|
|
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Prowess
1
« on: March 17, 2007, 11:54:19 pm »
Bahahaha...
sorry, had to laugh. what you dont belive they lived at the same time.
2
« on: March 17, 2007, 11:48:20 pm »
well according to my school bible teachers, dinosaurs and neanderthals never existed. When I questioned further about the existence of bones i was ignored. :violin: yes your school teacher was not interested in learning the truth of the world they were wrong but didn't get that from the bible.i belive dinosaurs were on the ark.
3
« on: March 17, 2007, 11:43:58 pm »
we arnt talking about pigmys we are talking about neanderthols who existed a longtime before adam and eve supposedly existed "supposedly" yet dinosaurs did live at the same time as humans and we know the date they were given.
4
« on: March 17, 2007, 11:41:29 pm »
Special.
How about those spiders that can form an air bubble around themselves so they can stay under the water for long periods.
How about those ants that can lift something like 6 times their own weight.
Most animals can do things humans would consider superhuman. The only difference is we have bigger brains, and like destroying things.
The world would be far better off WITHOUT humans. yes and i know of ants that can bake and make napalm too.
5
« on: March 17, 2007, 11:36:10 pm »
Hey prowess how about neanderthals, they had stuff. are the pigmy a different species or sub species? just cause they were different doesn't mean they are a seperate species. Monkeys using sticks to get ants out of holes is no different that man Building a sky scraper. Both are simply animals using tools to the best of their physical and mental ability.
We're just the smartest animals in our little corner of the universe (for now), nothing more. using a stick is using a stick smart yes invention no.
6
« on: March 17, 2007, 07:15:35 pm »
something more complex than huh this sharp one
hurts more than this one thats not sharp.
7
« on: March 17, 2007, 07:09:40 pm »
a sharened stick hardly constitutes a invention.
8
« on: March 17, 2007, 07:03:42 pm »
the key word was "making", not just picking up a random branch and throwing it tell me what part they made
9
« on: March 17, 2007, 06:59:24 pm »
"Chimpanzees in Senegal have been observed making and using wooden spears to hunt other primates, according to a study in the journal Current Biology."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6387611.stm
Say it. thats not an invention that throwing a stick.
10
« on: March 17, 2007, 06:49:23 pm »
nowhere. if you took the time to read youd see that is aid back when the bible was written people believed the earth was flat and therefore believed god lived in the clouds. of course since the earth is round and we now know that above the sky is space with a infinite number of planet that makes the bible wrong  that does not prove the bible wrong some people today belive that mary didnt die she was taken into heaven but the bible doesn't say that either.
11
« on: March 17, 2007, 06:45:46 pm »
But this is only becuase the christian god is so far fetched that it is an insult to any sane modern man's intelligence. God created man in his image? Do they not realise how absolutely arrogant that is? I can understand how some ancient sheepherder could believe that, but a modern human? You are saying that HUMANS are the ultimate species in the universe. That we are somehow special compared to ever single other form of life. That is preposterous.
you point out another speices that has invented somthing and ill say we are not special.
12
« on: March 17, 2007, 06:40:07 pm »
What I'm trying to say is that if the church wants to be relevant, then we need to step back from trying to push "God" and just push "life". If I'm being honest with myself, people are no longer interested in God.
who said the church wants to be relevent? it is a direct command to proclame gods name to all nations.if you take god out of it you may as well gone some drinking club at least then you have a purpose.i know some christians are mindless, weak idiots but that does not mean there is no god. where does the bible say the earth is flat?what the hells with the unicorns?how about being more specific when you say what part of the bible has been proved wrong by science.
13
« on: March 16, 2007, 01:02:31 pm »
what part of the bible has science proven wrong?
great scientific staments by the way,you guys sound
more like people with grudges.
14
« on: March 15, 2007, 04:47:06 pm »
Can I add something else here - I'm kinda getting tired of angry triple posts with no discernable grammar in them. If you have something to say, please present it in such a way that it makes people want to read it.
