Alabama and Mississippi Republican Voters

• jmog

  2kool4skool;1117507 wrote:Okay, well tell me how you think he went about it. I'm quite impressed by someone gathering two of every animal, herding them on to a boat, building a boat big enough to contain all the animals and food/water, getting them to all survive in the same ecosystem, and reproduce with each other.
  
  No one can be 100% sure on what happened thousands of years ago, but the scientific community has provided a hypothesis, which has been pretty consistent with empirical data, and has been recreated in fossil record and in lab settings.
  
  To unseat it as what is the most likely explanation, you're going to have to give something more than "it was written in a book," and "you have to have faith."
  
  Of course, you can believe what you want and you don't need anyone's permission to do so. And it doesn't necessarily make someone more or less intelligent. But just don't expect others, who don't subscribe to blind faith, to see the belief in Noah's Ark, or Xenu, or Zeus, or whatever, as something other than cooky.

  You got one key point wrong. It has NOT been recreated in the fossil record or lab settings. But don't let facts get in the way of your opinion.
• sleeper

  

  jhay78;1128423 wrote:From your link it sounds like these scientists already know everything:
  
  
  
  Ah yes, a grand history, with examples in the fossil record everywhere to prove our theory. Oh wait . . .

  Umm...
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_erectus
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_heidelbergensis
  [URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_neanderthalensis
  [/URL]
• Footwedge

  jhay78;1117439 wrote:A whole lot easier than it would be for reptilian species to go through the many multiple transformations required to develop bird-like feathered wings. Any rational person would find it hard to believe a reptile (on its way to becoming a bird) with 1/4 or 1/2 developed wings would be gaining any advantage over other similar species, according to "survival of the fittest". Yet this is accepted fact in Darwinian evolution.
  
  The Paleotherium to Equus example is one questionable example in the fossil record. If macro-evolution is indeed an observable fact, there should be fossils of half-species everywhere. There aren't.

  This. Again...the separation of genus and species the way things have "evolved" pretty much proves that true evolution that is preached is as fraudulent as a 4 dollar bill.
• believer

  

  Footwedge;1128650 wrote:This. Again...the separation of genus and species the way things have "evolved" pretty much proves that true evolution that is preached is as fraudulent as a 4 dollar bill.

  In 100% agreement but that's subject to change over billions of years.
• Footwedge

  believer;1128890 wrote:In 100% agreement but that's subject to change over billions of years.

  People say..."well, it's simply biology". Now how insane is that? So a one celled sperm can unite with a one cell egg...and voila...in 20 years you have a massive creature called an adult human being. One with billions of cells working in unison. With a couple million chemical reactions occuring every second...and if a hundred or so misfires happen, then death. But don't you know? It's just biology. We have hormones, enzymes, elastic vessels...and such $hit as fibrinogen and C-reactive protein....all needed...or we instantly die. But it's all biology, man!
  
  And then you have the mathematical atheists...they are my favorites! The odds of happenstance that a cluster of cells could evolve into a human eyeball...and do what an eyeball does....measures in the one in trillions range.
  
  If belief in the Divine Creator is the opium of the masses, then I think opium should be legalized.
• believer

  

  In my feeble mind, it's just as easy to believe in the "Supreme Magic Man in the Sky" as it is for some to believe that a bolt of lightning just happened to hit a magical pile of organic goo billions of years ago transforming it into a single celled creature. Then over thousands of years the cell divided into a multi-celled creature which then mutated into separate and unique multi-celled creatures. Some of those evolved into fish which, over tens of thousands of more years, grew legs and lungs and crawled out of the seas onto dry land to become dinosaurs. Then some of those dinosaurs began to grow hair and became mammals which begat primates which begat Neanderthals which evolved into humans.
• 2kool4skool

  

  believer;1129517 wrote:In my feeble mind, it's just as easy to believe in the "Supreme Magic Man in the Sky"

  I'm sure it is much easier.
  
  I just hope you picked the right religion and sect of that religion. It would suck to be so dedicated as to live your life by these specific principles, even to go so far as to make your username "believer", and then have simply not guessed right on which of the 100's of choices was correct.
• believer

  

  2kool4skool;1129533 wrote:I'm sure it is much easier.
  
