This post is a violation of the site rules and appropriate action was taken.
Quote (haloneya @ Dec 4 2010 10:41am)
before hand, I am sorry if my english is a little bad and this post is not to insult anyone and I am too a believer of god
I find that it disturbs me that all too many people( Christian and other believes ) think that god has part of our world still
as i recall from my teaching and reading in the bibel is that god is not of this world anymore ( do correct me if I am wrong)
this is our world,, our choices,, god does not stop people that are evil and that is a *fact*
we do! and why should he?
we all have the choice
free will
life is a sin,,, but life is good
things that can make me pissed off is when you watch tv where alot have died in a train accident ( may they rest in peace ) and you see those whom did not die and they thank god couse they survired!
just! what the fuck! are they saying that god choise only to save them and let alot of others die? that is just bullshit to me... its a simple thing of luck wrong or right place and your actions..
now that is only 1 of many examples
it is a question of faith is it not? as that is what I heard from most I try talking about this.. they cant really explain it.. god works in mysteries ways most say.. ..........
Evolution Never HappendThe First Law of Thermodynamics states that the total amount of mass-energy in the universe is constant. The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that the amount of energy available for work is running down, or entropy is increasing to a maximum. Entropy is a measure of the decrease in usable energy. If the total amount of mass-energy is limited, and the amount of usable energy is continually decreasing, then the universe cannot have existed forever, otherwise it would have already exhausted all usable energy and reached what is known as "heat death". For example, all radioactive atoms would have decayed, every part of the universe would be the same temperature, and no further work would be possible. So the universe must have been created with a lot of usable energy and is now running down.
Ideas of an oscillating universe are undercut by the Laws of Thermodynamics, as each one of the hypothetical cycles would exhaust more and more usable energy. This means that every cycle would be larger and longer than the previous one, so looking back in time there would be smaller and smaller cycles. The multi-cycle model could have an infinite future, but can only have a finite past. Also, there is far too little mass to stop expansion and allow cycling in the first place, and no known mechanism would allow a bounce back after a hypothetical "big crunch".
Since the universe cannot have existed forever, it must have had a beginning. The universe could not have been created out of nothing by purely natural processes because, according to the Law of Conservation of Mass and Energy, mass and energy can neither be created nor destroyed. Also, the universe cannot be self-created--nothing can create itself because it would need to exist before it came into existence, a logical absurdity.
Everything which has a beginning has a cause. The universe had a beginning, and therefore the universe had a cause. So, what was the cause of the universe? Since the universe could not have been caused by purely natural processes, and it could not have caused itself to exist, the cause of the universe must be something that exists outside of the universe. This cause would be supernatural. Supernatural meaning that it is completely 'other' than the universe, it is not within the boundaries of the universe. This supernatural cause which created the universe is God.
Some evolutionists claim that Earth and the other planets were created when another star crashed into the Sun. Matter was then torn loose from the Sun and formed the planets in our solar system. The Sun shows no sign of any such collision, and this theory leaves unexplained many of the mysteries of the energies and movements of the Sun and the planets. If the planets came from pieces of the Sun, wouldn't they be miniature stars? If this theory is true, where did water come from? Water could not have come from the burning gases found on the Sun.
Darwin said that the method of natural selection, or the "survival of the fittest", was the means by which one species slowly evolved into a new species. Those animals which are better able to survive because of color or some other characteristic unquestionably stand less chance of becoming extinct. But natural selection is not the same as evolution. Natural selection produces no new characteristics. Neither does it explain how new life forms come about or how one kind of organism can change into another kind or how an organism can develop new organs. Natural selection only produces a fitter animal, not a new one.
The Theory of Evolution states that all plant and animal life evolved over long periods of time from simple to more complicated forms through mutation and adaptation. Biologists can show experimentally that some organisms escape predators by trying to be inconspicuous and blend into their environment, and that other organisms change their behaviors in order to adjust to their environment. These tested cases are only a handful, however, and many supposed cases of adaptation are simply assumed.
One assumed form of adaptation is "mimicry". Mimicry supposedly occurs when one species adjusts its physical or behavioral characteristics to imitate another species. Any form of mimicry must be intentional. A species must purposely change its physical features to resemble another species. But there is no power in the world by which animals can alter their own physical characteristics in such a way. No matter what they do, animals can never change their color pattern or reshape their physical framework. Thus, an organism could never physically adapt itself to mimic another organism.
Another form of adaptation is camouflage. Certain animals will use their coloration to conceal themselves by blending in with their surroundings. For example, the emerald tree boa is a vibrant shade of green. It takes advantage of its coloration when it hides among leafy foliage. This form of camouflage conceals it from its prey. Another example is the zebra. Its stripes resemble jungle grasses. The zebra takes advantage of its coloration when it hides in the tall grasses of the plains. This form of camouflage conceals the zebra from its predators. These are only two of the hundreds of animals that use camouflage as a means of protection from predators or concealment from prey.
Evolutionists claim that animals change their coloration in order to camouflage themselves. But the use of camouflage is a behavioral adaptation, and it does not indicate that these animals changed their coloration in order to blend in with their surroundings. These animals could have always possessed these color patterns, and they simply chose the best surroundings to match them.
Some so-called adaptations of certain species are not logical. For example, why would a Blue Jay adapt its feathers to be blue? Its blue feathers do not blend in with its surroundings and do not conceal it from predators. Why wouldn't it adapt its feathers to be green in order to blend in with the leaves and conceal itself from predators? Another example is the Scarlet King Snake. Evolutionists claim that this snake altered its physical features in order to mimic the coloration of the Coral Snake, thus causing predators to believe that it was venomous. But if the Scarlet King Snake can truly alter its physical features, then why didn't it adapt its coloration to be exactly the same as that of a Coral Snake? Why didn't the Scarlet King Snake simply develop venomous fangs? Both the adoption of an exact replica of the Coral Snake's color pattern or the development of venomous fangs would have been more beneficial to the Scarlet King Snake than its current physical structure, and neither would have been more difficult to develop than its current coloration.
Evolutionists claim that certain animals adapted their physical characteristics in a specific manner in order to conceal themselves from predators or prey. They claim that some animals purposely changed their physical features in order to avoid being eaten by predators or seen by prey. One example is the Leafy Sea Dragon. This creature has leaf-like appendages which enable it to hide among floating seaweed or kelp beds. Thanks to these appendages, the Sea Dragon can conceal itself from its prey and avoid detection by predators. But in order for the Sea Dragon to have purposely evolved in this manner, it would have had to choose to alter its physical structure. There is no power in the world by which animals can alter their physical characteristics simply because they desire to do so. A cat might desire to fly in order to catch a bird, but that does not mean that it will sprout wings simply because it desires to fly. Thus, the Sea Dragon must have done something in order to create these appendages. But what did it do? No amount of physical activity could have caused the Sea Dragon to produce these protuberances. Physical activity can only enhance an animal's body; it can never produce new features on it. Also, no type or amount of food eaten by the Sea Dragon could have caused it to produce these protuberances. Like physical activity, food can only enhance an animal's body; it can never produce new features on it. Nothing that the Sea Dragon could have done could have possibly enabled it to alter its physical structure in such a way. Thus, it is quite illogical to suppose that the Sea Dragon, or any other animal, could have purposely changed its physical characteristics to such an extent.
Mutation is "the event consisting of a change in genetic structure". It is generally destructive to an organism. For example, people with three copies of the 21st chromosome are born with Down Syndrome. Mutants are usually weaker than normal organisms, they are usually unable to reproduce, and they usually live shorter lives than normal organisms. An albino alligator, for example, is a mutation of a normal alligator. It usually doesn't live as long as a normal alligator for two reasons. One, it is born with very light colored skin, making it an easy target for predators. As a result, it is eaten while it is still young, and it never reaches adulthood. Two, because of its very light colored skin, it is seen by its prey and its prey escapes. As a result, the alligator eventually starves to death. As an organism evolves it is supposed to improve, but most mutation is a hindrance rather than an improvement.