Not just you Prowess, but this thread is full of examples - Hannibal4Life is one guy off the top of my head. Not Tiwaking though, his were normally nicely presented, even if there was like 40 posts in a row from him  sorry about the triple posts i have limited time to reply. angry i don't intend but i'd like to see some science here before you claim science has proved there is no god. puntu.. punty... good spelling not my strong point. next thing i believe hole heartedly but question theorys when not alot holds them up.i am not against science.
15
« on: March 14, 2007, 09:10:07 pm »
i agree 200% christians are worshipping a very pagan concept. the bible is riddled with it.
show them their own work. would you like to back that up with anything or how about any other statment you make?
16
« on: March 14, 2007, 09:05:01 pm »
When i was feeding the fish todays, i threw a whole lump of feed right in the middle of the pond.
The feed started spreeing out in a circular fashion, I expected it to spreed out evenly, but instead, the pieces clumped together, forming small islands.
Then the fish ate it.
Thus my pond proves the big bang theory. mate your a genius! sorry no your fish food says nothing about the big bang.
17
« on: March 14, 2007, 09:02:28 pm »
Oh bollocks, after this moronic statement i didn't even read the rest. You show me any explosion on any scale that distributes matter in an even pattern and i'll eat poo. The big bang happened a looooong time ago you norman you don't think movement since then may have altered the distribution of matter. Again none of this is your own idea just another cut and paste.
Here's an idea, cut and paste a bag over your head and go sit in the corner till we say you can come out!:smash: your right this is not my word it is a scientists not a christian either this guy. were do your ideas come from?id trust him over you any day.
18
« on: February 27, 2007, 10:07:02 pm »
not exactly. Simply because scientists as yet have no way to measure dark energy, does not mean that they will never have a way to measure it. It is also a work in progress, as we understand more and more about the subject, we will be able to make far more precise calls regarding it.
If the universe came from a big bang, then matter should be evenly distributed. However, the universe contains an extremely uneven distribution of mass. This means that matter is concentrated into zones and planes around relatively empty regions. Two astronomers, Geller and Huchra, embarked on a measuring program expecting to find evidence to support the big bang model. By compiling large star maps, they hoped to demonstrate that matter is uniformly distributed throughout the cosmos (when a large enough scale is considered). The more progress they made with their cartographic overview of space, the clearer it became that distant galaxies are clustered like cosmic continents beyond nearly empty reaches of space. The big bang model was strongly shaken by this discovery. It should be added that the visible galaxies do not contain enough mass to explain the existence and distribution of these structures. But the big bang model was not discarded. Instead, the existence of a mysterious, unknown, and unseen form of matter (‘dark matter’) was postulated. Without any direct evidence for its existence, this ‘dark matter’ is supposed to be 10 times the amount of visibly observed mass. A critic of the big bang theory, Ernst Peter Fischer, a physicist and biologist of Constance, Germany, reflects on its popularity. He refers to the: ‘… warning given by [physicist and philosopher] Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker … namely that a society which accepts the idea that the origin of the cosmos could be explained in terms of an explosion, reveals more about the society itself than about the universe. Nevertheless, the many observations made during the past 25 years or so which contradict the standard model, are simply ignored. When fact and theory contradict each other, one of them has to yield.’6
19
« on: February 23, 2007, 10:44:23 pm »
No, it is Science vs Religion. , quantum mechanics, geology, biology, virology, etc. In fact evolution should not really be included at all because it's not testable and isn't really a very good theory. But then thats why it gets picked on isn't it, too easy to discredit.
But, what about discrediting these:
Cosmology: Light from 10 billion year old stars observed
All I can say is that at least scientists maintain a level of common sense, and try and explain what is seen - rather than blindly accepting what our ancient and primitive ancestors believed. Maybe one day, scientists will discover a proper religion.
The figure shows two pulses, A and B, several microseconds wide and of nearly the same shape. Pulse B has traversed their cesium vapor cell, and pulse A has traversed the same distance (6 cm) in a vacuum, requiring the normal 0.2 nanoseconds to do so. Essentially every point of pulse B has arrived at the detector about 60 nanoseconds ‘earlier’ than the corresponding point of pulse A. The completeness of the advance of pulse B implies we could indeed use it to transmit information faster than the speed of light in a vacuum.