  I just hope you picked the right religion and sect of that religion. It would suck to be so dedicated as to live your life by these specific principles, even to go so far as to make your username "believer", and then have simply not guessed right on which of the 100's of choices was correct.

  For me it's far easier than that. Jesus Christ is my Lord and Savior. Nothing more, nothing less. I could care less if you're Presbyterian, Methodist, Nazarene, Catholic, Messianic Jew, Baptist, or non-denominational.
• Manhattan Buckeye

  ^^^
  
  What about Episcopalian? That was our wedding service.
  
  I agree with your general sentiment (even though I'm not particularly religious), the only people that crap on Christianity are people that use it for their purposes because they aren't smart enough to find something more relevant - i.e. Bill (I'm a libertarian, really I am - no you aren't you're a liberal douchebag) Maher.
• believer

  

  Manhattan Buckeye;1129790 wrote:^^^
  
  What about Episcopalian? That was our wedding service.

  Well Episcopalians are misguided and illegitimate...not true believers. Therefore your marriage is null and void. lol
  

  Manhattan Buckeye;1129790 wrote:I agree with your general sentiment (even though I'm not particularly religious), the only people that crap on Christianity are people that use it for their purposes because they aren't smart enough to find something more relevant - i.e. Bill (I'm a libertarian, really I am - no you aren't you're a liberal douchebag) Maher.

  Christianity and white males are just about the only demographic groups left in America that aren't protected by the Political Correctness Gestapo. Ridiculing and persecuting Christianity in particular is not only tolerated but at least covertly encouraged by the MSM, Hollyweird, and the all-inclusive & tolerant leftists.
• 2kool4skool

  

  believer;1129789 wrote: Jesus Christ is my Lord and Savior. Nothing more, nothing less.

  How did you figure out that Christianity was the right pick?
  

  believer;1129795 wrote:Christianity and white males are just about the only demographic groups left in America that aren't protected by the Political Correctness Gestapo. Ridiculing and persecuting Christianity in particular is not only tolerated but at least covertly encouraged by the MSM, Hollyweird, and the all-inclusive & tolerant leftists.

  I don't know what the media does/does not do. But as far as I'm concerned, all religions, from Catholicism to Hinduism to Scientology, are equally "valid." None has shown me any more proof than the other, and all base their beliefs on "faith."
  
  So no there's no specific targeting of Christianity on my end. It just so happens that most people here seem to be Christians, hence why the discussion has revolved around it.
• jhay78

  

  2kool4skool;1130134 wrote:How did you figure out that Christianity was the right pick?
  
  I don't know what the media does/does not do. But as far as I'm concerned, all religions, from Catholicism to Hinduism to Scientology, are equally "valid." None has shown me any more proof than the other, and all base their beliefs on "faith."
  
  So no there's no specific targeting of Christianity on my end. It just so happens that most people here seem to be Christians, hence why the discussion has revolved around it.

  I'll try to answer your question here. Even though I did not come from a Christian family, I did grow up in a town where churches were plentiful and Christianity was the prevailing faith. So I've tried to step back from time to time to examine my faith and what sets it apart from other faiths.
  
  One main point that should be fairly objective is its scriptures. The Bible was written by over 40 different authors from many different levels of society, in three different original languages, and over a 1500-year period. Yet the central theme of humanity's sin and the remedy of God sending his Son to redeem humanity is consistent throughout. Contrast that with other religious scriptures, most of which were written by one person at one time. Those don't have the same level of "checks and balances" that the Christian scriptures do.
  
  Also, I look at the manuscript evidence for the New Testament and the eyewitness accounts therein. No other ancient document even comes close to the amount of early authentic manuscripts that support the original text of the NT. Yes there are minor variations here and there (spellings, etc.), but the vast vast majority is legit.
  
  As for the eyewitness accounts, the fact that there are 4 gospels written by 4 different authors recording eyewitness testimony to the teaching, miracles, and resurrection of Christ lends more credibility to their writings. Also, many of the original 12 disciples were willing to die for what they saw and witnessed, a very unlikely event if it were all a hoax. Also, the fact that the early church survived and grew despite opposition from Jewish religious authorities throughout the ancient world, not to mention pagan Roman emperors, lends some more credibility to me.
  
