Welcome to ECCIE, become a part of the fastest growing adult community. Take a minute & sign up!

Welcome to ECCIE - Sign up today!

Become a part of one of the fastest growing adult communities online. We have something for you, whether you’re a male member seeking out new friends or a new lady on the scene looking to take advantage of our many opportunities to network, make new friends, or connect with people. Join today & take part in lively discussions, take advantage of all the great features that attract hundreds of new daily members!

Go Premium

Go Back   ECCIE Worldwide > General Interest > The Sandbox - National
test
The Sandbox - National The Sandbox is a collection of off-topic discussions. Humorous threads, Sports talk, and a wide variety of other topics can be found here.

Most Favorited Images
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
Most Liked Images
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
Top Reviewers
cockalatte 650
MoneyManMatt 490
Jon Bon 406
Still Looking 399
samcruz 399
Harley Diablo 377
honest_abe 362
DFW_Ladies_Man 313
Chung Tran 288
lupegarland 287
Starscream66 285
nicemusic 285
You&Me 281
George Spelvin 273
sharkman29 256
Top Posters
DallasRain70870
biomed164201
Yssup Rider61772
gman4453564
LexusLover51038
offshoredrilling48949
WTF48267
pyramider46370
bambino43221
The_Waco_Kid37776
CryptKicker37281
Mokoa36497
Chung Tran36100
Still Looking35944
Mojojo33117

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 02-28-2013, 08:00 PM   #526
jbravo_123
Verified Member
 
jbravo_123's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 7, 2012
Location: Houston
Posts: 2,548
Encounters: 15
Default

Even if someone doesn't believe in Evolution, that doesn't mean that their particular religion's creation story is the correct one. Ie, why should someone believe in your religion's creation story over all the other religions out there?
jbravo_123 is offline   Quote
Old 02-28-2013, 08:01 PM   #527
Guest032516
Account Disabled
 
Join Date: Apr 1, 2009
Location: TBD
Posts: 7,435
Encounters: 33
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by joe bloe View Post
What is science's explanation for how something came from nothing. Saying that the Big Bang was the beginning of everything doesn't answer the fundamental question. If there is no Creator, where did all the stuff come from? There couldn't be a Big Bang if there was nothing to explode.
I just criticized him for changing the subject when he couldn't rebut the science-based arguments about why ETs have not visited the earth.

And you double-down on his non-answer by ALSO changing the subject?

I don't KNOW how life began. Neither does science. They are still working on that. However, the absence of a scientific explanation does NOT prove the existence of either God, angels, UFOs or aliens.
Guest032516 is offline   Quote
Old 02-28-2013, 08:02 PM   #528
Yssup Rider
Valued Poster
 
Yssup Rider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 3, 2010
Location: Clarksville
Posts: 61,772
Encounters: 67
Default

Cany you say TEDIOUS?
Yssup Rider is offline   Quote
Old 02-28-2013, 08:06 PM   #529
Guest032516
Account Disabled
 
Join Date: Apr 1, 2009
Location: TBD
Posts: 7,435
Encounters: 33
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wellendowed1911 View Post
Chica chaser just to clarify I do believe meteors hit the earth- Ex-Nyer's logic is well how come Aliens don't land on white house lawn or middle of large city- which to me proves nothing- a meteor has to my knowledge have hit a large populated city or the white house lawn- so my point because UFO's don't land on the white house lawn doesn't mean they don't exist.
Your "logic", such as it is, has been rebutted.

Aliens can STEER a spaceship and land it SOFTLY. They don't hit the earth in random spots at tremendous speed. So the likelihood is they WOULD land somewhere where there is lots of civilization.

So your meteor example proves nothing.

I can't believe I had to explain such an obvious fault.
Guest032516 is offline   Quote
Old 02-28-2013, 08:07 PM   #530
Guest032516
Account Disabled
 
Join Date: Apr 1, 2009
Location: TBD
Posts: 7,435
Encounters: 33
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chica Chaser View Post
A very cool place to visit, definitely not the big city though!
Well, not the big city anymore...
Guest032516 is offline   Quote
Old 02-28-2013, 08:11 PM   #531
JCM800
Ambassador
 
JCM800's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 23, 2012
Location: Kansas City
Posts: 13,233
Encounters: 29
Default

JCM800 is offline   Quote
Old 02-28-2013, 08:24 PM   #532
joe bloe
Valued Poster
 
joe bloe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 10, 2010
Location: Houston
Posts: 5,740
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ExNYer View Post
I just criticized him for changing the subject when he couldn't rebut the science-based arguments about why ETs have not visited the earth.

