Columns Retired Columns & Blogs |
Loudspeakers Amplification | Digital Sources Analog Sources Featured | Accessories Music |
Columns Retired Columns & Blogs |
Loudspeakers Amplification Digital Sources | Analog Sources Accessories Featured | Music Columns Retired Columns | Show Reports | Features Latest News Community | Resources Subscriptions |
There are plenty of non-religious critiques of the theory of special evolution. Some are mathmatical, some micro-biological. For me, as a Christian, I am content in knowing that God is our Creator. How He chose to do it is immaterial to me, I am just glad THAT He chose to do it.
The whole concept of spontaneous generation of first life and that given enough time things get better on their own is a bit for me to swallow. It contradicts my experience and what I know of basic science.
Basically, I lack the faith to be an evolutionist.
Trey
As I long ago explained, evolution is not an explanation for the origin of life.
Lamont, you have long been owned. I addressed this many times, beginning a great many posts ago.
I have provided enough citations to data and analysis supporting evolution to keep you reading for the rest of your life. Your refusal to acknowledge the existence of the supporting evidence does not make it go away.
No scientist "assumes" Darwin was correct. Darwin offered a hypothesis which has been rigorously tested for over 150 years.
In your world "there is no data" only because you have decided to ignore all of it. So who here is behaving as a Bible-thumping Creationist?
So why does evolution turn you on? My hypothesis is you are threatened by the various examples of homosexual sex in animal behavior; it's all fun and games to talk about but terrifying when it's real, right?
You could argue there is no evidence for quantum theory and that physicists slavishly believe in the writings of Niels Bohr.
And you would be just as wrong.
Many posit that God created life and set the universe in motion, replete with the physical laws that we experience - including quantum, evolution, an expanding universe, etc. That is, there is no conflict between religion and science.
Evolutionary theory does not trouble itself with life's origin. It addresses only what subsequently happened. No faith required.
Pursuant to evolutionary theory, life could have began with a creator, primordial soup, the FSM - anything.
Post deleted by randyb
Ah, fuck. Yes, your ego is still intact, Elias. Your dick can touch the ground and mine can't. Fucking water-walker.
Lamont - can you clarify yourself here in the terms of the discussion?
Okay. Here we go again. Elk, your ego is larger than life. You're a better man than me, Jesus. Is that better? Or do I need to put another quarter in the machine?
Hell, Betty White is older than that.
ok.......
i dont like where this going, can we please redirect?
i think both parties in this argument are.
at this point, i'm very confused and unsure exactly what it is that is being discussed/argued. can someone help me (without being snide) define what the actual disagreement currently is?
I would say science vs. religion but religion based on a fundamentalist position and/or Lamont demands proof of evolution without the same requirement of God (or the Flying Spaghetti Monster-the one true designer).
The topic is the variability of the Earth's climate. Everybody is against me. Basically, JJ incited a riot on the forum several pages back.
As usual, when reduced to insults, you simply lie. it's rather predictable.
If you really think I "incited a riot" why don't you take formal steps, chump?
J_J, I find what Lamont said to be very funny.
This is totally his "Bill Murray" performance.
I agree Buddha, Absolutely hilarious, one of Lamont's best
He is one subversive" basterd".
I had a vision this morning...
and it was to post this video to the forums in this thread: Miracles
SM posted this video a little while on his blog.
Best to read this article after you watch the video.
Here's an excerpt of the lyrics from the song
Fuckin' magnets, how do they work?
And I don't wanna talk to a scientist
Y'all motherfuckers lying and
getting me pissed.
I can cherry pick all day long... I can find several athiests are pedophiles..does that mean all athiests are pedophiles?
fallacious logic, pal.
http://hankhanegraaff.blogspot.com/2010/10/science-and-religion-arent-friends.html
Sadly, once again you resort to ad hominem. Why?
But to clarify; I cannot walk on water, but I am pretty good at avoiding puddles.
Perhaps except this one.
If you ever decide to learn about evolution, rather than blindly repeating "there is no evidence", let me know. I am happy to provide resources. No faith required.
Insane Clown Posse. This shit will blow your motherfuckin' mind. So, take nuttin' for granted.
Lamont, look in your rearview mirror....the "asshole line" is now way behind where you are.
What did I miss?
The answer to the universe.
And a few name changes, yours included.
Ha!
I see you changed your name back.
But now we know your Culpepper , nothing can ever change that.
Before he was related to that Fred fellow. May have been the Ripple...
It was originally "Culpeper" way back when. I was like the only new member that put together a bunch of junk to create a sound system. So, I changed it to Lamont Sanford. Also, Culpeper is no longer useful with the new system. As for my junkie system. It's still going strong.
Pages