![]() |
I only drink sweet tea.
|
Quote:
Way to poison the well, yo. EDIT: I totally missed everyone saying pretty much what I said. It's still true, though. |
James, be more active yo.
|
Quote:
All I meant is that science helped to cause the war.... that all I ment... |
Religion is the cause of most wars. Maybe you should get together with the damn missionaries that just came to my appartment and wasted 5 minutes of my life trying to force their religion down my throat.
The first thing I told them was "I'm not interested." What do you think they did next? "Do you believe in Jesus Christ" blah blah I'm a retard blah blah. After about 5 minutes of telling them I'm not convertable and I don't believe their rediculous religion I finally had to slam the door in their faces because they wouldn't go the hell away. That's the problem with religion, most religions can't accept the fact that someone else doesn't believe what they believe, so they do everything in their power to convert people. These guys thought they were doing me a favor by trying to convert me, when not only did they waste my time and their time, but they got me pretty pissed off in the process. This doesn't just apply to religions however, for instance our government is trying to "bring democracy" to other countries. Who the hell decided democracy is the best form of government. I'm not saying it isn't, but let other people make their own decisions. |
Quote:
Quote:
A more accurate analogy than the one you presented would start off with four letters thrown in a hat. The language you spoke would only consist of 64 word. Each word in your language was only three letters long. What would be the chance that if you drew 3 random letters you would form a word? Easy. 100%. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Second, he describes the big bang as "basically everything went kaboom." What. The. Fuck. Honestly. This guy is a doctor? THERE WAS NO FUCKING EXPLOSION IN THE BIG BANG! I'll get back to you after I watch the next 30 seconds. Or maybe after I watch the rest. Now I'm at 1 minute. This guy makes me laugh almost as much as you. He's either a make-believe doctor, or he's recently suffered memory loss. "Somewhere in the water on earth something got zapped by an x-ray or something and then all of a sudden you have this little spec of life." I'm paraphrasing, but that's the essence of what he said. This guy isn't presenting any scientific facts. It's evident in his tone that all he's doing is setting himself up to belittle the idea of evolution with fabricated facts. He goes on to say that this little spec of life somehow became the first cell. Riiight. If he was a doctor he would know that the cell was the basic unit of life. Anything before that wasn't really considered life. I'll get back to you when I feel like it. I am now at 1 minute and 6 seconds. In the previous 6 seconds, the moron has managed to claim that cells began forming 600 million years ago. The ediacaran period already had animals. We know this due to sparse, yet real (a concept this man might want to learn about) fossilized records. The reason I am responding this frequently to this video is because I can't remember all the misinformation this guy gives out without having to reply to each one individually when he says it. I am now at a 1:21 in the video. During the last 15 seconds, some random guy popped up and gave us a brief background of "Dr." Jobe Martin. I decided to do some research on my own. From the minute I spent on google, I found out that Martin is an evangelical, which of course implies a hidden agenda. His masters is in theology. So basically, here's a guy who took basic biology courses, and we're supposed to believe him over professors and doctors actually in the field of biology? Especially considering the fact that after 30 seconds he gave out enough misinformation on any scientific topic that after hearing that any major university would consider him a quack. Please. He may be able to be a professor of theology, but he's a joke of a scientist. You don't need a huge biology background to become a fucking dentist. I'm now at 2:23 in the video. He goes on talking about assumptions that evolutionists make. He does not actually name the assumptions, he just says that we make them. The one assumption that he does specify is the age of rocks. I suppose he does not understand the concept of radiometric dating? And yes, it is accurate. Carbon-14 dating loses some of its precision past 50,000 years due to earths changing environment, however there are other methods of radiometric dating which do not. They match up well against each other, and other independent forms of dating such as tree rings, Milankovitch cycles, and luminescence dating methods. I have now finished the video. "Dr." Martin simply gave us an argument of incredulity. He can not conceive how the beetle would have formed, therefore it could not have formed is not a sufficient argument. And, in fact, I've heard this bullshit about the bombardier beetle quite a few times before. He's not original. And there are many plausible evolutionary paths that this animal could have taken, and they're not difficult to find if you search google. I'm not going to actually look for one right now, but they do exist. Look them up. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
2.) Yet, even at birth, the child's genome could not be traced simply by knowing its parents genome, even if every single permutation of the parents genome was found. This is due to genetic variation. Enough genetic variation, and the animal stops being a toy poodle. Quote:
Quote:
|
Don't take this the wrong way, but this is the first time I've fully read one of your posts in an argument, MJ. Usually I just skim over it looking for key phrases that indicate ridicule.
I wonder if Draco has any unexplained gingers in the family. That might help to explain genetic variation to him a bit. Either that or a large hammer will do the trick. |
Off-topic: That's why I like Buddhists. They dont' try to force ANYONE to convert (except a few Indian kings a few centuries ago, but as a whole they're pretty cool).
|
*sigh*
KA has forced me to get a flash blocker. -_- |
One thing: Hitler waged his war on the stance of racism. It was all the craze to blame Jews for everything at the time. Hitler got most of his ideas on how to persecute the Jews from the Catholic Church. Even the famed "Protestant Reformation" leader Martin Luther was EXTREMELY against Jews. He condoned hate crimes and even murdering of them.
Look at what the father of the Protestant faith has to say about Jews. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_and_the_Jews Germany needed someone to blame for their failure to win World War 1. They were content to believe that Jews who had infiltrated the highest levels of the Germany government surrendered to the Allies when they could still win the war. |
Jews have always been persecuted. A large majority of Russian Tsars persecuted the Jews. Kaiser Wilhelm II persecuted the Jews to some degree. Strangely, Bismarck didn't, instead choosing to persecute the Catholics with Kulturkampf.
|
The safest place the Jews have had so far seems to be America.
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
The Pogroms were awful.
|
Quote:
Quote:
Now, you say there are "64 possible tri-nucleotide combinations"... yet each combination stands for a certain amino acid.... what could have possibly read the DNA and understood what was going to happen if there was nothing but DNA and random collections of non-living matter floating around? Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Look, if the flood is your worry, blaim the parents for just sitting there and just watching the water slowly rise around their child... the pharoh knowingly and willingly killed innocent children, blame him for his actions not God... as you said before, "he holds them accountable", maening you are responsible for your own actions, not someone elts... Quote:
Quote:
You are right, science does make death quicker, but most people want that technology to blow up the enemy country, then the enemy country wants to stop them from using the technology, so they go over and try to stop them... thats how a war starts sometimes... Quote:
Quote:
Anyway... the toy poodle would only have the genes of a toy poodle and its genetic variation... the genetic variation would only be that of a toy poodle, it would not have gained any new information... basically, the variation would not cause any differences in the dog that is not already there... the variation could cause the dog to have two different colors of fur(one color from each parent) or something of that nature, the dog would not gain something unless that trait it bred in... Quote:
The dog would already have that gene if the offspring were taller than it, the variation would be the different hights of the dogs... Quote:
|
Quote:
And for heavens sake, spell check before you post! CD wrighter? Blaim? Quote:
|
Quote:
funny...:rolleyes: |
But yet, your responses are still very half-assed.
|
Quote:
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:37 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
This site is best seen with your eyes open.