Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Gossip & Opinions => Topic started by: The True Adonis on July 04, 2007, 05:45:49 PM
-
Do Steroid users stink more? Do they often emit funny odors? Every juicer I have ever seen or known has been quite the stinker.
-
Do Steroid users stink more? Do they often emit funny odors? Every juicer I have ever seen or known has been quite the stinker.
LOL
-
Yes, a juicers emit more powerful pheromones. The ladies love the androgen smell.
-
Do Steroid users stink more? Do they often emit funny odors? Every juicer I have ever seen or known has been quite the stinker.
huh?
Is this a serious question?
-
Yes, a juicers emit more powerful pheromones. The ladies love the androgen smell.
So thats why they always wear cheap cologne. Aha!
-
So thats why they always wear cheap cologne. Aha!
That's a generalization - can you prove this?
-
That's a generalization - can you prove this?
Can you prove your fake god with concrete evidence? hahah
-
Can you prove your fake god with concrete evidence? hahah
At what point did I say I believe in god or a higher power? haha...
-
abeles must be drunk again offa BOONES and smoking te leaves thinking it's hashish while he jacks off to pictures of daddy waddy
-
You speaking from experience? :P
-
Do Steroid users stink more? Do they often emit funny odors? Every juicer I have ever seen or known has been quite the stinker.
They do emit funny odors because they usually take in large amounts of protein.Most of these guys like to "crop dust" especially in the gym.
-
yeah - it's just gas from eating more food -whick btw is what makes you grow (but that's not something a skinny crack-whore would know about)
-
Do Steroid users stink more? Do they often emit funny odors? Every juicer I have ever seen or known has been quite the stinker.
your mother must be jacked to the moon then, she smells like a harbor on 100 degree day
-
your mother must be jacked to the moon then, she smells like a harbor on 100 degree day
ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Hey TooLarge, I'm becoming a fan of yours!!!
-
Can you prove your fake god with concrete evidence? hahah
Can you prove otherwise? hahah
-
Can you prove otherwise? hahah
Yes, you can prove otherwise, fool. There can only be evolution OR your so-called god. Both can not exist simultaneously. Evolution has been proven which elimiates your god wanna be belief theory.
-
Yes, you can prove otherwise, fool. There can only be evolution OR your so-called god. Both can not exist simultaneously. Evolution has been proven which elimiates your god wanna be belief theory.
oh.. has it, "nukka" ::)
-
oh.. has it, "nukka" ::)
Of course it has. Please look up Germ Theory. Visit a Museum and view the fossil record. Take a walk. Observe the animals. Don`t be stupid. All Modern Medicine is based on evolution.
-
Of course it has. Please look up Germ Theory. Visit a Museum and view the fossil record. Take a walk. Observe the animals. Don`t be stupid. All Modern Medicine is based on evolution.
God you`re a prick.
-
the extra size may cause them to sweat more
E
-
oh.. has it, "nukka" ::)
The facts clearly prove evolution and people (scientists) on an academic level don't dispute this. For the non-professional like you, however, there are entrenched cultural and religious beliefs so it comes as no surprise that you don't want to see and accept the facts.
-
God you`re a prick.
There is no god. And while we are at it, did you know there has not been one single shred of anything to contradict Evolution. Not one shred of anything has ever poked a single hole in Evolution. It is about the most sound FACT in Science.
-
There is no god. And while we are at it, did you know there has not been one single shred of anything to contradict Evolution. Not one shred of anything has ever poked a single hole in Evolution. It is about the most sound FACT in Science.
God you`re a prick.
-
There is no god. And while we are at it, did you know there has not been one single shred of anything to contradict Evolution. Not one shred of anything has ever poked a single hole in Evolution. It is about the most sound FACT in Science.
if it were a fact there would no debates about it in the scientific world, there have only been theories not facts in relation to "evolution" and considering most of the theories have been debunked that pretty much puts you're disbeliefs in the crapper!
Speaking of fiction.....how that 225X13 DL video coming along?
-
I believe there is a higher power that we head to when we check out on earth.
I think that making it about "a guy with a beard in the clouds" is a tad too simplistic. whatever power/force created us and takes us, it's beyond our comprehension, and to act like we "KNOW" something about it- because we've been told by other mortal men - is silly.
So we can't prove it. Also, we're closer to proving evolution, but man's science is so elementary. 400 years ago we were hanging people for correctly showing the solar system rotations.
The bones in the dirt do say we used to be monkeys - and that's very well possible. You can believe in a God and still believe in a world system where cells grew into fish which grew into monkeys which grew into men. If you can honestly tell me you believe the men have souls, but monkeys don't, well hey, great. However, IMO it's something much larger - an energy or force or plane where our consciousness goes when the body fails, and yes, animals have a consciousness.
Arguing about it is pointless. You can't PROVE anything either way.
-
I believe there is a higher power that we head to when we check out on earth.
I think that making it about "a guy with a beard in the clouds" is a tad too simplistic. whatever power/force created us and takes us, it's beyond our comprehension, and to act like we "KNOW" something about it- because we've been told by other mortal men - is silly.
So we can't prove it. Also, we're closer to proving evolution, but man's science is so elementary. 400 years ago we were hanging people for correctly showing the solar system rotations.
The bones in the dirt do say we used to be monkeys - and that's very well possible. You can believe in a God and still believe in a world system where cells grew into fish which grew into monkeys which grew into men. If you can honestly tell me you believe the men have souls, but monkeys don't, well hey, great. However, IMO it's something much larger - an energy or force or plane where our consciousness goes when the body fails, and yes, animals have a consciousness.
Arguing about it is pointless. You can't PROVE anything either way.
You should be smarter than that Rob. There is Zero evidence to support your belief of what you regard as a "higher power that you will check in to".
You do not for one second believe there is a steroid syringe that talks which orbits the earth. You can`t prove that there isn`t one, but all probability points to the fact that it does not exist. Just like your "Higher Power".
Saying that you can`t prove something and then believing only because of that assessment is not only ignorant, it does not make your belief true.
-
I believe there is a higher power that we head to when we check out on earth.
I think that making it about "a guy with a beard in the clouds" is a tad too simplistic. whatever power/force created us and takes us, it's beyond our comprehension, and to act like we "KNOW" something about it- because we've been told by other mortal men - is silly.
So we can't prove it. Also, we're closer to proving evolution, but man's science is so elementary. 400 years ago we were hanging people for correctly showing the solar system rotations.
The bones in the dirt do say we used to be monkeys - and that's very well possible. You can believe in a God and still believe in a world system where cells grew into fish which grew into monkeys which grew into men. If you can honestly tell me you believe the men have souls, but monkeys don't, well hey, great. However, IMO it's something much larger - an energy or force or plane where our consciousness goes when the body fails, and yes, animals have a consciousness.
Arguing about it is pointless. You can't PROVE anything either way.
You can`t believe in a god and science because when you say "God did it" you are surrendering the true occurrence and process to an assinine one.
