Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 114

Thread: How many say things to libs just to irk them hehehe

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838

    How many say things to libs just to irk them hehehe

    Like saying that evolution is false ...

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...e=domesticNews


    I admit I do this ...

    Then watch as their heads' explode ...

  2. #2
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    It works for the conservatives too.....

    "Reagan said big government was the problem and then vastly increased the size of government."

    Then watch the apologia fly.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  3. #3
    Regular Member BrianB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    239
    Lifted this gem from the article:

    But 33 percent reject the idea of evolution, saying that "humans and other living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time," Pew said in a statement.
    Translation, 33% of the people polled are completely ignorant of basic science.

    Evolution does happen. Period. It is incontestable. The only intelligent debate (in my opinion) is one of degree.

    For example, I do not believe that all life on this planet originally evolved from simple non-living amino acids. The only evolution on this planet that is a proven fact (in my opinion) is that of random mutation and natural selection making subtle changes over time to a population of a species. It has not been proven (to my satisfaction anyway) that evolution gives us entirely new types of animals that didn't exist before. That doesn't mean it didn't and can't, it just means that it has not been proven to my satisfaction.
    NRA Certified Instructor
    NRA Chief Range Safety Officer
    Front Sight Distinguished Graduate, Handgun, Glock 35 and Glock 23
    FFL Type 7, Class 2 SOT (Licensed NFA Firearms Manufacturer)
    If you CCW, consider the benefits of joining CCWSafe.com.

  4. #4
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Call a liberal a liberal to their face and observe their reaction. Call a conservative a conservative to their face and you will observe a far different reaction.

  5. #5
    Regular Member fjpro2a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    300

    Exactly

    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    Call a liberal a liberal to their face and observe their reaction. Call a conservative a conservative to their face and you will observe a far different reaction.
    100% true

  6. #6
    Regular Member F350's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    The High Plains of Wyoming
    Posts
    1,030
    Personally I like "Global Warming".

  7. #7
    Regular Member SFCRetired's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Montgomery, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    1,770
    I will admit that I have a lot of fun with the "evolution" argument with both liberals and conservatives. Not to mention a few creationists who claim an age for our planet of only six thousand years.

    Yeah, I know. I do love to stir things up occasionally.
    "Happiness is a warm shotgun!!"
    "I am neither a pessimist nor a cynic. I am, rather, a realist."
    "The most dangerous things I've ever encountered were a Second Lieutenant with a map and a compass and a Private who was bored and had time on his hands."

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    199

    stir up things

    Quote Originally Posted by SFCRetired View Post
    I will admit that I have a lot of fun with the "evolution" argument with both liberals and conservatives. Not to mention a few creationists who claim an age for our planet of only six thousand years.

    Yeah, I know. I do love to stir things up occasionally.
    Please elaborate. Do you believe science or the evolution religion. Science tells us that the earth can not be over 10,000 years old. The evolution religion demands that the earth be billions of years old so that their religion makes since. The evolution religion says that in the beginning the earth was a hot ball of molten (liquid) rock and the rock cooled and then it rained on the rocks for millions of years forming pools ponds oceans and became some kind of chemical soup. The soup some how became alive and ooosed up the shore and some how became a crocodile. That's how a crock evolved from a rock.
    Last edited by Mr Birdman; 12-31-2013 at 10:49 PM.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    199

    Basic science?

    Quote Originally Posted by BrianB View Post
    Lifted this gem from the article:



    Translation, 33% of the people polled are completely ignorant of basic science.

    Evolution does happen. Period. It is incontestable. The only intelligent debate (in my opinion) is one of degree.

    For example, I do not believe that all life on this planet originally evolved from simple non-living amino acids. The only evolution on this planet that is a proven fact (in my opinion) is that of random mutation and natural selection making subtle changes over time to a population of a species. It has not been proven (to my satisfaction anyway) that evolution gives us entirely new types of animals that didn't exist before. That doesn't mean it didn't and can't, it just means that it has not been proven to my satisfaction.


    Which of the 6 forms of evolution are you talking about? Random mutation what is that? Are you trying to say that there is beneficial mutation that creates something better? If so I would like to see it since no one has ever seen one or produced one. Evolution is a lie. Everything ever used to try to prove it has been proven a lie. Do you have some evidence? If you do you would be the first ever.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    idaho
    Posts
    760
    A few things I have said that got me persona non grata at some liberal social gatherings.....

