Originally posted by FabianFnas
You base your faith in creation through a few verses in the bible. From that you extrapolate a universe of fantasies. You must realize that that is nothing much to base a whole theory upon?

no this betrays a lack of understanding and a prejudicial disposition. There are two modes of establishing ones faith, through a study of scripture and through an examination of the natural world.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
no this betrays a lack of understanding and a prejudicial disposition. There are two modes of establishing ones faith, through a study of scripture and through an examination of the natural world.

And you chose to study the scripture, and I chose to examine the natural world.
Does that make your creational ideas of yourse plain religion (okay by me) or are you of the illusion that your ideas of creation according to a few biblical verses is science?

Originally posted by Proper Knob
[b]yes one mat look at the very same data and draw a completely different conclusion as your references to the fossil record have clearly shown

LOL!!!!!!!!! What a right pair you two are. Dumb and dumber spring to mind.

The idea the Galvy can look at the fossil record, a man who has no idea about evolution, no idea about paleontology probably c ...[text shortened]... genius, or your so deluded or arrogant you've disappeared right up your own backside!!!!![/b]

1Cor 1:20, 21. Be ready to be humbled with all your wisdom....

Originally posted by FabianFnas
And you chose to study the scripture, and I chose to examine the natural world.
Does that make your creational ideas of yourse plain religion (okay by me) or are you of the illusion that your ideas of creation according to a few biblical verses is science?

what is it about there being two methods of establishing ones faith that you do not understand? one through scripture, the other through an examination of the natural world. You through your acceptance of a materialistic explanation for the diversity of life have ruled out any other possibility and thus form a merely one dimensional approach, this is not so with the creationist, who also marvels at the natural world, but may draw an altogether different conclusion. It seems to me that the creationist gets the best of both worlds.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
what is it about there being two methods of establishing ones faith that you do not understand? one through scripture, the other through an examination of the natural world. You through your acceptance of a materialistic explanation for the diversity of life have ruled out any other possibility and thus form a merely one dimensional approach, this ...[text shortened]... ogether different conclusion. It seems to me that the creationist gets the best of both worlds.

They say faith in the Bible is nonsense. I would say faith in speculation of non factual theories is foolishness unlike true science which is truth.

Originally posted by galveston75
They say faith in the Bible is nonsense. I would say faith in speculation of non factual theories is foolishness unlike true science which is truth.

ouch, you may think it Galvy, but to utter it in the very sanctuary itself, the Holy of Holies, the science forum, well, im surprised as your hand reached for the keyboard it never instantly became leprous and Noobster and Fabian would have offered up incantations to an effigy of Darwin, petitioned and beseeched the God of science Steven Hawkins to strike you down! at this moment they are uttering mantras to awaken Einsteins ghost to haunt you, energy equals mass times the speed of light squared, they are murmuring over and over again!

Originally posted by galveston75
1Cor 1:20, 21. Be ready to be humbled with all your wisdom....

Humbled to the bottom of my soul.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Humbled to the bottom of my soul.

but i thought that you are just a rather brilliantly designed (ooops forgot where i was for a second), errm i meant, collage of carbon and water functioning through electro chemical impulses? are we to understand that you have now embraced the truth?

Originally posted by galveston75
You do know I'm talking about instinct don't you? Of course no living animal would know what the future holds by a conscience thought. Your not getting what I'm saying because you as all evolutionist are stuck on this idea that these supposed changes that an already complete living creature makes just happen by some genitic chance. Just because some litt ...[text shortened]... ay something better to fight for it's life with then just changing the color of it's fur?

Now you are getting really confused. You want to understand how evolution works, but instead you dictate to us how it works. Next, because we assure you that that is not how it works you tell us that we are too 'stuck on this idea' of evolution that we cant see how you want evolution to work - but then again you don't believe evolution how you want it to work makes any sense so you want us to provide proof of how evolution works in your way.
Let me give an analogy of your mixed up argument: Jesus was a woman. Now prove to me that Jesus was a woman or I won't believe that Christianity is correct.

