Spirituality
12 Mar 06
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
13 Mar 06
Originally posted by XanthosNZAnd until now I was convinced that creationists were a myth perpetuated by evolutionists to demosntrate that religion was wrong. 😲
http://evolution-facts.org/default.htm
I just don't know anymore. My favourite page?
http://evolution-facts.org/worldviews-violence.htm
The human and dinosaur buddy tracks and next to it a graph attempting to blame crime on the teaching of evolution in schools.
And another thing. The site says, that not even a four year old would believe that living organisms were spontaneously generated by physical processes (not the exact wording of course... these are creationists if the myth is correct). However, I vividly recall explaining to a friend when I was six the theory of abiogenisis. Obviously i was suffering from severe mental retardation. and because i still believe it, I musn't have recovered. 😞
13 Mar 06
Originally posted by XanthosNZNot exactly sure where they found these numbers, perhaps Divine Revelation, but according to the official numbers crime has risen about 80% since 1963 (which I seriously doubt was the first year evolution was taught in the schools as science - what was it taught as before that?) not 995%. http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm
http://evolution-facts.org/default.htm
I just don't know anymore. My favourite page?
http://evolution-facts.org/worldviews-violence.htm
The human and dinosaur buddy tracks and next to it a graph attempting to blame crime on the teaching of evolution in schools.
Of course, the crime rate peaked in 1991 and has declined by about 33% since then. I presume that the schools in the US must have stopped teaching evolution in 33% of the schools.
13 Mar 06
Originally posted by Conrau KHowever, I vividly recall explaining to a friend when I was six the theory of abiogenisis.
Obviously i was suffering from severe mental retardation. and because i still believe it, I musn't have recovered. 😞
Did you mean abiogenesis? That is, the supposed development of living organisms from nonliving matter? This was probably the same friend who believed you when you asserted that Fred Flintstone could beat up Batman. Hopefully, your friend has found more sophisticated people with which to associate.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
13 Mar 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHWell i didn't eactly call it abiogenesis when i was having the discussion. But I
[b]However, I vividly recall explaining to a friend when I was six the theory of abiogenisis.
Did you mean abiogenesis? That is, the supposed development of living organisms from nonliving matter? This was probably the same friend who believed you when you asserted that Fred Flintstone could beat up Batman. Hopefully, your friend has found more sophisticated people with which to associate.[/b]
did explain (minus the chemical verbiage) how life began in a "chemical soup". Point is, i believed in it which according to the web site means I was less intelligent then a four year old.
13 Mar 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHFunny you should mention the Flintstones.
[b]However, I vividly recall explaining to a friend when I was six the theory of abiogenisis.
Did you mean abiogenesis? That is, the supposed development of living organisms from nonliving matter? This was probably the same friend who believed you when you asserted that Fred Flintstone could beat up Batman. Hopefully, your friend has found more sophisticated people with which to associate.[/b]
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
13 Mar 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI'm confused are you insulting me or the site?
[b]Point is, i believed in it which according to the web site means I was less intelligent then a four year old.
Or, just as gullible (try finding that word in the dictionary).
And, of course, your understanding of the idiotic concept was organic.[/b]
13 Mar 06
1 edit
Originally posted by XanthosNZYikes.
http://evolution-facts.org/default.htm
I just don't know anymore. My favourite page?
http://evolution-facts.org/worldviews-violence.htm
The human and dinosaur buddy tracks and next to it a graph attempting to blame crime on the teaching of evolution in schools.
I like the 'Utterly Impossible' Section
http://evolution-facts.org/Ev-Crunch/c24.htm
My favorite quote from that page:
"Regardless of what the evolutionists may claim, Creation is not a theory; it is a proven scientific fact."
13 Mar 06
Originally posted by no1marauderHoly spurious regression!
Not exactly sure where they found these numbers, perhaps Divine Revelation, but according to the official numbers crime has risen about 80% since 1963 (which I seriously doubt was the first year evolution was taught in the schools as science - what was it taught as before that?) not 995%. http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm
Of cours ...[text shortened]... I presume that the schools in the US must have stopped teaching evolution in 33% of the schools.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
13 Mar 06
1 edit
Originally posted by LemonJelloI never knew people could actually be so dumb!
Yikes.
I like the 'Utterly Impossible' Section
http://evolution-facts.org/Ev-Crunch/c24.htm
My favorite quote from that page:
"Regardless of what the evolutionists may claim, Creation is not a theory; it is a proven scientific fact."
Here’s a selected quote:
The frog will be sitting in the jungle minding its own business, when an enemy, such as a snake or rat, will come along.
Instantly, that frog will jump and turn around, so that its back is now facing the intruder. In that same instance, the frog changed its colors!
Now the enemy sees a big head, nose, mouth, and two black and blues eyes!
All this looks so real—with even a black pupil with a blue iris around it. Yet the frog cannot see any of this, for the very highly intelligently designed markings are on its back!
The normal sitting position of this frog is head high and back low. But when the predator comes, he quickly turns around, so his back faces the predator! In addition, the frog puts his head low to the ground and his hind parts high. In this position, to the enemy viewing him, he appears to be a large rat’s head! In just the right location is that face and eyes staring at you!
The frog’s hind legs are tucked away together underneath his eyes—and they look like a large mouth! As he moves his hind legs, the mouth appears to move! The part of the frog’s body that once was a tadpole’s snail—now looks like a perfectly formed nose, and it is just at the right location!
To the side of the fake face, there appear long claws! These are the frog’s toes! As the frog tucks his legs to the sides of his body, he purposely lifts up two toes from each hind foot—and curls them out, so they will look like a couple of weird hooks.
And the frog does all this in one second!
At this, the predator leaves, feeling quite defeated. But that which it left behind is a tasty, defenceless, weak frog which can turn around quickly, but cannot hop away very fast.
The frog will never see that face on itself, so it did not put the face there. Someone very intelligent put that face there! And the face was put there by being programmed into its genes.
I never knew that evolution entailed the conscious choice of variation. There I’ve been thinking about natural selection. Well, doesn’t that prove I have the IQ of a four year old?
13 Mar 06
1 edit
Originally posted by Conrau KLOL. Just to drive that example home (and because it is just too funny to leave out):
I never knew people could actually be so dumb!
Here’s a selected quote:
The frog will be sitting in the jungle minding its own business, when an enemy, such as a snake or rat, will come along.
Instantly, that frog will jump and turn around, so that its back is now facing the intruder. In that same instance, the frog changed its colors!
Now the e een thinking about natural selection. Well, doesn’t that prove I have the IQ of a four year old?
There is no human being in the world smart enough—unaided and without mirrors—to draw anything worthwhile on his own back. How then could a frog do it?
It cannot see its back, just as you cannot see yours. The task is an impossible one. And, to make matters more impossible, it does it without hands! Could you, unaided by devices or others, accurately draw a picture on your back? No. Could you do it simply by making colors to emerge on the skin? A thousand times, No.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
13 Mar 06
Originally posted by LemonJelloIn retrospect i think this web site was created with whole intention of marring
LOL. Just to drive that example home (and because it is just too funny to leave out):
There is no human being in the world smart enough—unaided and without mirrors—to draw anything worthwhile on his own back. How then could a frog do it?
It cannot see its back, just as you cannot see yours. The task is an impossible one. And, to make matters mor ...[text shortened]... ck? No. Could you do it simply by making colors to emerge on the skin? A thousand times, No.
any creationist argument by pumping it with wild assertions. No one could possibly be so stupid as to assert that frogs couldn't have evolved because they can't see their own back. And if there is someone so stupid doesn't that disprove creationism? How could this "really intelligent being" create such a moroninc organism.
13 Mar 06
Originally posted by Conrau KCreationists are proof there is no intelligent creator.
In retrospect i think this web site was created with whole intention of marring
any creationist argument by pumping it with wild assertions. No one could possibly be so stupid as to assert that frogs couldn't have evolved because they can't see their own back. And if there is someone so stupid doesn't that disprove creationism? How could this "really intelligent being" create such a moroninc organism.