    # 1 - I don't understand how women think its their right to murder their children.

    # 2 - 90% of new HIV cases in America every year are homosexual men.

    # 3 - I'm not racist but I have become wise due to my years of experience.

    # 4 - I believe the money I earn is mine.

    # 5 - Illegal aliens have no right to be in my country.

    Things I have said that republicans/conservatives don't like.......

    # 1 - The environment is very important and must be cared for.

    # 2 - Police lie and commit crimes everyday

    # 3 - If you don't like abortion then don't have one and don't cause one

    # 4 - I don't see what the difference is between Bush/Obama or Republicans/Democrats

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Urban Skeet City, Alabama
    Posts
    897
    If you're intentionally changing the answer to skew the results of a survey, the survey is no better off questioning you than questioning prisoners.
    It takes a village to raise an idiot.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    SC
    Posts
    1,929
    Quote Originally Posted by SFCRetired View Post
    I will admit that I have a lot of fun with the "evolution" argument with both liberals and conservatives. Not to mention a few creationists who claim an age for our planet of only six thousand years.

    Yeah, I know. I do love to stir things up occasionally.
    I do believe it's working!

  13. #13
    Regular Member BrianB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    239
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Birdman View Post
    Which of the 6 forms of evolution are you talking about? Random mutation what is that? Are you trying to say that there is beneficial mutation that creates something better? If so I would like to see it since no one has ever seen one or produced one. Evolution is a lie. Everything ever used to try to prove it has been proven a lie. Do you have some evidence? If you do you would be the first ever.
    Sorry. Just saw this.

    Random mutation that is either "selected for", "selected against", resulting in subtle changes to a species over time. Remember I'm not saying evolution turns fish into birds.

    Mutations that are beneficial to the offspring that carry the mutation and confer some advantage to those offspring over those that don't. The mutation is "selected for" and propagates. If the advantage were significant the mutated form could in theory completely replace the unmutated form over time.

    Mutations that are detrimental to the offspring put them at a disadvantage so the mutation is less successful and the mutation is "selected against" and not likely to propagate beyond 1 generation.

    Some mutations are not helpful nor harmful and therefore are not "selected for" nor "selected against". These mutations may persist for many generations but there is no particular reason for them to become dominant nor fade away absent some localized event that wipe out the population as a whole.

    Without putting any effort or research into it whatsoever the most flagrantly obvious evidence that the above process occurs is antibiotic resistant bacteria. Bacteria multiply more rapidly than most lifeforms and can go through hundreds of generations in a short time. Every new generation is an opportunity for the introduction of a mutation either due to a transcription error while the copying of the DNA or due to damage to the DNA by the various types of radiation that reach the earth. Any mutation that lets even a small number of bacteria better-survive our efforts to wipe them out with antibiotics will increase the prevalence of that mutation in the bacteria population. In less than 100 years of antibiotic use there are now bacteria that can survive even our most sophisticated antibiotics and kill someone.

    Viruses aren't even alive (they are non-living DNA in a carrier mechanism) but since they are code they can be damaged/mutated in the same ways that reproductive DNA is damaged (transcription errors and radiation) and we see viruses mutate, sometimes to their advantage and our detriment, all the time.

    First hand observation of selective processes in higher life forms is harder as we humans don't live through hundreds, thousands, or millions of generations. Still, scientists can and do observe subtle changes in a species as a response to selective pressure. Rather than talking about finch beak size changes in response to droughts and such (not Darwin's observations, we're talking 1970's and 80's) it seems tidier to do it another way.

    If evolution does not occur in any form, and if we assume that no entity (divine or otherwise) periodically drops new life forms onto the planet, then we would have to conclude that the life forms we see on Earth today have always been here, in exactly their current form. The life forms we see today would be a subset of the original set of life forms because many life forms have become extinct over time. We have no more Tyrannosaurs or Dodo birds, though we know they used to be here. This conclusion that all of the life forms presently on the planet have been here from day one, in their current form, doesn't really work though because we have no fossil record for most of them until very recently, if at all. You won't find any gazelle skeletons cohabiting the same layer of rock with triceratops. You won't find any **** sapien skeletons cohabiting the same layer of rock as **** habilis.