-
if it were a fact there would no debates about it in the scientific world, there have only been theories not facts in relation to "evolution" and considering most of the theories have been debunked that pretty much puts you're disbeliefs in the crapper!
Speaking of fiction.....how that 225X13 DL video coming along?
Nothing has ever penetrated Evolution. Not one thing.
-
Ah, metaphysics and evolution. Maybe we can get an intelligent design debate going? Hope not. Believers should read Dawking's new book, "The God Delusion". Lots of nonsense believed by religious people.
The account of evolution posted by 240 is false. They burned a bloke at the stake for his beliefs about the solar system. Can you imagine if we could transport one of those Inquisition courts to the present time? Now that would be fun to watch.
People believe you need lots of drugs to get big muscles. Doesn't mean that belief is true.
-
Why does it get under your skin so much about what others believe or don't believe?
-
Why does it get under your skin so much about what others believe or don't believe?
It affects all of our policies regarding disease, medicine, technological progress, enviromental issues, scientific progress, etc...
When the truth it available, it makes no sense to believe in something false, especially when it will effect many more people.
Religion and Faith( the unwarranted belief with no evidence) are viruses.
-
It affects all of our policies regarding disease, medicine, technological progress, enviromental issues, scientific progress, etc...
When the truth it available, it makes no sense to believe in something false, especially when it will effect many more people.
Religion and Faith( the unwarranted belief with no evidence) are viruses.
So 240 believing in a higher power is holding us all back?
-
So 240 believing in a higher power is holding us all back?
Yes, he actually voted for Bush. lol
-
Yes, he actually voted for Bush. lol
Good point. ;D
-
So 240 believing in a higher power is holding us all back?
Of course. He may teach his child that nonsense, which will keep the myth going.
-
So 240 believing in a higher power is holding us all back?
Also, he is missing out on the chance to truly find the correct answers and spreading the knowledge.
The more people are educated and enlightened and the sharing of such ideas, the better off we all are.
We don`t have all the answers of course, but the ones we do have and know, are worth learning and spreading.
-
They did a good thing in the constitution by separating Church and State. A pity they didn't get rid of the churches completely. Look at the consequences of those with religious beliefs. Some do extreme things that impact on all of us. Why would anyone willingly sacrifice his life if he didn't believe he was going somewhere better? Ah, the fools that multiply. The believers end up restricting all of us.
I think what Adonis is saying is that atheism should be embraced instead of religions. If we can put ethics on a rational basis we might have better societies and more people finding happiness.
-
So 240 believing in a higher power is holding us all back?
Also, let me add that moderates and wishy-washy believers to an extent, allow for radicalism to exist and paves its way. They both afterall, accept belief without evidence with the latter being more obiding by their true dogma. So yes, this belief is harmful to us all as we see what Extremists can do.
-
Nothing has ever penetrated Evolution. Not one thing.
Sure there has!!
-
Sure there has!!
Find me just one credible scientist or argument other than God did it.
Just one. Find one scientific flaw. You can`t. One does not exist. Evolution has stood without error and this is recognized universally.
-
Find me just one credible scientist or argument other than God did it.
Just one. Find one scientific flaw. You can`t. One does not exist. Evolution has stood without error and this is recognized universally.
Watch out! He'll post some rubbish from a creation website.. I've been down this very road with him before. He'll post some sort of nonsense with heavy emphasis on some sort of gap. As though because that gap can't yet it be covered, it automatically proves his fairy tales from the mideast to be true.
You shouldn't even bother with creationists.. Debating them gives them the attention they crave.
-
I believe in Jesus Christ as my savior..... ;D
Vince & Adonis can say what they want but fortunately, not everyone is as close-minded.
Its all about Faith
-
Melvin is the epitome of a wannabe great. Good stuff, Melvin, you are an pathfinder.
Adonis is stating that religions have lots of answers for guys like Goodrum but no explanations.
-
I believe in Jesus Christ as my savior..... ;D
Vince & Adonis can say what they want but fortunately, not everyone is as close-minded.
Its all about Faith
Ask jesus to rid you of your ugly looks and high body fat.
-
Melvin is the epitome of a wannabe great. Good stuff, Melvin, you are an pathfinder.
Adonis is stating that religions have lots of answers for guys like Goodrum but no explanations.
Intelligence is normally distributed.
As most intelligence switch, so will the average and stupid ones.
Bell curve anyone?
-
The average IQ on Getbig is about 100. Same as the average for everyone. There are plenty of guys here in the below 100 category and dare I say some are definitely morons. That is why so many simple subjects are misunderstood on Getbig.
-
The average IQ on Getbig is about 100. Same as the average for everyone. There are plenty of guys here in the below 100 category and dare I say some are definitely morons. That is why so many simple subjects are misunderstood on Getbig.
Where would you place Melvin Goodrum?
-
Watch out! He'll post some rubbish from a creation website.. I've been down this very road with him before. He'll post some sort of nonsense with heavy emphasis on some sort of gap. As though because that gap can't yet it be covered, it automatically proves his fairy tales from the mideast to be true.
You shouldn't even bother with creationists.. Debating them gives them the attention they crave.
As opposed to posting one from some "rubbish" athiest/evolution site??
-
I suspect that Melvin is oblivious of his intelligence level and that is why he is appreciated on Getbig.
-
I believe in Jesus Christ as my savior..... ;D
Vince & Adonis can say what they want but fortunately, not everyone is as close-minded.
Its all about Faith
Faith is the belief in the abscence of evidence. IS that really a good way to approach things?
-
As opposed to posting one from some "rubbish" athiest/evolution site??
You can start at Harvard, Princeton, Oxford if you like.
-
You can start at Harvard, Princeton, Oxford if you like.
Sure, but since you're so smart, you should know that those are liberal universities and are quite known for indoctrinating their students with a liberal agenda and bias curriculum!!
-
Adonis You are an IDIOT.
And completely cluless!
-
People have religious faith. What seems unfair to kids is that they get brought up in the faith of their parents and are indoctrinated before they are old enough to assess the worth of those beliefs. Many kids are brought up with no beliefs and then end up religious, anyway. It is pretty hard to be unaffected by the organized belief systems in various countries and at different times.
I suppose we all believe a lot of things without any evidence. Even if we had the evidence we wouldn't be able to comprehend it! For example, how come the sun emits visible light? That is not an easy phenomenon to explain. I suppose we just assume that scientists can explain it.
What about electrons and subatomic particles? How do we know they exist, etc.? Again, we have no direct knowledge of them. We do accept that there are people who do know about these things.
How about the concept God? Is this something like atoms? Well, I think not. There is no one with any direct knowledge about this concept. A lot of people think they understand what religion is all about but I doubt they appreciate what the best academic theologians understand. In the absence of any evidence or proof comes belief and faith. For some reason many brains cannot accept reality for what it is and require something beyond what is discernible. When you grow up in societies saturated with religious beliefs then those institutions influence just about everyone one way or other.
I mean, why on earth in 2007 do we have to beep out swear words? Why can't we see the brave women displaying their breasts on Jerry Springer for their beads? Even in Australia where nudity is allowed on TV after about 9 pm at night we have some censorship imposed by overseas TV standards.
America is clearly affected by religions who lobby long and hard for whatever they require from the various governments.
-
People have religious faith. What seems unfair to kids is that they get brought up in the faith of their parents and are indoctrinated before they are old enough to assess the worth of those beliefs. Many kids are brought up with no beliefs and then end up religious, anyway. It is pretty hard to be unaffected by the organized belief systems in various countries and at different times.
I suppose we all believe a lot of things without any evidence. Even if we had the evidence we wouldn't be able to comprehend it! For example, how come the sun emits visible light? That is not an easy phenomenon to explain. I suppose we just assume that scientists can explain it.
What about electrons and subatomic particles? How do we know they exist, etc.? Again, we have no direct knowledge of them. We do accept that there are people who do know about these things.
How about the concept God? Is this something like atoms? Well, I think not. There is no one with any direct knowledge about this concept. A lot of people think they understand what religion is all about but I doubt they appreciate what the best academic theologians understand. In the absence of any evidence or proof comes belief and faith. For some reason many brains cannot accept reality for what it is and require something beyond what is discernible. When you grow up in societies saturated with religious beliefs then those institutions influence just about everyone one way or other.
I mean, why on earth in 2007 do we have to beep out swear words? Why can't we see the brave women displaying their breasts on Jerry Springer for their beads? Even in Australia where nudity is allowed on TV after about 9 pm at night we have some censorship imposed by overseas TV standards.
America is clearly affected by religions who lobby long and hard for whatever they require from the various governments.
Born into this world with two eyes, two ears, two arms, two legs and a wonderful data-crunching computer system in both halves of our brains, we humans develop a perception of space as small infants. We do not have to be told that the world we live in has three dimensions: length, width, and height. It is almost intuitively obvious.
The Greek philosopher Euclid (330-275 B.C.) put this down in a mathematical format we now call plane geometry-which ruled the world for the next 2000 years-almost like a religion! In grade school we all learned that the angles of a triangle must add up to 180 degrees, and that a straight line is the shortest distance between two points. A line had one dimension, a square had two, and a cube, three. Beyond that it was, for centuries, thought impossible for more dimensions to exist. Aristotle and Ptolemy added their weight to Euclid by "proving" that any more than three dimensions was "impossible."1
But of course for those who believed in God, there must be a fourth dimension. God would surely live there, thus He could watch everything that was happening in our 3-D world. Medieval art even accommodated this orthodoxy-paintings were flattened and two dimensional so the viewer could (sort of) see the world as God sees it.
Until the middle of the last century there was not much talk of a possible Fourth Dimension. But a sickly, brilliant mathematician-the second of six children born to a poor Lutheran pastor-Bernhard Riemann (1826-1866) blew the world apart when he proved mathematically that more than three dimensions were not only possible but also highly likely. In a brilliant lecture on June 10, 1854 this shy, mentally unstable young man toppled the Euclidean world order once and for all.
The Math of Hyperspace
Riemann had discovered what we now called "field theory," which connects forces in the universe with the geometry of space. The Pythagorean Theorem from the Greeks had shown that in a two-dimensional world where a and b are the short sides of a triangle and c is the hypotenuse, then a2 + b2 = c2. For a cube which had sides a, b, and c, the diagonal, d, inside the cube, crossing from one corner to another was given by a2 + b2 + c2 = d2. Well, it did not stop there, because from purely mathematical considerations Riemann could imagine an N-dimensional cube whose diagonal, z, was simply given by a formula with N terms on the left side, a2 + b2 + c2 + .... = z2. The math was easy, the implications were world-shaking.
As originally conceived, the "fourth dimension" was an additional spatial dimension, and not the fourth dimension now called "time." It was Einstein who stumbled upon Riemann's pioneering work and in 1905 put 3 plus 1 together and realized that material objects not only have length, width, and height, but they also endure in time. The fourth dimension was obviously time!
Newton's physics had imagined an absolute clock somewhere in the universe that kept the time for all bodies large and small, whether at rest or in motion. So strongly embedded were the old views that the average person on the street has not yet grasped the radical nature of Einstein's revolution. But now it is clear that space and time are part of an integrated whole-what we call the "space-time" continuum."
Time as well as space can be bent, shrunk or expanded-as can the other three dimensions of the world we live. But if few ordinary people grasp what Einstein had to tell us, Riemann's revolution has had an even greater, lasting effect on physics.
However, to talk about time as the fourth dimension is to jump over 50 years of fascinating history before 1905, when the obscure little man in the Swiss patent office changed the known world all over again.
Riemann's 1854 lecture was an instant success. The world was not flat and it was not necessarily even limited to three dimensions-there might be four-or even more! God was now crowded up into the higher levels of newly discovered "hyperspace." Riemann had been friends with Wilhelm Weber, who was experimenting with electric sparks, magnets and flowing currents-so Faraday and then Maxwell were ready to apply Riemann's work to what became the very successful model we now call "electromagnetic theory."
James Clerk Maxwell, for instance, showed that moving electric charges constitute what we call current flow and flowing currents produce magnetic fields. Light waves, radio waves, and x-rays all "obey" Maxwell's elegant equations: (Diag. 1)
The first equation says that electric lines of force begin and end on charges (such as electrons). The third equation tells us that there are (apparently) no magnetic monopoles-magnetic lines are closed loops. The second and fourth equations are vector equations actually representing three equations each, and they tell us how electric and magnetic fields are related to one another. Maxwell's four equations are actually eight. However if one adopts the mathematics of Riemann space, all eight equations can be written in the following form, called "tensor notation":
Fµv = ðµAv - ðvAµ
ðµFµv = jv
The second equation says it all! It is this ability of Riemann geometry to simplify physics that is so appealing to scientists who always prefer elegance, beauty, symmetry and simplicity when attempting to explain the physical world. Introducing more dimensions, even though they can not be seen or directly measured, improves our ability to understand how the world works.
Georg Bernhard Riemann took ordinary "flat" geometry and crumpled it up, making spherical space which was positively curved, or saddle-shaped space with negative curvature. All this could now be beautifully described in the new short hand of tensors. Whole systems of simultaneous differential equations involving many dimensions could be written down and manipulated with ease.
Riemann showed that spaces could be multiply connected, as shown below. A small bug living in the flat world of the top sheet of paper could hypothetically encounter a "Riemann slit" in the fabric of his known world and inadvertently cross over into a "parallel" universe.
A strange cast of characters seized upon Riemann's ideas soon after his famous lecture. American psychic Henry Slade achieved notoriety in 1877 when Leipzig physics professor Johann Zollner rushed to the former's defense of magic parlor tricks and ghosts by claiming that what was impossible in our ordinary three-dimensional world was readily possible if a fourth dimension were added. Unfortunately, the ensuing uproar led more to popular turn-of-the-century science fiction, and an impetus for ESP and psychic research which continues to this day-more than to legitimate applications in physics. The greatest applications of Riemann's new geometry to physics had to wait half a century for Einstein and his successors.
"Flatland"
In 1884 the Christian headmaster of the City of London School, Edwin Abbott, wrote a wonderful novel about creatures who lived in an imaginary world called "Flatland."2 It was now immediately easy for ordinary people like you and me to imagine what it would be like living in a two dimensional world-on a flat sheet of paper-with occasional intrusions of "beings" from a higher three-dimensional "hyperspace." Even more fantastic science fiction now unfolded into being overnight and by the turn of the century the common man's perception of his world would never be the same.
If four dimensions are not only possible, but now certain, why not 5 or 10 or 26 dimensions? Indeed, if we jump from Einstein to the present time, that is precisely what has happened in modern physics. All this has taken place because introducing (mathematically) additional dimensions to the physical world "unifies" the laws, forces and fields of physics, and leads (usually) to simpler and more "elegant" ways of looking at the universe in which we live.
Discussion of hyperspace rapidly became very complex after Einstein-we must save that for another article. But let us note several things: It is indeed quite likely that the physical, material world we live in has many more than four dimensions.
Ten is a reasonable number to make our physics simple. Discussion of hyperspace still leaves the issue of where God now lives, since he was long ago excluded from the "fourth" dimension. Unfortunately some modern Christian apologists have implied that God is merely a higher-dimensional being, a cosmic giant who pokes his fingers into our world from time to time, alarming us with visions or miracles which we cannot fully understand. Is God a super being from another dimension?
I don't mean to imply that miracles, visions and UFO intrusions from higher dimensions do not occur! They most certainly occur and I believe they are all real extra-dimensional happenings. The point is: God is not made of matter, He is Spirit and spirit is something fundamentally different from matter.
There is an all-important point to keep in mind in our discussions of modern physics and that is that "God is a Spirit and those who worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth." (John 4:24) Spirit is not the same thing as matter!
We can talk endlessly about matter/energy, space and time in the created material world, but that still leaves a higher realm of God and his angels. Who are they and where do they live? What are the unseen worlds they inhabit? Beyond our amazing physical world is yet another realm where different laws apply and where time flows at a different pace.
To talk first of matter and now of spirit is also to go beyond the scope of this short introductory article. Suffice it to say, our knowledge and understanding of the physical world comes through the scientific method, which is based both on observations and on mathematical models that can be tested and verified by measurements and experiments.
The spiritual world is something we know about by personal revelation from our God.3 Most marvelous of all, God has created man to live simultaneously in the material and in the spiritual world. He wants us to be at home in two worlds-he wants us in His training program designed to prepare us for an amazing greater world which is to come.
The opening of doors for us to enter into other worlds was accomplished by the sacrificial work of Jesus Christ on the Cross-we live in a moral universe, and much more than physics is involved in the superhyperspace the Bible calls the "heavens."
"Since we have the same spirit of faith as he had who wrote, 'I believed, and so I spoke,' we too believe, and so we speak, knowing that he who raised the Lord Jesus will raise us also with Jesus and bring us with you into his presence. For it is all for your sake, so that as grace extends to more and more people it may increase thanksgiving, to the glory of God. So we do not lose heart. Though our outer nature is wasting away, our inner nature is being renewed every day. For this slight momentary affliction is preparing for us an eternal weight of glory beyond all comparison, because we look not to the things that are seen but to the things that are unseen; for the things that are seen are transient, but the things that are unseen are eternal."
2 Cor. 4:13-18
-
Have fun Vince........
http://www.khouse.org/articles_cat/2007/technical/space-time/
-
Descartes argued that the world has two realities. Material and mental realities. I think, therefore I am is Descartes proof of his existence. Modern materialists have discarded the mental world which includes the spiritual. There is no soul. No ghost in the machine. All we have is neurons and a special organization that results in consciousness. Materialists end up saying that beliefs and even values are material things.
Can a value be in a book? Or do values, such as love, require a brain to understand it? The values exist in brains and not in books.
Next thing I know some zealots here will be lighting candles for me and TA. Light them for hapless Goodrum. He needs everything he can get.
-
Descartes argued that the world has two realities. Material and mental realities. I think, therefore I am is Descartes proof of his existence. Modern materialists have discarded the mental world which includes the spiritual. There is no soul. No ghost in the machine. All we have is neurons and a special organization that results in consciousness. Materialists end up saying that beliefs and even values are material things.
Can a value be in a book? Or do values, such as love, require a brain to understand it? The values exist in brains and not in books.
Next thing I know some zealots here will be lighting candles for me and TA. Light them for hapless Goodrum. He needs everything he can get.
They have already tried to set fire to us with their candles. You are correct, the next step is hero-worship and then emulation. Shall we share the flock equally?
-
While I fear no man or religion, women are another thing, altogether. To speak in the religious vernacular, God made women to punish us men!
-
Religion stands for dreams and beliefs.... Evolution stands for science and facts. Everyone can chose which side they wanna be on.
-
religion vs. evolution is like supplements vs. steroids. while evolution and steroids are proven, supplements and religion need you to believe in them.
-
Sure, but since you're so smart, you should know that those are liberal universities and are quite known for indoctrinating their students with a liberal agenda and bias curriculum!!
Top universities not teaching ID and creationist garbage is bias? And what is there to teach about creationism exactly? ;D
You believe in the bible, Joe. Don't expect to be taken seriously.
-
Where would you place Melvin Goodrum?
Mine is actually 131
-
Well, it seems that despite your lack of belief in a higher power, you have found a purpose for your existance. That being said, the purpose of your existance ( arguing with inept halfwits on an internet message board about dieting, lifting and evolution) would probably prompt most sane individuals to embrace religion steadfastly. Kudos for staying true to your faith or lack their of. lol
-
Mine is actually 131
Did you do one of those online tests? Easy to cheat by redoing the test. If you score a genuine 132+ you can be in Mensa which is the top 2% of the population.
-
religion vs. evolution is like supplements vs. steroids. while evolution and steroids are proven, supplements and religion need you to believe in them.
Evolution has never been proven either and thats why they call it a theorie, the theories of evolution are changed all the time proving they have nothing concrete and there are thousands of things in the universe that they cannot explain.....BTW, what a rediculous comparison you gave ::)
-
Evolution has never been proven either and thats why they call it a theorie, the theories of evolution are changed all the time proving they have nothing concrete and there are thousands of things in the universe that they cannot explain.....BTW, what a rediculous comparison you gave ::)
Changed all the time? Natural selection has remained constant since Darwin first published 'Origin of the Species by Means of Natural Selection' in the late 1800's. Don't bash it because you don't understand it.
You're a a fucking moron. We are learning and discovering more and more everyday. These things are being tried, tested and are benefiting our race. Moving us forward everyday, that's science for you.
You automatically think just because are things in the universe physicists cannot yet explain, it by default makes your bullshit creationist garbage true. Atleast science can be tried and test, while religion can't. Religion rests on pure belief and should not even be discussed or compared to science.
-
Evolution has never been proven either and thats why they call it a theorie, the theories of evolution are changed all the time proving they have nothing concrete and there are thousands of things in the universe that they cannot explain.....BTW, what a rediculous comparison you gave ::)
Evolution has already been proven. It is a fact not a theorie. What we are learning now are more and more evolutionary details and over time science will be able to explain everything. If it makes your life better there is nothing wrong in believing in the bible... why not? Other than barking up the wrong tree...
-
if it were a fact there would no debates about it in the scientific world, there have only been theories not facts in relation to "evolution" and considering most of the theories have been debunked that pretty much puts you're disbeliefs in the crapper!
Speaking of fiction.....how that 225X13 DL video coming along?
man your ignorant!!! EVOLUTION is a fact you have no idea about genetics,ecology etc..
the debates are because others have different views, that doesnt mean they are correct.
-
It affects all of our policies regarding disease, medicine, technological progress, enviromental issues, scientific progress, etc...
When the truth it available, it makes no sense to believe in something false, especially when it will effect many more people.
Religion and Faith( the unwarranted belief with no evidence) are viruses.
your a moron too. your ignoring all the good religion does for the world, and all hope and joy faith brings to so many people. Your jumping to the conclusion that there is no soul, is no god, and is no other reality. I also bet fishes dont beleive water exists.
im not saying that you can prove there is a god, for if there was, proof would be impossible as it would be supernatural.
religion however does make people believe in alot of non-sense and illogic. If god or something like him does exist, he is seperate, sin does not matter etc... etc....
im a pantheist of sorts, god of the bible doesnt exist, and if he does he is trying to cover it up.
-
your a moron too. your ignoring all the good religion does for the world, and all hope and joy faith brings to so many people. Your jumping to the conclusion that there is no soul, is no god, and is no other reality. I also bet fishes dont beleive water exists.
im not saying that you can prove there is a god, for if there was, proof would be impossible as it would be supernatural.
religion however does make people believe in alot of non-sense and illogic. If god or something like him does exist, he is seperate, sin does not matter etc... etc....
im a pantheist of sorts, god of the bible doesnt exist, and if he does he is trying to cover it up.
well... there can only be evolution or god... both can not exist at the same time... since evolution has been proven there is no god.
-
well... there can only be evolution or god... both can not exist at the same time... since evolution has been proven there is no god.
Some appologists are going to revise their beliefs around evolution.
-
well... there can only be evolution or god... both can not exist at the same time... since evolution has been proven there is no god.
were did you learn this GARBAGE ahhaah.
god could purposely serperate himself(which is the only possible way for true existence) and use evolution to allow creation to unfold. Also god could be everything and all there is, including evolution. you have a narrow view of GOD, read spinoza,aquinas,cs lewis etc... get different perspectives. I agree god of the bible does not exist, if he does he is a absent father, but evolution does not rule out god, that follows the logic that any natural process rules out god. He is either everything or nothing imo. He doesnt get to pick and choose what events to participate in. So if evolution is incorrect, then god allows stars to form through fusion, but creates life here and there? there has to be a more logical framework.
-
There is no god. And while we are at it, did you know there has not been one single shred of anything to contradict Evolution. Not one shred of anything has ever poked a single hole in Evolution. It is about the most sound FACT in Science.
your an idiot, if this is a FACT lol it would mean we are all still evolving,,where are the half human half monkey,,people ,,oh shit forgot who i was talking to then yes your facts are sound , and u are what we have evolved from
-
your an idiot, if this is a FACT lol it would mean we are all still evolving,,where are the half human half monkey,,people ,,oh shit forgot who i was talking to then yes your facts are sound , and u are what we have evolved from
jesus your an idiot...
is this what people in america think, i admit macro evolution is the hardest to swallow but correlation in gene sequences indicate it to be so, read the langauge of god by crick.
it is a fact.
-
were did you learn this GARBAGE ahhaah.
god could purposely serperate himself(which is the only possible way for true existence) and use evolution to allow creation to unfold. Also god could be everything and all there is, including evolution. you have a narrow view of GOD, read spinoza,aquinas,cs lewis etc... get different perspectives. I agree god of the bible does not exist, if he does he is a absent father, but evolution does not rule out god, that follows the logic that any natural process rules out god. He is either everything or nothing imo. He doesnt get to pick and choose what events to participate in. So if evolution is incorrect, then god allows stars to form through fusion, but creates life here and there? there has to be a more logical framework.
Mankind is a product of evolution... God is a product of mankind's thought process. Your answer comes as no surprise...
-
Mankind is a product of evolution... God is a product of mankind's thought process. Your answer comes as no surprise...
explain how sentience came from non-sentience.
there are two options
inorganic matter is sentient
or
sentience can come from non-sentience
those that argue for a god would never argue against evolution, it is just ignorant for the most part.
-
your an idiot, if this is a FACT lol it would mean we are all still evolving,,where are the half human half monkey,,people ,,oh shit forgot who i was talking to then yes your facts are sound , and u are what we have evolved from
You mean "You're."
-
Nothing has ever penetrated Evolution. Not one thing.
if we evolved from apes then why are there still apes?
-
Faith is the belief in the abscence of evidence. IS that really a good way to approach things?
Since when has faith been belief in the absence of evidence? That's nothing more than a tired (and woefully incorrect) line used by certain non-Christians.
Changed all the time? Natural selection has remained constant since Darwin first published 'Origin of the Species by Means of Natural Selection' in the late 1800's. Don't bash it because you don't understand it.
Natural selection has been around LOOOOOOOOOOOONG before anyone even heard of Charles Darwin. But, natural selection does NOT deem a supernatual creator as non-existent.
You're a a fucking moron. We are learning and discovering more and more everyday. These things are being tried, tested and are benefiting our race. Moving us forward everyday, that's science for you.
Look at what you just said, before you go calling people names. We are "discovering more and more everyday". Last time I checked, to discover something means to reveal things that were....ALREADY THERE, namely substances, natural laws, and principles. Those who believe in a Creator hold that the Creator put such things into place. You can't discover something that isn't already in existence.
You automatically think just because are things in the universe physicists cannot yet explain, it by default makes your bullshit creationist garbage true. Atleast science can be tried and test, while religion can't. Religion rests on pure belief and should not even be discussed or compared to science.
It appears that you automatically think that just because man has finally uncovered something, that (by default) proves "Goo to you by way of the zoo" (aka evolution) to be the method by which life came to be on this planet.
This has nothing to do with "science vs. religion", another ridiculous and tired canned phrase, from certain non-believers. Christians have not witnessed a planet, complete with all living things, created in six days. On the same note, evolutionists have not seen a pile of goo, which (thanks to accident after accident and random occurence after random occurence), somehow, someway (with no guidance, whatsoever) became this critter, that critter, another critter, and eventually man.
At best, people can look at things like fossils and such and extrapolate backwards. But, even that has its pitfalls.
-
if we evolved from apes then why are there still apes?
Better yet...why are there no half man half apes walking around? How /why did evolution stop?
-
Better yet...why are there no half man half apes walking around? How /why did evolution stop?
Forget the apes. Try the coelacanth fish, or "Zeke" for short. When fossils of this fish were found, evolutionists said that this fish was extinct and was an ancestor of man, possessing all manner of characteristics which allowed it to "evolve" and eventually walk.
Well, it turned out that "Zeke" still existed in certain parts of the world. At first, the buzz was that a "living fossil" was found. But, as the phrase goes, "Houston!! We have a problem!", that being that the fish were, well, FISH, with almost none of the characteristics attributed to it. Further study showed that the 20th-century versions of "Zeke" were virtually identical to their alleged mutli-hundred-thousand-year-old ancestors.
Needless to say, the search went on for another fish, who supposedly is our great-great-great................."uncle"
-
jesus your an idiot...
is this what people in america think, i admit macro evolution is the hardest to swallow but correlation in gene sequences indicate it to be so, read the langauge of god by crick.
it is a fact.
Wow, I'm glad that it is so easy for you. Since you're obviously an intellectual giant who can easily prove the veracity of evolution, please do us all a favor and kindly provide a list of peer-reviewed scientific journal articles that we can all read that will once and for all end this debate. (Surely someone who is as certain of evolution as yourself has read more than one book). If that is too difficult, at least explain to me how "correlation in gene sequences" proves macroevolution. Be sure to include in your answer how similarity in gene sequences among species invalidates the idea of special creation. That is, explain why similarities in the genome between species could not simply be explained by a creator working from a common blueprint. If you don't mind, I'm hoping you can also refresh my memory about the countless number of natural speciation events that have been documented. (Undoubtedly, someone who is so sure of evolution could recount these immediately without having to search the internet or look in books).
-
Better yet...why are there no half man half apes walking around? How /why did evolution stop?
Oh brother...
Don't understand natural selection.. do you? ::) Evolution occurs over hundreds of generations through selection.. Just look at how we've been able to create so many different breeds of dogs over a few thousand years, and that's called artificial selection. This very process happens in nature and is due to chance, natural conditions, dominance, and can lead to new species, or no change at all.
Fucking morons. Evolution is fact, so don't question because you obviously don't understand it. When something is beyond your comprehension, then please do us all a favor and shut the fuck up. The evidence is there, to the point where it can be proven and has been.
-
Oh brother...
Don't understand natural selection.. do you? ::) Evolution occurs over hundreds of generations through selection.. Just look at how we've been able to create so many different breeds of dogs over a few thousand years, and that's called artificial selection. This very process happens in nature and is due to chance, natural conditions, dominance, and can lead to new species, or no change at all.
Fucking morons. Evolution is fact, so don't question because you obviously don't understand it. When something is beyond your comprehension, then please do us all a favor and shut the fuck up. The evidence is there, to the point where it can be proven and has been.
Hahahahahaha. You are so ignorant it's laughable. Are you telling me that the best example of "evolution" you have is artificial selection in dogs??? Here was your stage to prove that we're all "fucking morons" and all you can do is bring up artificial selection? LOL. So because we can artificially manipulate mating habits in dogs to create--yeah, you guessed it--dogs with different combinations of preexisting alleles, this proves that man evolved from nothing?
-
Oh brother...
Don't understand natural selection.. do you? ::) Evolution occurs over hundreds of generations through selection.. Just look at how we've been able to create so many different breeds of dogs over a few thousand years, and that's called artificial selection. This very process happens in nature and is due to chance, natural conditions, dominance, and can lead to new species, or no change at all.
But, at the end of the day (so to speak). They're still....DOGS, not cats, birds, or fish. There's a certain book that mentions something about creatures reproducing after their own kinds. But, for the life of me, the name escapes me. ;D
Fucking morons. Evolution is fact, so don't question because you obviously don't understand it. When something is beyond your comprehension, then please do us all a favor and shut the fuck up. The evidence is there, to the point where it can be proven and has been.
Dogs producing......DOGS!!!!! OOOOOH!!!!! What a wonderful example of "Goo to you, by way of the zoo" evolution.
Next thing you know, birds with small beaks will produe birds with big beaks.....WAIT A MINUTE!!! They're still birds. Never mind!!!
-
Next thing you know, birds with small beaks will produe birds with big beaks.....WAIT A MINUTE!!! They're still birds. Never mind!!!
We haven't been around long enough and nor have we had the technology to document massive changes, such as moneys to apes.. That's several million years right there. But from what we do know, we can see that things evolved from natural selection.
So because we can artificially manipulate mating habits in dogs to create--yeah, you guessed it--dogs with different combinations of preexisting alleles, this proves that man evolved from nothing?
Apes.
-
We haven't been around long enough and nor have we had the technology to document massive changes, such as moneys to apes.. That's several million years right there. But from what we do know, we can see that things evolved from natural selection.
So, from dogs producing dogs, you jumped to 5-billion-year-old "goo" turning into critter x, changing into critter y, etc., etc., to man. That's, to say the least, a stretch.
Millions of years from monkeys to apes, says who? Could not monkeys and apes existed simultaneously?
-
We haven't been around long enough and nor have we had the technology to document massive changes, such as moneys to apes.. That's several million years right there. But from what we do know, we can see that things evolved from natural selection.
Apes.
Damn, I wish I could get my money to evolve into an ape. I could probably get more from selling the ape.
I'm not sure why I'm even arguing with you because it's very obvious you know little about science, let alone evolution. Why can't you get it through your head that nobody disagrees with the concept of natural selection? Natural selection is very much fact. Natural selection drives microevolution--another concept nobody here should have a problem with. There is, however, a big difference between microevolution (essentially change within a species) and macroevolution (people tend to equate this with "speciation"-one species becomes a new species), and the presence of microevolution in no way whatsoever proves that macroevolution occurred. The best evidence for macroevolution is probably the remarkable similarity in genomes between species. However, this in no way disproves special creation because one could just as easily say that a creator simply worked from a common blueprint in creating the universe, and that he made small changes to this blueprint to create a variety of different species.
-
Damn, I wish I could get my money to evolve into an ape. I could probably get more from selling the ape.
I'm not sure why I'm even arguing with you because it's very obvious you know little about science, let alone evolution. Why can't you get it through your head that nobody disagrees with the concept of natural selection? Natural selection is very much fact. Natural selection drives microevolution--another concept nobody here should have a problem with. There is, however, a big difference between microevolution (essentially change within a species) and macroevolution (people tend to equate this with "speciation"-one species becomes a new species), and the presence of microevolution in no way whatsoever proves that macroevolution occurred.
I believe that's called the old "bait and switch".
The best evidence for macroevolution is probably the remarkable similarity in genomes between species. However, this in no way disproves special creation because one could just as easily say that a creator simply worked from a common blueprint in creating the universe, and that he made small changes to this blueprint to create a variety of different species.
More specifically, the creatures we see now had ancestors, who had various characteristics and reproduced after their own kind. Environmental changes results in scenarios where certain characteristics were favored over others.
-
Wow, I'm glad that it is so easy for you. Since you're obviously an intellectual giant who can easily prove the veracity of evolution, please do us all a favor and kindly provide a list of peer-reviewed scientific journal articles that we can all read that will once and for all end this debate. (Surely someone who is as certain of evolution as yourself has read more than one book). If that is too difficult, at least explain to me how "correlation in gene sequences" proves macroevolution. Be sure to include in your answer how similarity in gene sequences among species invalidates the idea of special creation. That is, explain why similarities in the genome between species could not simply be explained by a creator working from a common blueprint. If you don't mind, I'm hoping you can also refresh my memory about the countless number of natural speciation events that have been documented. (Undoubtedly, someone who is so sure of evolution could recount these immediately without having to search the internet or look in books).
WOW. I take my hat off. I would not know how to handle myself in a face to face situation if somebody came at me like that!! Good series of posts.
-
I believe that's called the old "bait and switch".
Exactly. If you ever take an evolution course in college, you see the same shit. >90% of the course focuses on microevolution. Then maybe the last week of the course you gloss over macroevolution. You learn all about these detailed genetic concepts/principles (hardy-weinberg, bottlenecking, genetic drift, etc.), but none of this is necessarily relevant to macroevolution. What I got from college evolution classes was this: (1)microevolution is true (duh), (2)the genomes of species are remarkably similar--ergo, macroevolution must be true as well. That's bullshit. Now, maybe there is more to it than that (and I'm sure there is), but I think this highlights the fact that the vast majority of us (even those with a background in science) are in no position to even begin to comment on this matter let alone call others "fucking morons" for not adhering to a specific point of view. I'll be the first to admit that I have no opinion on the issue. I just can't stand it when people act as if it's so obvious.
-
Damn, I wish I could get my money to evolve into an ape. I could probably get more from selling the ape.
I'm not sure why I'm even arguing with you because it's very obvious you know little about science, let alone evolution. Why can't you get it through your head that nobody disagrees with the concept of natural selection? Natural selection is very much fact. Natural selection drives microevolution--another concept nobody here should have a problem with. There is, however, a big difference between microevolution (essentially change within a species) and macroevolution (people tend to equate this with "speciation"-one species becomes a new species), and the presence of microevolution in no way whatsoever proves that macroevolution occurred. The best evidence for macroevolution is probably the remarkable similarity in genomes between species. However, this in no way disproves special creation because one could just as easily say that a creator simply worked from a common blueprint in creating the universe, and that he made small changes to this blueprint to create a variety of different species.
They've had to revise their beliefs.. I guess deists would use that kind of arguement.
Of course I can't disprove it(creation). But it's highly unlikely, as it's supported by little to no evidence.
And I was originally arguing against pople like the Coach. Coach claims evolution and even natural selection is false and the bible is absolute truth.
-
And I was originally arguing against pople like the Coach. Coach claims evolution and even natural selection is false and the bible is absolute truth.
If he claims that natural selection is false, then he is ignorant. But don't for a moment think that all special creationists feel this way.
-
Natural selection drives microevolution--another concept nobody here should have a problem with. There is, however, a big difference between microevolution (essentially change within a species) and macroevolution (people tend to equate this with "speciation"-one species becomes a new species), and the presence of microevolution in no way whatsoever proves that macroevolution occurred. The best evidence for macroevolution is probably the remarkable similarity in genomes between species.
Well, I guess you could say that I'm taking a leap of faith.
I am no expert in biology by ANY MEANS. But I think I am qualified to argue against people like the Coach.. The guy posts nonsense from christian websites and claims there's no truth to evolution.
If he claims that natural selection is false, then he is ignorant. But don't for a moment think that all special creationists feel this way.
Of course not. But there are hardcore religious fundamentalists out there that use absolute belief in religion to shape politics and how other people lead their lives. I am not expert on stemcell research or abortion, but is Bush when he's using his religious views to pass laws against them? Abortion already effects millions of women, while stemcells just might benefit a lot of people in the near future. This is what I'm arguing against.. Sheer ignorance.
-
They've had to revise their beliefs.. I guess deists would use that kind of arguement.
I don't think genetic similarities help or hurt special creationists. I don't think they have had to change their beliefs. Special creation really makes no predictions about the similarity or dissimilarity among species. In contrast, evolution would have predicted that this type of genetic similarity would exist. And lucky for them, it does. This doesn't mean that macroevolution is true, however. It just means that it is not invalidated as an explanation for the origin of humans. As it stand now, genetic similarity does not allow us to distinguish between creationism or evolution.
-
Well, I guess you could say that I'm taking a leap of faith.
I am no expert in biology by ANY MEANS. But I think I am qualified to argue against people like the Coach.. The guy posts nonsense from christian websites and claims there's no truth to evolution.
Of course not. But there are hardcore religious fundamentalists out there that use absolute belief in religion to shape politics and how other people lead their lives. I am not expert on stemcell research or abortion, but is Bush when he's using his religious views to pass laws against them? Abortion already effects millions of women, while stemcells just might benefit a lot of people in the near future. This is what I'm arguing against.. Sheer ignorance.
I agree with you in many ways. I get just as pissed at these fundamentalists. You just need to be careful about the way you handle the situation. You never know when someone can call you out. This is a very complex topic that few people can really comment on.
-
Vince Basile invented spamming!
-
Faith is the belief in the abscence of evidence. IS that really a good way to approach things?
I'm on your side on this one, but to answer your question...yes. I don't always require evidence to believe something. Calculated risks, plausability, etc. are enough...
-
America is clearly affected by religions who lobby long and hard for whatever they require from the various governments.
You have hit on the major problem with religions from my perspective. I don't give a flying fuck what religious people belive, but I care a great deal when they try to impose the demands of those beliefs on others using the coercive force of law.
-
I see this thread has brought out a lot of Ignorant and Ill-Informed cockroaches.
This is for the cockroaches:
(http://www.sciencehumor.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/cage.jpg)
-
whenever i got on dbol and i sweat i smell like amonia from urine. im not joking.... it gets so bad that the shirts i wear i cant wash the stink out of them and throw them away.
-
Well, I guess you could say that I'm taking a leap of faith.
I am no expert in biology by ANY MEANS. But I think I am qualified to argue against people like the Coach.. The guy posts nonsense from christian websites and claims there's no truth to evolution.
Of course not. But there are hardcore religious fundamentalists out there that use absolute belief in religion to shape politics and how other people lead their lives. I am not expert on stemcell research or abortion, but is Bush when he's using his religious views to pass laws against them? Abortion already effects millions of women, while stemcells just might benefit a lot of people in the near future. This is what I'm arguing against.. Sheer ignorance.
