The Christian topic  permalink

It had to have been created

This discussion has been closed.

Messages: 41 - 20 of 103
  • Message 41. 

    , in reply to this message.

    Posted by persecuted (U1736044) on Tuesday, 16th September 2008

    Ben

    Human beings can have a common ancestor but they don't share them with other things such as tubeworms. So there's another darwin theory disproved.
    Cobblers, that statement is nothing more than an unsupported assertion. Phylogenetics proves you wrong. 
    Biggest nonsense so far that's been revealed on this message has been done by you, by thinking that human beings are related to tubeworms and share the same common ancestor. It does not get as crazy as this.


    Evolution makes it clear there has to be gradual development. So there's another theory disproved.
    Unless you can give me figures on rates of evolution, 

    Cambridge dictionary on line:

    evolution Show phonetics
    noun [U]
    the way in which living things change and develop over millions of years, or a gradual process of change and development:

    and examples of climatic changes 
    Ice samples taken from Greenland from a period of 100,000 years, which itself experienced tremendous dramtic climatic changes from the 10th century AD to the 14th century AD, prove that there have been sudden climatic changes: source BBC 2 Sunday 07/09/08 between 9pm and 10 pm.



    Report message1

  • Message 42

    , in reply to this message.

    Posted by JohnArmagh (U1396699) on Tuesday, 16th September 2008

    persecuted


    Biggest nonsense so far that's been revealed on this message has been done by you, by thinking that human beings are related to tubeworms and share the same common ancestor. It does not get as crazy as this.
     


    Well you and I believe that Jesus Christ rose from the dead. When put in perspective it is far more likely (even going on the evidence alone) that human beings have a common ancestry with tubeworms than that a person could rise from the dead.

    So how can someone believe a person can rise from the dead if they think it is impossible for human beings to have a common ancestry with tubeworms??

    Report message2

  • Message 43

    , in reply to this message.

    Posted by genuineJames42 (U13255774) on Tuesday, 16th September 2008


    posted by Fleecey
    James,

    zyzygy went to a lot of trouble to respond to your first question. You've just ignored it.

    Call me Betty, but I think you should acknowledge the points s/he raised before moving on to any more questions.
     


    You are obviously easily satisfied with the explanation, then people who love to believe in evolution are easily satisfied regardless of whether the answer is sound or not.

    People are quite happy with what Darwin postulated but it did not make it true, in fact the flaws in his postulating were quickly exposed.

    What we have now is the continued dripping of the tap of evolution, and the repetitious ramblings on dates that the populace has become hypnotised into thinking, some one, some were, has proved something. This of coarse they have not, nor is their data founded on fact, it is still a fixation which is proffered by the errant evolutionist.

    James

    Report message3

  • Message 44

    , in reply to this message.

    Posted by Ben (U2045965) on Tuesday, 16th September 2008

    I think technically you can.  
    Perhaps in Royston Vasey....

    Report message4

  • Message 45

    , in reply to this message.

    Posted by JohnArmagh (U1396699) on Tuesday, 16th September 2008

    genuineJames42

    And I address my previous post to you as well - explain if you would be so kind.

    Report message5

  • Message 46

    , in reply to this message.

    Posted by Muddy_Waters (U2440707) on Tuesday, 16th September 2008

    Biggest nonsense so far that's been revealed on this message has been done by you, by thinking that human beings are related to tubeworms and share the same common ancestor. It does not get as crazy as this.  

    Yeah, I sometimes find it hard to believe that such a primitive, under-evolved creature could emerge from the gene pool that also produced the amazing tubeworm.

    But reluctantly I have to bow to the evidence which shows that the two of you are related.

    Report message6

  • Message 47

    , in reply to this message.

    Posted by persecuted (U1736044) on Tuesday, 16th September 2008

    JohnArmagh

    Biggest nonsense so far that's been revealed on this message has been done by you, by thinking that human beings are related to tubeworms and share the same common ancestor. It does not get as crazy as this.

    Well you and I believe that Jesus Christ rose from the dead. When put in perspective it is far more likely (even going on the evidence alone) that human beings have a common ancestry with tubeworms than that a person could rise from the dead.  
    I don't believe what happened to Jesus happened exactly as Christians have traditionally believed:

    Resurrection:

    www.unification.net/...

    Report message7

  • Message 48

    , in reply to this message.

    Posted by persecuted (U1736044) on Tuesday, 16th September 2008

    Muddy_Waters

    Biggest nonsense so far that's been revealed on this message has been done by you, by thinking that human beings are related to tubeworms and share the same common ancestor. It does not get as crazy as this.
    Yeah, I sometimes find it hard to believe that such a primitive, under-evolved creature could emerge from the gene pool that also produced the amazing tubeworm.

    But reluctantly I have to bow to the evidence which shows that the two of you are related. 

    Contrary to what people may believe about me, I have not gone mad and accepted the nonsense of tubeworms being related to me. For a start they don't even look like me or think like me. In fact, how many relatives that you know of are prepared to kill and eat?

    Report message8

  • Message 49

    , in reply to this message.

    Posted by Omi Fantabulosa (U10136804) on Tuesday, 16th September 2008

    << The slug-like creature found living at the bottom of a Swedish lake shares its ancestry with people. >> news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/...

    << DNA shared by people and coral >> and fruit flies and worms. findarticles.com/p/a...


    << worms, yeast, and people share genes for aging >> findarticles.com/p/a...

    << Biologists have laid a new basis for studying human obesity by identifying almost all the genes that regulate fat storage and metabolism in a small animal, the laboratory roundworm.

    The finding should provide leads to the many unknown genes that regulate fat storage in people and to the defects in the genes that underlie many obesity cases. >> query.nytimes.com/gs...


    You are only a few hundred years behind the times, son. We are the same proteins as amoebas and worms, with the same chemicals - DNA and RNA - mediating the same processes.

    Next you are going to tell us that the Sun revolves around the Earth.

    This is all a vast embarrassment to Christianity - which doesn't need any more of them.

    How does it make you feel, knowing that you are embarrassing all of Christianity?


    www.sciencedaily.com...

    Report message9

  • Message 50

    , in reply to this message.

    Posted by persecuted (U1736044) on Tuesday, 16th September 2008

    Omi Fantabulosa

    << The slug-like creature found living at the bottom of a Swedish lake shares its ancestry with people. >> news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/...

    << DNA shared by people and coral >> and fruit flies and worms. findarticles.com/p/a... 


    Human beings create things with the same components for different purposes and are not related. God would also grow genetic materials for different things from people for different purposes. What makes people and things different is their purposes. Those of the same purposes are the ones who could be regarded as being related. But the purpose of tubeworms is exceedingly different from humans so are definetly not related.

    Report message10

  • Message 51

    , in reply to this message.

    Posted by Ben (U2045965) on Tuesday, 16th September 2008

    Biggest nonsense so far that's been revealed on this message has been done by you, by thinking that human beings are related to tubeworms and share the same common ancestor. It does not get as crazy as this. 
    As I said, phylogenetics proves you wrong, and that's an issue you've failed to address. Stamping your feet and using names does not make a convincing arguument.

    Cambridge dictionary on line:

    evolution Show phonetics
    noun [U]
    the way in which living things change and develop over millions of years, or a gradual process of change and development: 

    Figures, Persecuted, from science literature, not a dictionary. Yes, organisms change over millions of years but that in no way suggests millions are years are needed to overcome a specific change. And nobody is denyng some species go extinct, but others adapt, and others are already robust to change. Don't pick and choose which parts to answer, if you can't answer all the objections, your initial comment in meaningless.

    Ice samples taken from Greenland from a period of 100,000 years, which itself experienced tremendous dramtic climatic changes from the 10th century AD to the 14th century AD, prove that there have been sudden climatic changes: source BBC 2 Sunday 07/09/08 between 9pm and 10 pm. 
    No you need to provide evidence that 100 000 years is too quick for organisms to adapt to the change, and provide reasons why other organisms could not move into a space left and adapt to their new environment. The dictionary definition above does not do that.

    Report message11

  • Message 52

    , in reply to this message.

    Posted by Muddy_Waters (U2440707) on Tuesday, 16th September 2008

    I have not gone mad and accepted the nonsense of tubeworms being related to me. 

    If you're upset, just think how bad the tubeworms must feel about the suggestion.

    For a start they don't even look like me or think like me. 

    You think? I'd like to see the evidence. Until it appears I shall continue to believe that you are simply a badly-programmed auto-response bot, trawling the Board for any messages containing science content, which then triggers a reply drawn at random from a limited bank of pre-prepared creationist nonsense-speak.

    In fact, how many relatives that you know of are prepared to kill and eat? 

    Oh, yes, I forgot, the bot sometimes throws in a bizzarely-irrelevant and syntactically inept question. Good tactic. It would be a shame to let the amusement level fall to low.

    Report message12

  • Message 53

    , in reply to this message.

    Posted by Omi Fantabulosa (U10136804) on Tuesday, 16th September 2008

    << But the purpose of tubeworms is exceedingly different from humans so are definetly not related. >>

    Purpose = related. Not. I don't have the same purpose as the lady down the hall. But we are biologically related.


    How many people do you suppose you have just turned away from Christianity for ALL TIME? Are you proud of that? Is that, in fact, your purpose?

    Report message13

  • Message 54

    , in reply to this message.

    Posted by Aquila (At it again eh Ed?) (U11180666) on Tuesday, 16th September 2008

    Actually the tubeworm also works well as a straw when dried out.

    A masterstroke of evolution.

    Report message14

  • Message 55

    , in reply to this message.

    Posted by persecuted (U1736044) on Tuesday, 16th September 2008

    Muddy_Waters

    In fact, how many relatives that you know of are prepared to kill and eat?

    Oh, yes, I forgot, the bot sometimes throws in a bizzarely-irrelevant and syntactically inept question. Good tactic. It would be a shame to let the amusement level fall to low. 
    Proves the point that people do not kill or eat their relatives or those who they believe are similar to them. So, people have no problem killing and eating monkeys and apes.

    Report message15

  • Message 56

    , in reply to this message.

    Posted by DarklingFreewings (U12768898) on Tuesday, 16th September 2008

    <the errant evolutionist.>

    Just how patronising do u have to be?

    Report message16

  • Message 57

    , in reply to this message.

    Posted by mistofthesea (U13306667) on Wednesday, 17th September 2008

    Proves the point that people do not kill or eat their relatives or those who they believe are similar to them. 
    Some do.
    So, people have no problem killing and eating monkeys and apes. 
    Likewise.

    Report message17

  • Message 58

    , in reply to this message.

    Posted by persecuted (U1736044) on Wednesday, 17th September 2008

    mistofthesea

    Proves the point that people do not kill or eat their relatives or those who they believe are similar to them.
    Some do. 
    But it is a criminal offence for civilised people.

    So, people have no problem killing and eating monkeys and apes.
    Likewise. 
    It is not a criminal offence to raise monkeys and apes for the dinner table.

    Report message18

  • Message 59

    , in reply to this message.

    Posted by JohnArmagh (U1396699) on Wednesday, 17th September 2008

    DarklingFreewings

    When it comes to science and reality he can be a lot more patronising than that - which only goes to make him seem ever more foolish to those who actually have a concept of the subject.

    Report message19

  • Message 60

    , in reply to this message.

    Posted by mistofthesea (U13306667) on Wednesday, 17th September 2008

    "Proves the point that people do not kill or eat their relatives or those who they believe are similar to them."

    (Some do.)

    But it is a criminal offence for civilised people. 

    You did not specify "civilised" people. You just said "people".
    "So, people have no problem killing and eating monkeys and apes."

    (Likewise.)

    It is not a criminal offence to raise monkeys and apes for the dinner table. 

    Irrelevant. Try serving one up to Jane Goodall.
    PS. Sorry, can't get the hang of multiple quote boxes at the moment.

    Report message20

Back to top

About this Board

The BBC Religion and ethics message boards are now closed.

They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available.

Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.

We will be introducing a new blog later in the year. Aaqil Ahmed, Commissioning Editor Religion and Head of Religion & Ethics, has a blog with more details.

or register to take part in a discussion.


The message board is currently closed for posting.

Opening times:
No longer applicable

This messageboard is post-moderated.

Find out more about this board's House Rules

Search this Board

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.