    If there is no evidence of most current day life forms in the fossil record with the long-extinct life forms where did they come from? I don't have an answer to that. You'll probably remember that I said I don't necessarily believe that evolution has, over time, turned fish into birds. I believe that may be possible, but I see no proof of it. If I don't believe that birds have always been here, and I don't believe evolution turns fish into birds, then where did birds come from (or fish for that matter)? I don't know. And I'm fine with that. Because "I don't know but I'm open to evidence and proof" is a more intelligent answer (to me) than "by magic".
    NRA Certified Instructor
    NRA Chief Range Safety Officer
    Front Sight Distinguished Graduate, Handgun, Glock 35 and Glock 23
    FFL Type 7, Class 2 SOT (Licensed NFA Firearms Manufacturer)
    If you CCW, consider the benefits of joining CCWSafe.com.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    199

    mutation

    Quote Originally Posted by BrianB View Post
    Sorry. Just saw this.

    Random mutation that is either "selected for", "selected against", resulting in subtle changes to a species over time. Remember I'm not saying evolution turns fish into birds.

    Mutations that are beneficial to the offspring that carry the mutation and confer some advantage to those offspring over those that don't. The mutation is "selected for" and propagates. If the advantage were significant the mutated form could in theory completely replace the unmutated form over time.

    Mutations that are detrimental to the offspring put them at a disadvantage so the mutation is less successful and the mutation is "selected against" and not likely to propagate beyond 1 generation.

    Some mutations are not helpful nor harmful and therefore are not "selected for" nor "selected against". These mutations may persist for many generations but there is no particular reason for them to become dominant nor fade away absent some localized event that wipe out the population as a whole.

    Without putting any effort or research into it whatsoever the most flagrantly obvious evidence that the above process occurs is antibiotic resistant bacteria. Bacteria multiply more rapidly than most lifeforms and can go through hundreds of generations in a short time. Every new generation is an opportunity for the introduction of a mutation either due to a transcription error while the copying of the DNA or due to damage to the DNA by the various types of radiation that reach the earth. Any mutation that lets even a small number of bacteria better-survive our efforts to wipe them out with antibiotics will increase the prevalence of that mutation in the bacteria population. In less than 100 years of antibiotic use there are now bacteria that can survive even our most sophisticated antibiotics and kill someone.

    Viruses aren't even alive (they are non-living DNA in a carrier mechanism) but since they are code they can be damaged/mutated in the same ways that reproductive DNA is damaged (transcription errors and radiation) and we see viruses mutate, sometimes to their advantage and our detriment, all the time.

    First hand observation of selective processes in higher life forms is harder as we humans don't live through hundreds, thousands, or millions of generations. Still, scientists can and do observe subtle changes in a species as a response to selective pressure. Rather than talking about finch beak size changes in response to droughts and such (not Darwin's observations, we're talking 1970's and 80's) it seems tidier to do it another way.

    If evolution does not occur in any form, and if we assume that no entity (divine or otherwise) periodically drops new life forms onto the planet, then we would have to conclude that the life forms we see on Earth today have always been here, in exactly their current form. The life forms we see today would be a subset of the original set of life forms because many life forms have become extinct over time. We have no more Tyrannosaurs or Dodo birds, though we know they used to be here. This conclusion that all of the life forms presently on the planet have been here from day one, in their current form, doesn't really work though because we have no fossil record for most of them until very recently, if at all. You won't find any gazelle skeletons cohabiting the same layer of rock with triceratops. You won't find any **** sapien skeletons cohabiting the same layer of rock as **** habilis.

    If there is no evidence of most current day life forms in the fossil record with the long-extinct life forms where did they come from? I don't have an answer to that. You'll probably remember that I said I don't necessarily believe that evolution has, over time, turned fish into birds. I believe that may be possible, but I see no proof of it. If I don't believe that birds have always been here, and I don't believe evolution turns fish into birds, then where did birds come from (or fish for that matter)? I don't know. And I'm fine with that. Because "I don't know but I'm open to evidence and proof" is a more intelligent answer (to me) than "by magic".

    Sorry I do not have time this morning to read all of your post I have to go to work. Since you seem to have found some kind of beneficial mutation please elaborate since no one else has ever found one please share.
    Last edited by Mr Birdman; 01-06-2014 at 11:24 AM. Reason: spelling

