you initially wrote:

If this isn't what happened, where did the dragon theories come from? Every other human myth has a basis in reality, except dragons...where did they get teh giant lizards from? There is no way ancient man knew enough about lizards to know they never stopped growing, so how'd they come up, in thier heads, with giant lizards?

Your point apparently was that dragons must equal dinosaurs because the people who told stories about dragons could never have come up with such tales on their own. When challenged on that point, you started making different arguments about how lizards today look similar to dinosaur bones. That's a completely different argument.

my point is this:modern lizards = dinosaurs (I said that at the beginning... read the first few posts, I made that point in my first or second post)...dragons = lizards who lived extra long and got bigger...too many people saw them to think otherwise...

 

[larry_boy_44]

Oh my goodness, you're as high as a kite on crack. You could use some book-learnin', son.

really? what was wrong about what I said?

 

[Marvelous]

,Sep 29 2004, 02:17 PM] Scientologist beleive that we were placed here by an alien race and if we deprogram our brains and understand "Thetans" then we can move on to the mother planet or some #### like that. Creationists beleive Man was made by a Deity, then that god took one of man's ribs and made him a female (apparently initially god forgot that man would eventually die and without the ability to procreate his experiment would be pretty shortlived...oops). Then man ate one of god's apples which pissed the diety off...so now we gotta kiss his ### until we die so we can go to the "mother planet" (heaven).

Someone already addressed the kissing God's xxx. I will take issue with the part:

apparently initially god forgot that man would eventually die and without the ability to procreate his experiment would be pretty shortlived...oops)

Per the Bible, there was no death prior to the fall. Also in the Bible, shortly after the fall, people lived a long, long time. And as time goes on, their length of people's lives become shorter and shorter. Genesis is pretty good at stating how long people lived.

 

[MelvinTScupper]

how in the world is something done in a lab spontaneously forming?

seriously, they were MAKING the things appear...

I'm not saying that it can't happen, but until they get more than the "building block of protiens and DNA" you can't say life formed that way...

there is more "evidence" for Creation than Evolution...

What the hell? Scientists aren't sitting there with tweezers assempling cytosine. What a completely uninformed thing to say. The experiment goes like this: this is what we thing the conditions of the earth were. Here's some water, some carbon dioxide, some methane, blah blah blah, all the things that would have been on primitive earth. Then they turn on some electricity and see what happens. They don't manipulate it in any way. The first time this was done, they had no idea what was going to happen. But ta-da, there's the cytosine. It wasn't consciously made by the scientists. To claim it was is sheer ignorance.As for your second bit, wtf? Of course you can. It's FAR more plausible than any other theory to date.

And, crikey would get this through your head, THERE IS ZERO EVIDENCE FOR CREATION. None. Zip. Zilch. NADA! Seriously. NOTHING.

So how did the earth happen?

poofing

 

[CrossEyed]

So how did the earth happen?

Go look up the best theories on-line. There are many.

Oh, the "Go Look It Up Yourself" response. The second sign of a concession, I believe. That didn't take long.

 

[Jericho]

Oh my goodness, you're as high as a kite on crack. You could use some book-learnin', son.

really? what was wrong about what I said?

It was entirely incorrect and shows a complete lack of understanding of science. It would be like if I went around saying 'hunting is wrong because of that Bible passage from the Book of Yubyub in which Jesus went frolicking with bunnies wearing a green toga and a sassy pair of Ray-Bans.'You'd be like "WTF are you talking about dude? You don't have a clue about anything biblical at all, do you?" Well that's how I feel right now about you and anything scientific.

 

[CrossEyed]

how in the world is something done in a lab spontaneously forming?

seriously, they were MAKING the things appear...

I'm not saying that it can't happen, but until they get more than the "building block of protiens and DNA" you can't say life formed that way...

there is more "evidence" for Creation than Evolution...

