frazdog 252 Posted November 20, 2014 Report Share Posted November 20, 2014 been a bit busy working lads,il reply in few hrs to the ws ive been asked! Link to post Share on other sites
oneredtrim 148 Posted November 20, 2014 Report Share Posted November 20, 2014 On 19/11/2014 at 23:42, The Seeker said: Ses the man who's been studying this field for 20 yrs not just the length of this thread and gets all confused at why monkeys have never bothered putting central heating in. Link to post Share on other sites
oneredtrim 148 Posted November 20, 2014 Report Share Posted November 20, 2014 On 19/11/2014 at 23:04, WILF said: Someone take his crack pipe away please !!! You should have spoke up Wilfy the new age pretend christian when folk were parroting about 130/300/600 and was it 900yr old humans...i'm presuming there will be a reason ya never. Link to post Share on other sites
frazdog 252 Posted November 20, 2014 Report Share Posted November 20, 2014 lads if you read ezekiel,you wound find out he was very detailed in his writings,an the vision he saw above mentioned,try drawing it down an see what picture you get,ezekiel is describing the throne of god with four angels,simple,he was a very smart msn an understood what he was writing,read it again lads, an yes noah an family populated the earth do the math it adds up,conservativley too. Link to post Share on other sites
frazdog 252 Posted November 20, 2014 Report Share Posted November 20, 2014 few scriptures for yous lads john4 24 GOD is SPIRIT on those who worship him,must worship in SPIRIT an TRUTH. jame3 1 you beleive that GOD is one,you do well,even the DEMONS beleive an shudder. ecclrsties7 29 an man was made UPRIGHT, corinthians24 4 in their case GOD of this world,has blinded the minds of the un beleivers,to keep them from seeing,the light of the gospel,an the glory of christ,who is the image of GOD hebrews2 4 since therefore the children shone in the flesh an blood,he himself /GOD/ likewise partook of the same things /flesh an blood/ that threw death,he will destroy the one who has the power of death,the devil. just a few to corrospond with questions asked! Link to post Share on other sites
frazdog 252 Posted November 20, 2014 Report Share Posted November 20, 2014 there is NO scientific evidence whatsoever of macro evo,change of kinds ie fish to reptile,that evo scientists claim to be the origin of man. if you want to put your theory across,i dont mind,but once you start saying aw millions of years ago this happened,then youve just left science behind,an your now using faith,cause no one has seen this change of kinds you have to BELEIVE it,its not scientific,an the fossils back it up not one intermediate kind has been found,despite what the evos grip to,lucy,caveman,archeoptrex,they all have been proved false YEARS ago,and what did darwin himself say,if no intermediates are found my theory is in crisis, now these intermediates that have never been found,what kind of animals would they have been,an how did they reproduce,if they evolved what did thay breed with,cause if they bred with the previous animal they evolved from all the new info would be lost back to the old gene pool,so what did these first evolvis breed with when they were the first to evolve,doesnt make sense? actually how did they evolve reproductive organs,surely if there evolving they dont want any competition,cause competition means other competitors for food etc,but think about it,how did they evolve reproductive organs,the first tadpole or whatever would need them,straight away to breed,so wree does that leave the time to evolve them, look at one cell in the body which we have trillions of,one is more complex than the space shuttle,an thats being very kind to the space shuttle. so anyone with SCIENTIFIC evidence for evoloution,not FAITH millions of yrs ago,i would love to see it thanks Link to post Share on other sites
Born Hunter 17,774 Posted November 20, 2014 Report Share Posted November 20, 2014 In fairness Fraz, you claim that Edwin Hubble stole his scientific work from the Bible and that the third law of thermodynamics says that everything is falling apart.... You have no place discussing scientific theories. Much as it pains me to admit, biologists are no different to physicists or any other scientific professional. They (the scientific community) dedicate their lives to knowledge advancements and have provided the world with all the technology we have, calling the leading theory of biology 'unscientific' just highlights how out of touch with real science that person is. Link to post Share on other sites
frazdog 252 Posted November 20, 2014 Report Share Posted November 20, 2014 born your dodging the q lad as usual now be fair I answered yours,an by the way its the second law of thermodynamics,an he discovered it not invented, it Link to post Share on other sites
frazdog 252 Posted November 20, 2014 Report Share Posted November 20, 2014 lad I love science an its discoverys,but evoloution is not scientific,are you saying evoloution is scientific bh Link to post Share on other sites
Born Hunter 17,774 Posted November 20, 2014 Report Share Posted November 20, 2014 Second law, third law, there are four of the fuckers and thermodynamics is mind numbingly boring. Even more so when it's being twisted to bullshit. I never asked you any questions. I wouldn't do. I've got all of the 'science' I can stomach from you. Link to post Share on other sites
