The Christian topic permalink
It had to have been created
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 41
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.
-
Message 42
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?? -
Message 43
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
-
Message 44
Posted by Ben (U2045965) on Tuesday, 16th September 2008
I think technically you can.
Perhaps in Royston Vasey.... -
Message 45
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. -
Message 46
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.
-
Message 47
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/...
-
Message 48
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?
-
Message 49
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... -
Message 50
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.
-
Message 51
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.
-
Message 52
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.
-
Message 53
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? -
Message 54
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. -
Message 55
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.
-
Message 56
Posted by DarklingFreewings (U12768898) on Tuesday, 16th September 2008
Just how patronising do u have to be?
-
Message 57
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.
-
Message 58
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.
-
Message 59
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. -
Message 60
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.
-
Message 61
Posted by Muddy_Waters (U2440707) 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. So, people have no problem killing and eating monkeys and apes.
I think your auto-response circuit's logic chip must be broken: people kill other people all the time. Occasionally they eat them. So what? All the available evidence says that you are distantly related to tubeworms. It's just that evolution has given them a bigger brain.
-
Message 62
Posted by foolfodder (U2562526) on Wednesday, 17th September 2008
It's just that evolution has given them a bigger brain.
Damn, now I need to clean my monitor. LOL -
Message 63
Posted by genuineJames42 (U13255774) on Wednesday, 17th September 2008
posted by DarklingFreewings
Just how patronising do u have to be?
This is not the evolution forum so why are you here.
I understand you now have the Church of England sucked into your dream time ideas but that still does not make them acceptable to real Christians, that have a real faith in their creator.
When it comes to science the only thing science can do is learn from him, they have nothing which they can teach him.
Why?
Because there is nothing new under the sun.
Not one new thing!!!
James
-
Message 64
Posted by JohnArmagh (U1396699) on Wednesday, 17th September 2008
genuineJames42
This is not the evolution forum so why are you here.
Errrm, have you missed the Opening Post of this thread posted by, let's see now, who was it? oh yes, it was posted by you.
You are stating Creation is fact - do you not then expect people who accept evolution to argue with you?
If you don't see this, the more relevant question is what are you doing on this messageboard.
-
Message 65
Posted by DaddyDA (U6715142) on Wednesday, 17th September 2008
With respect genuineJames42
Could you please now give it a rest with this constantly spouted "real Christians, that have a real faith in their creator", stance.
Your faith is so narrow that reason seems impossible for you to deal with, while still retaining belief.
You then resort to insulting remarks about science, rather than thanking God for the life saving discoveries it has helped humanity to make.
-
Message 66
Posted by Omi Fantabulosa (U10136804) on Wednesday, 17th September 2008
<< the more relevant question is what are you doing on this messageboard. >>
Making Christianity look like a brain-dead cult of retarded schoolboys.
Where is St. Augustine when we need him? -
Message 67
Posted by JohnArmagh (U1396699) on Wednesday, 17th September 2008
DaddyDA
You then resort to insulting remarks about science, rather than thanking God for the life saving discoveries it has helped humanity to make.
Absolutely. -
Message 68
Posted by genuineJames42 (U13255774) on Wednesday, 17th September 2008
posted by JohnArmagh
DaddyDA
[[You then resort to insulting remarks about science, rather than thanking God for the life saving discoveries it has helped humanity to make.
Quoted from this message]]]
Absolutely.
What gets the highest number,
people science has killed,
or people science has saved for a couple of years?
1 John 2:24-25
.As for you, let that which you have heard from [the] beginning remain in you. If that which you have heard from [the] beginning remains in you, you will also abide in union with the Son and in union with the Father. Furthermore, this is the promised thing that he himself promised us, the life everlasting. NWT
James
-
Message 69
Posted by JohnArmagh (U1396699) on Wednesday, 17th September 2008
genuineJames42
What gets the highest number,
people science has killed,
or people science has saved for a couple of years?
Science has killed no-one. Science has saved no-one.
Why can you not get a grasp that science theory is different from applied science?
Everyone single person who has ever been saved by medical treatment owes that to the application of science.
Everyone who has been rescued by helicopter or fire brigade or coastguard etc. owes it to the application of science....
-
Message 70
Posted by genuineJames42 (U13255774) on Wednesday, 17th September 2008
So how many saved too how many killed?
James -
Message 71
Posted by skillful_mcgill (U6283846) on Wednesday, 17th September 2008
So how many saved too how many killed?
James
By science? 0 and 0. -
Message 72
Posted by Omi Fantabulosa (U10136804) on Wednesday, 17th September 2008
I wil NEVER EVER EVER be a Christian if Ii have to run into people like James to do it.
-
Message 73
Posted by Richie (U1238064) on Thursday, 18th September 2008
to be fair James is a JW so not technically a Christian, but I understand your repulsion. If James or someone like him was a regular at my Church I would not care to sit too close myself
-
Message 74
Posted by genuineJames42 (U13255774) on Thursday, 18th September 2008
Who invented thalidomide?
Who invented the birth pills?
Who invented the atom bomb?
Who invented mustered gas?
Who invented DDT? Etc. Etc. >>>>>
Who keep saying that they are so clever we should worship them instead of the creator?
Which religions are happy to do that?
James 4:4
.Adulteresses, do you not know that the friendship with the world is enmity with God? Whoever, therefore, wants to be a friend of the world is constituting himself an enemy of God.
James
-
Message 75
Posted by Richie (U1238064) on Thursday, 18th September 2008
1) Try google, its a wonderful device for finding out new things
2) See Above
3) By Committee, but see above
4) " "
5) " " (Ad naseum)
6) JW's judging by the holier than thou attitudes displayed by their adherents on these boards
7) The Watchtower, again judging by the behaviour of its adherents on these boards -
Message 76
Posted by jumbo79 (U3318307) on Thursday, 18th September 2008
Who invented thalidomide?
Who invented the birth pills?
Who invented the atom bomb?
Who invented mustered gas?
Who invented DDT? Etc. Etc. >>>>>
Who invented life saving heart transplants?
Or lung transplants?
Who invented the myriad medicines which save countless lives worldwide?
Who invented the helicopter that rescues people?
Who invented... well the list goes on and on.
I presume you also wont be responding having burned the invention of evil evil science which is your computer to make a fire to cook whichever animal you were able to catch with your bare hands this lunchtime.... -
Message 77
Posted by Sir Bernard Quatermass (U1732830) on Thursday, 18th September 2008
Message posted by genuineJames42
I understand you now have the Church of England sucked into your dream time ideas but that still does not make them acceptable to real Christians, that have a real faith in their creator.
When it comes to science the only thing science can do is learn from him, they have nothing which they can teach him.
Why?
Because there is nothing new under the sun.
Come out of your cave sometime and have a look around.
-
Message 78
Posted by JohnArmagh (U1396699) on Thursday, 18th September 2008
genuineJames42
Who invented medical treatments (which saves lives)?
Who invented weather forecasting (which saves lives)?
Who invented road transport (which saves lives)?
Who keep saying that they are so clever we should worship them instead of the creator?
Inventing falacious argument undermines your own position. Well done - another nail in the NWT/Watchtower/Awake coffin. -
Message 79
Posted by Omi Fantabulosa (U10136804) on Thursday, 18th September 2008
A German-Jewish scientist working for BASF invented the process of making nitrogen fertilizer from the air, thus tripling the population of humans on Earth over the last 100 years.
FYI. -
Message 80
Posted by Fleecey (U3941393) on Thursday, 18th September 2008
James,
Who invented smallpox?
Who invented the vaccine?
Who invented polio?
Who invented the vaccine?
Do you want me to carry on?
-
Message 81
Posted by genuineJames42 (U13255774) on Thursday, 18th September 2008
posted by Omi Fantabulosa
A German-Jewish scientist working for BASF invented the process of making nitrogen fertilizer from the air, thus tripling the population of humans on Earth over the last 100 years.
FYI.
So NOW we have the one responsible for global warming.
How many are there now suffering because of an unbalanced society?
What is pollution doing to our rivers and seas,
Including chemical run off?
James
-
Message 82
Posted by genuineJames42 (U13255774) on Thursday, 18th September 2008
posted by Fleecey
James,
Who invented smallpox?
Who invented the vaccine?
Who invented polio?
Who invented the vaccine?
Do you want me to carry on?
What did Jesus Christ do while he was here?
Why did they kill him?
Who do we have to thank for all the idiot behaviour in the world?
James -
Message 83
Posted by JohnArmagh (U1396699) on Thursday, 18th September 2008
genuineJames42
Who do we have to thank for all the idiot behaviour in the world?
James
It appears you have answered your own question there.
And I wouldn't be surprised for an instant. -
Message 84
Posted by skillful_mcgill (U6283846) on Thursday, 18th September 2008
What did Jesus Christ do while he was here?
Taught, performed miracles, healed some people.
Why did they kill him? Because he was an irritant to the Jewish hierarchy / Roman rule in Palestine.
Fortunately for us they inadvertantly did us a favour in so doing.
Who do we have to thank for all the idiot behaviour in the world?
Errrrrmmm..............................Idiots? -
Message 85
Posted by Omi Fantabulosa (U10136804) on Thursday, 18th September 2008
Gosh. For a minute there I thought that you really thought there WAS a "Jewish hierarchy" during the brutal and murderous Roman occupation.
