Jedi Council Forums - Evolution or Creation

Jedi Council Forums » JC Community » The Senate Floor »

Locked Topic | Read Only Topic | Previous Active Topic | Next Active Topic

« 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 - Previous | Next | Reload

Author	Topic: Evolution or Creation
Ender Registered: Aug '98	Date Posted: 4/9/02 8:09pm Subject: RE: Evolution or Creation
	Thanks cydonia! It was inevitable that it would come up.
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Ender Registered: Aug '98	Date Posted: 4/9/02 8:50pm Subject: RE: Evolution or Creation
	Forgot to comment on this. *Yawn. Just because beliefs overlap doesn't prove originality. Polytheism was started LONG before Hinduism. Judaism and Christianity began Monotheism.....that's original. Doesn't overlap. More like Christianity ripped it off as Hinduism is older than any of Abrahamic religions. Once again you show your ignorance. Hinduism isn't polytheistic. There is one god and many incarnations or avatars of the one god. Vedanta Society Is Hinduism polytheistic? Hinduism believes in one God -- Brahman. Brahman is that infinite, undivided, unchanging reality behind all that we experience, behind the entire universe. Deities, or gods and goddesses, represent the highest manifestation of Brahman that humans can comprehend. An avatar or divine incarnation of God is the highest manifestation in human form. Hinduism believes that God manifests in human form from time to time throughout history to reestablish righteousness. Sounds familiar, eh?
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Fat_Fett Registered: Dec '01	Date Posted: 4/9/02 8:52pm Subject: RE: Evolution or Creation
	Ender, if my argument is so old.................why haven't you said anything about primordial soup. If it is such an old argument, an answer should be easy. That post has been there for about 2 hours, and still no one has the answer. If you can't answer that questions, you can throw your whole theory out the window. How can you argue how life has changed when you don't even know how life started? -----signature----- "Your love of the halfling's leaf has clearly slowed your mind." AND HOW! Hey hey, if you wanna flame, take it to the Senate Floor already... You might also know me as A_Tossed_Dwarf at theonering.net
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Fat_Fett Registered: Dec '01	Date Posted: 4/9/02 9:07pm Subject: RE: Evolution or Creation - Date Edited: 4/9/02 9:18pm (1 edits total) Edited By: Fat_Fett
	Hinduism has millions of gods. Who knows which is the right god? Who knows which god is the right form? "God must have a big mouth." Your lack of the basic concept of God still amazes me. He encompasses the whole universe! He is omnipotent, omnipowerful, and omnipresent! Hinduism is a continuously evolving religion and is not founded by a particular person or prophet. Central to Christianity are the words of Jesus Christ described by witnesses. Christianity has a central organization called church to control and regulate the activity of Christians. Hinduism does not have a centrally controlled set up. Hinduism does not believe in conversion of people. In the Bhagavad gita Lord Krishna preaches not to follow another's dharma however superior it may be for it would hamper ones spiritual progress. Hinduism does not believe in Judgment Day. According to Hinduism man is a victim of his own karma and the laws of dharma judge him continuously. Christianity believes in a final judgment day. Both however believe in the eventual destruction of the world. Hindus believe in the incarnation of God, but Christians believe in the son of God. Hindus worship many gods and goddesses, but Christians do not. Hindus believe in the Mother Goddess. Catholic Christians venerate Mary. Hindus believe in karma and suffering and redemption through ones own actions and surrender to God. Christians believe in sin and redemption through refuge in Christ. Christianity believes in one heaven ruled by God and one hell ruled by a devil. Hinduism believes in a gigantic star studded universe consisting of innumerable worlds, heavens and hells, created by one Supreme God and left to the care and control of several gods and goddesses. The dark world is populated by demonic forces who play a negative role according to the divine plan. Hindus believe in a supreme God Brahman, who is formless, universal, controller of many heavens and many worlds, without a beginning and without an end and with infinite powers and energies whom no one knows definitely. Christian believe in a Supreme Father and Holy ghost. Hinduism believes that the universe was created billions of years ago and that the earth is just one world in a series of thousands of worlds. Christianity believes that the world was created a few thousand years ago and that earth is the center of the universe. Hinduism believes in the physical evolution of life. Christianity does not. Hinduism advocates belief in prayers, surrender, egolessness, forgiveness, compassion, unconditional love, harmlessness and inner purity. So does Christianity. Hinduism faces some grave problems that need serious attention: A) It lacks an ideological face. B) It lacks leadership, its elites are becoming illiterate about their spiritual heritage and history. C) It is weak organizationally. It has no recognized