How about this one?

[quickdodge®]

^^^ Yeah. I can tell through all those words below that I don't know anything abou this.

Nah. If anything, it would be the same amount of faith. Later, QD.

Just as much as scientists or whomever believes that science is behind everything believe they are right, so do Christians. GO to a church and tell a goer that God doesn't exist. That person will go apeshit. You're a goddamn idiot if you think otherwise and if you think by your quote of me lets you know who I am and what I know. You're probably Christian, yourself. Right? Later, QD.

[metalman]

^^^ Yeah. I can tell through all those words below that I don't know anything abou this.



Just as much as scientists or whomever believes that science is behind everything believe they are right, so do Christians. GO to a church and tell a goer that God doesn't exist. That person will go apeshit. You're a goddamn idiot if you think otherwise and if you think by your quote of me lets you know who I am and what I know. You're probably Christian, yourself. Right? Later, QD.

No I am not an idiot. And I can read english too.
Youre statement was that BOTH beliefs require the same amount of faith.
That statement clearly tells me you havent studied the subject, thats all.
Later,
Metalman

[quickdodge®]

No I am not an idiot.

As you stated, you are entitled to your opinion.

And I can read english too.

Nice. Not that that has anything to do with anything in this topic.

Youre statement was that BOTH beliefs require the same amount of faith.

Here is where you fuck up. I never stated that they require the same amount of anything.

That statement clearly tells me you havent studied the subject, thats all.

Which leads back to my initial reply to your reply to me that you can't really tell anything from my post. Later, QD.

[metalman]

Obviously understanding english isnt your forte.

Nah. If anything, it would be the same amount of faith. Later, QD.

Is your exact quote. First you preface your apparantly staunch opinion with the word "IF" which implies you don't even know. Then you follow up with saying the amount of faith would be the same.

This implies clearly you DONT KNOW and HAVENT STUDIED. Thats all.

You then resort to roundabout name calling and insinuations about me. Both of those are typical responses of someone who cannot intelligently address the topic, in this case creation vs. evolution, to begin with.

Later,
Metalman

[quickdodge®]

Obviously understanding english isnt your forte.

Actually, never going under a 4.0 GPA in all years of school, including college, I would have to differ with your insinuation.

Is your exact quote.

A+ for QUOTING 101

First you preface your apparantly staunch opinion

Says someone of your calibur?

with the word "IF" which implies you don't even know.

And you do know? Do you know for certain that the faiths are the same, feeling-wise? I certainly doubt it. You type up on here giving off the impression that you're smarter than others, but I don't think you're really that much smarter than Google.

This implies clearly you DONT KNOW and HAVENT STUDIED. Thats all.

It really implies that scientists do NOT have "wayyyyyy more faith then any christian or group of christians." It implies that they have no more or less faith than any "Christian or group of Christians."

You then resort to roundabout name calling and insinuations about me.

It wasn't "roundabout." It was direct. I was really calling you a goddamn idiot. If you don't like being insinuated upon, don't do any insinuating yourself.

Both of those are typical responses of someone who cannot intelligently address the topic,

Which is why you are still in this conversation. I came in with an opinion and you tried to belittle me because of it instead of just stating that it was my opinion and leaving it at that. Maybe you should think about that. Hmmm. Your posts lead me more and more to think that you are, indeed, a Christian. Later, QD.

[metalman]

QD, No one tried to belittle you. I only pointed out the obvious.
I stand by that remark.
I see also that you don't like anyone to challenge you on your opinions and you lash out at them. Thats too bad. It may be okay for getting a 4.0 grade average but doesnt lend itself to real learning.
Maybe some time we could hear your brainpower on some of the science issues I already mentioned. When you get done with those I have a bunch more for you. I am always ready to learn.

Later,
Metalman

[{X}Echo419]

o God here we go again

[quickdodge®]

QD, No one tried to belittle you. I only pointed out the obvious.

Hmmm. And the ugly Ironic Monster rears it's head.

I stand by that remark.

As I shall stand, proudly, by mine. But without a Bible in hand.

I see also that you don't like anyone to challenge you on your opinions and you lash out at them.

Notice, if you will/can, that I only "lash out" when I am lashed at.

Thats too bad. It may be okay for getting a 4.0 grade average but doesnt lend itself to real learning.

As it does in most circumstances, insinuations lead to wrongful assumptions of (in this case) people. Especially ones you don't know or never met. Real learning? You mean "out in real life" learning? I don't know your age.....HEY! Maybe I should say "if" in this instance.....but I do know that I am 36 years old and have seen things I imagine you have not. I have quite a bit of knowledge, classroom and street/life in my brain.

I am always ready to learn.

Maybe you should learn that "insinuations" aren't always what you want them to be. Later, QD.

[metalman]

You mean "out in real life" learning? I don't know your age.....HEY! Maybe I should say "if" in this instance.....but I do know that I am 36 years old and have seen things I imagine you have not. I have quite a bit of knowledge, classroom and street/life in my brain.

Awesome. I am quite a bit older then you. Having lived longer then you I have also seen things you probably havent and probably studied things you probably havent. So then, what does that prove?
Nothing really. It just brings us back to the point...you have offered nothing to refute my position that you haven't really studied the creation science OR the evolutionary science to much extent. Instead you have attacked me and simply offered up what appears to be a firm opinion of yours.

I have no problem with you having an opinion or that it differs from mine.
I do challenge the notion that anyone should hold such a firm opinion without studying the subject matter....which I have and continue to do.

Furthermore I have raised a couple scientific issues which you have in no way addressed. And there are a bunch more. Thats cool, most people no nothing about them. I was in the same boat myself UNTIL I did some research and study...and, even now my knowlege on the subjects could be classified as "limited". But, I do know what I have studied thus far. And I do know that it poses real problems to evolutionist theory and I can honestly say "it takes MORE faith to believe in evolution then it does creation"....even though I agree creation does take a certain measure of faith.

Later,
Metalman

[quickdodge®]

Awesome. I am quite a bit older then you. Having lived longer then you I have also seen things you probably havent and probably studied things you probably havent. So then, what does that prove?

Well, it did prove that you assumed things you probably shouldn't have and that I did the exact opposite by not assuming things, like your age. Actually, I did assume you were a lot younger than me, but I sisn't post because I didn't know. And being at your age, whatever that is, I'm sure you do have more knowledge on some things as I'm sure I have over you.

..you have offered nothing to refute my position that you haven't really studied the creation science OR the evolutionary science to much extent.

I'm still trying to get around you attacking my opinion.

Instead you have attacked me and simply offered up what appears to be a firm opinion of yours.

I didn't attack as much as I retailated.

I have no problem with you having an opinion or that it differs from mine.

Same here.

I do challenge the notion that anyone should hold such a firm opinion without studying the subject matter....

It doesn't take a lot of brains to make an opinion on who has more faith out of the two. There has to be a LOT of faith to beleive that a spirit created everything just as there has to be probably an equal amount for scientists to beleive that it was evolution. Hail. For all everyone knows, the dating process they use could be totally wrong. Ya know.

Furthermore I have raised a couple scientific issues which you have in no way addressed.

I haven't looked at most of them. I thought of this subject and asked about people's opinions. Nothing more/nothing less.

Thats cool, most people no nothing about them.

I have faith that this word is supposed to be know.

I was in the same boat myself UNTIL I did some research and study..

I'm not in any boat. Just because I don't choose to learn about religion, doesn't classify me in any way.

.and, even now my knowlege on the subjects could be classified as "limited".

I understand that. I'm sure that most of the stuff I know, I don't know near the whole of.

"it takes MORE faith to believe in evolution then it does creation"..

I feel almost opposite on you on that.

..even though I agree creation does take a certain measure of faith.

Yessir.

Later, QD.

[metalman]

It doesn't take a lot of brains to make an opinion on who has more faith out of the two. There has to be a LOT of faith to beleive that a spirit created everything just as there has to be probably an equal amount for scientists to beleive that it was evolution. Hail. For all everyone knows, the dating process they use could be totally wrong. Ya know.



I haven't looked at most of them. I thought of this subject and asked about people's opinions. Nothing more/nothing less.





I'm not in any boat. Just because I don't choose to learn about religion, doesn't classify me in any way.

First I am glad we settled that, indeed it was as I suspected, you havent studied the subject much. Nothing unusual...youre typical of most people in this specific sense. No shame or insult infered.

Secondly, it isnt about any specific religion. If you want to disbelieve most of what preachers/priests/rabbis/religions etc say I am already there dude. They tell a ton of lies! However that doesnt change the truth from being what it is one bit. Its for us to discover/learn what THAT truth may be.

The items I have mentioned are not "religious" in nature, theyre scientific. The problem is this...they completely destroy evolutionary theory's cornerstones. Yet they (and other scienctific discoveries) are in complete harmony with a "creator" or "Intelligent design". Therein lies the problem for evolutionary theory. Therein lies the reason I say it takes more faith to believe evolution. The rolex watch scenario I gave is actually MORE plausible then evolution given these facts, yet is in fact basiclly what evolutionists would have us all believe, only they even wish for us to believe this origin in in more detail, on multiple levels, multiple species. The complexity of the human body alone with its delicate balance of electrochemical systems came about by accident? Over time???? Just by pieces bumping together?? Talk about a high faith belief!