And you double-down on his non-answer by ALSO changing the subject?

I don't KNOW how life began. Neither does science. They are still working on that. However, the absence of a scientific explanation does NOT prove the existence of either God, angels, UFOs or aliens.
Forgive me if I hijacked the thread. Having said that, my question is not regarding the scientific explanation of life; my question is, what is the scientific explanation of why there is anything at all. How did something come from nothing? I would have more respect for science if Deism was the norm among scientists instead of atheism. The Deist view is that God created the Universe and then just sort of sat back and watched.

Deism (i/ˈd.ɪzəm/[1][2] or /ˈd.ɪzəm/) is the belief that reason and observation of the natural world are sufficient to determine the existence of God, accompanied with the rejection of revelation and authority as a source of religious knowledge.
joe bloe is offline   Quote
Old 02-28-2013, 08:32 PM   #533
Guest032516
Account Disabled
 
Join Date: Apr 1, 2009
Location: TBD
Posts: 7,435
Encounters: 33
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wellendowed1911 View Post
Ex-Nyer please responds to these hypothesis:
No, I asked you to post links for this first, so I can see how you are distorting what was written. You have clearly cut-and-pasted it from somewhere. I want to know where.

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.
Post links so I can see how you are distorting what was written.

Instantaneous complexity——Each entire living creature had to be totally assembled instantly, in order for it to begin living. If this was not done, parts would decay before other parts were made. All aspects had to be there together, all at once.
Post links so I can see how you are distorting what was written.

Those 2 above dismisses evolution big time.
No they don't. I already told you in an earlier post that they look like distortions.

I gave you two simple scenarios earlier in the thread:
No, go back and read the earlier responses. Your bogus giraffe and cheetah examples were already rebutted. Why would a fast sloth have to evolve? Why would a slow cheetah have to evolve? You just throw out ridiculous statements like they are "facts" and demand others disprove them.

The giraffe has a special flap in it' brain that prevents it from fainting from hypotension whenever it drops it's long neck for a drank and bring it back up at a 9 degree angle- remember evolution says it "evolved" the long neck despite no fossils of a short neck giraffe ever being found- who knows maybe one day they will find the short neck giraffe fossils alongside the fossils of the extinct fast moving sloth and slow moving cheetah fossils.
Bullshit, there is evidence that giraffes and okapis evolved from a common ancestor that had a shorter neck like the okapi. And the fact that the fossil record is incomplete for individual species does NOT prove that evolution is false. It proves that very few - if any - fossils survived millions of years of decay intact.

Bottomline either the giraffe had the design from the beginning or it fainted every time it dipped his head- you can't not even remotely dispute this fact- Or the Woodpecker either was designed the way we know it today or the Woodpecker had his brain scrambled and or a massive headache every time it drilled into a tree- sorry you can not evolve those things.
Bullshit, see above.

Ex-Nyer take Fire for example in order to have fire you have to have 3 things: Oxygen, heat, and fuel- take anyone of those 3 out of the equation and guess what? there's no fire- there was never a point in time where you can make a fire with just 2 of those components and the other component "evolved" millions of years later- sorry it just doesn't work that way.
That example is utterly ridiculous. I have no idea what it even means. Are you sure it wasn't YOUR brain - not the woodpecker's - that got scrambled.

Evolution says that a speicies undergoes small incremental changes across many changes until a new species emerges. So ALL of the building blocks are already present in the earlier generation. Then they are modified slightly in the way they are combined, or sized, or shaped.


Again when do you get order out of chaos- you are going to tell me the Big Band produce elaborate planets that contains life????
The Big Bang produced all the matter in the universe. Gravity clumped the matter together to create the stars and the planets. Eventually, the abundant chemicals on the surfaces of the planets formed simple protein building blocks that someday became life. Even if you assume that some powerful intellect caused the proteins to become life by merging them into ever larger compounds, that might be evidence of a "god", but it doesn't prove anything in Genesis or the rest of the Bible to be true.