centers where it could take stock of its sorry situation and think of remedial measures. D) Great poverty has overtaken its religious institutions; temples are in a state of near-destitution. Priests and scholars (acharyas) are badly neglected and have no prestige. E) It is badly divided into castes and denominations. Once when Hinduism was spiritual vibrant, these divisions expressed natural and healthy diversity; now in its present sick state, they are used by its enemies for its disintegration. Election-politics is utilized for the dismemberment of the Hindu society. F) Hinduism is ceasing to be a practising religion. Awareness of a larger God-life is becoming dim; worship, sadhana, japa, spiritual meditation and reflection are fast declining. In short, it is a situation painful for the lovers of Hinduism and pleasing for its enemies. "The composition of the great epic poem, the Bhagavad-Gita, sometime between the second century B.C. and the third century A.D. marks the end of the period of classical Hinduism. The Bhagavad-Gita is found within the text of a much longer poem and is probably the most highly esteemed scripture of Hinduism. In the poem Arjuna, a Hindu knight, for the first time in the recorded history of Hinduism, raises the question of the propriety of killing people. He is answered by his charioteer, Krishna, who turns out to be an incarnation of the god Vishnu. Arjuna is told he must be loyal to his duty as a warrior and kill. The Gita also teaches a variety of means of personal salvation. One may achieve release from life (Nirvana) through asceticism, through meditation, through devotion to and worship of the gods, or through obedience to the rules of his caste." Hindus are told to be loyal to their duties as warriors and to kill! EDIT: "How appropriate: you end with a comment that illustrates once again that you do not understand evolution (no evolutionary biologist thinks that humans descended from monkeys), that you do not understand science (creationism might be right, but there is no way to test it so it isn't science) (of course, it is silly enough that I very much doubt that it is right), and you choose creationism because you want to and not because of any evidence. That says it all." Peez, what are you talking about? We have posted our evidence. Somehow, our evidence is incorrect and you are instantly right! If you want to be scientific, you are supposed to be objectionable! I find it hilarious that no one has anything to say in defense of evolution from my post from about 2 hours ago. You don't have an answer to my questions, so you decide to ignore them altogether! Somehow, I have an answer for all these questions and comments thrown at me from 3 different people in a short amount of time, and about 5 of you can't even come up with anything in the timespan of 2 hours to compete with my arguments! Is it possible that Evolution doesn't have the answers.....or worse: that Evolution ACTUALLY contradicts itself? GASP! The only thing you can say is (each and every post, might I add) that I am ignorant to the "facts" of evolution! Good gosh, at least I address the topic! You guys are being even worse than hypocrites! I AM STILL WAITING FOR SOMEONE TO ANSWER ME ON MY POST ABOUT PRIMORDIAL SOUP! You TRY to cast me down by repeatedly using the same comments that I am ignorant, close-minded, etc. "Do or do not, there is no try." Can you even tell me why I am not getting an answer, or even a RESPONSE, on what I proposed about the primordial soup. You all must be in shock. These other arguments are extremely weak. -----signature----- "Your love of the halfling's leaf has clearly slowed your mind." AND HOW! Hey hey, if you wanna flame, take it to the Senate Floor already... You might also know me as A_Tossed_Dwarf at theonering.net
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Fat_Fett Registered: Dec '01	Date Posted: 4/9/02 9:27pm Subject: RE: Evolution or Creation
	Ha ha. They WEREN'T Christians! Every religion goes through a corruption at least once in its existence! Look at modern day Islam....compare it to the grand Islam before the 1700's. People are not perfect, no matter what religion they belong to. -----signature----- "Your love of the halfling's leaf has clearly slowed your mind." AND HOW! Hey hey, if you wanna flame, take it to the Senate Floor already... You might also know me as A_Tossed_Dwarf at theonering.net
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Saint_of_Killers Registered: Feb '01	Date Posted: 4/9/02 9:27pm Subject: RE: Evolution or Creation - Date Edited: 4/9/02 9:31pm (1 edits total) Edited By: Saint_of_Killers
	"Your lack of the basic concept of God still amazes me." Your lack of the basic concept of sarcasm still amazes me. "Hindus are told to be loyal to their duties as warriors and to kill!" No, warriors are told to be loyal to their duties as warriors. You gonna tell a soldier he ain't allowed to kill someone in battle? "I AM STILL WAITING FOR SOMEONE TO ANSWER ME ON MY POST ABOUT PRIMORDIAL SOUP!" Would somebody hurry up and answer this guy? I'd look it up myself but I gotta go to bed. -----signature----- We enter into life naked and howling, covered with blood. The fun doesn't have to end there. Who to himself is law, no law does need, offends no law and is a king indeed Abraham failed the test. TAKE A BOW MISTER BUNNY!!!
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
cydonia Registered: Jun '01	Date Posted: 4/9/02 9:30pm Subject: RE: Evolution or Creation
	There's an awesome song by Chic, "Soup For One", i believe it was a movie theme song from an early 80s movie. You can still hear it occasionaly with the bassline sampled in modern R&B lazy pop. Oh, PRIMORDIAL soup. Sorry. Can't help you there. -----signature----- when you're born a lover, you're born to suffer- Like all soul sisters and soul brothers
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Fat_Fett Registered: Dec '01	Date Posted: 4/9/02 9:33pm Subject: RE: Evolution or Creation
	And that is your interpretation of sarcasm? Please. There you have it - As a Hindu warrior, he is to kill his enemy. If I was a Christian soldier, I am not instructed by my religion to kill my enemy. I am instructed by my government to kill my enemy. Two very different things..... Evidence for a Young Earth: Here are a dozen natural phenomena which conflict with the evolutionary idea that the universe is billions of years old. The numbers I list below in bold print (often millions of years) are maximum possible ages set by each process, not the actual ages. The numbers in italics are the ages required by evolutionary theory for each item. The point is that the maximum possible ages are always much less than the required evolutionary ages, while the biblical age (6,000 to 10,000 years) always fits comfortably within the maximum possible ages. Thus the following items are evidence against the evolutionary time scale and for the biblical time scale. Much more young-world evidence exists, but I have chosen these items for brevity and simplicity. Some of the items on this list can be reconciled with an old universe only by making a series of improbable and unproven assumptions; others can fit in only with a young universe. The list starts with distant astronomic phenomena and works its way down to earth, ending with everyday facts. 1. Galaxies wind themselves up too fast. The stars of our own galaxy, the Milky Way, rotate about the galactic center with different speeds, the inner ones rotating faster than the outer ones. The observed rotation speeds are so fast that if our galaxy were more than a few hundred million years old, it would be a featureless disc of stars instead of its present spiral shape.1 Yet our galaxy is supposed to be at least 10 billion years old. Evolutionists call this "the winding-up dilemma," which they have known about for fifty years. They have devised many theories to try to explain it, each one failing after a brief period of popularity. The same "winding-up" dilemma also applies to other galaxies. For the last few decades the favored attempt to resolve the dilemma has been a complex theory called "density waves."1 The theory has conceptual problems, has to be arbitrarily and very finely tuned, and lately has been called into serious question by the Hubble Space Telescope's discovery of very detailed spiral structure in the central hub of the "Whirlpool" galaxy, M51.2 2. Comets disintegrate too quickly. According to evolutionary theory, comets are supposed to be the same age as the solar system, about 5 billion years. Yet each time a comet orbits close to the sun, it loses so much of its material that it could not survive much longer than about 100,000 years. Many comets have typical ages of 10,000 years.3 Evolutionists explain this discrepancy by assuming that (a) comets come from an unobserved spherical "Oort cloud" well beyond the orbit of Pluto, (b) improbable gravitational interactions with infrequently passing stars often knock comets into the solar system, and (c) other improbable interactions with planets slow down the incoming comets often enough to account for the hundreds of comets observed.4 So far, none of these assumptions has been substantiated either by observations or realistic calculations. Lately, there has been much talk of the "Kuiper Belt," a disc of supposed comet sources lying in the plane of the solar system just outside the orbit of Pluto. Even if some bodies of ice exist in that location, they would not really solve the evolutionists' problem, since according to evolutionary theory the Kuiper Belt would quickly become exhausted if there were no Oort cloud to supply it. 3. Not enough mud