Was watching a youtube vid about the moon. Very interesting stuff.

[NAPOTS]

So you are saying that the moon causes tides which cause the earth to warm up? So we need to blow the moon up quickly so that they can continue to say the earth is warming due to man made stuff.

Shit I didn't think of that, yes the moon is warming the earth through the shear resistance of the water in the ocean. We need to put chemicals in the ocean that will decrease the viscosity to decrease the affect! Now when it comes to the affect on the mantle and core I'm not sure what to do, better to blow the fucker up to be sure

[NAPOTS]

Not a problem at all.

We WOULD, however, have hella tides.

I did a little more reading, Saturn can't rotate around the earth and neither does the moon! A satellite and the object it rotates around actually rotate around their common center of mass or Barry center. When one is much more massive than the other this center is effectively in the middle of the larger object. But if they were equal mass it would be directly between them and they would both rotate around that point

[LAGC]

Ever read the book? This is my challenge LAGC, dispute all the evidence presented by the book after you read it..

It's a strawman argument, my friend.

Evolution doesn't suggest a bunch of natural forces suddenly collided like in a whirlwind and -- voila! -- out sprang life.

A more apt analogy would be a tornado running through a junkyard and two wheels of an airplane happening to land side by side.

Building blocks. Many of them, building up over time. It wasn't just one haphazard event that suddenly sprang life into motion in one fell swoop.

Not one scientist has suggested that, only the author of that book.

[ltorlo64]

Ever read the book? This is my challenge LAGC, dispute all the evidence presented by the book after you read it..

That could shake his firmly held belief that he is the center of the universe, that there is no one that he could be held accountable to. It will not happen.

[ltorlo64]

It's a strawman argument, my friend.

Evolution doesn't suggest a bunch of natural forces suddenly collided like in a whirlwind and -- voila! -- out sprang life.

A more apt analogy would be a tornado running through a junkyard and two wheels of an airplane happening to land side by side.

Building blocks. Many of them, building up over time. It wasn't just one haphazard event that suddenly sprang life into motion in one fell swoop.

Not one scientist has suggested that, only the author of that book.

Actually, that is not quite true. Evolution suggests that the tornado tore through the junk yard that did not have any wheels and yet the two wheels were assembled in the chaos and landed next to each other. But not only that, the hydraulics, the lines that carry the hydraulics, the electronics, the conductors for the electronics and the interfaces between the two have to land next to each other and eventually find themselves connected in the cockpit. For evolution to make sense you have to compartmentalize the results needed and you have to simplify what is seen. When the complexity of life is taken into account the odds against it happening become so high as to be impossible.

[N/A]

I think the only true analogy would be if a tornado tore thru a junkyard and left a pile of self-replicating nano robots.

[LAGC]

Actually, that is not quite true. Evolution suggests that the tornado tore through the junk yard that did not have any wheels and yet the two wheels were assembled in the chaos and landed next to each other. But not only that, the hydraulics, the lines that carry the hydraulics, the electronics, the conductors for the electronics and the interfaces between the two have to land next to each other and eventually find themselves connected in the cockpit. For evolution to make sense you have to compartmentalize the results needed and you have to simplify what is seen. When the complexity of life is taken into account the odds against it happening become so high as to be impossible.

Except that we know, from the fossil record, that life didn't start out complex. It started out very simply. And complexity only slowly developed over time.

All that scientific evidence that Creationists keep turning a blind eye to, pretending it doesn't exist.

[1 Patriot-of-many]

Except that we know, from the fossil record, that life didn't start out complex. It started out very simply. And complexity only slowly developed over time.

All that scientific evidence that Creationists keep turning a blind eye to, pretending it doesn't exist.

the book addresses it all. Admit it, you never read the book.

[LAGC]

the book addresses it all. Admit it, you never read the book.

No, but I've read plenty of biology textbooks which leave little doubt as to how life developed on this planet.

I used to be a Christian, for the first 15 years of my life, so I'm quite familiar with all the Creationist arguments, including the "intelligent design" arguments taught to us in Sunday School.

But once you start to see all the evidence, all the clues left behind in nature, you begin to realize that even if there was a "God" who originally set things in motion, he/she/it/they have been completely hands-off ever since.

[alismith]

Considering the chances of life even developing here, it's obvious. "Tornado in a junkyard" does a fine job at pointing out how flawed theories are for men to assume a lot of things just because they repeat them enough times......

The basic shortcoming of "the tornado in the junkyard" analogy is that there are no amino acids, nor any other building blocks necessary to make a living thing, if they are combined correctly. Even with people creating a new thing from the junk, the "thing" doesn't have the components to replicate life, nor to carry out the basic functions of a living thing.

As far as life on other planets, I believe there are thousands of places that support some sort of life, but those planets have to have the basic building blocks for life to occur. However, since no one can prove that life does, or does not, exist somewhere else in the universe, it's just a matter of faith that it exists, or doesn't. Argument and conjecture don't prove a thing.

[ltorlo64]

Except that we know, from the fossil record, that life didn't start out complex. It started out very simply. And complexity only slowly developed over time.

All that scientific evidence that Creationists keep turning a blind eye to, pretending it doesn't exist.

Even "simple" life form are infinitely more complex than evolutionists would have us believe. This is science. It only happens over long periods of time if you choose to ignore the scientific evidence against evolution.

[ltorlo64]

No, but I've read plenty of biology textbooks which leave little doubt as to how life developed on this planet.

Almost all biology textbooks are biased towards evolution, ignoring basic problems with the concept and pushing "evidence" that science now knows is false.