The argument can just as easily be made that hardcore non-religious or anti-religious "fundamentalists" who so similar to shape politics and how other people live their lives.
Before you start talking about other people's "sheer ignorance", you may want to get your facts straight.
You are using the same old tired take that opposition to embryonic stem cell research means opposition to ALL stem cell research. That is blatantly and patently false. The law Bush passed doesn't even ban embryonic stem cell research. It merely states that the government isn't footing the bill.
Other forms of stem cells have cured LOTS of diseases. Embryonic stem cells have cured NONE, ABSOLUTELY NONE!!. It's rather ridiculous that the one form of stem cell research that many non-religious folks scream about the most has cures the absolute LEAST amount of ailments.
As for abortion, it's a really simple concept: Either it's a baby or it's not. You want to talk about scientific advances. The ones we have today can clearly show the development of a baby inside the womb (fingers, toes, eyes, sex of the baby, brainwaves, heartbeat, etc.). Not to mention, the cases we've seen when babies are born way too prematurely, technology has been able to keep them alive, when years ago, those infants would have died.
But, the irony is that many of the so-called "pro-choice" bubbas don't want this technology used, when it comes to validating something that most people with common sense have known all along: the baby inside the womb is just that, a BABY.
And they call Christians "anti-science"?
Plus, abortion is supposed to be a woman's issue. So, why are many (if not most) abortionists men. Why was the founder of NARAL (who has long since then, become pro-life) a man? The Supreme Court justices that legalized abortion, courtesy of Roe v. Wade: ALL MEN!
Pro-choice women don't seem to mind men getting involved with the politics of abortion, as long as those men side with them. If this were, indeed a "women's issue", abortion might not even exist.
-
I see this thread has brought out a lot of Ignorant and Ill-Informed cockroaches.
This is for the cockroaches:
(http://www.sciencehumor.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/cage.jpg)
LMAO. Maybe we can invite god to join the Mr Getbig contest. If he really is almighty, it should not be a problem for him to win it. ::) ::)
-
LMAO. Maybe we can invite god to join the Mr Getbig contest. If he really is almighty, it should not be a problem for him to win it. ::) ::)
Or, since you and Adonis are so big on evolution, why don't the two of you sit in a tub full of milk and eggs, slap some steaks on yourself for good measure, and see how long it takes for either of you to evolve into Mr. Universe or Mr. Olympia.
In fact, just to stack the deck in your favor, pour in some CELL-TECH and NITRO-TECH. ;D
-
Or, since you and Adonis are so big on evolution, why don't the two of you sit in a tub full of milk and eggs, slap some steaks on yourself for good measure, and see how long it takes for either of you to evolve into Mr. Universe or Mr. Olympia.
In fact, just to stack the deck in your favor, pour in some CELL-TECH and NITRO-TECH. ;D
meltdown/. i just wanted to invite god to mr getbig.
evolution says hard work builds big muscle, not sitting in a tub praying to jesus to make you big. now kma.
-
meltdown/. i just wanted to invite god to mr getbig.
evolution says hard work builds big muscle, not sitting in a tub praying to jesus to make you big. now kma.
Who said anything about praying? Maybe you haven't evolved the ability to read properly, yet.
Evolution said a random series of accidents turns goo to you, by way of the zoo. So, let see you and Adonis hit that tub and see how many "random" occurences get you that extra sinew.
-
Who said anything about praying? Maybe you haven't evolved the ability to read properly, yet.
Evolution said a random series of accidents turns goo to you, by way of the zoo. So, let see you and Adonis hit that tub and see how many "random" occurences get you that extra sinew.
haha, another Blasphemy induced meltdown.
calm down bro, it's only the internet. just because i don't believe in your christian almighty god doesn't mean i rule out all paranormal. ;) ;D ;D
-
haha, another Blasphemy induced meltdown.
calm down bro, it's only the internet. just because i don't believe in your christian almighty god doesn't mean i rule out all paranormal. ;) ;D ;D
How original! Another GetBig poster puts his foot in mouth. So, for lack of anything of substance coming from his head, he pushes the "Meltdown" button.
YAWWWWN!!!!
-
How original! Another GetBig poster puts his foot in mouth. So, for lack of anything enlightening to come from his head, he pushes the "Meltdown" button.
YAWWWWN!!!!
You defending god isn't much more interesting, believe me. (pun intended)
-
The argument can just as easily be made that hardcore non-religious or anti-religious "fundamentalists" who so similar to shape politics and how other people live their lives.
Oh brother. ::) Those people are really something, aren't they? I mean they only fight to uphold seperation of church and state.
The religious lobby is dangerous. They'll use their beliefs to tell others how to lead their lives. The anti-religious folks only fight to uphold seperation of church and state.
As for abortion, it's a really simple concept: Either it's a baby or it's not. You want to talk about scientific advances. The ones we have today can clearly show the development of a baby inside the womb (fingers, toes, eyes, sex of the baby, brainwaves, heartbeat, etc.). Not to mention, the cases we've seen when babies are born way too prematurely, technology has been able to keep them alive, when years ago, those infants would have died.
But, the irony is that many of the so-called "pro-choice" bubbas don't want this technology used, when it comes to validating something that most people with common sense have known all along: the baby inside the womb is just that, a BABY.
What the fuck are you talking about? Most abortions are done when they baby is hardly developed.. I don't see young women aborting developed fetuses.
-
Do Steroid users stink more? Do they often emit funny odors? Every juicer I have ever seen or known has been quite the stinker.
do they fart on u when u gettin ur hourly protein str8 from the tap?
-
Or, since you and Adonis are so big on evolution, why don't the two of you sit in a tub full of milk and eggs, slap some steaks on yourself for good measure, and see how long it takes for either of you to evolve into Mr. Universe or Mr. Olympia.
In fact, just to stack the deck in your favor, pour in some CELL-TECH and NITRO-TECH. ;D
ROFL , the protein in the tub might dissolve into his skin and improve his crap muscle mass
-
Who said anything about praying? Maybe you haven't evolved the ability to read properly, yet.
Evolution said a random series of accidents turns goo to you, by way of the zoo. So, let see you and Adonis hit that tub and see how many "random" occurences get you that extra sinew.
who said they are accidents, random but not accidental. life propogates itself, trying to increase fitness, reproduction doesnt occur by accident.
also, adaptation to natural pressures isnt accidental, it is a natural process which is eminent based on the situation.
questions i think you would be better off asking evolutionists, or atheists are:
why reproduction? reproduction is purposive, how did the first bacterium(wether asexual, or sexual) reproduce or know how to reproduce, implying it came pre-installed with the capacity to reproduce. this is an interesting question.
also, how did abiogenesis occur, obviously no one knows but sentience from non-sentience seems far fetched. for simple elements to assemble and become aware of themselves granted time seems implausible.
any takers?