Re: Let's Fling Some [Bigfoot] Poop

CMcMillan Thu Sep 20, 2012 9:48 pm

Wow

OK science GUYS
Answer me 2 simple Questions:

1.) We evolved from a Single cell organism and every bit of Life on this planet came from the same Single cells Why is their such a variety of animals and Plant life?

2.) The Universe was created via the BigBang or expanding universe. Where did the 2 initial Particles come from that caused the big bang?

I want the actual scientific Evidance and the experiments to back your answer up. I want to see the Results of us creating a New life form or a new universe.

Then you can mock peoples belief in a higher life form all you want.

DPinkerton Thu Sep 20, 2012 9:50 pm

StankApe wrote:I had reached the end by that point, , tired of talking to obvious children.....

You were tired by post number three on this thread? Your very first post? Yu were tired of talking before you even said anything?

Nice try....but as I have shown ...the facts present themselves. You began by belittling and putting down others.

**Blondie1** Thu Sep 20, 2012 9:51 pm

StankApe wrote:I had reached the end by that point, , tired of talking to obvious children..... if you will believe anything someone tells you, you are a child. so I flipped out on em...... fuck em if they can't take it. weak people have no place trying to debate science they don't even understand anyway.

stick to church , you can go there and pretend to believe in some silly invisible man who lives in the sky all you want (and have a pot luck dunner afterwards!!) leave the people who have a brain to worry about life's big issues. Most of you would be better left to stuff like cutting grass and knitting.

I've gotten where I just don't give a shit anymore here. I've gone from someone who really wanted to discuss these thins in depth, to someone who got sick of being fucked with and fought back. Then I realized that it would be much more interesting to just troll ..... it gets the EXACT SAME RESPONSE I got when I tried to be nice and discuss... I still got called names, threatened with violence....etc, at least now I get to crack up when somebody pretends their feelings got hurt (and if susi's feelings really got hurt that bad, then she needs to see somebody cuz dat shit ain't normal0

I wonder about some of you, so easily frazzled. Hell when my house got broken into last month I stayed up all night, but not due to fear, I was sitting there with an aluminium bat waiting to brain those bastards.... I think most of you would have moved to swaziland...........

I don't get why not believing in god and wanting to keep prayer out of schools means I hate my country though. there isn't a christian/constitution connection. the founding fathers were deists, they were mostly Free Masons who believed in The Great Architect of the Universe, not some christian god (and they pretty explicitly said that there was to be no state church and no state sponsored religion).... but apparently, once you get to be old (blondie) or indoctrinated, you can just ignore the constitution and let Jesus take over...... that's a bad plan

CMcMillan Thu Sep 20, 2012 10:03 pm

@stank,

Question: If you dislike us so much and what we believe in or how we talk about things, Why do you keep coming back?
I mean you have the other NON Fringe Bigfoot forum to talk all you want about YOUR Stuff with SN.

Just seems to me you just like to come over here and bash on people over here.

Since this the united states your free to be an aethist all you want. While others of us can worship what ever we want.
I am a Wiccan, but i don't bash on christians for who or what they believe in.
If Dpinkerton wants to worship the Eldar gods ~Giggles just teasing~ She can.

But to call people stupid cause they have faith in something is a childish act of someone who is afraid of their own belief.

Tzieth Thu Sep 20, 2012 11:30 pm

Woodwose wrote:Although I think that StankApe's attitude is counterproductive, I understand his frustration and think he is right up to a certain point.

Anyone who denies evolution (not to be confused with the TOE) is a crackpot. To disregard the findings of hundreds of evolutionary scientists is frankly crazy.

The view that all things are possible because science does not have the answers is also BS. Science operates according to falsifiability and it can only continue as long as people question the norm.

As far as religeon is concerned, anyone who has studied comparative theology can see that there is no consensus and that atheism towards competing religions clearly points towards religion being entirely man made.

"Although I think that StankApe's attitude is counterproductive, I understand his frustration and think he is right up to a certain point.

Anyone who denies evolution (not to be confused with the TOE) is a crackpot. To disregard the findings of hundreds of evolutionary scientists is frankly crazy."

Okay, you have me on your terminology of the word "Hominid" sort of. From what I am reading both terms are accepted. But "To disregard the findings of hundreds of evolutionary scientists is frankly crazy." What findings? Name one single finding??? You can't because there is none! That whole field is fudged to fit it's atheistic view point. So you found fossils of multiple Hominids and I mean "HOMINIDS" as in not apes. Actually I did not know the degree to which it has been fudged until I stumbled onto it by accident. Some of these closely related Hominids on the tree are debated as possibly being the same damed creature. Everyone wants their name on crap. Many of these are based on broken bones of non complete skeletons.