Born Hunter 17,774 Posted November 20, 2014 Report Share Posted November 20, 2014 Am I saying the leading theory of BIOLOGY is scientific........................ just listen to yourself. Link to post Share on other sites
frazdog 252 Posted November 20, 2014 Report Share Posted November 20, 2014 lad chill out,yes im asking you is macro evoloution (the origin of man the scientist say) SCIENTIFIC? Link to post Share on other sites
tinytiger 839 Posted November 20, 2014 Report Share Posted November 20, 2014 On 19/11/2014 at 18:12, delswal said: On 19/11/2014 at 16:23, The Seeker said: On 19/11/2014 at 14:35, Born Hunter said: Seeker, I can't watch the vid on this PC but I'm guessing it's essentially the anthropic principle? How the physical universe is finely tuned to allow life to exist? From the value of the Plank constant to the environmental requirements of the Earth... The environmental requirements part can pretty simply be explained by the vast size of space, statistically it seems unlikely until you comprehend the problem on a universal level... Possibly a more interesting conclusion for a theist comes from analysing the Drake equation, which with best estimates suggests there should be far more intelligent life visible to us than there is... The finely tuned physical laws problem can be answered by a Many Worlds Theory or a Cyclic Universe Theory. Far from suggesting the existence of God, to me it suggests one of these theories to be true. If we consider that there are either many Universes parallel to ours or that there is only one Universe but it is born and dies in a continuous cycle then we are back to statistics and given a great enough number eventually there will be one where everything is perfect for life. In one where everything is not just perfect, we wouldn't be having this conversation and so the low odds of us existing will always appear 'special' when in actual fact it's just a simple logic and play on statistics. There's what I consider a more rational explanation... put your faith in whatever you see fit. Whatever they are called they seemed pretty unlikely odds to me, I'm an easy soul I need things to be explained in a way I can understand them, he explains the odds of life just "being" are equivalent to throwing a dart 100 miles up from the earth and hitting a target the size of an atom. Now that I can picture! Strange how the scientist community would rather accept the possibility of multiple worlds (I assume you mean by this parallel universes etc) rather than belief in god. Assuming the followers of the bible believe in the content of the bible, which I don't doubt for a minute. What are your views and interpretations of these passages from the bible. Ezekiel 1:4 And I looked, and, behold, a whirlwind came out of the North, a great cloud, and a fire infolding itself, and a brightness was about it, and out of the midst thereof as the colour of amber, out of the midst of the fire. 1:5 Also out of the midst thereof came the likeness of four living creatures. And this was their appearance; they had the likeness of a man. 1:6 And every one had four faces, and every one had four wings. 1:7 And their feet were straight feet; and the sole of their feet was like the sole of a calf's foot: and they sparkled like the colour of burnished brass. 1:8 And they had the hands of a man under their wings on their four sides; and they four had their faces and their wings. 1:9 Their wings were joined one to another; they turned not when they went; they went every one straight forward. 1:10 As for the likeness of their faces, they four had the face of a man, and the face of a lion, on the right side: and they four had the face of an ox on the left side; they four also had the face of an eagle. 1:11 Thus were their faces: and their wings were stretched upward; two wings of every one were joined one to another, and two covered their bodies. 1:12 And they went every one straight forward: whither the spirit was to go, they went; and they turned not when they went. Zechariah 5:1 Then I turned, and lifted up mine eyes, and looked, and behold a flying roll. 5:2 And he said unto me, What seest thou? And I answered, I see a flying roll; the length thereof is twenty cubits, and the breadth thereof ten cubits. Now these ancestors of ours were not influenced or had their imagination stretched by star trek, star-gate or any other sf-fi t .v programmes of today so what do you creationists make of these comments, are they talking of witnessing extra terrestrial activity ? genuine question as these extracts are from the bible. Oh and this is not me knocking your faith or beliefs, I am just interested in your translation of this. id say they were warped out of their minds on hallucinogens Link to post Share on other sites
Born Hunter 17,774 Posted November 20, 2014 Report Share Posted November 20, 2014 Fraz, what is macro evolution? Define it scientifically for me please? I would ask an EVOLUTIONARY biologist but I doubt they would have the foggiest either. Link to post Share on other sites
frazdog 252 Posted November 20, 2014 Report Share Posted November 20, 2014 lad im not a scientists,but it means a change in kind not species,eg evolving from a reptile to a bird,an your right they havent the foggiest idea yet an they met recently to discuss it Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts