Could it be?

[B_Ungaro]

Greetings,

It is starting look like "OLE KAZANOVA3" is gone. It looks like he folded his tent and left the board. His re-action is similar to that of the Jesus Nazis. When they don't have the answers, they just leave.

I regret that deeply.

[andrewblow]

Bill, where did you get THAT idea from?

Putting aside your usual derogatory and highly unpleasant nick-names, scanning the posts would suggest that there has merely been a seasonal change in personnel : some home from college, some out at work, some working all hours (me) - but don't think that we are discouraged by 'sticks and stones' - nothing could be further from the truth.

ANDREW

[tyssian]

Hey Bill,

I don't believe that any Christian has just up and left because of your logic, superior argumentitive skills, and capabilities to render the opposition speechless without any answers. No; I believe that most people just up and quit posting to you because you fail to recognize valid and scientific points while spewing out, for the most part, invalid and unfounded statements. Points that you often make are, many times, pointless with concerns to swing weight in favor of evolution. For instance, you claim that scientist have CREATED life. First of all you need to cite a more reputable source than the internet to validate this claim, such as written sources or maybe a science journal with its date of issuance because anyone can put anything on the net. I am not saying that scientist did not do this nor am I saying that they did, but you will have to give a better source than that in order to make that point valid. I refer to your citation because; well simply because you chose to cite it as if it settled something. Now about the point itself. It proves nothing. Where were the scientist at the beginning of life? Where was the CONTROLLED environment at this time? If anything this argument could be used in favor of creation simply because it took an intelligent being to initiate the creation of this organism. MATHEMATICIANS, not creationists, have said that the statistical probability of life happening the way that evolutionists claim that it did in the timeframe given (for the universe 44 billion years) is as close to impossible, or 0, as you can get. With the earth's time frame it is 1 in 10 to the 243rd power chance of happening which is even closer to statistical 0. They say that there is a better chance of blowing up a print shop and getting a dictionary as a result or letting a million monkeys type on typewriters for a million years and getting a Shakespearean masterpiece than there is for life to just happen. You have only proven, if this, that scientists know the building blocks for life and can arrange them in the correct order. Overall your point is useless no matter if it is true or not.


Tyssian

[RiJc]

Hello again friends,

It seems to me, B.Ungaro, that you have a terrible self-sufficience complex. Why is it that you seem to think we all need to prove our sides of this struggle to each other? I don't HAVE to prove anything to you about my faith. My God given obligation is simply to tell you what the Bible says. If anything, it's YOUR job to disprove me. (Which, by the way, you never seem quite capable of unless there is a 5th grader reading your posts somewhere.) So let me start my first post in a while of with a few statements for you to attempt to disprove shall I?

You are an evolutionist, no? You believe that everything we know today is a result of evolution and adaption. But let me confidently state that the hypothesis of evolution itself is crippled by devastating flaws. Gaps in the SUPPOSED (not proven) process which cannot be explained, and which, when left unexplained, render the hypothesis totally incredible.
For instance:
1) Big Bang - this hypothesis simply states that this world came to exhist due to a cluster of matter which spontaneously combusted forming plantes, stars, and galaxies. However, it does not explain the ORIGIN of that matter. The Big Bang theory is farther out that the popular "Harry Potter" books.
2) Evolution cannot explain the transition from inorganic to organic material. Or imaterial to material matter. Or invisible to visible.
3) Evolution does not explain the transition from plant life to animal life.
4) Evolution cannot explain the transition from animal life to human.

The statistical probability that the perfectly ordered universe which we live in would result from chance process, ungoverned by a personal intelligent, deliberate Designer, is virtually nil.

"The statistical probability of the ordered cosmos resulting from spontaneous generation is considerably less than the probability that an explosion in a print shop would produce a dictionary."

More importantly from the standpoint of a Biblicist, the hypothesis of evolution is antithetical to the clear record of Scripture.
In this regard, please note the following:
1) In Genesis Chapter One we have numbered days - 6 of them (the 7th being the one on which God took his rest) - and this scripture is backed up by Exodus 20:9-11 and Hebrews 4:3-4. Please feal free to read these for yourselves.
2) Jesus regaurded the Genesis account as accurate and true in the book of Mathew 19:4.
3) Evolution conradicts the Biblical (and presently TRUE) principle that species reproduce after their own kind.

In closing, I'll present a couple of the easier arguments I've come up with.
1) How do evolutionists explain the venus fly trap which, growing in similar environments to "ordinary" plants, posessing the same ability for photosynthasis as "ordinary" plants, and possesing the same abilities to draw protein and water from the earth as "ordinary" plants, ALSO has the ability to attract insects using color and hormonal glands, close inward on them, and digest them in order to obtain the same proteins which could be more easily drawn from the earth? Why is it that this one plant has "evolved" this feature while other plants, not five feet away, could be classified as "ordinary"?
2) Explain to me the simple concept of the bumblebee. This creature, according to the laws of physics and aerodynamics should not be able to fly. The ratio of weight versus life provided by its wings proves that it should be able to fly no more than two inches above the ground at best. Why would an animal "adapt" in order a feature which would hinder its ability to fly?

I trust you will have no problems shooting holes in my statements. And, maybe, if anyone cares enough to help you out a little, B.Ungaro, some other evolutionist out there will provide a halfway EDUCATED argument for your cause.

Your friend, the Jesus Nazi.
Good day, friends.

[kazanova3]

hi friends all of you iam fine but i told before that i have to travell alot in my job any way i will explain the bigbang theory to rijc latter today have nice time.friends.

[LippyChick]

The Jesusnazi friend.

This issue is my little fellow, we both want each other to live by our doctrine.

The problem being your doctrine is a fascist one, which prescribes how every facet of my life should be run. Drinking and swearing included. Whereas mine says people should be free to live (with in the boundaries of secular law) as they please.

Under my doctrine you get to preach your fascism. Under yours would I be allowed to get hammered and use the vulgarities for which I'm quite rightly known ? The Answer is NO.

Even our Muslim loony who, no questions asked, doesn't believe Christ to be the son of God will have to disappear just like rest of the none fascist.

Look at any Fascist doctrine and then look in to your heart, that's what your advocating.

Do you think your Christ, wanted his followers to place him along side Pol Pot, Hitler, Stalin?

You just don't understand the nature of science. As an economist I really don't have the time or ability to simplify such a complex subject. Why not read some uncorrupted books for change. You wont, because you'd rather be burning them.

Neaderthal: Tell me about them? Cro Mag's what happen to them?

LippyChick a bleeding heart liberal, it would appear

[LippyChick]

The Jesusnazi friend

Can you confirm this?

Creation =

The Earth was created in 6 literal 24-hour days.
This all happened at most about 10,000 years ago but probably something like 4004 BC.
There was a world-wide flood somewhere around 4,000 to 6,000 years ago.
Everything and everyone on earth was wiped out in the said flood apart from Noah, his 3 sons, their wives and the creatures brought along on the ark.
Everyone is descended from Noah and his family, and all the animals were descended from the creatures he had on the ark.
This is all quite obvious from any study of fossils, rocks, the solar system etc and anyone who says otherwise is deluded at best and lying at worst.
There is a huge world-wide atheist-inspired conspiracy to cover up this up and promote evolution.

Just asking.

LippyChick All those animals imagine the poo