What the hell? Scientists aren't sitting there with tweezers assempling cytosine. What a completely uninformed thing to say. The experiment goes like this: this is what we thing the conditions of the earth were. Here's some water, some carbon dioxide, some methane, blah blah blah, all the things that would have been on primitive earth. Then they turn on some electricity and see what happens. They don't manipulate it in any way. The first time this was done, they had no idea what was going to happen. But ta-da, there's the cytosine. It wasn't consciously made by the scientists. To claim it was is sheer ignorance.As for your second bit, wtf? Of course you can. It's FAR more plausible than any other theory to date.

And, crikey would get this through your head, THERE IS ZERO EVIDENCE FOR CREATION. None. Zip. Zilch. NADA! Seriously. NOTHING.

So how did the earth happen?

poofing

I thought poofing was something you did to your pillow before you went to bed.

 

[Jericho]

So how did the earth happen?

Go look up the best theories on-line. There are many.

Oh, the "Go Look It Up Yourself" response. The second sign of a concession, I believe. That didn't take long.

First of all, I'm not an astrophysicist. I, unlike arrogant creationists, DON'T CLAIM TO KNOW EVERYTHING.

 

[Captain Quinoa]

That's what you think. Maybe I value sodomy more than salvation.

Of this I have NO doubt.

 

[CrossEyed]

Oh my goodness, you're as high as a kite on crack.  You could use some book-learnin', son.

really? what was wrong about what I said?

It was entirely incorrect and shows a complete lack of understanding of science. It would be like if I went around saying 'hunting is wrong because of that Bible passage from the Book of Yubyub in which Jesus went frolicking with bunnies wearing a green toga and a sassy pair of Ray-Bans.'You'd be like "WTF are you talking about dude? You don't have a clue about anything biblical at all, do you?" Well that's how I feel right now about you and anything scientific.

Jesus wore Killer Loops.

 

[Jericho]

Jesus wore Killer Loops.

Dude had style.

 

[CrossEyed]

So how did the earth happen?

Go look up the best theories on-line. There are many.

Oh, the "Go Look It Up Yourself" response. The second sign of a concession, I believe. That didn't take long.

First of all, I'm not an astrophysicist. I, unlike arrogant creationists, DON'T CLAIM TO KNOW EVERYTHING.

I don't claim to know everything...just that you're wrong about evolution.

 

[Jericho]

So how did the earth happen?

Go look up the best theories on-line. There are many.

Oh, the "Go Look It Up Yourself" response. The second sign of a concession, I believe. That didn't take long.

First of all, I'm not an astrophysicist. I, unlike arrogant creationists, DON'T CLAIM TO KNOW EVERYTHING.

I don't claim to know everything...just that you're wrong about evolution.

You claim to know how the Universe formed. That takes some wrinklies.

 

[bigfun54]

I think that what most of these debates on this board come down to, as I believe this one is, is that the creationists have a real stake in winning this argument as it is line with thier inner core of beliefs. I, speaking only for myself, believe very much in the concept of evolution, but I readily admit that it doesn't answer the question of how did the earth happen? But to me, as a non-creationist, non-christian, it really doesn't matter to me that much. I don't have issue with saying, "I don't know". Creationists by their very belief system, can't say "I don't know" and that is where the disconnect comes. I think that man's pursuit of science to better understand our world and its origins is fascinating and noble, but it hasn't really proved it yet. I will keep waiting and honor the pursuit of knowledge because I don't have the faith to blindly believe. Good stuff as always though.

 

[scorchy]

My dog just chased an 18-inch tall triceratops around the back yard. Damnedest thing I've ever seen.

 

[Captain Quinoa]

Creationists by their very belief system, can't say "I don't know" and that is where the disconnect comes.

I believe, therefore, I know??

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

ok, so how did everything get here? it cannot just be because matter can NEVER be created nor destroyed, so EVENTUALLY there has to be a creator [of matter] ...

Do you see the rather obvious contradiction here?