Evolution? Intelligent Design? God did it all in 7 days?

[Doove]

Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

Sorry, but I don't suffer fools gladly.

I think Doove can attest to that? (Right, Doove?)

Symptoms of this (narcissistic) disorder, as defined by the DSM-IV-TR include[1]:

• Reacting to criticism with anger, (see post 486)
  
• Exaggerating own importance, achievements, and talents (see above)

Originally Posted by ExNYer

Yeah, he should have waited until post 349 and told everybody they'd better hope God doesn't exist:

http://www.eccie.net/showpost.php?p=...&postcount=349

That would have been the appropriate spot.

Really? That's the comeback?

Clearly you have no idea what i'm even referring to.

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by Doove

Really? That's the comeback?

Clearly you have no idea what i'm even referring to.

You criticized the way he entered the thread (even though that wasn't where he entered the thread).

I figured your post at 349 must be the proper way, right?

[Yssup Rider]

Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

Fuck you- and when did you hear me put my beliefs on anyone- if you want to worship zeus that's your business- Ex-Nyer stated his beliefs I stated mine- quote me where I said my religion is right your religion is wrong blah blah blah- and trust me I have forgotten more things in life than you will ever learn and once again Fuck you and the horse you rode on. What I can't stand when someone is having a debate is to attack the other person and call him looney or claim that everyone who believes opposite of what you believe is drunk, a liar, or on drugs- you want to jump in the middle of the convo with your little snide as marks so again fuck you- now I see why COG, Joe Bloe, and Whirlway find you to be a jack ass and the dipshit of the year and for the record when it comes to religion my views are very conservative- see there COG and WW I am not a total liberal on all issues.

Like I said bro, believe what you want, but give the Bible Thumping a rest. Are you trying to impress the dipshit contingent with your "conservative" religious views?

I didn't attack you. I asked you to give it a rest. You responded with a pontificating attack, not without a fair modicum of foaming at the mouth.

apparently I'm not the only one at whom you're now lashing out.

give it a rest!

[Doove]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

You criticized the way he entered the thread (even though that wasn't where he entered the thread).

I figured your post at 349 must be the proper way, right?

Not if you have no idea why i commented on the way he entered the thread.

Maybe CM can fill you in. I don't feel the need right now.

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

Hmmm let's see: In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The operative word being "heavens" which is plural.
I'm not sure what your point is. Maybe my mistake is assuming you have one.

The term "the heavens" was and is used to refer to the "heavenly bodies" that you see in the sky. In other words, the sun, the moon, the stars, Mars, Venus, the constellations - all the things that ancient man and modern man can see by looking up. It doesn't refer to multiple "heavens" or afterlifes, if that is what you are trying to say.

And let me first state I am Christian- but even the Quran- which tells nearly the same identical story of the creation also says this in 56:80"
They tell the same creation story because the are an Abrahamic religion. They used the SAME ancient books as Christians and Jews.

Most surely it is an honored Quran, (77) In a book that is protected (78) None shall touch it save the purified ones. (79) A revelation by the Lord of the worlds. (80)

John 8:23 : And he said to them, “You are from below and I am from above. You are from this world; I am not from this world.”

So here Jesus clearly tells his disciples he's not from earth- actually by definition Jesus is an E.T or you can technically say an Alien and not be out of context. Angels and demons are by context and definition ET's- the problem many people make with the Bible is that they read it and translate in into modern terms- which you can't do.
Actually, ET means "extraterrestrial". That means another planet. An actual, physical planet - the kind we could at least see in a telescope if we had one strong enough. So "by definition" (for an ET), Jesus, the angels, and the demons must come from another planet - NOTfrom heaven or hell or some invisible dimension. That means the parts of the Bible that say Jesus was born of Mary - in the usual 9 month process - are wrong. Or is that one of those parts of the Bible that modern people are reading wrong because they translated it into modern terms?

Nowhere in the Bible does it say Angels have "bird wings" and Demons have horns and tails. The word Angel in Hebrew actually means "messenger"- the Bible actually mentions various times Angels bringing messages to man- so how do Angels travel? If you are simple minded you will think that Angels are flapping their "bird wings" to get around. If you are more open minded you would believe that Angels if they are being sent by God probably are using some type of craft (i.e space craft).
Actually, if you believe in angels AT ALL, then you are extremely simple minded, not open-minded.

Also, if you are simple minded you might believe that the prophet Elijah got carried away in a chariot of "fire" with horses flying away into the sky- if you are more open minded you might believe that people in those days had no idea of how to explain a space craft so they had to use something to compare it to- do you think in present day 2013 if the space shuttle landed in a remote village in a third world country that had never seen a plane/jet how do you think they would describe the space shuttle? The may call it a gigantic bird with fire coming from it's tail- if someone was to read what they wrote thousands of years later they may laugh and say : what kind of bird has fire coming from their tails..." Wake up folks!!!!

