<to viral> you missed the "woohoo" thread....

but this one is much better...it actually has content <br>

Goodbye Callisto & Skaði, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.

Keeper: Good point there... one thing we do know is that Mars has had the same strength gravity in its whole history... so its atmospere was most likely the same thickness back then... Since the temps barely get above freezing today even at the equator it is highly unlikely for liquid water to exist anymore... plus the very dry atmosphere and the Sun's heat... but Mars may have had a warmer climate in the distant past that allowed water to exist as a liquid even if just at the equator. There may have been a seasonal equatorial ocean and thick "Ice Age" like polar caps in the north and south...

Good point on the CO2 argument...

<br>

Spit, i'm actually suprised that neither you or Hahaha realized that about the CO2--you're both some of the most intellegent people on this board...i figured you two if any would know that...or mabye it's just my affinity for dry ice and the effects you can make with it

Also, atmospheric pressure is based on gravity--and if you figure that the moon has about 1/6th earth gravity, mars must be around 1/2 (i'm not certain on that), thus having at least half our atmospheric pressure. If earth can't even support liquid CO2, how could mars?

Granted, on mars, water would probably freeze at 10 degrees C and boil around 70 degress c, because of the reduced pressure. <br>

Goodbye Callisto & Skaði, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.

Well SPITfire, call the Bible a science book if you like, there's no point behind it so why go on about something unimportant. I hate to bring up evidence again, but I'd just like to say that there are plenty of archaeological finds that support some of those "fairy tales", like the parting of the Red Sea for example. It seems reasonable to me to believe that they happened. But if you want to think of them as fairy tales, have fun.

What I've explained is true, take it or leave it. All you did in your last post was tell me how since most people believe in evolution, they know what they are talking about. I just finished explaining how that is not true, and about how popularity means nothing, yet you repeated it. You even had to lie to me in order to support your dead case... unless you can back up what you said about laypeople. Where did you get this information about most laypeople believing in evolution? The funny thing is, I've never seen a preacher that believes in evolution. In fact, I can think of 5 preachers that regularly speak against evolution. What do you find when you walk into a Christian book store? At least 20 anti-evolution books. I haven't seen any books from scientists who attempt to tie in evolution with a creator.

Everything you said after that was a fair statement, except you need to know that there are many flaws within each of those things you've mentioned. If there wasn't, we would have a perfect understanding of evolution and there would be an explanation for everything. There is no such thing, so that's why evolutionists rely on faith when it comes to questionable issues... and indeed they are questionable. I've heard a lot of praise for the book Darwin's Black Box by Michael Behe. There are many others, but check that one out if you really want to explore the biological problems of evolution, I know I will be when I get around to it. <br>



<img src="http://www.j-body.org/registry/lancer/sunsetsig.jpg">
<font size="1">Jesus said, "In the world you will have tribulation,
but cheer up, I have overcome the world (John 16:33).</font>

"I want to know how anyone with an open mind can even consider creationism to be true" <------- First post...gotta love that LoL. First how can you be open minded yourself if you say something like that?
Anyway I guess one of many reasons people should believe in God is because you can look at all the movie stars and actors and all the rich people and you see that they have everything anyone could ever ask for...from hot cars to hot chicks and you still see them searching for more and more. They will tell you (if you ever talk to one) that there is still something else, a gap in their lives and hearts. Maybe something that can only be filled by God?
On the other hand, someone with nothing but God and nothing else can be happy and content with their lives, posetions, etc. etc. etc,. Well that's my $.02. Make sense to anyone?
Aaron

nice too see you back keeper

aaron, exellant point, i think they failed to see their own bigotry, however we are all guilty of that, we all believe that out opinion is right, or else we wouldnt choose that opinion, we would choose another. however, some of us are more tolerant of other people's beliefs.

i think it doesnt have to be filled with God, just something strong and spiritual that makes a person feel in ballance with thierselves and the enviroment around them, whether that is God or whatever is preferance, but yes, spirituality definately fills that void. <br>


----the only differance is now i trust even less of what you say.

Good point Keeper... I never even though about how thin the atmosphere on Mars is, but please don't blame it on gravity. It is a result of simply less mass in the atmosphere, not a lack of gravitational pull, mars has about 1/3 the gravity of Earth, but the biggest factor in the thin atmosphere is the lack of air mass. Anyway, good point, we should have thought of that. So where has all the water gone if it was there? There would have been quite a bit judging by the errosion... hmmmm....


Can anyone here who believes in evolution strickly, with no God, explain away the "First cause"?

speaking of mars, it's quite nice lately (in the sky that is)
<br>


----the only differance is now i trust even less of what you say.

Keeper: Chem isn't my favorite subject, the CO2 fact must have escaped me until you reminded me... sorry... haha

Lancer: What you are saying is true?? Bold statement... Dead case... I think not! And comparing evolutionists with creationists, evolutionists are the majority whether they study the subject or not. You don't see creationist beliefs as ingrained in the mainstream anywhere close to the extent evolution is... and creationists brainwash as much as evolutionists do. I have not heard of a creationist that is not either part of clergy or is very religious. You don't see atheists or non-religious scientists arguing against evolution do you? Obviously some bias going on with creationists... About the books, there are far more evolution type books than creation books... Face it, you are the minority. I'm not saying you are all wrong but you are the one fighting us, not the other way around...
I want to hear any supposed "flaws" with the argument that the Earth is more than thousands of years old and that the Universe evolves.

I may have to pick up that book just to see what the other side says. But there are books arguing every single thing in this world, no matter how crazy it may seem. It is human nature to question things...

Aaron: Just read the first post huh? If you are gonna bash my viewpoint then read the whole thing... if you dare

Rocker: yeah Mars is really bright now... I wonder hoiw warm it is there now since I think it is closer to us then its been for 60000 years...

hahaha: Exactly.. that is why creation fits in with evolution to some extent... The Big Bang could not come from nothing so that's where God had to fit in somehow... <br>

A link I thought you guys would be interested in...

Mammoth Cloning

It can/can't be corretated with the discussion, interesting none-the-less. <br>

<img src="http://www.thenervecenter.com/forums/images/avatars/11396830973e88bdf41adc4.jpg">

Stupid URL thingy, here is the article located at the URL above:


Scientists 'to clone mammoth'


Expo 2005 organisers want to display a mammoth
Russian and Japanese scientists are hoping to clone mammoths from what they think are the legs of the extinct animal discovered in Russia's northern Yakutsk region.
Specimens of the animal discovered last year have arrived at Kinki University's Gifu Science and Technology Centre in western Japan.

"The bone marrow, skin and muscle specimens, frozen in nitrogen liquid... look fine. We first have to confirm whether these are really of a mammoth," said the centre's president, Akira Iritani.

The DNA may be damaged and not good enough for cloning, as the remains are believed to be 200,000-300,000 years old, he said.

The scientists are planning to use elephant eggs in the cloning process.

Frozen bodies start to rot the moment they come out of ice

Takeshi Matsuda, mammoth expert

Vektor Research Centre for Virology and Biotechnology of Russia has been working on the project alongside the Japanese scientists.

Last year, the Vladivostok News in Russia reported that scientists believed they could resurrect extinct animals - such as the mammoth and the woolly rhinoceros - to create a prehistoric safari park in northern Siberia.

The region's limited infrastructure was seen as one of the obstacles to establishing such a sanctuary.

Mammoth exhibit

Mammoths appear to be all the rage at the moment. The central Japanese city hosting the Expo 2005 world exposition plans to excavate an entire frozen mammoth and display it at the fair, organisers have said.

Seto and the other cities in Aichi prefecture, 250 kilometres (155 miles) west of Tokyo, have set up the Mammoth Excavation and Exhibition Organisation Committee to send a mission to explore the Siberian permafrost.


Melting permafrost is revealing mammoths
"I believe chances of success will be 80-90%, given technological advances and information accumulated over the years," said Shinji Furukawa, chairman of the new committee.

If realised, the display would greatly impress visitors, he said.

An expedition will leave for Khatanga and Yakutsk in Siberia at the end of the summer. A second expedition has been scheduled for 2004, while organisers hope to transport the frozen animal to Japan by May 2005.

Mr Furukawa said the first expedition would cost about 100m yen ($847,000).

Several full-body mammoths have been found in the past, according to Takeshi Matsuda, a committee member.

"But none of them has been excavated and preserved in a perfect condition... as frozen bodies start to rot the moment they come out of ice," he said.

"It is not a matter of whether there are full bodies but a question of excavation timing and methods," he added.

<br>

<img src="http://www.thenervecenter.com/forums/images/avatars/11396830973e88bdf41adc4.jpg">

SPITfire I think you are missing the point. What I'm saying is that using popularity and an argument for evolution is a dead case. Once again you have resorted to that. Obviously it's important for you to believe in what's popular. Is that your underlying basis for trusting evolution?

An atheist said to me about 3 months ago "I don't think evolution is the answer but someday we'll have a theory that makes more sense". That was in an atheist chat room on WinMX. He then went on to debate evolution with other people in the room. So yes, I have seen an atheist debate evolution. I have even heard of atheist scientists who reject evolution. They're out there.

Again, what I'm trying to say here is... just because it's popular doesn't make it true. Your cases for creationist brainwashing are far weaker than my arguments for evolutionist brainwashing. You can't deny how badly evolution is shoved in our faces. Of course most people are going to assume it's true. A lot of people don't care one way or the other. Since popularity is so important to you, you should know that there is plenty of resistance to evolution out there. Is that resistance increasing? Maybe. 2 books I've read along with 2 audio messages stated that numerous scientists are turning away from evolution. But enought of that. <br>


<img src="http://www.j-body.org/registry/lancer/sunsetsig.jpg">
<font size="1">All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine,
for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of
God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works (2 Timothy 3:16-17).</font>

What I've explained is true, take it or leave it

Truth is always relative to the person that holds it.

<hahaha--1st post since my last one>
When it comes to atmosphere, it's gravity that attracts and keeps it--at least initially. Mars could have never had an atmosphere as thick as earths because it's only 1/3 the gravity. Venus, OTOH, has the heat, and the gravity to hold it's atmosphere in, plus, it's atmosphere is mostly CO2, meaning that it's heaver, and thus more dense, and thus, under the same gravty, is also thicker, which creates more pressure--if you follow. I can't base mars' atmosphere being so think on gravity alone, but gravity is part of the cause.

As for the water, i believe some probably flash-evaporated. the rest is probably groundwater or in a permafrost layer--but don't quote that as a fact .

<rocker> thanks for welcoming me back, yes it is nice looking, but from an astrological standpoint, could be a dire omen since mars rules passions, so people can tend to run away with them and do stupid things...but i digress...

<br>

Goodbye Callisto & Skaði, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.

So for some people lettuce is not green? <br>


<img src="http://www.j-body.org/registry/lancer/sunsetsig.jpg">
<font size="1">All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine,
for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of
God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works (2 Timothy 3:16-17).</font>

<to lancer> ask a colorblind person. to them, red and green are the same color. <br>

Goodbye Callisto & Skaði, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.

Ok. <br>


<img src="http://www.j-body.org/registry/lancer/sunsetsig.jpg">
<font size="1">All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine,
for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of
God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works (2 Timothy 3:16-17).</font>

lancer there are also tribes that have two colors other then black and white, for example there is a tribe with two colors, reds and non reds, so lettice isnt green, it is non red.

perspective is everything, fact is relitive. <br>


----the only differance is now i trust even less of what you say.

Lancer: No I'm not just following a crowd... I am educated enough not to have to resort to being a blind follower. From all my schooling and reading I still consider evolution the leading candidate.

For anyone who is looking for alternatives to evolutionary theory, good for them... maybe they can find something that works better... but I'm sure that scientists will not accept the literal Biblical version since there is no way to prove it and science is all about proof.

Those scientists may be sceptical about evolution, but I'm sure they don't reject ALL of it. While they may not believe in biological evolution they still may believe in a billion year old Earth and stellar evolution... some people, including me, admit that certain parts of the theory are yet unproven... that is why I believe God may fit into evolutionary theory somehow in order to fill some of the holes. I would be interested to know the religious background of these scientists who rejected evolution.

Let me ask this... if the evidence is supposedly so convincing for creation, why wasn't evolution immediately rejected when it first appeared? There have been numerous discoveries since Darwin's time and I'd think scientists would be smart enough to determine which was most supported by this evidence... if creation is so true in your mind, why was it evolution, and not creation, which reached mainstream status...

Everyone (mostly) believed in creation before evolution appeared. That is nearly all religious persons... now the percentage that believe in creation has dropped heavily... I'd be curious to see a census done on how many really do... you can admit that many are jsut followers but the evolution argument must have made an impression to "convert" them...



<br>

and just as many creationists are "followers" as well as people who believe in evolution. Unfortunately many people just believe because the teacher or preacher tells them to, and this is more prevalent with creationists. Many are forbidden to even learn about evolutionary theory because the Church fears it may corrupt the children. I believe to study evolution takes much more intelligence then just memorizing the first book of the Bible. But creationists that study both from a scientific angle are also intelligent in my mind, even though I don't agree with them...

So don't call evolutionists blind followers because there are alot more blind followers of religion in this world...

<br>

when i fart, it evolves into this rotten egg smell. Then people around me say "oh my God!". I think it's the same way with this evolutionary/creationalism thing.

sorry... don't mind my immature post. I just wanted to be part of this thread because of it's length. <br>



<img src=http://www.j-body.org/registry/italbro/silverstallion3.jpg>

<--hands suilversunfire a dunce cap. <br>

Goodbye Callisto & Skaði, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.

Here's something for the creationalists that cannot see ANY evolution to consider....

consider all the states of human physical appearance:

the vairance in "normal" height...from 4-11 to 7-2

consider the fact that eyes naturally can be blue, grey, green, hazel, burnt orange, brown, obsidian, and violet

Consider all the different hair colors: Plat. blonde, dirty blonde, ashen blonde, strawberry blonde, firey red, burgundy, light brunette, deep brunette, ashen brunette, blackish-brown, black. consider the texture as well, baby fine, thich-n-straight, wavy, curly.

Consider the myriad of skin tones, from the deepest browns, tans, off-yellows, pinks, creams, freckled even....

Consider all of that...

Now, ask this...

How could all of those come from 2 "alpha" humans, each with a 23-PAIR chromazome genome, without ANY evolution, possibly create all those combos i've listed? <br>

Goodbye Callisto & Skaði, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.

KOTL, they had the genetic information for all of those variants, even though many of those traits didn't become prevalent until future generations. We covered that quite a while ago.

SPITfire:
<b>"but I'm sure that scientists will not accept the literal Biblical version since there is no way to prove it and scence is all about proof."</b>

Many scientists accept evolution and that's not proven, and there's no way to prove it. Something is wrong with this statement. BTW, no part of evolution is proven except natural selection. That's 85% of the theory that is unproven. Science is all about proof? Well then why do scientists waste time on evolution? There are more important things that would aid in the lives and knowledge of everyone. Like I said before, science should stay out of things like origins. It's never going to be anything more than guesswork, no matter what idea they take on. We weren't there when the universe was created. They need to stop pretending that they can know everything about the universe. It's just not gonna happen, not now, not ever.

<b>"Let me ask this... if the evidence is supposedly so convincing for creation, why wasn't evolution immediately rejected when it first appeared?"</b>

1) We didn't have the good amount of supporting evidence for creation back then that we have now. So, in this aspect your question is wrong. Open minded science is revealing a lot these days, and it's nice to see scientists giving creation a chance. Another thing to note is, there are scientists who have rejected evolution and have become creationist scientists. I read a book by one of them. I don't understand how you are sure that this doesn't happen... assumptions maybe?

2) Back then atheists were itching for a theory that could exclude God. Like you said, evolution seems to work, so they had their seemingly intelligent argument against God. They needed this for a long time. Various events including the famous Scopes Trial propelled evolution first into the government and then into the mainstream public. Now if you want, you can go back and read what I said about what motivates evolution today. Unfortunately creation science doesn't get the money that evolution science does, but it's still making progress (see bottom).

3) One could also ask how Islam became the fastest growing religion in the world, when it's origins came from people who made things up about Mohammed after he was dead for 200 years, and then recorded those things. There was no witness support. Why wasn't it rejected? People wanted to believe it. It seemed to work, just like evolution. People were taught that Islam was true since they were young, and look where it ended up today. These things happen. Deception is a part of life. It is said that people who run from God and his Word cause all of the trouble in the world.

<b>"Unfortunately many people just believe because the teacher or preacher tells them to, and this is more prevalent with creationists."</b>

Are you sure about that? Evolution has a monopoly in our schools. It's a process of brainwashing. I can say that many evolutionists follow the theory blindly because it's true. Anyway the point is, these blind people don't help your case for evolution, so stop saying that popularity is significant as a tool for proving evolution. Sure people follow religion blindly, but that's not the point. If schools taught that 6-day creation was fact, then it would be mainstream. This has nothing to do with convincing evidence.

Just recently another evolutionist idea was shot down:

July 22, 2003
"Fossilized skin imprints from “Ezekiel” the Edmontosaurus point to recent catastrophic death of this duck-billed giant. Find counters the myth that the Edmontosaurus was a transitional dinosaur with feathers." "“Buried in the same strata with Ezekiel were evidences of animals which, by evolutionary standards, should not be there, including garfish and turtles."

This one comes from www.creationexpeditions.com.

In other news ... Bob Enyart is doing a fine job in this debate. This guy is amazing in my opinion. It's great to see someone this knowledgable engaging in an online debate... I recommend it to everybody, or whoever has the time to read it all. <br>


<img src="http://www.j-body.org/registry/lancer/sunsetsig.jpg">
<font size="1">All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine,
for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of
God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works (2 Timothy 3:16-17).</font>

lancer,

correction: unless god changed the human genome, there is no way 2 people could carry all those traits, no way, i know too much about the human genome to accept that as an answer. <br>


----the only differance is now i trust even less of what you say.

lancer to also add

sharks are actually the longest exsisting amimal, they preceeded the dinosaurs and still exsist, rememeber thengs only change if needed, why mess up a good thing right? anyway with that being said it could be that sharks are 250 million years old or more, maybe originally feeding off tiny plankton and fish that havent exsisted for millenia, also they seem to find other aquadic life or ainchient origin off the cost of madagascar, i think 3 or 4 so far. <br>


----the only differance is now i trust even less of what you say.