Whatever the outcome, it is a handy reminder that we don’t know as much as we think we know about such things as how light really behaves or propagates in deep space, the nature of elementary particles, and so on, which is all very relevant to issues, such as starlight travel-time, radiometric ‘dating’ processes, etc. The dogmatic certainty with which many researchers and popularizers write about such things as this, and about an alleged ‘big bang’, for instance, is not warranted by the data. There are a number of physicists at the ‘cutting edge’ of such things who prefer a more humble approach.
this is state of the art science that discredits bad theorys and doesnt discredit a god.
20
« on: February 23, 2007, 09:53:59 pm »
"Its like shooting monkey's in a barrel!" - Crazy Ivan
Seems someone needs a lesson in non-causal causality you bring another theory?
21
« on: February 23, 2007, 09:50:35 pm »
ok.
earth = 6000 years
jesus = 2000 years
soon = ? "Jesus will return soon" - Bible. "the lord is not slow in keeping his promise,as some understand slowness. he is patient with you,not wanting anyone to perish,but everyone to come to repentance." 2 peter 3:9 he has been around for awile soon could be a long time.
22
« on: February 23, 2007, 09:35:15 pm »
or more rationally, Dr james Trefil simply means our understanding so far doesn't explain why galaxies are there. You've got science a little topsy turvy. You make a theory based on observation. You don't assume god or whatever interfered with nature (according to your theory), to keep the theory alive. You accept there must be a problem with your theory and try to find how things you have observed occured. hence the frustration he expresses. even when you can see all these theorys are not true and the bible story is still is intact as the most plausible option you won't accept it. in the 1800s the mortality rate for mother giving birth was 50%.at that time a doctor told his staff to start washing thier hands before touching them.they laugh at him and called him an idiot,but he was the boss so they did it.in that hospital the mortality rate droped to less than 10%.with all the modern knoledge they had they were shown up by something written 4000 years earlier.
23
« on: February 23, 2007, 09:20:29 pm »
How is that better? Some parts of evolutionary theory aren't as well fleshed out as they could be, which is why scientists are constantly working on them. The big bang is not yet a fact, but at this point in time, it is THE most likely option.
And besides this, even if all these theories are wrong, that in no way lends credit to the idea of a god. evolution is crap.it was a nice theory in darwins age but with the amout of evidence we have now it should be thrown out.
24
« on: February 23, 2007, 09:16:50 pm »
How is that better? Some parts of evolutionary theory aren't as well fleshed out as they could be, which is why scientists are constantly working on them. The big bang is not yet a fact, but at this point in time, it is THE most likely option.
And besides this, even if all these theories are wrong, that in no way lends credit to the idea of a god. Dr James Trefil, professor of physics at Mason University, Virginia, accepts the big bang model, but he concedes that a state of emergency exists regarding fundamental aspects of explaining why the universe exists. ‘There shouldn’t be galaxies out there at all, and even if there are galaxies, they shouldn’t be grouped together the way they are.’ He later continues: ‘The problem of explaining the existence of galaxies has proved to be one of the thorniest in cosmology. By all rights, they just shouldn’t be there, yet there they sit. It’s hard to convey the depth of the frustration that this simple fact induces among scientists.’ the fact that there was a begging to the universe proves it had a cause.the universe is not self explanitory.
25
« on: February 23, 2007, 09:04:02 pm »
I still don't understand where you're coming from. you are the one that used big bang to support a 6000 year old earth. Now your discrediting the big bang.
OK I will bite. I agree big bang is dubious, please select a piece of more reliable evidence to suggest the earth is 6000 years old.
Sorry, but at the moment I feel like I'm feeding the fish in the barrel to make them bigger targets, before i go get the gun. so far people on this site have said the evolution theory is poor and that the big bang theory is dubious what have you left.the better option would be the historical record of our ancestors and a man who could do the impossible.
|
|
|