Originally posted by galveston75
Nope.....The few fossils that show some animal that is not alive today but is said to be a "missing link", is a complete animal on it's own and never some weird looking in between missing link. Maybe in someones imagination but not in reality.

Why would an 'in between' animal look weird? All animals that have ever existed are 'links'.
Why would you think that there were ever partial animals? That would be stupid. How would they survive?
I am curious, where did you learn about evolution? Your sources seem to be either very mixed up, or lying to you.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Why would an 'in between' animal look weird? All animals that have ever existed are 'links'.
Why would you think that there were ever partial animals? That would be stupid. How would they survive?
I am curious, where did you learn about evolution? Your sources seem to be either very mixed up, or lying to you.

all animals that have ever existed are links? dogma and postulation masquerading as science!

it has been established on this very forum that what were once thought to be 'links', are nothing of the sort'. for example it was previously thought that reptiles (dinosaurs to you) and 'birds', were linked, this is now thought not to be the case. secondly there are no intermediary beings in the case of humans, for if humans had existed, as postulated, for hundreds of thousands of years, where are the abundant remains of these 'intermediary', beings? in fact you can fit the collective fossils record for these 'mythical' creatures on a coffee table!! More than that what were once thought to be human are now clearly established to be simian, and much of the speculation which you accept as science, has been overturned, not to mention out right frauds as in the case of ramapithecus (an entire skeletal structure made from a lower jaw bone and a few teeth) and austrolepithecus, the infamous 'lucy', clearly simian and 'piltdown man', another fraud. Therefore whitey i am calling you out, where did you learn about evolution and when will you accept that what you are professing is not truth, but simply a plausibility, so please do not try to assert that it is something else, when it could not be further from the truth. Also i have a question for those professing evolution, if we have existed as humans for so long, why is it only recently, as recently as five thousand years that we have developed the 'ability', for written speech? for if this is the case then humans have developed more rapidly in the last five thousand years than the previous five hundred thousand, how many is it?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
all animals that have ever existed are links? dogma and postulation masquerading as science!

it has been established on this very forum that what were once thought to be 'links', are nothing of the sort'. for example it was previously thought that reptiles (dinosaurs to you) and 'birds', were linked, this is now thought not to be the case. seco ...[text shortened]... as five thousand years that we have developed the 'ability', for written speech?

Now you are plain stupid, robbie! Don't you get it?

You are the link between your parents and you children! Without this link your parents cannot get any grandchildren through you.

If you think yourself you understand evolution to that degree so you can be able to even disuss it - then you have to rethink! Come back when you can understand the obvious aspects of evolution!

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Now you are plain stupid, robbie! Don't you get it?

You are the link between your parents and you children! Without this link your parents cannot get any grandchildren through you.

If you think yourself you understand evolution to that degree so you can be able to even disuss it - then you have to rethink! Come back when you can understand the obvious aspects of evolution!

no Fibby you do not get it, he is talking of links between the entire animate world! comeback when you can read and assimilate a simple statement without trying to put your usual 'Fabians world view ', upon it!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
no Fibby you do not get it, he is talking of links between the entire animate world! comeback when you can read and assimilate a simple statement without trying to put your usual 'Fabians world view ', upon it!

I don't like you call me any flimsy names, flobbie carottie! When you know how to behave, then you can come back.

Do you deny that you are the link between your parent and your children? Do you deny that you are not a copy of your parents, but are alike in some details and not in others? Do you deny that your children are not a copy of you, but are alike in some details and not in others?

When you understand that this is the case between any animal of today and their historic ancestors, then you have learnt something.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
I don't like you call me any flimsy names, flobbie carottie! When you know how to behave, then you can come back.

Do you deny that you are the link between your parent and your children? Do you deny that you are not a copy of your parents, but are alike in some details and not in others? Do you deny that your children are not a copy of you, but are ali ...[text shortened]... case between any animal of today and their historic ancestors, then you have learnt something.

ill take my coat and leave with pleasure! when you have concocted a 'plausible', answer to my question, then I would be glad to hear it! i promise not the slam the door on my way out!