on the sea floor Each year, water and winds erode about 25 billion tons of dirt and rock from the continents and deposit it in the ocean.5 This material accumulates as loose sediment (i.e., mud) on the hard basaltic (lava-formed) rock of the ocean floor. The average depth of the mud is less than 400 meters.6 The only way known to remove the mud from the ocean floor is by plate tectonic subduction. That is, sea floor slides slowly (a few cm/year) beneath the continents, taking some sediment with it. According to secular scientific literature, that process presently removes only 1billion tons per year.6 As far as anyone knows, the other 24 billion tons per year simply accumulate. At that rate, erosion would deposit the present amount of sediment in less than 12 million years. Yet according to evolutionary theory, erosion and plate subduction have been going on as long as the oceans have existed, an alleged 3 billion years. If that were so, the rates above imply that the oceans would be massively choked with mud dozens of kilometers deep. An alternative (creationist) explanation is that erosion from the waters of the Genesis flood running off the continents deposited the present amount of mud within a short time about 5000 years ago. 4. Not enough sodium in the sea Every year, rivers7 and other sources9 dump over 450 million tons of sodium into the ocean. Only 27% of this sodium manages to get back out of the sea each year.8,9 As far as anyone knows, the remainder simply accumulates in the ocean. If the sea had no sodium to start with, it would have accumulated its present amount in less than 42 million years at today's input and output rates.9 This is much less than the evolutionary age of the ocean, 3 billion years. The usual reply to this discrepancy is that past sodium inputs must have been less and outputs greater. However, calculations which are as generous as possible to evolutionary scenarios still give a maximum age of only 62 million years.9 Calculationsll for many other sea water elements give much younger ages for the ocean. 5. The earth's magnetic field is decaying too fast. The total energy stored in the earth's magnetic field has steadily increased by a factor of 2.7 over the past 1000 years.11 Evolutionary theories explaining this rapid decrease, as well as how the earth could have maintained its magnetic field for billions of years, are very complex and inadequate. A much better creationist theory exists. It is straightforward, based on sound physics, and explains many features of the field: its creation, rapid reversals during the Genesis flood, surface intensity decreases and increases until the time of Christ, and a steady decay since then.12 This theory matches paleomagnetic, historic, and present data.13 The main result is that the field's total energy (not surface intensity) has always decayed at least as fast as now. At that rate the field could not be more than 10,000 years old.14 6. Many strata are too tightly bent. In many mountainous areas, strata thousands of feet thick are bent and folded into hairpin shapes. The conventional geologic time scale says these formations were deeply buried and solidified for hundreds of millions of years before they were bent. Yet the folding occurred without cracking, with radii so small that the entire formation had to be still wet and unsolidified when the bending occurred. This implies that the folding occurred less than thousands of years after depositional 7. Injected sandstone shortens geologic "ages." Strong geologic evidences exists that the Cambrian Sawatch sandstone - formed an alleged 500 million years ago - of the Ute Pass fault west of Colorado Springs was still unsolidified when it was extruded up to the surface during the uplift of the Rocky Mountains, allegedly 70 million years ago. It is very unlikely that the sandstone would not solidify during the supposed 430 million years it was underground. Instead, it is likely that the two geologic events were less than hundreds of years apart, thus greatly shortening the geologic time scale. 8. Fossil radioactivity shortens geologic "ages" to a few years. Radiohalos are rings of color formed around microscopic bits of radioactive minerals in rock crystals. They are fossil evidence of radioactive decay.17 "Squashed" Polonium-210 radiohalos indicate that Jurassic, Triassic, and Eocene formations in the Colorado plateau were deposited within months of one another, not hundreds of millions of years apart as required by the conventional time scale18 "Orphan" Polonium-218 radiohalos, having no evidence of their mother elements, imply either instant creation or drastic changes in radioactivity decay rates. 19,20 9. Helium in the wrong places. All naturally-occurring families of radioactive elements generate helium as they decay. If such decay took place for billions of years, as alleged by evolutionists, much helium should have found its way into the earth's atmosphere. The rate of loss of helium from the atmosphere into space is calculable and small. Taking that loss into account, the atmosphere today has only 0.05% of the amount of helium it would have accumulated in 5 billion years.21 This means the atmosphere is much younger than the alleged evolutionary age. A study published in the Journal of Geophysical Research shows that helium produced by radioactive decay in deep, hot rocks has not had time to escape. Though the rocks are supposed to be over one billion years old, their large helium retention suggests an age of only thousands of years.22 10. Not enough stone age skeletons. Evolutionary anthropologists say that the stone age lasted for at least 100,000 years, during which time the world population of Neanderthal and Cro-magnon men was roughly constant, between 1 and 10 million. All that time they were burying their dead with artifacts.23 By this scenario, they would have buried at least 4 billion bodies.24 If the evolutionary time scale is correct, buried bones should be able to last for much longer than 100,000 years, so many of the supposed 4 billion stone age skeletons should still be around (and certainly the buried artifacts). Yet only a few thousand have been found. This implies that the stone age was much shorter than evolutionists think, a few hundred years in many areas. 11. Agriculture is too recent. The usual evolutionary picture has men existing as hunters and gatherers for 100,000 years during the stone age before discovering agriculture less than 10,000 years ago. 23 Yet the archaeological evidence shows that stone age men were as intelligent as we are. It is very improbable that none of the 4 billion people mentioned in item 10 should discover that plants grow from seeds. It is more likely that men were without agriculture less than a few hundred years after the flood, if at all.24 12. History is too short. According to evolutionists, stone age man existed for 100,000 years before beginning to make written records about 4000 to 5000 years ago. Prehistoric man built megalithic monuments, made beautiful cave paintings, and kept records of lunar phases.25 Why would he wait a thousand centuries before using the same skills to record history? The biblical time scale is much more likely.24 References 1. Scheffler, H. and H. Elsasser, Physics of the Galaxy and Interstellar Matter, Springer-Verlag (1987) Berlin, pp. 352-353, 401-413. 2. D. Zaritsky et al, Nature, July 22, 1993. Sky & Telescope, December 1993, p. 10. 3. Steidl, P. F., "Planets, comets, and asteroids," Design and Origins in Astronomy, pp. 73-106, G. Mulfinger, ed., Creation Research Society Books (1983) 5093 Williamsport Dr., Norcross, GA 30092. 4 Whipple, F. L., "Background of modem comet theory," Nature M (2 Sept 1976) 15. 5. Gordeyev, V. V. et al , "The average chemical composition of suspensions in the world's rivers and the supply of sediments to the ocean by streams," Dockt. Akad. Nauk- SSSR DI (1980) 150. 6. Hay, W. W., et al, 'Mass/age distribution and composition of sediments on the ocean floor and the global rate of subduction,' Journal of Geophysical Research, 93, No B12 (10 December 1988) 14,993-14,940. 7. Maybeck, M., "Concentrations des eaux fluviales en elements majeurs et apports en solution aux oceans," Rev. de Geol. Dym Geogr. Phys. 21 (1979) 215. 8. Sayles, F. L. and P. C. Mangelsdorf, "Cation-exchange characteristics of Amazon River suspended sediment and its reaction with seawater," Geochitnica et Cosmochimica Acta 4-1 (1979) 767. 9. Austin, S. A. and D. R. Humphreys, "The sea's missing salt: a dilenuna for evolutionists," Proc. 2nd Internat. Conf. on Creationism, Vol. I[, Creation Science Fellowship (1991) in press. Address, ref. 12. 10. Austin, S. A., "Evolution: the oceans say no!," ICR Impact No. 8 (Oct. 1973) Institute for Creation Research, address in ref. 2. 11 . Merrill, R. T. and M. W. McElhinney, Ile Earth's Magnetic Field, Academic Press (1983) London, pp. 101 - 106. 12. Humphreys, D. R., "Reversals of the earth's magnetic field during the Genesis flood," Proc. lst Internat. Conf. on Creationism (Aug. 1986, Pittsburgh) Creation Science Fellowship (1987) 362 Ashland Ave., Pittsburgh, PA 15228, Vol. 11, pp. 113-126. 13. Coe, R. S. and M. Pr6vot, "Evidence suggesting extremely rapid field variation during a geomagnetic reversal," Earth and Planetary Science Letters 92 (April 1989) pp. 292-8. 14. Humphreys, D. R., "Physical mechanism for reversals of the earth's magnetic field during the flood,"Proc. 2nd Intern. Conf. on Creationism, Vol. 11, Creation Science Fellowship (1991) in press (ref. 12). 15 Austin, S. A. and J. D. Morris, "Tight folds and elastic dikes as evidence for rapid deposition and deformation of two very thick stratigraphic sequences," Proc. Ist Internat. Conf. on Creationism Vol. 111, Creation Science Fellowship (1986) pp.3-15. Address in ref. 12. 16. Ibid, pp. 11- 12. 17. Gentry, R. V., "Radioactive halos," Annual Review of Nuclear Science 23 (1973) 347-362. 18. Gentry, R. V. et al, "Radiohalos in coalified wood: new evidence relating to time of uranium introduction and coalification," Science 194 (15 Oct. 1976) 315-318. 19. Gentry, R. V., "Radiohalos in a Radiochronological and cosmological perspective," Science 184 (5 Apr. 1974) 62-66. 20. Gentry, R. V., Creation's Tiny Mystery , Earth Science Associates (1986) P.O. Box 12067, Knoxville, TN 37912-0067, pp. 23-37, 51-59, 61-62. 21. Vardiman, L., The Age of the Earth's Atmosphere: a study of the helium flux through the atmosphere, Institute for Creation Research (1990) P.O.Box 2667, El Cajon, CA 92021. 22. Gentry, R. V. et al, "Differential helium retention in zircons: implications for nuclear waste management," Geophys. Res. Lett. 9 (Oct. 1982) 1129-1130. See also ref. 22, pp. 169-170. 23. Deevey, E. S., "The human population," Scientific American 203 (Sept. 1960) 194-204. 24. Marshak, A.. "Exploring the mind of Ice Age man," Nat. Geog. 147 (Jan. 1975) 64-89. 25. Dritt, J. 0.1 "Man's earliest beginnings: discrepancies in the evolutionary timetable," Proc. 2nd Internat. Conf. on Creat., Vol. I., Creation Science Fellowship (1990) pp. 73-78. Address, ref. 12. -----signature----- "Your love of the halfling's leaf has clearly slowed your mind." AND HOW! Hey hey, if you wanna flame, take it to the Senate Floor already... You might also know me as A_Tossed_Dwarf at theonering.net
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Fat_Fett Registered: Dec '01	Date Posted: 4/9/02 9:37pm Subject: RE: Evolution or Creation
	LOL At least someone else here can relax. -----signature----- "Your love of the halfling's leaf has clearly slowed your mind." AND HOW! Hey hey, if you wanna flame, take it to the Senate Floor already... You might also know me as A_Tossed_Dwarf at theonering.net
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Ender Registered: Aug '98	Date Posted: 4/9/02 9:43pm Subject: RE: Evolution or Creation
	Peez, what are you talking about? We have posted our evidence. Somehow, our evidence is incorrect and you are instantly right! All you have posted is half-assed arguments against evolution, not evidence for creationism. Remember, arguing against something doesn't automatically make your theory(lol) the correct one. I haven't addressed the "primordial soup" because it's not evolution. It's abiogeneisis. You seem to be missing the point that god could've created the universe billions of yrs ago and allowed evolution to take its course. Many Christian biologists believe this. They don't take the bible literally. Scientists are still trying to work out what the first self-replicators were as they didn't leave an imprint. It is believed the self-replicators evolved into RNA. More info can be found here: Abiogenesis info Scientists consider this the best hypothesis right now. I'm not sure what this has to do with invalidating observable evolution? Any time you'd like to present evidence for creationism go right ahead. We're still waiting. God speaking the universe into being is sure solid evidence.
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Saint_of_Killers Registered: Feb '01	Date Posted: 4/9/02 9:46pm Subject: RE: Evolution or Creation - Date Edited: 4/9/02 9:48pm (1 edits total) Edited By: Saint_of_Killers
	"And that is your interpretation of sarcasm? Please." I sense some hostility. I've tried to be polite to you, you can try to be polite to me (ok now I really am going to bed. probably. ) -----signature----- We enter into life naked and howling, covered with blood. The fun doesn't have to end there. Who to himself is law, no law does need, offends no law and is a king indeed Abraham failed the test. TAKE A BOW MISTER BUNNY!!!
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Fat_Fett Registered: Dec '01	Date Posted: 4/9/02 9:49pm Subject: RE: Evolution or Creation
	About the "Chaos Theory." ON CHAOS THEORY AND THE STABILITY OF OUR SOLAR SYSTEM Ordinarily, a physical system is a system in which future states can be predicted from prior states. But not all physical systems exhibit such predictability. The term "chaos theory" refers to a theory of unpredictable behavior arising in a system that obeys deterministic laws but exhibits unpredictability. The essential idea is that in certain systems small perturbations may produce a cascade of larger perturbations, so that eventually the behavior of such systems cannot be predicted from prior states no matter if the systems appear simple and obey deterministic laws. ... ... Adam Frank (University of Rochester, US --------------------------- Evolutionists use this theory against the Creationist arguments that use the Laws of Thermodynamics. In Chaos Theory, there is no organized pattern, and objects are unpredictably formed. If the universe does not contain a Creator or God (as in the Chaos Theory), how did scientific laws come about? Chaos does not result in order! If the universe "knew" only chaos, it could not create a stabilized pattern of laws. -----signature----- "Your love of the halfling's leaf has clearly slowed your mind." AND HOW! Hey hey, if you wanna flame, take it to the Senate Floor already... You might also know me as A_Tossed_Dwarf at theonering.net
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Fat_Fett Registered: Dec '01	Date Posted: 4/9/02 9:53pm Subject: RE: Evolution or Creation
	Sorry, I didn't know that was a joke. No offense taken, and I am sorry if I acted hostile. I'm kind of strung out here since I am answering many questions from many people. My questions still get no responses though...... -----signature----- "Your love of the halfling's leaf has clearly slowed your mind." AND HOW! Hey hey, if you wanna flame, take it to the Senate Floor already... You might also know me as A_Tossed_Dwarf at theonering.net
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Fat_Fett Registered: Dec '01	Date Posted: 4/9/02 10:10pm Subject: RE: Evolution or Creation - Date Edited: 4/9/02 10:13pm (2 edits total) Edited By: Fat_Fett
	Ender, Thanks for the input, but it could have done without the cussing. I still can't understand how my arguments are...ahem...."half-assed" when you and all the other evolutionists on this page have nothing to say on the subjects. If you have nothing to say.......how are my arguments weak if you have no argument to say against them? Everything that you have posted tonight I have addressed. You have addressed perhaps 5% of what I have posted. It doesn't seem like your ideas are very...ahem..."full-assed." If you are serious about most scientists believing the theory that "God created the universe and let evolution do its thing" is true, I am not really offended, and actually pretty happy. As long as there is an acknowledgement of God watching over the whole process, it is not all that offensive to me. Well if scientists are beginning to put God back in the picure....soon the tables will turn again....bwa ha ha.....and more and more of the Creationism theory will be thought to be fact, not fiction. 'Nite -Fat_Fett P.S. - Hey Ender, here's a hint. If you swear more often in your posts, it will make you sound more intelligent! -----signature----- "Your love of the halfling's leaf has clearly slowed your mind." AND HOW! Hey hey, if you wanna flame, take it to the Senate Floor already... You might also know me as A_Tossed_Dwarf at theonering.net
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
cydonia Registered: Jun '01	Date Posted: 4/9/02 10:22pm Subject: RE: Evolution or Creation - Date Edited: 4/9/02 10:23pm (1 edits total) Edited By: cydonia
	"As long as there is an acknowledgement of God watching over the whole process, it is not all that offensive to me." That kind of takes away the ace up the sleeve in the evolution argument, but let's not offend anyone. Yabba Dabba Doo! -----signature----- when you're born a lover, you're born to suffer- Like all soul sisters and soul brothers
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History

« 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 - Previous | Next | Reload

Jedi Council Forums » JC Community » The Senate Floor »