Evolution lacks more evidence, then you are willing to accept. You based all modern biology off of it, and you based genealogy off of it. And now the case Stank was trying to make "DNA" is countering it in a way.

"The view that all things are possible because science does not have the answers is also BS. Science operates according to falsifiability and it can only continue as long as people question the norm."

Really? then why aren't evolutionists doing the same? Are they making crap up to fit their theory? I brought up the Hominid skeletons to you to make a point about Patty's proportions. You then said that many of those skeletons were not complete. So which is it? Are the reconstructions correct, or were things fudged to meet an agenda? Question the norm? So making theories into hard science and passing them off as fact is "Questioning the norm"?.. Well.. I guess it is now. lol

"As far as religeon is concerned, anyone who has studied comparative theology can see that there is no consensus and that atheism towards competing religions clearly points towards religion being entirely man made."

Atheism IS a religion. And because it IS a religion, no one is asking the right questions. At least creationists have a God to check their arrogance before it gets out of hand. (Pride is a sin.)

"As far as religeon is concerned, anyone who has studied comparative theology can see that there is no consensus and that atheism towards competing religions clearly points towards religion being entirely man made."

That made absolutely no sense. The most I got out of it was Atheists think religion is man-made... uhh yeah we all know this. lol

Tzieth Thu Sep 20, 2012 11:39 pm

CMcMillan wrote:@stank,

Question: If you dislike us so much and what we believe in or how we talk about things, Why do you keep coming back?
I mean you have the other NON Fringe Bigfoot forum to talk all you want about YOUR Stuff with SN.

Just seems to me you just like to come over here and bash on people over here.

Since this the united states your free to be an aethist all you want. While others of us can worship what ever we want.
I am a Wiccan, but i don't bash on christians for who or what they believe in.
If Dpinkerton wants to worship the Eldar gods ~Giggles just teasing~ She can.

But to call people stupid cause they have faith in something is a childish act of someone who is afraid of their own belief.

I think he may have been banned from it. Rolling Eyes

Tzieth Fri Sep 21, 2012 12:46 am

StankApe wrote:I had reached the end by that point, , tired of talking to obvious children..... if you will believe anything someone tells you, you are a child. so I flipped out on em...... fuck em if they can't take it. weak people have no place trying to debate science they don't even understand anyway.

stick to church , you can go there and pretend to believe in some silly invisible man who lives in the sky all you want (and have a pot luck dunner afterwards!!) leave the people who have a brain to worry about life's big issues. Most of you would be better left to stuff like cutting grass and knitting.

I've gotten where I just don't give a shit anymore here. I've gone from someone who really wanted to discuss these thins in depth, to someone who got sick of being fucked with and fought back. Then I realized that it would be much more interesting to just troll ..... it gets the EXACT SAME RESPONSE I got when I tried to be nice and discuss... I still got called names, threatened with violence....etc, at least now I get to crack up when somebody pretends their feelings got hurt (and if susi's feelings really got hurt that bad, then she needs to see somebody cuz dat shit ain't normal0

I wonder about some of you, so easily frazzled. Hell when my house got broken into last month I stayed up all night, but not due to fear, I was sitting there with an aluminium bat waiting to brain those bastards.... I think most of you would have moved to swaziland...........

I don't get why not believing in god and wanting to keep prayer out of schools means I hate my country though. there isn't a christian/constitution connection. the founding fathers were deists, they were mostly Free Masons who believed in The Great Architect of the Universe, not some christian god (and they pretty explicitly said that there was to be no state church and no state sponsored religion).... but apparently, once you get to be old (blondie) or indoctrinated, you can just ignore the constitution and let Jesus take over...... that's a bad plan

That whole post was an oxymoron in it's self... Where do i start?

1) If we believed everything we were told, wouldn't we believe you?

2) You do not "Pretend to believe" you either do or you don't. lol

3) You speak of us talking about science we know nothing about, and yet when we point out the problems with your "Science" you not only address them, but you resort to flinging insults at people.