You know? The Romans? Who made practicing Judaism a capital offense? Who regarded Jews as barbarian scum? -
Message 86
Posted by skillful_mcgill (U6283846) on Thursday, 18th September 2008
Gosh. For a minute there I thought that you really thought there WAS a "Jewish hierarchy" during the brutal and murderous Roman occupation.
You know? The Romans? Who made practicing Judaism a capital offense? Who regarded Jews as barbarian scum?
Sorry. Are the presence of the Herods not evidence of the Jewish hierarchy at the end of the first century BCE / beginning of the first century CE? Weren't they "Kings of the Jews"? Installed and maintained by the Romans but kings nonetheless. Wasn't the temple in Jerusalem (built by Herod the Great) in use during this period complete with High Priest.
I know that the Romans brutally supressed Judaism and the Jewish people from the middle to late first century CE onwards but were talking about an earlier period, that during which Jesus is said to have lived, preached and died.
-
Message 87
Posted by Omi Fantabulosa (U10136804) on Thursday, 18th September 2008
<< Sorry. Are the presence of the Herods not evidence of the Jewish hierarchy at the end of the first century BCE / beginning of the first century CE? >>
The Jews didn't consider them Jews, so there goes THAT.
<< Weren't they "Kings of the Jews"? Installed and maintained by the Romans but kings nonetheless. >>
UH .... installed and maintained by 10,000 soldiers of the Roman Legion garrisoned in Jerusalem. Some "Jewish hierarchy.
<< Wasn't the temple in Jerusalem (built by Herod the Great) in use during this period complete with High Priest. >>
Yeah. So? A guy INSTALLED BY THE ROMANS, not considered a legitimate High Priest by any Jew (and the cause of the secession of the Essenes from Jewish life), who was in charge of giving patronage jobs in the Temple service to his friends. Some "Jewish hierarchy". -
Message 88
Posted by Fleecey (U3941393) on Thursday, 18th September 2008
Who invented smallpox?
Who invented the vaccine?
Who invented polio?
Who invented the vaccine?
Do you want me to carry on?
What did Jesus Christ do while he was here?
Why did they kill him?
Who do we have to thank for all the idiot behaviour in the world?
No James, the answers you were looking for were God, scientists, God, scientists and 'please no more, Jake, I'm out of my depth enough as it is!' in that order.
You lose again James!
-
Message 89
Posted by skillful_mcgill (U6283846) on Thursday, 18th September 2008
The Jews didn't consider them Jews, so there goes THAT.
What? All the Jews? Even the ones who were happy to worship in the Temple built by Herod the Great? Or perhaps some Jews?
UH .... installed and maintained by 10,000 soldiers of the Roman Legion garrisoned in Jerusalem. Some "Jewish hierarchy.
By the same token the government of Iraq, supported and protected by thousands of US troops, are not part of an Iraqi hierarchy? Utter nonsense.
Are you trying to suggest that there was NO hierarchy whatsover among the Jewish population of Palestine at the beginning of the CE? Are you trying to suggest that the King and the High Priest were not at the top of this hierarchy?
If there wasn't some sort of hierarchy amongst the Jews at this time how did a few thousand Romans manage to control the native population?
Come off it. There was a hierarchy amongst the native Jewish population, there will always a be hierarchy in any society, even under occupation. Just look at Vichy France or the Indain Raj. Just because they were considered illegitimate by (lets assume) a majority of the population didn't prevent them from being the "Jewish Hierarchy" at that time.
BTW - Are you willing to admit that the brutal suppression of the Jewish religion by the Romans didn't happen until much later than the period in which Jesus is supposed to have lived?
You seem to have conveniently ignored that part of my previous post.
-
Message 90
Posted by Omi Fantabulosa (U10136804) on Thursday, 18th September 2008
<< What? All the Jews? Even the ones who were happy to worship in the Temple built by Herod the Great? Or perhaps some Jews? >>
The Herodians were not Jews. Rebuilding the Temple did not win any loyalty from the Jewish People, either. Who the hell was happy about sacrificing in the Temple? Why do you think they invented synagogues to worship in? Why do you think the Essenes walked out?
<< Are you trying to suggest that there was NO hierarchy whatsover among the Jewish population of Palestine at the beginning of the CE? >>
Sure. Change the terms. See if nobody notices.
There was no JEWISH HIERARCHY. Not NO HIERARCHY WHATOSEVER.
There were non-Jews ruling the political and financial world, there were Roman Legions in Jerusalem and elsewhere, and the "High Priest" was a Roman stooge who wouldn't know Jewish law if you you wrote it out for him. Have you forgotten the Jewish Civil War over this very issue???????
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.
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 iD
BBC iDbbc.co.uk navigation
BBC links
BBC © 2013 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.