It's as absurd as crashing a car at 100mph into a brick wall and the brick wall becomes a beautiful sculpture and the car turns into a ferrari-
Another DUMB example. Neither the brick wall nor the Ferrari reproduces across thousands of generations. So, this example has absolutely NO relation to the theory of evolution. Would you please read a science book that explains evolution so you have at least some knowledge of what you are talking about when you try to dream of comparisons?.
Any more bad examples you would like to make?
Guest032516 is offline   Quote
Old 02-28-2013, 08:36 PM   #534
wellendowed1911
Account Disabled
 
wellendowed1911's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 12, 2010
Location: allen, texas
Posts: 6,044
Encounters: 85
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ExNYer View Post
Your "logic", such as it is, has been rebutted.

Aliens can STEER a spaceship and land it SOFTLY. They don't hit the earth in random spots at tremendous speed. So the likelihood is they WOULD land somewhere where there is lots of civilization.

So your meteor example proves nothing.

I can't believe I had to explain such an obvious fault.
Ex-Nyer this following logic doesn't' work: " Well God doesn't exist because why doesn't God appear and show us that he exist" or God can't exist because we have suffering in this world..." Neither one of the statements prove anything.
How do you know Aliens are not just observing who know what their mission is- you are speaking in hypothetical terms- I almost certain that Aliens look at us like we are ants. Do you realize that every year scientist find different life forms that we didn't know exist?

However, you keep on this notion that because Aliens don't land on the white house lawn and knock on the door and meet President Obama that somehow they can't exist- if they are a superior race at least intellectually how do you know they we might be ants in their eyes.- When you walk pass an ant mound did you dig it up and look for the queen ant?

So tell me were the 3 astronaut high on some new drugs when they claimed to have seen a UFO while on a space mission? Or maybe it was some soviet spy jet that was spying on them in space????? How much more credible can you get than an astronaut? Also, Soviet astronaut are also on record stating they have seen UFO's on space missions- how can you refute these claims- what now is your defense going to be that somehow the U.S had an advanced spy plan that was able to fly into space- monitor the soviets than fly back down to earth?
wellendowed1911 is offline   Quote
Old 02-28-2013, 08:50 PM   #535
wellendowed1911
Account Disabled
 
wellendowed1911's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 12, 2010
Location: allen, texas
Posts: 6,044
Encounters: 85
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ExNYer View Post
Any more bad examples you would like to make?
No- it's your time to produce links- show me fossils of a short neck giraffe???? Show me the fossils of a wood pecker that didn't have a special membrane around it's brain to prevent it's brain from scrambling it's brain every time it drilled into a tree? Can a cardinal drill into a tree like a woodpecker? Can a raven or a crow do it- Hell No!!! Obviously the woodpecker was DESIGNED!!!
Show me the fossils of the slow moving cheetah and I will end this discussion and delete my account- Cheetah as I said a million times has a flexible spinal chord- no other cat: jaguar, puma, lion,tiger or leopard has a flexible spinal chord- the cheetah has Over sized lungs for sucking in Oxygen at great speed the Cheetah is the only cat that doesn't have retractable claws- why because it's better for gripping when running at high speed- similar to cleats on running shoes, the cheetah although no where the biggest cat in the feline family but it has the longest tail in the feline family and the tail acts as a rudder for balance on sharp turns- the cheetah has very light bones- the cheetah nostrils are wider than any other cats- why again to take in more oxygen- NOW FOR THE MILLIONTH TIME CAN YOU NOT UNDERSTAND THAT THE CHEETAH BASED ON WHAT I JUST DESCRIBED WAS DESIGNED FOR SPEED??
The leopard hunts the same prey as the cheetah- but is nowhere as fast as the cheetah- nor has any of those attributes of the cheetah- however the leopard is stronger and is the only cat whose ankles and paw come inward which makes the leopard very skilled at climbing trees- hey watch a few national geographic films- a leopard kills his prey and it can hoist the prey up a tree unlike any other cat- was the leopards paws and ankles a result of evolution or design? If you say evolution please show me the link of the leopard didn't didn't have paw that turned inward.