Geneticists began breeding the fruit fly soon after the turn of the century, and since 1910 when the first mutation was reported, some 3,000 mutations have been identified. All of the mutations are harmful or harmless; none of them produce a more successful fruit fly.
Hermaphroditism, a type of mutation, is the presence in one individual, plant or animal, of both male and female gonads or organs of sex cell production. Most organisms that have this mutation cannot fertilize themselves. Flatworms, however, have a complete set of male and female gonads in each segment and regularly fertilize themselves. This might be considered a helpful mutation for some animals, but higher animals that have this mutation are usually sterile, and, when fertile, do not produce both fertile eggs and fertile sperm. Humans who have this mutation show functional disturbance of the endocrine glands, especially of the pituitary or adrenal glands, and do not possess two sets of functioning sex organs. Hermaphroditism never produces new sex organs, or any other kind of new organs, that are unknown to the species.
A few mutations might be considered helpful. One example is the wingless beetle on the island of Madeira. For a beetle living on a windy island, wings can be a definite disadvantage, because creatures in flight are more likely to be blown into the sea. Mutations producing the loss of flight could be helpful. The sightless cave fish would be similar. Eyes are quite vulnerable to injury, and a creature that lives in pitch dark would benefit from mutations that would replace the eye with scar-like tissue, reducing that vulnerability. While these mutations produce a drastic and beneficial change, it is important to notice that they always involve loss of information and never gain. One never observes the reverse occurring, namely wings or eyes being produced on creatures which never had the information to produce them.
Recombination involves a shuffling of the genes, and is the reason that children resemble their parents very closely but are not exactly like either one. Genes, the genetic units of heredity, are merely reshuffled from one generation to another, but new genes are never formed. Gregor Mendel showed that while traits might be hidden for a generation they were not usually lost, and when new traits appeared it was because their genetic factors had been there all along. Recombination makes it possible for there to be limited variation within the created kinds, but it is limited because virtually all of the variations are produced by a reshuffling of the genes that are already there. Recombination is not to be confused with evolution. Recombination only creates variation within a kind, it does not cause one kind to become another. While Darwin saw the finches on the Galapagos islands as an example of evolution, we can now recognize them merely as the result of recombination within a single created kind. The pioneer finches brought with them enough genetic variability to be sorted out into the varieties we see today. Another example is the domestic dog. Recombination, along with selective breeding, has produced the many different varieties of domestic dogs found in the world today.
If all organisms evolved from a one-celled organism, then why do one-celled organisms still exist? Why did some one-celled organisms evolve and not others? If all birds evolved from a common flying ancestor, then why do some birds fly while others don't? If they evolved differently then why is everything else the same between them? They all have feathers, beaks, feet, etc. Are flying birds more evolved than non-flying birds? Are non-flying birds continually evolving and will they fly someday?
Why did everything stop evolving? Why aren't organisms becoming more complex? Is it because they have reached their evolutionary peak? A snail is not a very fast, powerful, intelligent, or complex animal. It is hard to believe that this organism has reached its evolutionary peak, yet it has not continued to evolve. What about the ostrich? It is a bird with large wings and many feathers, yet it cannot fly. If it had reached its evolutionary peak, wouldn't it have the ability to fly?