4) The great Architect of the Universe IS the Christian God lol. Jesus himself was a builder. The Free Masons were an off-shoot of the Knights Templar. They were excommunicated from the Catholic Church and then later eradicated when the Catholics Stated that they were heretics and worshiped the Devil. They in turn Considered the Catholic Church as corrupt and felt that they found proof that the Church was withholding information due to some sort of document or relect they uncovered during the last Crusade.(No one knows what it is, but the thought is that it is what now drives the Free Masons) They followed a form of Christianity boarder-lined "Gnosticism" but was more of a Christian version of kabbalism. When the Church started eradicating them, legend has it that this was when the hiding Templars founded the Free-Masons. (Free Masons are so secretive that no one knows.) But the Free Masons use Templar symbols. (All Templars were warrior Priests)

Separation between Church and State, meant that the State could not tell the Church what do do (As with England) And the Church could not tell the State what to do (As with the rest of Europe.) This was to maintain "Freedom of Religion" But to them all religion was Christianity. Puritans, Quakers, Catholics, Anglicans etc.. As Everyone in the Colonies followed one of these sects.

To keep prayer out of school is un-American because it also violates Church and State. and Freedom of Religion at the same time. Here you have the State telling the Church it cannot do something. Schools could be private or Public. But Public does not mean "State" in "Separation between Church and State" State means the Government and the Government's allegiance was to God and not denomination. "One Nation under God" Even the President swears his oath to God while placing his hand on the Bible "So help me God".

If the School was forcing students to pray, that is one thing. But it has no right to tell students that they cannot form their own prayer groups. (but they keep trying, succeeding and then getting sued and repealing.) I guess it is irrelevant now though. Something is about to happen that will change everything.

Woodwose Fri Sep 21, 2012 5:54 am

DPinkerton wrote:The beginning of this whole "evolution" debate was pointing out that the theory of evolution is just that...a theory.

That's an age old fallacy that originates in the fact that the common definition of 'theory' differs from that used by science. In science 'theory' refers to a concept that has been verified, tested and holds it's weight. If the TOE was theory in common terms it would be called the hypothesis of evolution. There is proof in abundance and it is only denied by believers in iron age sky fairies!

Evolution is observable, testable and repeatable and it is only the notion of how that evolution occurs that is open to debate (barely). Sometimes I have to wonder if critics of evolution have ever read about the subject as most of the criticisms don't read as 'science can't explain this' but rather 'I don't understand science, therefore it is wrong'.

This is an example of how in some cases theories are accepted as fact despite proof....and how science is not all facts as people would like it to be.

Only if you insist on misrepresenting science and being dishonest about the facts.

CMcMillan Fri Sep 21, 2012 6:52 am

Ok then Wood

answer my questions

1.) We evolved from a Single cell organism and every bit of Life on this planet came from the same Single cells Why is their such a variety of animals and Plant life?
What specifically made us Humans and Not A Fruitfly.... Where is the Experments showing that Enviroment has created a new species?

2.) The Universe was created via the BigBang and is an expanding universe. Where did the 2 initial Particles come from that caused the big bang or the many Smaller Bigbangs come from.
If you say they were just their then your Belief / Faith is that somehow magically the Particles were their from Nothing. If you say they came from another Dimension where did the other Dimension come from what started that.

I want actual Scientific Tested Proof.
If the bigbang was created from superheating 2 or from smashing 2 particles together would we not have created a New Universe by now in the labs that do this with other particles?

Carroll, a theoretical cosmologist at the California Institute of Technology explained in a recent article in the "Blackwell Companion to Science and Christianity" (Wiley-Blackwell, 2012), a foremost goal of modern physics is to formulate a working theory that describes the entire universe, from subatomic to astronomical scales, within a single framework. Such a theory, called "quantum gravity," will necessarily account for what happened at the moment of the Big Bang. Some versions of quantum gravity theory that have been proposed by cosmologists predict that the Big Bang, rather than being the starting point of time, was just "a transitional stage in an eternal universe," in Carroll's words. For example, one model holds that the universe acts like a balloon that inflates and deflates over and over under its own steam. If, in fact, time had no beginning, this shuts the book on Genesis. [Big Bang Was Actually a Phase Change, New Theory Says]

Other versions of quantum gravity theory currently being explored by cosmologists predict that time did start at the Big Bang. But these versions of events don't cast a role for God either. Not only do they describe the evolution of the universe since the Big Bang, but they also account for how time was able to get underway in the first place. As such, these quantum gravity theories still constitute complete, self-contained descriptions of the history of the universe. "Nothing in the fact that there is a first moment of time, in other words, necessitates that an external something is required to bring the universe about at that moment," Carroll wrote

Another way to put it is that contemporary physics theories, though still under development and awaiting future experimental testing, are turning out to be capable of explaining why Big Bangs occur, without the need for a supernatural jumpstart. As Alex Filippenko, an astrophysicist at the University of California, Berkeley, said in a conference talk earlier this year, "The Big Bang could've occurred as a result of just the laws of physics being there. With the laws of physics, you can get universes."