You are unable o disprove anything- where are your links?
wellendowed1911 is offline   Quote
Old 02-28-2013, 09:04 PM   #536
Yssup Rider
Valued Poster
 
Yssup Rider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 3, 2010
Location: Clarksville
Posts: 61,772
Encounters: 67
Default

God rest ye merry gentleman!
Yssup Rider is offline   Quote
Old 02-28-2013, 10:58 PM   #537
Guest032516
Account Disabled
 
Join Date: Apr 1, 2009
Location: TBD
Posts: 7,435
Encounters: 33
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wellendowed1911 View Post
Ex-Nyer this following logic doesn't' work: " Well God doesn't exist because why doesn't God appear and show us that he exist" or God can't exist because we have suffering in this world..." Neither one of the statements prove anything.
I have no idea how that is relevant to anything I have said.

How do you know Aliens are not just observing who know what their mission is- you are speaking in hypothetical terms- I almost certain that Aliens look at us like we are ants.
Perhaps. But that begs the question - WHY WOULD YOU HIDE FROM ANTS? You don't, do you?
Do you realize that every year scientist find different life forms that we didn't know exist?
That proves evolution, right?

However, you keep on this notion that because Aliens don't land on the white house lawn and knock on the door and meet President Obama that somehow they can't exist- if they are a superior race at least intellectually how do you know they we might be ants in their eyes. WHY WOULD YOU HIDE FROM ANTS?- When you walk pass an ant mound did you dig it up and look for the queen ant?
Maybe. BUT I WOULD NOT HIDE FROM THE ANTS

So tell me were the 3 astronaut high on some new drugs when they claimed to have seen a UFO while on a space mission? Or maybe it was some soviet spy jet that was spying on them in space????? How much more credible can you get than an astronaut? Also, Soviet astronaut are also on record stating they have seen UFO's on space missions- how can you refute these claims- what now is your defense going to be that somehow the U.S had an advanced spy plan that was able to fly into space- monitor the soviets than fly back down to earth?
FOR THE 99TH TIME - STOP TRYING TO PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH.

I don't have time to review all of the UFO links. But I did skim the Buzz Aldrin one. They have no footage of what Aldrin supposedly saw. Instead they showed video footage of something that was supposedly seen outside another Apollo flight. And they never say if they figured out what that object was. They just show footage of something else while they tell the story of what Aldrin supposedly saw. That alone tells me the whole thing is suspiciously edited. So, no, that doesn't prove anything.
If they saw an object outside Apollo 11 and it tracked along with them, then the odds are 99.9% that it was a piece of debris from their own rocket that got jarred loose after the last stage separated and drifted slowly away.
Guest032516 is offline   Quote
Old 02-28-2013, 11:39 PM   #538
Guest032516
Account Disabled
 
Join Date: Apr 1, 2009
Location: TBD
Posts: 7,435
Encounters: 33
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wellendowed1911 View Post
No- it's your time to produce links- show me fossils of a short neck giraffe?
I've already told you that the lack of complete fossil records does NOT prove that the giraffe did not evolve from an earlier species. It means that very few fossils have been found yet. Just how many people do you think are looking for them? how mush money do you think is available to search for them? And the lack of fossil records does NOT prove the giraffe was made whole and complete by God. Do you not understand that?

Show me the fossils of a wood pecker that didn't have a special membrane around it's brain to prevent it's brain from scrambling it's brain every time it drilled into a tree?
No, because then it wouldn't be a woodpecker would it? The woodpecker evolved from some OTHER bird that did NOT have such a membrane. Over many generations, the membrane built up and earlier versions of the woodpecker were able to peck a little bit harder at soft woods, and then a little bit harder at slighter firm woods, until finally we get the modern woodpecker. And again, how much money and manpower do you think is available to hunt for woodpecker fossils? The fossil record is and will always be incomplete as a matter of simple economics.

Can a cardinal drill into a tree like a woodpecker?
No, because it did not evolve in the same way.

Can a raven or a crow do it- No, because it did not evolve in the same way.

Obviously the woodpecker was DESIGNED!!!
No, the woodpecker obviously EVOLVED. If you think it was designed, answer this - What was the designer thinking? Why did he/it think he needed to design a bird that slammed it's beak into wood? Why couldn't it continue to eat insects on the surface of wood like other birds? it is a pointless design. However, if it evolved as an adaptation that enabled the earlier species to get more food, then it makes sense from an evolutionary viewpoint.

Show me the fossils of the slow moving cheetah and I will end this discussion and delete my account- Cheetah as I said a million times has a flexible spinal chord- no other cat: jaguar, puma, lion,tiger or leopard has a flexible spinal chord-
What the fuck are you talking about? ALL cats have flexible spinal chords. In fact, so do humans.

the cheetah has Over sized lungs for sucking in Oxygen at great speed the Cheetah is the only cat that doesn't have retractable claws- why because it's better for gripping when running at high speed- similar to cleats on running shoes, the cheetah although no where the biggest cat in the feline family but it has the longest tail in the feline family and the tail acts as a rudder for balance on sharp turns- the cheetah has very light bones- the cheetah nostrils are wider than any other cats- why again to take in more oxygen- NOW FOR THE MILLIONTH TIME CAN YOU NOT UNDERSTAND THAT THE CHEETAH BASED ON WHAT I JUST DESCRIBED WAS DESIGNED FOR SPEED??
No, all of those features are EVOLVED adaptations that enabled the cheetah, little by little, to become faster. That gave it certain advantages to catch small, but fast, prey that a lion could not catch (like a gazelle). Other cats evolved differently. Lions evolved to be big and powerful. So a lion can bring down a water buffalo that a cheetah could never touch. NEITHER species is inherently better or special. Why do you always harp on the cheetah? Why don't you demand to know why the lion is big and strong? You make the same mistake as other creationists. You look at the finished product that has resulted from millions of years of adaptation and you think "DESIGNED!" That bullshit

You have zero PROOF of the existence of a designer. And your only "evidence" of design is to point at all the marvelous results of evolution.


The leopard hunts the same prey as the cheetah- but is nowhere as fast as the cheetah- nor has any of those attributes of the cheetah- however the leopard is stronger and is the only cat whose ankles and paw come inward which makes the leopard very skilled at climbing trees- hey watch a few national geographic films- a leopard kills his prey and it can hoist the prey up a tree unlike any other cat- was the leopards paws and ankles a result of evolution or design? Evolution obviously.

If you say evolution please show me the link of the leopard didn't didn't have paw that turned inward.
THERE ISN'T ONE BECAUSE THEN IT WOULD NOT BE A LEOPARD!!! This is the same mistake you made in the woodpecker example.

Do you not get how evolution works? The leopard
evolved from some OTHER feline that lacked such a paw. But genetic variations created some felines where the paw was more rotatable than others. Over many generations, that adaptation increased because it conferred an evolutionary advantage - they could climb. Eventually, we get the modern leopard.

You are unable to disprove anything- where are your links?
Disprove what? That there is no God? That is something that cannot be proven or disproven.

Disprove Genesis? That was already done above where "Genesis" got the order wrong for the formation of the land from the oceans and the day and the night. Or did you forget about that? if you did, check out Post No. 175 above: http://www.eccie.net/showpost.php?p=...&postcount=175


I noticed you did NOT respond to that post either.
I'm pretty sure what i just wrote will make NO difference in your thinking.

You have asked several times for someone to show you the "slow" cheetah. And on more than one occasion, I and others have told you that there was not a slow cheetah - as you think of a cheetah. The cheetah's slow ancient ancestor was another feline, but it was NOT a cheetah. That ancestor slowly evolved through several more intermediate species unitl the modern fast cheetah emerged.

And yet, I'm positive that in a future thread, you will once again ask for someone to show you fossils for the slow cheetah.
Guest032516 is offline   Quote
Old 02-28-2013, 11:48 PM   #539
Chica Chaser
Premium Access
 
Chica Chaser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 18, 2009
Location: Mesaba
Posts: 31,149
Encounters: 7
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wellendowed1911 View Post
Chica chaser just to clarify I do believe meteors hit the earth- Ex-Nyer's logic is well how come Aliens don't land on white house lawn or middle of large city- which to me proves nothing- a meteor has to my knowledge have hit a large populated city or the white house lawn- so my point because UFO's don't land on the white house lawn doesn't mean they don't exist.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ExNYer View Post
Well, not the big city anymore...
Just meesing with you two. But....



I'm not sure they actually landed on the lawn though
Chica Chaser is offline   Quote
Old 03-01-2013, 11:07 AM   #540
MsJane69
BANNED
 
MsJane69's Avatar
 
User ID: 174574
Join Date: Feb 6, 2013
Location: ON A ROCK IN SPACE?
Posts: 36
Default

+6 FU
MsJane69 is offline   Quote
Reply

Thread Tools


AMPReviews.net
Find Ladies
Hot Women

Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright © 2009 - 2016, ECCIE Worldwide, All Rights Reserved