Evolution teaches that man is the pinnacle of evolutionary perfection. Physically, man is less equipped for survival than several animals. Man is weaker than animals such as the lion, tiger, bear, elephant, and rhinoceros. Man's skin is more fragile than a crocodile's scales, a turtle's shell, and a rhinoceros' hide. Man doesn't have horns, claws, or sharp teeth to defend itself from predators. Intellectually, however, man is the most equipped for survival. Man is the only living thing able to use large numbers of plants and animals for his own benefit. Man has been able to adapt himself to virtually any climate, he is the only living creature that can make and use tools, and he has the ability to reason. At the same time, man is the only living thing that slaughters millions of his own kind in war. Man is the only creature that continually creates weapons for destruction. Man has also destroyed many natural habitats and damaged many ecological systems. Man has killed so many animals that certain species have become extinct. If man has reached his evolutionary peak, then why does he generally harm his environment? Man is certainly a wonderful creature, but he has not reached perfection. If he has not reached perfection, then how can he be at his evolutionary peak? If he has not reached his evolutionary peak, then why hasn't he continued to evolve?
Evolutionists state that Neanderthal man had a somewhat larger brain than modern man. When a being evolves it is supposed to improve, but going from a larger brain to a smaller one is not improvement. Did man reach his evolutionary peak and then go in reverse?
Man has been able to create new species of animals by mating two different species of animals. For example, a mule is produced by crossing a horse with a donkey. But the only way to obtain a mule is to force a horse and donkey to mate, because they will not mate with each other in the wild. They will only mate with their own species, donkeys with donkeys and horses with horses. Another important aspect about the mule is that it is sterile, it cannot reproduce. No new species can be formed because a mule cannot pass on its genes. The creation of the mule is not an improvement, but rather a failure. It is not stronger or smarter than its ancestors, and it is unable to reproduce. This shows that even when humans try to "help" the process of evolution, or "help" the transformation of one species into another, it still doesn't work.
If evolution had occurred, thousands of intermediary stages would have been found in our fossil record. Various "links" between fish and amphibians, amphibians and reptiles, and reptiles and higher animals would have been discovered. But no such "links" have ever been discovered. No intermediary fossils have ever been found. This would be expected if evolution had occurred over a short period of time. But, if evolutionists are correct, it took millions of years for the lowest life forms to evolve into the life forms that exist today. Since the time was very great, the fossils should be many. Instead, there are none. This fact provides a significant blow against the theory of evolution.
Evolutionists search for fossils to fill in the "missing links" of human evolution. But the majority of the "missing link" fossils that have been discovered have since been discarded and regarded as false.
At one time, evolutionists included in the human family tree a stage of development known as Nebraska man. This stage, based upon the discovery of a single tooth, has since been discarded because the tooth in now known to have come from an extinct pig.
Another human ancestor that has been discarded, Piltdown man, was reconstructed from a skull and some teeth found in an English gravel pit. It was later discovered to be a fraud, perhaps the work of an amateur fossil hunter named Charles Dawson. Dawson apparently placed the skull of a modern man and the teeth of an ape together where they would be discovered. To make his work appear authentic, Dawson filed down the teeth to make them appear more human, and he stained both skull and teeth with a chemical to give them the appearance of great age.
Eugene Dubois discovered bones of what he assumed to be a prehistoric human being on the island of Java. He claimed the bones of Java man were 500,000 years old. Dubois also discovered, in the same layer, a completely human skull - a fact he kept secret for 30 years. Obviously, if Java man had been buried in the same rock layer with modern man, he could not be man's ancestor. Dubois eventually dismissed his discovery as being nothing more than a mixture of human and gibbon bones.
Peking man was another mix-up of human and ape bones. They were found together because the humans were eating the brains of the ape.
Louis Leakey discovered Ramapithecus, a handful of teeth and jaw fragments, and put them together incorrectly to resemble a human jaw. In 1978, more bones were discovered, and Ramapithecus was just an orangutan. Leakey also discovered "Skull 1470" which is definitely more human-like and yet older than Homoerectus and Australopithecines. Perhaps this proves that man is older than his ancestors. Leakey also discovered the very old Australopithecines. Leakey thought it walked upright, but investigation by many others concluded that it did not, it swung from trees and is a type of extinct ape.