  15. #15
    Regular Member BrianB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    239
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Birdman View Post
    Sorry I do not have time this morning to read all of your post I have to go to work. Since you seem to have found some kind of beneficial mutation please elaborate since no one else has ever found one please share.
    Be happy to discuss it with you after you have read my post.
    NRA Certified Instructor
    NRA Chief Range Safety Officer
    Front Sight Distinguished Graduate, Handgun, Glock 35 and Glock 23
    FFL Type 7, Class 2 SOT (Licensed NFA Firearms Manufacturer)
    If you CCW, consider the benefits of joining CCWSafe.com.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    199

    have read

    Quote Originally Posted by BrianB View Post
    Be happy to discuss it with you after you have read my post.
    I have read it now and boy O boy you are really making some far fetched fantastical statements. First of all you mention bacteria resistance. You must not know much about bacteria to say such things. Let us just say that we had a perfect bacteria that was infecting and killing things (dogs cats horses people ect) We come up with antibiotics it kills the infection, and the creature survives the sickness. It gets sick again with the same illness, this time the antibiotics do not work. It does not work because the remaining bacterium does not have rhizomes. The rhizomes are important because that is what the antibiotics attach to to kill the bacterium. Kind of like Velcro. Velcro will not stick to a flat smooth surface. Since the bacterium has lost information not gained information the antibiotic can not attach itself to it and kill it. Beneficial for the moment but when put back in with the rest of the bacterium it is a harmful mutation. Kind of like if the government came over to one of our open carry rally's and said it was going to hand cuff every one and take them to jail. Since you did not have arms they could not hand cuff you, therefor they could not take you. Beneficial for the moment, but after the judge lets every one go. you now have a harmful mutation.

    You also mentioned bones in the dirt. You obviously have not seen the fossils found in Latolie Africa. They have found human fossils with dinosaur fossils in the same rock. Glen Rose Tx they found human and dinosaur footprints in the same rock. If you are determined not to find something you will not find it.

    Charles Lyle's book Principals of Geology mentions the so called geologic column don't you know that over 85% of the earth does not even have 3 of those so called layers? The geologic column is the bible for the evolutionist it does not exist except in the text books. You keep mentioning time as long as we have enormous amounts of time it might have could have should have happened that way since we can not believe that God did it. It might have could have should have probable did is why evolution is a religion and not scientific.

  17. #17
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    ^^^^^^^^^^^ Yep, you guys nailed it.


    Quote Originally Posted by SFCRetired View Post
    I will admit that I have a lot of fun with the "evolution" argument with both liberals and conservatives. Not to mention a few creationists who claim an age for our planet of only six thousand years.

    Yeah, I know. I do love to stir things up occasionally.
    Quote Originally Posted by PistolPackingMomma View Post
    I do believe it's working!
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  18. #18
    Regular Member SFCRetired's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Montgomery, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    1,770
    Favorite questions to Creationists:

    Q: God created man, right?
    A: Why, yes! It says so in Genesis.

    Q: God created man in His image, right?
    A: Again, that is what Genesis says.

    Statement: Since God is a Spirit, then the creation spoken of in Genesis was the endowment of the physical creature with an immortal spirit. It is obvious from looking around that the physical being we call man was not created in the image of just one entity. If this is not so, then why do we share something like 85% of our DNA with a species of chimpanzee?

    Usually this is the point where I get to observe smoke coming out of their ears and their mouths working soundlessly!

    Why, yes, I am an evil old man. Why do you ask?
    "Happiness is a warm shotgun!!"
    "I am neither a pessimist nor a cynic. I am, rather, a realist."
    "The most dangerous things I've ever encountered were a Second Lieutenant with a map and a compass and a Private who was bored and had time on his hands."

  19. #19
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Man was not created to BE God. He was created "in the image" of God. That means he has some (decidedly NOT all) attributes of God.

    BTW, that 85% figure depends on how similarity is measured. Depending on technique, every number between 0% and 100% is achievable, making the 85% number arbitrary and capricious.
    Last edited by eye95; 01-07-2014 at 07:54 PM. Reason: Added italicized "not" that was inadvertently left out.

  20. #20
    Regular Member BrianB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    239
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Birdman View Post
    I have read it now and boy O boy you are really making some far fetched fantastical statements. First of all you mention bacteria resistance. You must not know much about bacteria to say such things. Let us just say that we had a perfect bacteria that was infecting and killing things (dogs cats horses people ect) We come up with antibiotics it kills the infection, and the creature survives the sickness. It gets sick again with the same illness, this time the antibiotics do not work. It does not work because the remaining bacterium does not have rhizomes. The rhizomes are important because that is what the antibiotics attach to to kill the bacterium. Kind of like Velcro. Velcro will not stick to a flat smooth surface. Since the bacterium has lost information not gained information the antibiotic can not attach itself to it and kill it. Beneficial for the moment but when put back in with the rest of the bacterium it is a harmful mutation. Kind of like if the government came over to one of our open carry rally's and said it was going to hand cuff every one and take them to jail. Since you did not have arms they could not hand cuff you, therefor they could not take you. Beneficial for the moment, but after the judge lets every one go. you now have a harmful mutation.
    I'm thinking perhaps you are confused in some of your terminology. Bacteria do not have rhizomes, although they do sometimes infect the rhizomes of organisms that do have them. Perhaps you meant ribosomes (aka RNA)? Bacteria do have ribosomes, as do all living cells. I'm not a biologist, so just to double check my feeble knowledge I ran your post by someone with a bachelor's degree in biology. They too could not make any sense of the above.

