[TheRealThing]

You make a good point about the spider, TRT. It is hard to imagine what evolutionary advantage there is for a spider to be able to spin self portraits. The same with octopi that can screw lids off of jars to get to food. Intelligence does not seem to be as dependent on brain size as scientists thought only a few years ago. Jars with screw on lids have not been around very long in evolutionary terms, so it is doubtful that more than a handful of octopi have ever encountered one that was not broken.

Totally the spirit of my line of thought. The so-called scientific theory of natural selection is governed by assumptions whether RV wants to admit it or not. Among those assumptions is the idea that species adapt to preserve themselves. I'm just saying the Decoy Spider is an outlier at the very best. And, makes no sense in the grand scheme of the theory of evolution at all.

[TheRealVille]

You seem to finally be admitting your atheism. You might as well. You were not fooling anyone anyway.

Goodnight, RV.

So, if you don't believe in a homophobic, child killing, egotistical god, you have to be atheist? Does my god have to be one that creates you,wants me to love and worship him, yet without proving to me that he is real, then burns me for not believing? Can I believe in a better, less mean god? Even if TRT's link is proof of god, couldn't it be proof of my god, and not his?

[WideMiddle03]

So, if you don't believe in a homophobic, child killing, egotistical god, you have to be atheist? Does my god have to be one that creates you,wants me to love and worship him, yet without proving to me that he is real, then burns me for not believing? Can I believe in a better, less mean god? Even if TRT's link is proof of god, couldn't it be proof of my god, and not his?

just where in the Bible does God say he hates gay people
just because somebody doesn't agree with the lifestyle, how does that make them homophobic?
where does God support the murder of 55 million babies
i strongly suggest reading the Bible

[TheRealVille]

just where in the Bible does God say he hates gay people
just because somebody doesn't agree with the lifestyle, how does that make them homophobic?
where does God support the murder of 55 million babies
i strongly suggest reading the Bible

I've read it cover to cover, many times. Maybe you should look through it and see all the children he killed himself.

[WideMiddle03]

I've read it cover to cover, many times. Maybe you should look through it and see all the children he killed himself.

maybe you should try to not dodge my points

[TheRealVille]

We won't know for awhile, but it looks like the SCOTUS is leaning toward repealing DOMA.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/27/politics/s...?hpt=hp_t1

[RunItUpTheGut]

^
Hopefully they'll just ban sodomy again.


Simple biology. Im tellin ya.

[Hoot Gibson]

So, if you don't believe in a homophobic, child killing, egotistical god, you have to be atheist? Does my god have to be one that creates you,wants me to love and worship him, yet without proving to me that he is real, then burns me for not believing? Can I believe in a better, less mean god? Even if TRT's link is proof of god, couldn't it be proof of my god, and not his?

People who are simply nonbelievers do not feel compelled to spew the kind of hatred that hurl toward Christians here on a regular basis. I have never met an atheist in person who is less tolerant of religion than you are, although I know that there are plenty others like you out there. As for "your" god, you mostly mention it (her? him?) when somebody innocently assumes that you are an atheist, based on your hate-filled posts against religion.

[WideMiddle03]

We won't know for awhile, but it looks like the SCOTUS is leaning toward repealing DOMA.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/27/politics/s...?hpt=hp_t1

why dont you respond to my points ?

[TheRealVille]

People who are simply nonbelievers do not feel compelled to spew the kind of hatred that hurl toward Christians here on a regular basis. I have never met an atheist in person who is less tolerant of religion than you are, although I know that there are plenty others like you out there. As for "your" god, you mostly mention it (her? him?) when somebody innocently assumes that you are an atheist, based on your hate-filled posts against religion.

When they stop pushing their agenda, I'll respect their religion. FTR, I hate christianity because of the three points I posted.

[TheRealVille]

why dont you respond to my points ?

Because you are an idiot, and a troll.

[Hoot Gibson]

When they stop pushing their agenda, I'll respect their religion.

Liar. Nobody does more agenda pushing than you do. TRT and everybody else here has just as much right to their opinions and beliefs as you do. There is no excuse for disrespecting anybody's sincerely held religious convictions. I don't do it and I have no respect for those who do.

[TheRealVille]

Liar. Nobody does more agenda pushing than you do. TRT and everybody else here has just as much right to their opinions and beliefs as you do. There is no excuse for disrespecting anybody's sincerely held religious convictions. I don't do it and I have no respect for those who do.

Who cares what you think? I mean, really?

[WideMiddle03]

I don't ever call people idiots or morons for the way they believe.

And today...

Because you are an idiot, and a troll.

:lmao:

[Hoot Gibson]

Who cares what you think? I mean, really?

I don't think for anybody else's benefit or approval.

[TheRealVille]

And today...



:lmao:

I said you were and idiot and a troll because that's what you are, not because of what you believe.

[WideMiddle03]

I said you were and idiot and a troll because that's what you are, not because of what you believe.

i disagree

[TheRealThing]

When they stop pushing their agenda, I'll respect their religion. FTR, I hate christianity because of the three points I posted.

Man has lived by "their agenda" since the earliest society. Historically that "agenda" has carried on through continuously to the end of Ronald Reagan's second term. When Bill Clinton came to power all the liberal legal shenanigans hit overdrive, and I will admit the process of erosion has since hit light speed under Obama's willing helping hands. So, in the cold light of reality, the agenda belongs to the liberals who are busy legislating away and redefining and explaining away traditional values with the help of the spineless and the activist judges.

It's the haters and the contemptful who are trying to change the America I grew up in, to some kind of socialist liberal stew.

[TheRealThing]

Who cares what you think? I mean, really?

Frankly anybody who can be reasonable, probably.

[TheRealVille]

I'm giving it a break tonight. Good day sirs.

[TheRealVille]

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/bo...es-us.html

[Hoot Gibson]

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/bo...es-us.html

That may be the worst satire that I have ever read. Did you find this funny, or is it just something else that you posted without reading>

[TheRealThing]

^LOL, the list of left loons calling for Scalia to resign reads like the extreme left's Who's Who. Liberals have learned they will never convert conservatives and are instead concentrating their efforts on programming the young and getting their cases before activist judges.

[TheRealVille]

That may be the worst satire that I have ever read. Did you find this funny, or is it just something else that you posted without reading>

^LOL, the list of left loons calling for Scalia to resign reads like the extreme left's Who's Who. Liberals have learned they will never convert conservatives and are instead concentrating their efforts on programming the young and getting their cases before activist judges.

You two are morons. It's satire.

[Hoot Gibson]

You two are morons. It's satire.

Satire is supposed to be funny. You cannot even appreciate the irony of somebody of your limited intellect calling other people morons or idiots. It is really not fair of anybody to expect you to distinguish between good and crappy satire. I apologize if I implied that you would to do better by reading articles before posting links to them. nicker:

[TheRealVille]

http://www.freewoodpost.com/2013/03/26/s...l-divorce/

[TheRealThing]

The chronology of RV learning a new word ---

RV
"I'm making fun of your hypocritical ass, and you can't figure it out?"

TRT
"Or, you're to dumb to recognize satire."

HOOT
"That may be the worst satire that I have ever read. Did you find this funny, or is it just something else that you posted without reading"

RV suddenly schools others on recognition of, you guessed it, satire.
You two are morons. It's satire nicker:

[TheRealVille]

Totally the spirit of my line of thought. The so-called scientific theory of natural selection is governed by assumptions whether RV wants to admit it or not. Among those assumptions is the idea that species adapt to preserve themselves. I'm just saying the Decoy Spider is an outlier at the very best. And, makes no sense in the grand scheme of the theory of evolution at all.

It's like the scientist have been out there, and met you. :biggrin:

"Just a Theory": 7 Misused Science Words
From "significant" to "natural," here are seven scientific terms that can prove troublesome for the public and across research disciplines

Hypothesis. Theory. Law. These scientific words get bandied about regularly, yet the general public usually gets their meaning wrong.

Now, one scientist is arguing that people should do away with these misunderstood words altogether and replace them with the word "model." But those aren't the only science words that cause trouble, and simply replacing the words with others will just lead to new, widely misunderstood terms, several other scientists said.

"A word like 'theory' is a technical scientific term," said Michael Fayer, a chemist at Stanford University. "The fact that many people understand its scientific meaning incorrectly does not mean we should stop using it. It means we need better scientific education."



2: Just a theory?

Climate-change deniers and creationists have deployed the word "theory" to cast doubt on climate change and evolution.

"It's as though it weren't true because it's just a theory," Allain said.

That's despite the fact that an overwhelming amount of evidence supports both human-caused climate change and Darwin's theory of evolution.

Part of the problem is that the word "theory" means something very different in lay language than it does in science: A scientific theory is an explanation of some aspect of the natural world that has been substantiated through repeated experiments or testing. But to the average Jane or Joe, a theory is just an idea that lives in someone's head, rather than an explanation rooted in experiment and testing.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/articl...ence-words

[nky]

^ funny post
"That's despite the fact that an overwhelming amount of evidence supports both human-caused climate change"
" A scientific theory is an explanation of some aspect of the natural world that has been substantiated through repeated experiments or testing. But to the average Jane or Joe, a theory is just an idea that lives in some one's head, rather than an explanation rooted in experiment and testing"
So man made global warning is a true because it's been tested over the last very years on a planet that's been around for billions of years. Kind of goes against their own definition

[TheRealThing]

It's like the scientist have been out there, and met you. :biggrin:



http://www.scientificamerican.com/articl...ence-words

I know you're desperate to save face. But, more than that, you're desperate to justify your own rebellion against God. As I have said, and starting with statements by Charles Darwin himself, subsequent to his success in having pulled the theory of evolution out of thin air, and selling it as such to the scientific community of his day, in which, he admitted that at least in part, he had come up with the 'origin of the species' to allay his conscience from the barbs of concern over his "sexual forays."

I would be among the first to admit that Darwin, and the retro-engineers who followed and are following in his footsteps, have put together an impressively well thought out and complex grand scheme. The surmises of which, are supported by a vast and replete amount of data. However, in spite of the validity of most of the data, it's almost impossible to screw up when one starts from the bullseye of the target and retroengineers the shot. Here's what I am saying. The best example of this would be like claiming to be able to hit the bullseye of a target with one bullet. But, the way it was done was to walk up to the target and press the bullet into the bullseye with one's fingers. Then to remove the bullet, back up to the line and, reload it into the muzzle. How could you miss? The evidence to support the theory of evolution has been retro-engineered in exactly the same way.

Now, neither I nor anyone else can compete with that much complexity and, who would want to? And yet, at some point, folks need to understand that thanks to the gift, for lack of a better term to describe it, of having the finished work product defined and in clear view, in this case the theory of evolution, prior to having demonstrated proof of such, is sort of cheating by scientific standards. How do I know this? NO TRANSITORY LIFE FORMS HAVE YET TO BE DISCOVERED. Arriving at truth by going through the normal rigors of strict scientific disciplines, (shooting the bullseye from the line) is a whole nother story as compared to the means by which man 'adopted' his belief in evolutionism. Therefore, the mountains of data being pressed into the evolutionary matrix, is still a process very similar to a vast filing system, or data bank. Like the Dewey Decimal System used in our libraries, as long as one does not stray from known parameters and known scientific absolutes the whole thing can maintain the integrity of which the scientific community has vested it therewith.

I would also point out that in no way does the evidence of the fossil record contradict scripture. Consider the following two passages, first, God's mention of sauropods such as the Brachiosaurus.

Job 40:15-24 (KJV)
15 Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox.
16 Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly.
17 He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together.
18 His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron.
19 He is the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his sword to approach unto him.
20 Surely the mountains bring him forth food, where all the beasts of the field play.
21 He lieth under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens.
22 The shady trees cover him with their shadow; the willows of the brook compass him about.
23 Behold, he drinketh up a river, and hasteth not: he trusteth that he can draw up Jordan into his mouth.
24 He taketh it with his eyes: his nose pierceth through snares.

Science says sauropods ate vegetable material --- check
Science says sauropods were the biggest animals ever on earth --- check
Science says lived in the wetlands --- check
Science says huge counterbalancing tail, (like a cedar tree) --- check

And secondly, His chief sea creature likely the Pliosaur Pic ---
http://www.sciencephoto.com/static/featu...nsters.pdf
Job 41:1-10 (KJV)
1 Canst thou draw out leviathan with an hook? or his tongue with a cord which thou lettest down?
2 Canst thou put an hook into his nose? or bore his jaw through with a thorn?
3 Will he make many supplications unto thee? will he speak soft words unto thee?
4 Will he make a covenant with thee? wilt thou take him for a servant for ever?
5 Wilt thou play with him as with a bird? or wilt thou bind him for thy maidens?
6 Shall the companions make a banquet of him? shall they part him among the merchants?
7 Canst thou fill his skin with barbed irons? or his head with fish spears?
8 Lay thine hand upon him, remember the battle, do no more.
9 Behold, the hope of him is in vain: shall not one be cast down even at the sight of him?
10 None is so fierce that dare stir him up: who then is able to stand before me?

Arguments made to say that God didn't mention all of creation just show how unfamiliar most people are with His Word.

And lastly, as I said, accepting God is a process which involves faith. It is a process meant to exclude folks and include folks. In other words He chose every man to be with Him forever. But, not every man will choose Him. Therein lies the exclusivity of His eternal arrangement with man, (His Creation).
Ephesians 2:7-8 (KJV)
7 That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus.
8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

In other words, once we repent and choose Him, it is by and through His Grace that we are given the gift of faith, with which to believe and trust in Him. Do I have a vast data bank full of proof? You betcha, the universe. I know He Created me, just as I know the Big Bang and Evolution are man's efforts to offer a plausible alternative, a placebo if you will, to balm his fears as he rebels against God in this world. And, after all, though this world is complex beyond our understanding, it is still just the stage on which we act out our lives. The ultimate meaning of which is "What will you do with Christ?"


BTW, thanks for bringing this up again and giving me another opportunity to share! I appreciate it.