Ghost are supernatural spirits and it is mentioned in the Bible as well:

Matthew 14: 25-27 (NIV)
During the fourth watch of the night Jesus went out to them, walking on the lake. When the disciples saw him walking on the lake, they were terrified. "It's a ghost," they said, and cried out in fear. But Jesus immediately said to them: "Take courage! It is I. Don't be afraid."

Say, WE1911, do you consult "myFACTS" in order to get your creationism arguments?

Gary Trudeau re-posted a useful strip today:



Talk about excellent timing.

It explains a lot. Not in a good way.

[Texas Contrarian]

Originally Posted by Doove

Not if you have no idea why i commented on the way he entered the thread.

It's not exactly a mystery. I doubt that anyone participating in this forum doesn't know why you jumped in to take a shot at me. You've been doing that regularly for two or three years, going back to the Diamonds and Tuxedos forum!

Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

Sorry, but I don't suffer fools gladly.


I think Doove can attest to that. (Right, Doove?)

Originally Posted by Doove

Symptoms of this (narcissistic) disorder, as defined by the DSM-IV-TR include[1]:

• Reacting to criticism with anger, (see post 486)
  
• Exaggerating own importance, achievements, and talents (see above)

Sorry, Doove. Wrong answer!

The reason I assumed you know full well that I don't suffer fools gladly is perfectly exemplified by this thread:

http://www.eccie.net/showthread.php?t=455840&highlight=

You popped off obnoxiously, stupidly claiming that you had "debunked" what I posted, even though it was clear that you had absolutely no understanding of the subject under discussion. A bit embarrassing wasn't it?

Sorry, but when you fail to even make any effort to understand what you're saying, you shouldn't be surprised when others lose patience while attempting to carry on a reasoned discussion with you.

[CuteOldGuy]

Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

see there COG and WW I am not a total liberal on all issues.

Well, you're pissing off all the people here that are the funniest to see come unglued, so there must be some good in you. I can appreciate that!

[Doove]

Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

You've been doing that regularly for two or three years, going back to the Diamonds and Tuxedos forum!

The reason I assumed you know full well that I don't suffer fools gladly is perfectly exemplified by this thread:

http://www.eccie.net/showthread.php?t=455840&highlight=

You popped off obnoxiously, stupidly claiming that you had "debunked" what I posted, even though it was clear that you had absolutely no understanding of the subject under discussion. A bit embarrassing wasn't it?

One thread in three years. And your need to try to again convince people you were right in a conversation that took place nearly a year ago (isn't this the third time you've brought up that thread?).....isn't that another sign of narcissism? Being obsessed with self, seeking positive reinforcement, etc etc etc.

I'll save EXNYer all the childish & narcissistic details you've chosen to leave out about our history. I suspect you won't be able to resist the urge (or tell the truth), but nevertheless, i'll leave the dirty work for you.

Have at it, big guy!

[wellendowed1911]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Like I said bro, believe what you want, but give the Bible Thumping a rest. Are you trying to impress the dipshit contingent with your "conservative" religious views?

I didn't attack you. I asked you to give it a rest. You responded with a pontificating attack, not without a fair modicum of foaming at the mouth.

apparently I'm not the only one at whom you're now lashing out.

give it a rest!

I am extending an olive branch to you Yssup- can we agree to disagree and I take back the dipshit remark since that clearly belongs to COG.

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

As always you are making conjectures how the hell do you know that "heavens" only pertained to what they could see??? You are acting as if you did the research and you 100% conclusively know what the writer of the Book of Genesis meant.
I was referring to the common usage of the word "heavens" throughout history. At least in the English language. And how do YOU or any other Bible thumper know what the writer of Genesis meant? How do you know it referred to other planets that we cannot see? That is just a strained interpretation meant to fit your agenda that the Bible "predicts" other planets - like it somehow qualifies as science.

I see you have no response to the Quranic version which any translations states God as being the sustainer of "worlds" not the world, but worlds.
I did not reply about the Quran because "worlds" is a translation from Arabic and neither you nor I know the exact meaning of the original. However, I suspect it means something similar to "planets" or "heavenly bodies", which would STILL mean that they were referring to the moon, Venus, Mars, maybe even stars, or just plain guessing there were other planets out there in the sky.

Also, the Quran is NOT an ancient book, like Genesis. it was written in the 700s and was written by people with a relatively good knowledge of astronomy and other sciences. That is why so many stars have Arabic names. So the use of the word "worlds" doesn't prove ANYTHING about divine revelations. Or is that too much common sense for you too handle?

I'm sure the Book of Mormon mentions other planets. In fact, I think that Mormons believe that, after you die, everybody gets their own planet. Of course, it was written in the 1800s, so I doubt it proves that Joseph Smith was getting divine revelations.

If it makes me simple minded to believe in Angels than what does it make you to believe apes involved into humans and that a big explosion created planets.
It means I am science minded.

Also, if you know anything about science- humans have 46 chromosomes 13 from each parent- apes and chimpanzees have 48- can you explain to me how apes involved into humans by losing 2 whole chromosomes in the process?
I doubt evolution has a complete explanation. It is a work in progress. However, I am POSITIVE the explanation is more fact-based than Genesis or any "theory" of intelligent design or creationism.

According to the laws of meiosis this is impossible: Since I'm not an expert, and you probably want to refresh your memory, here's some information on the subject: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meiosis The reason I'm bringing meiosis up is this: as you can clearly see an offspring receives half of its chromosomes from one parent and half from another. Because of this an offspring has exactly the same amount of chromosomes as his or her parents. No exceptions.

No exceptions? So, I guess people with an XXY 47th chromosome don't exist? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klinefelter_syndrome

If it were to lose chromosomes- you get birth defects not entire new species.
And you know this how?

I notice you've gone silent on the issue of space aliens coming to earth. In fact, you've gone silent on the whole paranormal scam. Does that mean you have no response to my explanation about why space aliens have never visited earth?

[Chica Chaser]

Originally Posted by JCM800

i love the direction this thread has now taken.... nice curveball

Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

Curveballs seem to be standard fare in this forum!

Indeed. Don't you just love the Sandbox!

[Guest032516]

Double post.

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

Also, if you know anything about science- humans have 46 chromosomes 13 from each parent- apes and chimpanzees have 48- can you explain to me how apes evolved into humans by losing 2 whole chromosomes in the process?

According to the laws of meiosis this is impossible. I read the link you posted. Show me where is says that a change in the number of chromosomes is impossible? Or did you just make that up?

Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

Since I'm not an expert (Clearly you are not. That is the FIRST thing you have written that I actually agree with), and you probably want to refresh your memory, here's some information on the subject:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meiosis
The reason I'm bringing meiosis up is this: as you can clearly see an offspring receives half of its chromosomes from one parent and half from another. Because of this an offspring has exactly the same amount of chromosomes as his or her parents. No exceptions.
Again, where does meiosis article say that it is NOT possible for the number of chromosomes to differ as a result of genetic abnormality? And meiosis contrasts with mitosis. What about THAT process?

Do you even READ the links you post? The Wiki article you cited even mentions theories about how meiosis EVOLVED from other processes, including mitosis.

Read the part that comes after the section title "Origin and Function". Here is one of the juicier bits:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are two conflicting theories on how meiosis arose. One is that meiosis evolved from bacterial sex (called transformation) during the evolution of eukaryotes. The other is that meiosis arose from mitosis.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
What do you say NOW?

Is there anything else you would like to misquote?

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

Evolution flunks the science test

Irreducible complexity——Biochemists and microbiologists have discovered that the various components of every living creature in the world are so complicated and interrelated, that it could not function without every one of them. There is no way that some of the parts could have been added later.
Links? i don't believe anything you post about science.

Instantaneous complexity——Each entire living creature had to be totally assembled instantly, in order for it to begin living. What the hell does THAT mean? You do know that you "began" living as a single cell at the moment of conception. And you were NOT totally assembled instantly. It took 9 months to complete you. Although frankly, I think your brain was let half-finished. If this was not done, parts would decay before other parts were made. All aspects had to be there together, all at once.

Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

Again, what the hell does THAT mean?
Links? i don't believe anything you post about science.

Mathematically impossible——Mathematicians have found that the likelihood of DNA, enzymes, amino acids, and proteins being randomly assembled by the chance methods offered by evolutionary theory is impossible.
Links? i don't believe anything you post about science.

Now Ex-Nyer are you going to reply and say the Microbiologist, BioChemist, and Mathematicians whom I will assume know a lot more about their subject than you or I are all liars, drunks and/or on drugs? Again, stop putting words in my mouth. Or Assup's.

Links?

[wellendowed1911]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

Do you even READ the links you post? The Wiki article you cited even mentions theories about how meiosis EVOLVED from other processes, including mitosis.

Read the part that comes after the section title "Origin and Function". Here is one of the juicier bits:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are two conflicting theories on how meiosis arose. One is that meiosis evolved from bacterial sex (called transformation) during the evolution of eukaryotes. The other is that meiosis arose from mitosis.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
What do you say NOW?

Is there anything else you would like to misquote?

I think you need to re-read the definition and the link provided and scroll to the bottom they clearly gives you the results of meiosis going wrong: In humans, there are certain conditions that are caused by a meiosis gone wrong. Examples are:
Down Syndrome - trisomy of chromosome 21
Patau Syndrome - trisomy of chromosome 13
Edward Syndrome - trisomy of chromosome 18
Klinefelter Syndrome - extra X chromosomes in males - i.e. XXY, XXXY, XXXXY
Turner Syndrome - lacking of one X chromosome in females - i.e. XO
Triple X syndrome - an extra X chromosome in females
XYY syndrome - an extra Y chromosome in males

You don't get species involving into whole new species you get MAJOR birth defects of the same species. Better yet can you give me a PROVEN example of meiosis going wrong and producing a new species- and a superior species at that?