    If you want to argue that evolution is not responsible for antibiotic resistance in bacteria there are much better ways to do it. One particularly persuasive essay I read argued that bacterial resistance to antibiotics comes not from random mutations conferring an advantage to the bacteria, but due to existing differences in genetics among the population of bacteria. When antibiotics are introduced those bacteria with a genetic makeup that helps them survive the assault will survive and those that don't will die. The survivors reproduce and thrive. How the genetic differences between the bacteria occurred in the first place to provide those surviving bacteria, that are the same species as those that died, with different genes is anybody's guess. Since bacteria reproduce asexually by the process of mitosis each offspring is essentially a genetic clone. Absent random mutation or genetic damage due to radiation the only other explanation would be "when God made the Earth 6000 years ago he made all these different bacteria -- tens of thousands of variants of the same species -- exactly then as they are now". If that works for you, that's cool.

    After thinking some more I thought it good to point out that animals don't have to have mutation to "evolve" by selective pressure. Selective pressure can simply favor animals with a particular attribute over others of the same species that don't share it. Maybe a horsey type thing has a slightly longer neck than his brothers and can reach higher in the trees and this helps. He reproduces better and his children have slightly longer necks too. They inbreed and the trait is amplified. A thousand years later maybe you have a giraffe.

    If that seems crazy, look at what humans have done with dogs in the thousands of years we have been selectively inbreeding them to enhance particular traits. All domestic dogs are descended from gray wolves. And now we have everything from Great Danes to Chihuahua's to Dachshunds. They are vastly different critters - each forcibly evolved by artificial selective pressure at the hands of man to serve a particular purpose.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Birdman View Post
    You also mentioned bones in the dirt. You obviously have not seen the fossils found in Latolie Africa. They have found human fossils with dinosaur fossils in the same rock. Glen Rose Tx they found human and dinosaur footprints in the same rock. If you are determined not to find something you will not find it.
    I have read of those things and they are quite interesting. They don't explain why we don't find any antelope skeletons very far back in the geologic record. Of all of the thousands of species on the planet today, virtually none of them are found in the same layers as prehistoric fossils. Finding a single unexplainable example doesn't solve the mystery of why it isn't pervasive. If they have all been here since day one it is quite strange.

    Equally strange is the premise that according to the bible humans and dinosaurs cohabited the planet at the same time, yet we have no cave drawings of t-rex or triceratops or velociraptors. We have some drawings of mammoths, and even saber tooth cats, but that makes sense because the evidence available to us says Neanderthals did live at the same time as those animals. Sure there's the mention of Behemoth in Job but even if you buy that as a dinosaur reference that's a pretty damn paltry blip in the historical radar for something that should have been a pretty big deal to our ancestors and been drawn and written about extensively.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Birdman View Post
    Charles Lyle's book Principals of Geology mentions the so called geologic column don't you know that over 85% of the earth does not even have 3 of those so called layers? The geologic column is the bible for the evolutionist it does not exist except in the text books. You keep mentioning time as long as we have enormous amounts of time it might have could have should have happened that way since we can not believe that God did it. It might have could have should have probable did is why evolution is a religion and not scientific.
    I never mentioned geologic columns or made any claims about how many layers are where. I did talk about what is and isn't found in some of those layers though. Don't get me wrong, I don't know where all these animals came from either. I don't know of any proof that they got here by evolution, or by any other means. I just think that saying it all got here by magic is sort of pulling an intellectual escape hatch.
    NRA Certified Instructor
    NRA Chief Range Safety Officer
    Front Sight Distinguished Graduate, Handgun, Glock 35 and Glock 23
    FFL Type 7, Class 2 SOT (Licensed NFA Firearms Manufacturer)
    If you CCW, consider the benefits of joining CCWSafe.com.