You know what the REAL issue is for creation vs. evolution I suspect??? Man does NOT wish to believe in a judgement or accountibility for his actions. If man accepts even a hint of creation he then is faced with at least the possibilty of judgement, heaven, hell etc etc etc and all of that. I think thats possibly the greatest influence to mankind when considering the origin of the world/universe etc. We just don't want to be accountable in any eternal sense.

Anyway...nice chattin with ya. Gotta go work on a car.
Metalman

[quickdodge®]

indeed it was as I suspected, you havent studied the subject much.

I never said I had studied it.

...youre typical of most people in this specific sense. No shame or insult infered.

If it wasn't an insult, indulge me in the context to which you posted this. Cool chatting with you, as well. Later, QD.

[metalman]

If it wasn't an insult, indulge me in the context to which you posted this. Cool chatting with you, as well. Later, QD.

That being that I mean no insult in pointing out (what my original comment pertained to) that you havent studied creation/evolution science much. Its not intended to infer that youre stupid, unable to learn or anything of that nature. Neither should it be considered a personal attack. As I recall youre the one calling me names...not vice versa. Thats cool, I've been called worse.

[ISAtlanta300]

all right, all right guys.... LOL both of you are cool peeps... let's get back on topic, shall we?

[b@d @pple]

i like dinosaurs...fuck the bible

[sina518]

i like dinosaurs...fuck the bible

[b@d @pple]

sina dont be mad that i invited that little hooker to daytona..i just wanna get her naked and drunk

[sina518]

sina dont be mad that i invited that little hooker to daytona..i just wanna get her naked and drunk

im just worried shes gonna annoy the hell out of you and were gonna end up leaving her in daytona

[Kelly]

Just a (probably common) question for the evolutionists...

If we "evolved" from monkeys or whatever... Why aren't we still evolving?

[quickdodge®]

^^^ How does one know we aren't still evolving? Remember. Theory is that it took millions of years to evolve. Later, QD.

[Kelly]

^^^ Eh, doubt it. Anyways, your sig link doesn't work. Not for me at least.

[quickdodge®]

Doubt what? Later, QD.

[Kelly]

That we evolved. Just my opinion.

[quickdodge®]

Just my opinion.

Ummm. Exactly. Those last two posts of yours made completely no sense. Well, the first one did, but then you went somewhere. Later, QD.

[Kelly]

How did it not make sense? I just said that I "doubted" the fact that we evolved. It just seems ridiculous. And you think that it seems ridiculous that we were created by God. It's our own opinions...

[quickdodge®]

And you think that it seems ridiculous that we were created by God. .

You'll need to quote me on that.

You asked if we evolved, why aren't we still evolving. I answered that it took millions of years (in theory) to evolve. That just because we won't see it in our life, doesn't mean we aren't. If evolution is where we came from, I doubt that Senior Rico Cavecrawler was a humpbacked, hairy caveman one evening and then after going to bed, woke up a sophisticated, well-groomed, proper-statured young lad. Later, QD.

[{X}Echo419]

maybe adapting is a better word

[Hulud]

How did it not make sense? I just said that I "doubted" the fact that we evolved. It just seems ridiculous. And you think that it seems ridiculous that we were created by God. It's our own opinions...

WOW
it seems ridiculous that we evolved?????

never heard that one before


so i guess since we never evolved we never learned how to make cars, planes etc. you would need some form of evolution to learn how to use these things

[metalman]

so i guess since we never evolved we never learned how to make cars, planes etc. you would need some form of evolution to learn how to use these things

There are two types of evolution.

One can be characterized as changes within a specie or lifeform, such as a flower changing color, or an animal developing a longer nose, or man developing a skill or knowlege etc

The other involves a flower becoming a squirrel, "nothing" becoming a monkey and then ultimately a complex human being etc.

The first does exist, we see it in various species of plants, animals etc...we could also call it adaptation. The second is a far fetched theory for which there is no real proof.

[{X}Echo419]

There are two types of evolution.

One can be characterized as changes within a specie or lifeform, such as a flower changing color, or an animal developing a longer nose, or man developing a skill or knowlege etc

The other involves a flower becoming a squirrel, "nothing" becoming a monkey and then ultimately a complex human being etc.

The first does exist, we see it in various species of plants, animals etc...we could also call it adaptation. The second is a far fetched theory for which there is no real proof.

maybe adapting is a better word

^like I said^

[Kelly]

Thank you metalman. I agree, adapting IS in fact, a better word.

That's what I meant when I said that. Not mankind learning how to make cars, etc... Or a rabbit whose fur has changed to white to camoflauge itsself in the snow...

I'm talking about an ape turning into a human.

[4dmin]

There are two types of evolution.

One can be characterized as changes within a specie or lifeform, such as a flower changing color, or an animal developing a longer nose, or man developing a skill or knowlege etc

The other involves a flower becoming a squirrel, "nothing" becoming a monkey and then ultimately a complex human being etc.

The first does exist, we see it in various species of plants, animals etc...we could also call it adaptation. The second is a far fetched theory for which there is no real proof.

how can you say there is not proof of evolution? what do you call child birth? butterfly? frogs changing sex? cloning?

[quickdodge®]

how can you say there is not proof of evolution? what do you call child birth? butterfly? frogs changing sex? cloning?

Good point. Later, QD.

[metalman]

how can you say there is not proof of evolution? what do you call child birth? butterfly? frogs changing sex? cloning?

See above...

One (type of evolution) can be characterized as changes within a specie or lifeform, such as a flower changing color, or an animal developing a longer nose, or man developing a skill or knowlege etc

The things you mention have only occur within a set parameter within a species, AND in the case of childbirth one could make an excellent case for creation. Nothing that miraculous and delicate comes about by accident. Its even named after creation. And human babies come from other humans, not monkeys, frogs, or ferns.

There is no proof for man coming from "nothing" or a plant changing to animal etc.

[quickdodge®]

There is no proof for man coming from "nothing" or a plant changing to animal etc.

I agree with you, from my knowledge. But, not to upset you(?), but there is no definitive proof that we came from God's image either. There's no set proof of where we came from, on either side. I find both sides fascinating as hail, though, lolol. Later, QD.

[quickdodge®]

And you think that it seems ridiculous that we were created by God. It's our own opinions...

I still want to see this answered to. This chick just side-stepped the shit out of this. Later, QD.

[4dmin]

See above...


The things you mention have only occur within a set parameter within a species, AND in the case of childbirth one could make an excellent case for creation. Nothing that miraculous and delicate comes about by accident. Its even named after creation. And human babies come from other humans, not monkeys, frogs, or ferns.

There is no proof for man coming from "nothing" or a plant changing to animal etc.

no but man evolves from a single sperm into man... the sperm is created from single cell so isn't that the basis of what evolution is about? granted i'm not discounting the fact of some intervention of a higher power, but you can't discount the simple process for what it is.

i believe that creation/evolution goes hand and hand. some intervention is needed to explain the holes in evolution theory, but i don't think that creation can explain everything, b/c to believe in just creation is to believe that life itself is predestined.

[metalman]

no but man evolves from a single sperm into man... the sperm is created from single cell so isn't that the basis of what evolution is about? granted i'm not discounting the fact of some intervention of a higher power, but you can't discount the simple process for what it is.

i believe that creation/evolution goes hand and hand. some intervention is needed to explain the holes in evolution theory, but i don't think that creation can explain everything, b/c to believe in just creation is to believe that life itself is predestined.

How do you get predestination from creation? Please explain.

The miracle of the procreation is only reproduction within a specie, not "evolution" that entails changing into another lifeform. Its a huge jump from human reproduction to mankind evolving from slime/monkeys etc.
As I stated, the miraculous delicate nature of human reproduction is more evidence of Creation by a God then evolution.

[quickdodge®]

As I stated, the miraculous delicate nature of human reproduction is more evidence of Creation by a God then evolution.

I apologize but I didn't see it. Can you tell me what evidence is there for Creation by a God? Again, I'm not debating you or attacking you...just asking because I don't know. Later, QD.

[4dmin]

How do you get predestination from creation? Please explain.

The miracle of the procreation is only reproduction within a specie, not "evolution" that entails changing into another lifeform. Its a huge jump from human reproduction to mankind evolving from slime/monkeys etc.
As I stated, the miraculous delicate nature of human reproduction is more evidence of Creation by a God then evolution.

if you believe in just creation then you can't believe in evolution b/c everything is the way it is b/c of its creator... kinda defeats the point of life, life is predestined for what it is created for. there is no purpose.

i still disagree, humans are formed from single cells that is what the basis of evolution speaks of everything is made up of. i don't see that to be any different. we can grow you in a test tube what do you call that?