I used to be a Christian, for the first 15 years of my life, so I'm quite familiar with all the Creationist arguments, including the "intelligent design" arguments taught to us in Sunday School.
But once you start to see all the evidence, all the clues left behind in nature, you begin to realize that even if there was a "God" who originally set things in motion, he/she/it/they have been completely hands-off ever since.

If my math is right you are now in your mid 30s, possible even 40. Just as there is new information used by evolutionists there is also new information used by creationists (by the way, not all intelligent design supporters believe in creation, they believe in a hybrid creation/evolution thing). Given that evolution is the only theory taught in public schools which you attend for 5 days a week, and Sunday School is attended for one day a week and does not often cover the creation of the world in each lesson, I highly doubt that you are very familiar with the evidence of intelligent design, except for what you read arguing against it. This is the big difference between creationists and evolutionists. It is impossible for a creationists to not have a good understanding of evolution and the arguments for it as it is taught in school, in museums, in popular press, pretty much everywhere. To learn about the evidence for creation and intelligent design requires the person actually take time to read, study, and look at the evidence for that theory. It is eye opening to learn that the theory of evolution is not as water tight as we are led to believe (in fact it has some rather large, gaping holes, which DNA is making even larger) and that intelligent design provides better and more complete explanations for things we see, and is more explanatory for things we expect to see, than evolution. You should really study about it instead of reading about why it is not true.

[1 Patriot-of-many]

No, but I've read plenty of biology textbooks which leave little doubt as to how life developed on this planet.

I used to be a Christian, for the first 15 years of my life, so I'm quite familiar with all the Creationist arguments, including the "intelligent design" arguments taught to us in Sunday School.

But once you start to see all the evidence, all the clues left behind in nature, you begin to realize that even if there was a "God" who originally set things in motion, he/she/it/they have been completely hands-off ever since.

I imagine you read the text book that shows all animals look the same as us in embryonic stage too, which was patently false but continuously given as fact in science classes. I suggest you read the book, it's pretty interesting how drivel can become fact if repeated enough. Dare you. It goes through everything from antropology, biology, geology, carbon dating, cellular mutation which is almost always a negative thing. Hell I'll buy you the book as long as you read it.

[LAGC]

Almost all biology textbooks are biased towards evolution, ignoring basic problems with the concept and pushing "evidence" that science now knows is false.

There's a reason why evolution is taught in every high school and college biology class and creationism is not.

If there wasn't great scientific consensus on the subject, it wouldn't be part of the biology curriculum.

Given the overwhelming amount of evidence (as demonstrated from even a cursory glance at the scientific literature, all those peer reviewed studies you can find on Google Scholar and all those scientific journals) it's pretty clear what science knows to be false.

[Krupski]

the book addresses it all. Admit it, you never read the book.

With all due respect for "The Book", my opinion is that it's just a book. Written by man. Claimed to be the "Word of God" simply because it says so. Unprovable circular logic.

And, if the content of the Bible is, for the most part, accurately written, I still believe that things it states are RELATIVE or PARABLES.

For example, God said "Let there be light and there was light and God saw that the light was good". Does this describe the ignition of our star (the sun) or does it describe the big bang?

Another example: "Adam and Eve". If true, we are ALL related and ALL relations are incestuous. So why then does the design of humanity REQUIRE genetic diversity and why do incestuous relations usually result in genetic defects, deformity and death?

Another one: God created everything in 6 days and on the seventh day He rested. 6 DAYS? What is a day? Today's 24 hour day, or the MUCH shorter day that the earth had when it was formed? Or maybe a "day" is relative and means "year" or maybe "billion years" or maybe a nanosecond. How long did it take the big bang to form after God said it should be so? NO MAN KNOWS and NO MAN has any right or authority to write down a figure and then, without God's permission, sign God's Name to it.

How about "created in His Image"? Does this mean humans were poofed instantly into existence and amazingly looked like God, or does it mean that God created hydrogen, than allowed gravity to collapse the hydrogen into the big bang, which created the universe and stars that eventually went nova and created all the other elements and planets and finally some of these elements combined on countless planets, formed the first life which (at least on earth) evolved into humans?

And if it happened in the latter manner, isn't it still true that we were created in God's Image... meaning we turned out EXACTLY AS GOD INTENDED? Who cares if it took 14 billion years... God got what He wanted, right?

The Bible is full of absurdities and contradictions. It's also full of good stories that describe morality and decency. The Ten Commandments I am sure are just good old common sense, not some amazing, previously unknown laws carved into stone by God.

I mean, does God REALLY need to COMMAND us to honor our parents? Not to steal? Not to kill? It's kinda self evident.

Although I do completely believe in God because I can see evidence of Him anywhere I look, I have zero FAITH. I don't believe ANYTHING just because some person or some book says that I should. But when I look at the stars, or (barely) understand the wonder of the universe, or simply think about DNA or simply how babies are created, there is no way it could be ANYTHING other than God.

Geez... DNA... an single molecule that contains the full blueprint for every part of a living organism. Can you imagine trying to define every cell of a living organism on paper or with a computer? Impossible! Yet, a single DNA molecule does it all (and in fact large parts of a DNA molecule are though to be junk or redundant data). If THAT'S not proof of God, nothing is.

[Krupski]

There's a reason why evolution is taught in every high school and college biology class and creationism is not.

It's funny that people separate "creation" and "evolution". You cannot have one without the other.

[LAGC]

It's funny that people separate "creation" and "evolution". You cannot have one without the other.

Well, if God created evolution, then I guess we can have it both ways.

[Full Otto]

Well, if God created evolution, then I guess we can have it both ways.

Well he did create the woman using parts of the man

[Krupski]

Well he did create the woman using parts of the man

Says who?

[LAGC]

Well he did create the woman using parts of the man

That must explain why feminists are so pissed all the time.