  21. #21
    Regular Member BrianB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    239
    Quote Originally Posted by SFCRetired View Post
    Q: God created man in His image, right?
    A: Again, that is what Genesis says.
    In the fossil record, critters that look like you and me haven't been around very long. Best I can tell, God must look like a Neanderthal. We apparently killed off all the critters made in God's image and now we own the place.
    NRA Certified Instructor
    NRA Chief Range Safety Officer
    Front Sight Distinguished Graduate, Handgun, Glock 35 and Glock 23
    FFL Type 7, Class 2 SOT (Licensed NFA Firearms Manufacturer)
    If you CCW, consider the benefits of joining CCWSafe.com.

  22. #22
    Regular Member SFCRetired's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Montgomery, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    1,770
    I think some may have missed the point of my post concerning God creating man in His image. The act of creation spoken of in Genesis was, I firmly believe, when God endowed the physical creature we call "man" with an immortal spirit. That "immortal spirit" is the part of man that is the image of God, not the physical body.

    Where the physical body came from is, at this point, still the object of many scientific inquiries. That a species of chimpanzee may have shared a common ancestor with humans is still a distinct possibility.

    @Mr. Birdman: Science is pretty much agreed that the earth is many millions of years old. Scientific Creationism, which has nothing of science in it, believes the earth to be less than 10,000 years old. Notice that I said, "believes", as there is not one iota of concrete evidence to back that particular fallacy. None of the papers that have been published purporting to "prove" this fallacy have ever been subjected to that most sacred of scientific rites; peer review.
    "Happiness is a warm shotgun!!"
    "I am neither a pessimist nor a cynic. I am, rather, a realist."
    "The most dangerous things I've ever encountered were a Second Lieutenant with a map and a compass and a Private who was bored and had time on his hands."

  23. #23
    Regular Member BrianB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    239
    Quote Originally Posted by SFCRetired View Post
    I think some may have missed the point of my post concerning God creating man in His image. The act of creation spoken of in Genesis was, I firmly believe, when God endowed the physical creature we call "man" with an immortal spirit. That "immortal spirit" is the part of man that is the image of God, not the physical body.
    I got what you were saying though my use of your quote as a lead in to my post would imply otherwise. Your quote just gave rise to the idea in my head and so I quoted it instead of Genesis because I was being lazy.

    Interesting discussion all the way around. We don't know the answers to a lot of these things even if we think we do. Nonetheless, discussing and even debating what those answers might be and why we think what we think is some good exercise for the old noggin.
    NRA Certified Instructor
    NRA Chief Range Safety Officer
    Front Sight Distinguished Graduate, Handgun, Glock 35 and Glock 23
    FFL Type 7, Class 2 SOT (Licensed NFA Firearms Manufacturer)
    If you CCW, consider the benefits of joining CCWSafe.com.

  24. #24
    Regular Member SFCRetired's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Montgomery, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    1,770
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    Man was not created to BE God. He was created "in the image" of God. That means he has some (decidedly NOT all) attributes of God.

    BTW, that 85% figure depends on how similarity is measured. Depending on technique, every number between 0% and 100% is achievable, making the 85% number arbitrary and capricious.
    Never did I say that man was created to be God. I did state that the part of man created in God's image was his immortal soul.

    As for the DNA, the American Museum of Natural History has a most informative article on the subject:
    http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/past...ans-and-chimps

    Apparently, my guesstimate of 85% is conservative and 98% is closer to actuality according to the article. There are also some other factors which were pointed out in the article.
    "Happiness is a warm shotgun!!"
    "I am neither a pessimist nor a cynic. I am, rather, a realist."
    "The most dangerous things I've ever encountered were a Second Lieutenant with a map and a compass and a Private who was bored and had time on his hands."

  25. #25
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,915
    For those of the religious persuasion, it occurs to me to ask...

    Why is the Judeo-Christian explanation of man's emergence the only one being offered?

    Why is the Inuit explanation of the Raven forcing the ground up from the deep by stabbing it with his beak and fixing it into place not as reputable?

    What is it about the Chinese explanation of Pangu creating the universe from a formless chaos and coalescing it into a cosmic egg for 18,000 years where Yin and Yang became balanced in perfect harmony that is unbelievable?

    For that matter, what's wrong with the Hopi Indian rather sensible explanation that Spider Grandmother caused a hollow reed (or bamboo) to grow into the sky, and it emerged in the Fourth World at the sipapu. The people then climbed up the reed into this world, emerging from the sipapu. The location of the sipapu is given as in the Grand Canyon?




    I'm just not seeing why the Christian theory is superior to these others, could one of the religious types explain it, please?
    Last edited by Fallschirmjäger; 01-07-2014 at 11:26 PM.

Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •