Did you not ever watch Manmade DNA? I was waiting on this show for about a month and a half:

http://news.discovery.com/tech/syntheti ... -life.html

__________________
The wrath of God is unleashed in the hands of man.
This is their plans; to infect the lands,
to force everyone to meet their demands.

Zizi - that claim is interesting, do you have a link to follow up on it?


Do you have a Bible source which explicitly forbids interracial marriage? I did a bit of searching but couldn't find anything, although marriages between people of different religions is forbidden in both the Old and New Testament.

__________________
Faint as a will o' the wisp
Crazy as a loon
Sad as a gypsy serenading the moon

Helgason, A, Pálsson, S, Guðbjartsson, D, Kristjánsson, þ & Stefánsson, K 2008, 'An Association Between the Kinship and Fertility of Human Couples', Science, vol. 319, no. 5864, pp. 813-816.

p.s. 2000th post

__________________
Three times Wiz Quiz Winner
Since Jan 17, 2008


The Kingdom of God is within you, not in buildings of wood and stone. - Gospel of Thomas

Scanned pics or it didn't publish.

bartoron

__________________

Forgive me for intruding with an entirely noncontributory post, but...



...pretty much sums up how I feel Zizi feels about replying to Tweedy.
Also, congrats on 2,000!

__________________

Goten is dead!

Hmmm? Are you trying to pronounce the author's names?

__________________
Faint as a will o' the wisp
Crazy as a loon
Sad as a gypsy serenading the moon

Blackmage... that .

regardless of other findings, the fact remains that DNA cannot be created in man made experiments or in nature. yet we have DNA. Loving v Virginia: "Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix." This was as recent as half a century ago. I also know that the Bible condones the act of slavery and wanton genocide in multiple places, but, as society has moved beyond such things, they are glossed over by modern-day teachings. (the red highlight was posted by Tahu1000)

The bible infact does not condone slavery nor does it condone wanton genocide. I can summarize any example you bring up with the fact that: While God is not a God of revenge, he condones sticking up for what is right and moral. These people would not turn to him, and they were oppressing his people. He had his people stick up for themselves. And God does not condone slavery lol. On a seperate but related note; my responses are always delayed because I don't get on rv much. I'm quite busy irl.

__________________


"There's nothing to writing. All you do is sit down at a typewriter and open a vein."
Taylor Swift all day 'err day

Kill every single male child and every grown woman, then take the female children as slaves? That doesn't quite seem to be the "right and moral" thing to do. There's a difference between sticking up for oneself and committing atrocities such as genocide. Now, I must admit that I do not know much about the context of this passage, only that Moses had just lead the Israelis to victory against another tribe/nation. I do not know why they were at war with this opposing tribe/nation, but I cannot think of any reason that would make genocide moral. I could probably find multiple instances of similar events in the Bible, not to mention some very intolerant views; one that relates to current issues would be the Bible's assertion that homosexuality is wrong, unnatural, and a sin. To be fair, the Bible was written thousands of years ago; practices and prejudices that we find detestable today were commonplace back then. However, to defend those in modern times is downright wrong.

__________________
Tahu 1000 - Former Member

I love biblical passages that involve women. I REALLY do.

They rank right up there with God sending the bear to slaughter a bunch of children for calling his prophet bald. Churches should stop skipping over that stuff. Less people would fall asleep in the pews.

__________________
It's tough, but I still play. I keep losing, but I still play! - Taichi
Digital Complex is officially launched!

Lets get this straight before i get rage flamed....I DO NOT hate homosexuals! By the same token I do believe it is wrong and that is infact a sin to be homosexual, as it is just another temptation by the devil to stray. Idc how cliche that sounds, because it is the truth. No one is born all bad or good, and no one is born homosexual. You choose to listen to that "little voice of temptation" to give in to whatever tempation is being presented to you. Aside from that, the context is God's chosen people were at odds with everyone in the middle east. They had just won a major battle, and they had gone into the cities of the people (Midians) they just fought. In the cities the israelite men were tempted into premaritial sex with countless women and men. God had forbidden this, and when all of the men committed this, he ordered everyone tainted by it to be killed. It wasn't like he walked into a nursery and started killing babies. The children he talked about killing were the older boys and girls that had defiled themselves against the lord. This was wrong because God rescued the chosen people from slavery, saved them from their oppressors even though they doubted him, cursed him, and worshipped false gods. He killed them because of the sins they committed with them being his chosen people. Don't get me wrong christianity is 100% based around love and forgiveness, and god has since promised never to eradicate the world like he did in the great flood. Before you say "well if i curse god aloud why doens't he kill me?" he has changed from that and gives everyone equal oppurtunity to believe in him or believe in something else.


Recently I did some reading, and watched a documentary about evolution. I found it funny how the base theories of evolution really aren't supported by science. The theory of disuse has been disproven. (If I never walk around or use my legs, they won't fall off, and it has no effect on the legs of my children.) The theory of acquired traits has been disproven. (If I workout and get ripped, and my wife works out and get ripped, our child won't come out of the womb with a six pack.) And all of the intermediate stages of evolution have come up to be nothing more than hopeful guesses. There are over 300,000,000 fossil records in the world. And not one intermediate stage has been shown. The documentary I watched interviewed 15 of the worlds leading professors in biology and evolution. And EVERY one of them; when asked about proof of intermediate stages, came up with the answer "Well we presumed that fossil records would give us some proof of evolution, but we haven't been able to find any evidence yet....." or some variation of that. There are fossil remains of bats and of mice. But not fossils of mice starting to grow wings. There are remains of hippos, bears, and whales. But no bears with flippers, or hippos with blow holes. Why can't evolution give me anymore evidence that that? And about that so called "missing link whale" that the Michigan University Prof found....it was funny how at the exhibit the picture is drawn of an crocidile like creature with flippers and a fluke, but at the exhibit they had no bones for the tale or for the flippers. And on a later date they actually found feet for the croc, not flippers. The tale turned out not to be a fluke either. lol...

__________________


"There's nothing to writing. All you do is sit down at a typewriter and open a vein."
Taylor Swift all day 'err day

I think you need to watch something about evolution by a group that actually supports evolution. It's nice that you looked into it, but you clearly only looked at one side. What you watched clearly didn't know what they were talking about to boot. They were just the typical "I'm not seeing unicorns and/or sprouting wings so evolution can't exist" people.

No, working out won't make your offspring stronger. Giving yourself a physical change won't change your genes. Evolution works by the passing of genes. This is why humans formed the thumbs that we have. Our predecessors that had thumbs that were more opposable than the others of their species had an easier time surviving and the genes of that species that had the weaker thumbs were being weeded out.

You're viewing evolution as some sort of X-men fanfic. In reality it's much smaller than that and has been witnessed by scientists numerous times. I recall scientists once tested a pesticide and would reuse the same insects that didn't die previously. Those insects that were more resistant to the pesticide reproduced while the dead ones... couldn't. Thus the next generation of insects had stronger resistance to the pesticide. Eventually as it continued they had ended up with a batch of insects that was extremely resilient. I never heard what they did with them, though.

That's all evolution is. Weaker traits being weened out while more beneficial traits become more prominent. This is why your rats aren't growing wings. Just because wings might help a rat doesn't mean it's going to magically start growing them. They'd have to start out with small almost non-existant wings and with no benefit from having two odd nubs on their back they would survive just as long as the other rats and reproduce at the same rate (which increases the chance of the new trait being drowned out and lost forever). The closest they would get is webbed legs like the flying squirrels.

As for God not killing people because he changed after he flooded the world:

As I recall the story of Moses comes after the story of Noah's Ark. In case you forgot, God had all of the slaves he rescued killed for not worshipping him afterwords. That sounds about as changed to me as a wife beater going to anger management and saying he was a better person only to beat his wife again a week later.

__________________
It's tough, but I still play. I keep losing, but I still play! - Taichi
Digital Complex is officially launched!

God in fact did not have all the slaves killed. He took them into the desert for 40 years then lead them into the promised land where Joshua took over and became the famed general. He lead them until everyone (bar 2 people) of the first generation of slaves had died. And yes you're right, I muffed up when i said that has since changed because of the flood. The flood did come first, but the message of love remains the same. God doesn't kill people anymore for not believing, or for cursing him/worshipping false gods etc. Get the story straight though, they weren't just killed for not worshipping god, they were committing acts of adultery, paganism, and defiling the 10 commandments he had given them. Which to you may sound harsh and ridiculous, but if the entire red sea was just parted for you, stopped in its tracks so that you could get away from the pharoh. The pharoh's men were killed trying to catch you. He had done all of those things for you, brought you out of slavery, promised to give you a vibrant land full of everything you'll ever want/need. And you go behind his back and worship false gods and spit on his name. You had witnessed first hand all of miracles. It is pretty hard to believe they were audacious enough to do that, but that is why there were punished. The documentary i watched was done by a man, that set out to prove the theory of evolution correct. In the documentary, it specifically said there was no way to send the information from a physical change, to the genes to be passed on. The fact that there were bugs with a natural resistence to pesticides is pretty irrelevant I would say. When smallpox had its run with the indians, some indians were immune correct? The immune indians survived, and had children that were less likely to get smallpox. They weren't a different type of indian, they were just less likely to get smallpox. That is like saying redheaded people are different than people with brown hair. Aside from this the fact remains that there still are no intermediate stages of animals in evolution. I view the evolution theory of today as the spontaneous creation theory of the 17th century. An idea that will die with time and information.

__________________


"There's nothing to writing. All you do is sit down at a typewriter and open a vein."
Taylor Swift all day 'err day

So, basically, while you don't hate homosexual people, you actively deny that their chosen lifestyle (which, I should add, does not harm you in any way, shape, or form) and call it a sin. What if I told you your belief in God was a sin under my belief system? Would you like to have people accuse you of sinning just for doing what you think and feel is right?

Now, back to your continuous, unmerited, and uninformed attacks on evolution:
First, here's a nice intermediate fossil from an unbiased source: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... found.html
A simple Google search will turn up many more, but, as follows from Sturgeon's Law, most of the hits are from biased sources, so watch what you click.
Now, onto one of your major points:

The children with the immunities were, very slightly, genetically different from those without that immunity. Those differences were too small to make a difference, but if a community of organisms is continually subject to environmental stress, differences can accumulate over time and one species can evolve into another. If the community gets split and the new communities get subject to different stresses than each other, then they'll evolve into different species over time. Now, the keyword is time. I'm not talking one, two, or ten generations; I'm talking tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, or even millions of years. The human mind cannot truly understand time on that scale.
As for your view on evolution, Christianity is already dying over time from information. Religion used to be what people used to explain natural phenomenon, but now science can prove how things work (and, before you start going after this statement, I'm referring to things like earthquakes, rain, etc...you cannot dispute that science can explain these). Science is getting ever closer to unraveling the very fabric of the universe and studying the individual threads.

__________________
Tahu 1000 - Former Member

LOL OH MY....they found a lemur congratulations. Scientists are assuming we are direct descendants of that. Sounds like the Indohyus case all over again. Religion isn't intended to be a means of explaining natural phenomenon. But I guess you're going to assume things like that, because well evolution is truly all based on assumptions and guesses. Christianity has been around for a few thousand years. Evolution began with Darwin in the late 1800s. Your point on how science can explain things is really irrelevant being that it doesn't contradict any of my points. You are accusing my opinions of being wrong. You are saying I am wrong for believing christianity, well I am saying you are wrong for participating in an actively homosexual lifestyle. It does affect me in many ways mind you. Gay rights activist affect the laws of my state and country. Their lobbyists affect bills and change the way I live my life. We have to change rules for guys and girls only sports to allow homosexuals to participate in them. I'm not saying my life is drastically more horrid from it, but it does affect me. Oh and I'm tired of you discrediting anything I post as being biased. You post from the smithsonian and from national geographic....two of the most biased sources for evolution. Aside from that the missing link really doesn't show anything. It does NOTHING to link man with ape, and is assumed that we are from the same species. Its just another fossil.

Irrelevant: It is funny when you type in national geographic on the google bar, one of the suggestions is about it being biased lol...so i'm not alone in saying it is.

__________________


"There's nothing to writing. All you do is sit down at a typewriter and open a vein."
Taylor Swift all day 'err day

This is something of a trainwreck, but oh well.


Law of averages says that some of the people you have been playing sport with over the years are homosexual. Or is this one of those "there are no gays in Iran" kind of thing?


It doesn't have to be, but it often is. Zeus and thunderbolts and so on.


That's what some health experts are worried about with infectious diseases. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/na ... 6001782037

__________________
Faint as a will o' the wisp
Crazy as a loon
Sad as a gypsy serenading the moon

It doesn't have to be, but it often is. Zeus and thunderbolts and so on.

Christianity is not meant for this. Surely you can apply it, but the point of the bible is not to answer why the sky is blue.

__________________


"There's nothing to writing. All you do is sit down at a typewriter and open a vein."
Taylor Swift all day 'err day

Ok, Wolff, since we're shooting back and forth over multiple topics in one round of posts, it would be useful if you learned about something called paragraphs, instead of forcing people to dig through your blocks of text.
Now, on to some of your points:

Ok, I'm going to cut straight to the point and say bullcrap. You are not affected by any of the laws the guarantee that people cannot face discrimination because of sexual orientation any more than you're affected by the laws that prevent discrimination due to race or gender.

I'm not going to continue this discussion of missing link fossils and such until you show evidence of reading and comprehending information from an unbiased source on the topic. That lemur fossil was just one example out of many, which disproved your point about there being no transitional fossils. If you want to find evidence for or against a particular transition, specify that one and research it.

I'm not finding much on a bias from National Geographic, and what I can find seems to be claims of bias in their stories on the Middle East. As for the Smithsonian Institute, it's a government-funded educational nonprofit organization. For the purposes of this debate, no one here is qualified to dispute anything said by the Smithsonian.

Now, for quite a while you've been asserting a Demanding of Negative Proof fallacy; you've spent quite a lot of time and effort trying (and, so far, not really succeeding, in my opinion) to poke holes in evolution, abiogenesis, and the like, but you've yet to really provide much in the way of proof for your side of the argument. I'd like to see something from your end, with a few qualifiers:
1. It should be adequately documented and researched. Many eyewitness accounts, and full-motion video if available. Try and keep it modern; anything from the Bible is too old to be really confirmable. Also, it should be supported by one or more unbiased sources (if it's a .org or .com, look again).
2. It needs to show proof supporting the existence of God. Just because scientists (either at the time or now) can't explain it doesn't mean they never will.

__________________
Tahu 1000 - Former Member

Ok I'll clean this up for you a bit, with color/number coding.

#1 For the qualifying rules should definately be revamped. Apparently anything past 2000 years old is too old to be verified? Ok so we can't verify evolution either then because it supposedly occurs slowly over millions of years. Evidence is apparently automatically biased if the site is a .com or .org. National Geographic must be biased then, because indeed it ends with a .com.

For your 2nd rule, you need to take some of your own medicine. So apparently if I don't have an answer to something, I can just say well we will find proof with time. Awesome...

Blue: Gay rights laws affect the politics of people accross America. Gay rights groups affect many bills, and bring up a constitutionality question with many long standing laws and policies. It is unfair and quite idiotic of you to assume that in no way do these laws, or bills affect me. It affects my state (Indiana) as we typically vote Republican (although in 2008 we voted Democratic). You are seen as a "gay-loving baby killer" if you are a Democrat. So it definately affects the way we do politics and who gets into office.

Green: The lemur fossil like many fossils that have been supposed at the missing link, has a unique characteristic. It has special opposable thumbs a more human like, so scientists assume things. They assume she (Ida) is a direct descendant of humans. It could in no way shape or form be another lemur, or perhaps a new lemur, it has to be more than that. It is most definately a direct descendant of man. 'She belongs to the group from which higher primates and human beings developed but my impression is she is not on the direct line,' he said. But he, like the other researchers, is still not certain. Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... z1DgCm6heJ

He had an impression, so without any further research people will take it as a fact. Another thing I must point out is that, while most lemurs have forward facing eyes, she uniquely had opposable thumbs. Ida was then classified as she is a new species. She was named Darwinius masillae, to mark the bicentenary of Charles Darwin's birth. Ok so what you found is a new species of lemur. This isn't a regular lemur that evolved into opposable thumbs. Researchers found a COMPLETELY NEW species of lemur. This isn't some half human half lemur spectacle. Everything else about this lemur (That she is the missing link) is all spectulation. For example:

In the Guardian piece, based on an interview for Atlantic Productions, Sir David finished: 'Ida is a link between the apes, monkeys and us with the rest of the mammals and ultimately the whole animal kingdom. I think Darwin would have been thrilled.'

But others are more cautious.

Dr Henry Gee, a senior editor at the journal Nature, said the use of the term 'missing link' was misleading.

And Dr Chris Beard, of America's Carnegie Museum of Natural History, said: 'I would be absolutely dumbfounded if it turns out to be a potential ancestor to humans.'

Scientists are very misleading in the information they display, and the information they withhold.

In the September 2005 issue of National Geographic, Joel Achenbach asserted that human evolution is a "fact" but he also candidly admitted that the field of paleoanthropology "has again become a rather glorious mess."[4][5] In the same National Geographic article Harvard paleoanthropologist Dan Lieberman states, "We're not doing a very good job of being honest about what we don't know...".

I have to go to class now, and I will update this when I get back. Happy reading for now.

__________________


"There's nothing to writing. All you do is sit down at a typewriter and open a vein."
Taylor Swift all day 'err day

I keep reading "scientists assume" in all of your posts.

Scientists are at least performing research.

Last I checked Christians assume the bible is true but have no way of proving it. As you've stated yourself the only reason you believe it is because you want to believe it. On that note I don't think you can really knock on scientists for not being able to prove that this or that was a prelude to humans.

This is going back and forth so I'll just bring in this small little note. If there's no evolution of species through natural selection and/or breeding then how do you explain the species that have appeared throughout the last few hundred years that humanity has indeed observed the creation of. Such as the liger, a new species that came from two different species breeding together. We've also seen new breeds of dogs and cats come to be through the breeding process as well. According to you this can't happen because evolution is just a myth.

__________________
It's tough, but I still play. I keep losing, but I still play! - Taichi
Digital Complex is officially launched!