  Yes, faith is involved, but in my opinion the Christian faith is not without legitimate evidence for its authenticity. And we exercise faith every day on many countless things we take for granted. We can argue all day on the bad things done by the Church throughout history, or some puzzling verses in the OT here and there, but these are besides the main point of the genuineness of Christianity and its founder.
  
  Just my 2 cents.
• sleeper

  

  believer;1129789 wrote:For me it's far easier than that. Jesus Christ is my Lord and Savior. Nothing more, nothing less. I could care less if you're Presbyterian, Methodist, Nazarene, Catholic, Messianic Jew, Baptist, or non-denominational.

  Reminds me of the backfire effect.
  
  http://www.skepdic.com/backfireeffect.html
  
  
  
• BoatShoes

  jmog;1118215 wrote:Actually alien implantation, by sentient life or meteoric "dumb" life is a very common belief among theories for abiogenesis.

  No. First of all these are alternative theoriesto Earthly abiogenesis and neither is a very common model of life began onearth. People have done experiments based upon those models but they arenowhere close to common or widespread. Furthermore, these don't address thecentral question of how organic matter forms from inorganic matter which thescientific community has plenty of models for. Again, Nobody who engaged in agood faith evaluation of the merits of common descent and the theory ofevolution would make the claim you again made in this post I quoted. Thestatement you made is more likely to be made by somebody who's had a coupleBible Study sessions with Lee Strobel than someone who was once 100% investedin the theory of evolution. But it looks like I lied and replied again. Ohwell.
• BoatShoes

  jmog;1118219 wrote:It is VERY logical to see that evolutionary biologists would apply any theory they could to explain away the lack of major transitional forms in the fossil record. The basic idea now, without going into the genetic details, is that macro-evolution happens in quick/major jumps and micro-evolution happens slowly.
  
  You can go into the weeds with the genetic laws/theories but that is it in a nut shell.
  
  It doesn't pass the logical litmus test to me, that somehow major jumps happen rapidly but the small ones take millions of years.

  Again, there is not a lack of transitional forms and a firm grasp of mendelian genetics as opposed to Lamarckian inheritance would make this evident. Changes in A's C's G's and T's over time is not going to make the half fish/frog retards and other "transitional forms" that creationists imagine we would find in the fossil record if there version of "macroevolution" were true.
• BoatShoes

  sleeper;1130190 wrote:Reminds me of the backfire effect.
  
  http://www.skepdic.com/backfireeffect.html
  
  
  

  What I find even more fascinating is that you post this link and so are clearly aware of people doubling down on questionable beliefs and yet you probably aren't aware that this equally applies to you and your likely unfaltering belief in the discredited Austrian Business Cycle Theory.
• sleeper

  

  BoatShoes;1130221 wrote:What I find even more fascinating is that you post this link and so are clearly aware of people doubling down on questionable beliefs and yet you probably aren't aware that this equally applies to you and your likely unfaltering belief in the discredited Austrian Business Cycle Theory.

  Proof is in the pudding bro. The long run happens eventually, pretty common sense.
• jmog

  BoatShoes;1130212 wrote:No. First of all these are alternative theoriesto Earthly abiogenesis and neither is a very common model of life began onearth. People have done experiments based upon those models but they arenowhere close to common or widespread. Furthermore, these don't address thecentral question of how organic matter forms from inorganic matter which thescientific community has plenty of models for. Again, Nobody who engaged in agood faith evaluation of the merits of common descent and the theory ofevolution would make the claim you again made in this post I quoted. Thestatement you made is more likely to be made by somebody who's had a coupleBible Study sessions with Lee Strobel than someone who was once 100% investedin the theory of evolution. But it looks like I lied and replied again. Ohwell.

  Lol you might be surprised how many leading evolutionists will give the alien implantation theory when pressed on how life began on earth. You are incorrect.
  
  When the lightning in a bottle experiment was shown its flaws of left vs right amino acids. Many scientists jump to alien seed or direction to have all the amino acids left chains.
  
  Yes thermal oceanic vents is a more popular abiogenesis theory now but no where did I say alien implantation was the most popular one.