(( Really so why have we not created a new universe with the laws of Physics))

Another role for God is as a raison d'être for the universe. Even if cosmologists manage to explain how the universe began, and why it seems so fine-tuned for life, the question might remain why there is something as opposed to nothing. To many people, the answer to the question is God. According to Carroll, this answer pales under scrutiny. There can be no answer to such a question, he says.

<---That is a cop out in my opinion, we can not answer that so we are not

"Most scientists … suspect that the search for ultimate explanations eventually terminates in some final theory of the world, along with the phrase 'and that's just how it is,'" Carroll wrote. People who find this unsatisfying are failing to treat the entire universe as something unique — "something for which a different set of standards is appropriate." A complete scientific theory that accounts for everything in the universe doesn't need an external explanation in the same way that specific things within the universe need external explanations. In fact, Carroll argues, wrapping another layer of explanation (i.e., God) around a self-contained theory of everything would just be an unnecessary complication. (The theory already works without God.)

Judged by the standards of any other scientific theory, the "God hypothesis" does not do very well, Carroll argues. But he grants that "the idea of God has functions other than those of a scientific hypothesis."

So basically he is saying that Since we already Believe in a "GOD" then why can't we believe in the Universe was just there. So guess what Guys you have a Belief in something that can not be proved!! Welcome to your Relgion of science. You go to the church of science and study your Scientific text to explain the universe.
Its what relgion did in the past.
But of course scientists will be all upset by calling science a relegion.

Source:
http://news.yahoo.com/science-someday-rule-possibility-god-115945479.html

CMcMillan Fri Sep 21, 2012 6:57 am

Wood Science has no Hypothesis?
So why are there 3 Theories of Quantum Gravity? Should One of these be the only correct one since it is testable and verifiable? You wouldn't have 3 different versions if you can only get one test and one verifiable solution?
They are all called Theories

Woodwose Fri Sep 21, 2012 7:12 am

Talk about straw men built on top of straw men.

1. I did not say that science does not use hypotheses. I was making a distinction between the common usage of 'theory' and that used by science. The TEO is not an hypothesis.

2. The Big Bang has sweet FA to do with evolution. Cosmology is a separate field and asking evolution to explain the Big Bang is like asking a Doctor how to build a bridge. Doctors are not engineers and evolutionary biologists don't study cosmology.

3. Clearly there are competing hypotheses relating to the quantum world (again nothing to do with evolution).

4. Diversity is a product of environmental pressure and there are abundant examples of this occurring and even - shock horror
- examples in Darwin's OTOOS. You are in no position to criticise the TOE if you haven't even bothered to read up on the subject. Try these for a start: http://listverse.com/2011/11/19/8-examples-of-evolution-in-action/

**Blondie1** Fri Sep 21, 2012 7:55 am

deleted

CMcMillan Fri Sep 21, 2012 8:17 am

Wait they are Straw MEN because you can not answer them and cause they are unanswerable? Yet they are questions that science can not answer.
So now your Saying that these other sciences and science theory doesn't apply to Evolution theory? But science is fact no?

And actually I know a bit about it.
I posted Reasons for Evolution prior you must have MISSED that.
Yes that shows evolution of an animal that stays Identical to the animal. I want to see evolution from a Single cell organism manipulated in a LAB to show evolution. they should be able to do this.
They should be able to when they clone something to "affect" changes in the environment as it grows to cause the Sheep to be different or the fruit fly to eventually change into a new species. right now Evolution is an Observed science. Which funny is much of what BIGFOOT research is.

Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.

Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution.

Finally, there is an epistemological argument against evolution as fact. Some readers of these newsgroups point out that nothing in science can ever be "proven" and this includes evolution. According to this argument, the probability that evolution is the correct explanation of life as we know it may approach 99.9999...9% but it will never be 100%. Thus evolution cannot be a fact. This kind of argument might be appropriate in a philosophy class (it is essentially correct) but it won't do in the real world. A "fact," as Stephen J. Gould pointed out (see above), means something that is so highly probable that it would be silly not to accept it. This point has also been made by others who contest the nit-picking epistemologists.

The honest scientist, like the philosopher, will tell you that nothing whatever can be or has been proved with fully 100% certainty, not even that you or I exist, nor anyone except himself, since he might be dreaming the whole thing. Thus there is no sharp line between speculation, hypothesis, theory, principle, and fact, but only a difference along a sliding scale, in the degree of probability of the idea. When we say a thing is a fact, then, we only mean that its probability is an extremely high one: so high that we are not bothered by doubt about it and are ready to act accordingly. Now in this use of the term fact, the only proper one, evolution is a fact. For the evidence in favor of it is as voluminous, diverse, and convincing as in the case of any other well established fact of science concerning the existence of things that cannot be directly seen, such as atoms, neutrons, or solar gravitation ....

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

Yes and again we have a Theory that Scientists can not agree on 100% on how it works.
See Scientists don't like the word Belief since they link Belief to Faith. So they decided to change the word Theory to fit their need.

I do not discount Evolution: But even in the Science and study of Evolution scientists admit they can not explain everything. They still have their very own Belief's (Theories of it) sometimes conflicting.

I don't understand Atheists and scientist who love to jump on people who believe in some other "being" you can't be happy in assuming you KNOW the real facts? You have to bash others beliefs?

We are not in hear calling you Idiots or children or what ever because you believe in something that JUST IS and supposedly always was.
Science in the end has a Belief. Scientists don't want to admit it but to just say well the universe is just that~and was always.
That is Belief.

CMcMillan Fri Sep 21, 2012 8:18 am

woohooo fun!!

CMcMillan Fri Sep 21, 2012 8:43 am

Wood, Stank

Can we just drop the debate about Faith and Religion.

I feel it is insulting for you both to call people crazy and cookey for our beliefs.
We all have things we believe in. Some will not see it as Beliefs but we all do.
We can still have conversations about Bigfoot, UFO's and other "fringe" things that don't include religion.

My opinion on things is that we should QUESTION even what science says is fact.
I am a Wiccan I was raised Christian.
For me I prefer the "the goddess" and her consort "the god"
For me my belief is more about being around a community with similar people.
I don't take science out of the equation or even evolution. I will not sit and pound into your head you must believe in my goddess.
But I expect you to have some respect for my belief. And not attack it or any others.
FYI: In college I studied many Mythologies, Greek, Norse, Hindu, Chinese, Japaneses, Celtic, Egyptian and took class's on theology.
I questioned my belief many times.
Then things happen and you can't explain them. SO you seek advice and comfort. For me that came to me in a new Age Shop. Where I found Comfort around people who didn't judge. They never tried to push Wiccanism on me it just grew and fit for me.

So please show the others respect of what they believe.
We can disagree but don't name call us for believing in something you do not.

DPinkerton Fri Sep 21, 2012 9:17 am

Woodwose wrote:Evolution is observable, testable and repeatable and it is only the notion of how that evolution occurs that is open to debate (barely). Sometimes I have to wonder if critics of evolution have ever read about the subject as most of the criticisms don't read as 'science can't explain this' but rather 'I don't understand science, therefore it is wrong'.

Mutations have been observed yes. But I would be very interested to see a demonstration of one species (please do not get into a long discussion over the term)...one species to another. Replicate a the evolution of a fish to a mammal in the laboratory. If this has been done and we have physical proof then I stand corrected.

The examples you have shown of Evolution in action are all mutations within a species. Adaption to their environment. I fully accept that organisms adapt and change accordingly. Survival of the fittest right? But that is not proof. That is NOT evolution in action...that is mutation.

What I see here is a lot of clouding the discussion with terms. Simple question I have is this...If "species" A evolves into Species B....and we have fossil records for A and B....shouldn't we have records for Aa, Ab, Ac, ..., cB, bB, aB? If this process takes thousands and millions of years...where is all the in-between records?

Creationist would have you believe that all species were Divinely created and put on this Earth whole and in the form we see them today. That is not a viewpoint I personally believe.

Evolutionist would have you believe that all species were a result of a biological process originating in the coming together of various molecular elements that formed life and then gradually changed over time into the myriad of organisms on Earth today. This is not a viewpoint I personally believe.

Somewhere in the middle is a "hypothesis" where organisms were placed on Earth by a force that in unknown personally to "us". These organisms mutate, adapt, change to fit their environment..."evolve". But every once in a while...some outside force accelerates, initiates or downright forcibly evolves a species. It is these outside forces that have made the evolutionary process jump. This is around where I am.

And I think you will find that many people are somewhere around there as well. The TOE only goes so far in explaining life on Earth. There are gaps.

Please not that nowhere have I mentioned Religion. This is NOT a religious debate.

Woodwose Fri Sep 21, 2012 9:24 am

CMcMillan,

Definition of a Straw Man

The examples I gave are speciation in action. The animals that change as a result of environmental pressure are not the same species once they have changed. What you are asking for is the miraculous change of one genus into another. That doesn't happen and evolutionary theory does not claim that this occurs. No experiment will show this occurring as these changes take thousands of years.....but you would know this if you had read up on the subject.

Again you are wilfully ignoring the usage of 'theory' within scientific terminology. Belief and theory are not synonyms.

So now your Saying that these other sciences and science theory doesn't apply to Evolution theory? But science is fact no?

That doesn't make any sense to me.

In comparison to the empirical world of science I'm afraid that religion doesn't stack up and believing in magical beings without empirical evidence is crazy from my point of view. I respect people's right to believe such nonsense, but I don't have to respect their opinions or reasons for believing such guff or accept them imposing their values on society. Respect cuts both ways - I must respect the right of individuals to throw reason the wind and invest in hokey religions and in turn believers in such nonsense must respect my right to call them on their delusions. The respect isn't mutual otherwise and amounts to censorship.

CMcMillan Fri Sep 21, 2012 9:24 am

Well said DP

Woodwose Fri Sep 21, 2012 9:29 am

DPinkerton wrote:Replicate a the evolution of a fish to a mammal in the laboratory.

As mentioned above, this is not an example of speciation. Speciation is the subtle change of one species to another via mutation.

shouldn't we have records for Aa, Ab, Ac, ..., cB, bB, aB? If this process takes thousands and millions of years...where is all the in-between records?

We do have that evidence, but there are always going to be intermediate forms between each intermediate forms and the fossil record will never show this - for the same reason we don't find Bigfoot remains.

This is not a viewpoint I personally believe.

Then you are ignoring a mountain of evidence and employing the same thinking as Bigfoot debunkers.

**Blondie1** Fri Sep 21, 2012 9:30 am

testing

CMcMillan Fri Sep 21, 2012 9:31 am

Again show me the straw Man.

Evolution as DP says claims all LIFE came from the same single cell organism that divided and subdivided and so on creating all this different life.
Different Plants, Different Animals.
So how did cells take huge leaps of changing into something else?
Example: velocaRaptors to birds? as doll said we have fossils of Raptors and we know birds but where is all the change in between?
right now its a belief that science has. that a raptor changed to the birds we know.

CMcMillan Fri Sep 21, 2012 9:32 am

We do have that evidence, but there are always going to be intermediate forms between each intermediate forms and the fossil record will never show this - for the same reason we don't find Bigfoot remains.

Back your claim up with facts please.
Examples please

**Blondie1** Fri Sep 21, 2012 9:33 am

testing

**Blondie1** Fri Sep 21, 2012 9:35 am

CMcMillan wrote:Wood, Stank

Can we just drop the debate about Faith and Religion.

I feel it is insulting for you both to call people crazy and cookey for our beliefs.
We all have things we believe in. Some will not see it as Beliefs but we all do.
We can still have conversations about Bigfoot, UFO's and other "fringe" things that don't include religion.

My opinion on things is that we should QUESTION even what science says is fact.
I am a Wiccan I was raised Christian.
For me I prefer the "the goddess" and her consort "the god"
For me my belief is more about being around a community with similar people.
I don't take science out of the equation or even evolution. I will not sit and pound into your head you must believe in my goddess.
But I expect you to have some respect for my belief. And not attack it or any others.
FYI: In college I studied many Mythologies, Greek, Norse, Hindu, Chinese, Japaneses, Celtic, Egyptian and took class's on theology.
I questioned my belief many times.
Then things happen and you can't explain them. SO you seek advice and comfort. For me that came to me in a new Age Shop. Where I found Comfort around people who didn't judge. They never tried to push Wiccanism on me it just grew and fit for me.

So please show the others respect of what they believe.
We can disagree but don't name call us for believing in something you do not.

Excellent post Cm. Thank you!

Woodwose Fri Sep 21, 2012 9:37 am

CMcMillan wrote:So how did cells take huge leaps of changing into something else?

They didn't and therein lies your straw man. You are demanding proof for claims that have not been made by science.

Sponsored content

Let's Fling Some [Bigfoot] Poop