Darwin's Theory is False

[Lerxst]

And I do know of people who admit that, as far as they are concerned, there is no evidence for the existence of their God, yet believe out of a matter of "faith" - knowing full well there is a difference between this faith and the "probability" example I gave above.
Yet still they believe.

Yes. And one perfect example of such a person is Mr. Martin Gardner, one of the greatest science writers and popularizers of mathematics and clear thinking of our time. He is a debunker of pseudoscience and paranormal fraud, a member of CSICOP, and was a frequent contributor to The Skeptical Inquirer. He has the admiration of many of the great science voices, including Carl Sagan, Stephen Jay Gould, Roger Penrose, and Douglas Hofstadter.

And guess what - he is also a theist. He fully admits that his theism cannot be supported by any evidence or strictly logical argument - he instead comes to it through fideism - a type of primacy of faith applied to metaphysical/theological matters.

I'd highly recommend his book The Whys of a Philosophical Scrivener to anyone interested in seeing how an advocate of science and reason can also have a place in his life for god. Gardner is no dummy - he is rather a shining example of a person who can have both rationality and religion in his life, and an existence proof that theists are not all necessarily fools, as some atheists would have us think.

 

[wesmorris]

I don't agree.
I'm sure they have plenty of subjective experience - but this is not evidence.

There is no other kind of experience.

But if they claim that their religious faith (in the existence of God) is based on evidence - they should detail that evidence - and put it forward for scrutiny.

Many a theosopher has scrutinized the bible and found it god's word. *shrug*

Every piece of evidence EVER put forward to support the existence of God is at best purely subjective - and none of it passes the scrutiny of logic, of science, or reason.

Technically all evidence is subjective, as there is no other way to relate to it besides an individual knowing of it. Why does it have to be logical, scientific or reasonable? I would personally prefer evidence to be as such, but that doesn't mean other people can't do whatever the hell they want and call it fact.

There simply is no evidence as yet uncovered to support the existence of a God that is anything more than equivalent to something that doesn't exist.

God exists if you think it does. Get me? As I said earlier,there's no way answer the question definitively either way, so people just make shit up and go with it.

And ask religious people if there is actually evidence of God's existence, whittle away all the obvious claptrap, peel away the misunderstandings, discard the illogical, and you're left with nothing.

But YOU and I had nothing to begin with, and at the end of your analysis, they probably still think they have something.

And I do know of people who admit that, as far as they are concerned, there is no evidence for the existence of their God, yet believe out of a matter of "faith" - knowing full well there is a difference between this faith and the "probability" example I gave above.
Yet still they believe.

They say that to shut you up. There is no such thing as a belief without evidence. You couldn't believe it if you didn't think it were probably true, and had some reason to think so... regardless of how illogical, unscientific or unreasonable.

 

[Ophiolite]

If at least one person can read what I write and at least come away seeing that being a religious person does not mean that one has to become reject science, logic or common sense, then I am happy.

I would like you to read the following remarks carefully, for they could be misinterpreted and found unsettling, offensive or even aggressive. Such is not my intent. As you can see from my posts to Woody when I wish to be offensive I make it very clear.
I know it can be upsetting to be placed in a box by others. It is easy to be guilty of stereotyping those we meet, based upon minimal information. More than once in this thread you have rightly cautioned against this.
Yet, despite this you are guilty of exactly that. And it is annoying. Truthfully, it is very annoying.
Point 1: I am deeply offended that you assume, as you seem to, that because I lean to the scientific method and received scientific training that I cannot be religious. My agnosticism is a religious agnosticism, and one which I take very seriously indeed (which is why I was so angered by Woody's presumptuous declarations that I was an atheist.)
Point 2: I for one am perfectly aware that being religious does not exclude one from being scientific: the spirtitual and the material aspects of life are not antagonistic, but opposite sides of a coin. Both are necessary, in my view, for a balanced life and a balanced perception of the world.
Point 3: There is absolutely no need to reject this marvellous tool, the scientific method, that God (if he exists) has given us, or to reject any of the things we find using that tool. To my mind that would be not only insane, but profane.

On that basis your mission was accomplished before you ever got here. I trust you will stay around long enough to learn some other things that will give you a better picture of God's Universe.

And by the way, I have observed macro-evolution, just as surely as I have observed Torvill and Deane dance Bolero. Both were delightful.

 

[Woody]

Ophi says,

Exactly, you wish I wasn't going there because it embarasses you.

Not so. It's your problem, not mine.

I think I shall decide what I am, if you can stand back from your self righteous, offensive classifications for a moment. The sad thing is you probably believe in all of this that you are somehow the injured party.
If we are going to quote websites try these for size.

Why are you so offended about something so petty. Is there something wrong with being an atheist? You are all wired out because of some nuance that barely differentiates a "weak atheist" from an agnostic. I honestly can't tell the difference myself, honestly. They both believe the same thing, though they got there a different way.

So tell me Ophilite, what is the difference between a weak atheist and an agnostic that's so important?

Have you heard of intellectual dishonesty? A strawman argument is not a clever debating trick, it is the refuge of the cheat, the charlatan and the liar. You sir are a pretentious, self righteous hypocrite. If your theology is valid we may well see each other again, in another place.

A strawman is for brute-headed beasts like yourself to attack with emotional bias -- which you have done in headlong fashion. So go ahead and get mad. It makes you sound like the hippocrit that you are. (And you wish I were going there -- almost enough to even believe hell exists).

I don't hate you. I pity you. And from time to time despise you.

You have no pity for me -- you aren't fooling anyone with that statement. Despise -- hate -- what's the difference?

 

[qwerty mob]

you postulate ON FAITH that macro-evolution also occurs, even though you haven't seen it.

Nope, it occurs, objectively. Unless you can provide an observation or characterization of a mechanism which allows simple cellular life to evolve but excludes more complex celluar life, your illogical assertion that macroevolution is accepted on "faith " rather than observation and experiment amounts to either ignorance, neglect, or denial.

Keep bleating about "faith" though, if it indeed makes you feel warm, fuzzy and special.

[...] faith is not something to be scorned, ridiculed or undervalued. [...]

If faith prompts one write demonstrably false statements about macroevolution on internet message boards occupied by persons who know better, then we are in disagreement of its' utility or value, and I want nothing to do with it.

Have a nice day.

 

[Lemming3k]

Somebody get this guy a fossil record....
Do you want fries with that?

 

[(Q)]

smallaxe sez:

If at least one person can read what I write and at least come away seeing that being a religious person does not mean that one has to become reject science, logic or common sense, then I am happy.

Yes, it does mean you must reject science, logic and common sense. If you didn't reject them, then you wouldn't be a religious person, would you?

 

[qwerty mob]

Somebody get this guy a fossil record....
Do you want fries with that?

LOL

 

[Iasion]

Greetings,

The randomness of which I speak is not about the established laws of chemistry, but of the probability of a given reaction occuring at a given time under given circumstances. An acid will always react with a base to produce a salt and water, but that depends on whether the acid and/or base are actually available to react with each other.

Pardon?
What does this have to do with abiogenesis or evolution?

Both have some random component(s)
along with NON-random components.

But creationists like to ignore the non-random parts, emphasize the small random part -
and then protest that it could not come about purely by "random chance".

Your response does not show any sign that you grasped this issue.

The randomness is the entire hinge of the origin of life in this situation. I admit that I assumed that all evolutionists were abiogenists (sp) and if that is not the case, my apologies.

Just as I thought.
You still do not grasp the issue.
Random-ness is NOT the "entire hinge".
It appears you are not able to grasp this.

Chemistry is NOT random - even though individual atom's behaviour cannot be predicted.
Wave formation is NOT random - even though individual water molecules behave randomly.
Weather formation is NOT random - even though individual air molecules behave randomly.

Like I said -
creationists go out of their way to EMPHASIZE the RANDOM parts
then IGNORE the NON-RANDOM parts
then protest that "it could not happen purely by random chance"
when no-one said it DID (apart from the creationists who got it wrong.)

If evolution is NOT focused on the ORIGIN of life (which is kind of strange, since Darwin's treatise was
"Upon the Origin of Species")

Dear me.
You STILL do not understand the different between :
* origin of LIFE (from non-life)
* origin of SPECIES (from previous species)
If you don't grasp this, you will never understand these issues.

Also -
Darwin wrote "The Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection"
not
"Upon the Origin of Species"

then why the hostility towards creationism, which IS all about the origin of life?

The hostility is towards false, ignorant but faithful beliefs being pushed as science onto young people who are learning.

If evolution is not speaking about how life began, only about how it is evolving, and if it claims to not have any opinion on how life actually began, there is no innate conflict with creationism which isn't talking about how life has increased/decreased since its inception, but which is concerned with whether or not this life came from a Creator.

Strictly speaking, that is correct.
It IS remotely possible that life was STARTED by a CREATOR
THEN it evolved.
You will find some scientists who agree this is true.
We do not know for sure how life started.

However,
the time+energy+matter -> simple self-replicating chemicals
is probably the most likely cause.

If you claim to have done something scientific, an important part of proving your claim is being able to reproduce what you did, either by observation or by labwork. I disagree with your conclusion of a false argument.

Once again, you have it wrong.
You seem to agree that some things cannot be studied in a lab, but only by obseravtion
But then you say you disagree?
Pardon?
You do not make sense here.
The facts are clear - some things cannot be reproduced in lab - that does NOT mean they are not true.


Furthermore,
We HAVE done experiments that reproduce PART of what MIGHT have been abiogeness (Miller / Urey.)
We HAVE done many 1000s of expeiments which support evolution.
We have NEVER seen an experiment that disgrees with evolution.

I do not disagree with evolution in the sense of animals adapting to their environment. I disagree with Darwinism and macro-evolution, but micro-evolution is a biological fact.

You are mis-informed.
Evolution is a biological fact.
There is no difference between micro-evolution and macro-evolution.
At least - not to a biologist.
These terms were made up by creationists -
* micro-evolution is what they have been forced to admit, because we see it
* macro-evolution is what they reject, (because it takes longer than a lifetime)

There is NO barrier between micro and macro
they are fake terms made up by creationists.

The argument is essentially as follows -
micro occurs all the time, so we are forced to agree
but
macro takes ages, and no one person has ever seen ages
therefore, we pretend macro does not occur.

This is just silly.

It's like saying :
we see this glacier flowing very slowly to the sea -
we have seen the glacier move 200m towards the sea,
(and it took 80 years)
but
no one person has ever seen the glacier move the whole 5km to the sea,
(because it would take centuries)
therefore the glacier does not flow to the sea.

This is obvious nonsense.
Just like the bizarre and fake distinction between micro and macro.

That doesn't sound very random to me!

Pardon?
I fear you do not understand this at all.
Evolution has random components and non-random.
Evolution is not "random" per se.
I did not say it was random - YOU did.

And there are many more species that are still to be discovered...but that's doesn't say anything for or against evolution or creationism.

Pardon?
We discovered this new species in recent years, and it MUST have evolved since the underground was built.

This is prima facie evidnce of evolution.
Or do you believe that God created this mosquito in recent years?

There is also evidence for creation too. Evidence is not proof, evidence can be interpreted based upon what viewpoint a person has in looking at that evidence.

False.
There is NO evidence for creation -
none, nada, zip, zilch, zero, nothing...

If YOU think there is - please produce it.


I see you also don't understand how evidence and proof work.

"Proof" is for mathematicians and moonshiners.
There is never 100% proof of scientific theories (a basic fact which few creationists can properly grasp.)

What happens is we collect EVIDENCE that either :
* supports the theory
* disagrees with the theory

As the evidence mounts that supports a theory, we become more and more sure it is correct.

Such is the way with evolution -
HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS of tests and experiments and observations have been done to test the truth of evolution -
* every one SUPPORTS evolution
* NONE disagree with evolution

Indeed -
the evidence that supports evolution is SO VAST, so enormous, so clear and obvious to those who study it - that evolution is considered essentially "proven" (in popular terms that is.)

That is why you will see two different answers sometimes -
* no, evolution is not 100% proven because nothing is in science (a strict scientific viewpoint)
* yes, evolution is "proven" because the evidence is so over-whelming (in popular terms.)

So please, no more words games about "proven".

But if you do not know how life started, then why are you so against creationism which is ALL ABOUT how life started? Again I state that if evolution is not at all about the origin of life, then it has no innate conflict with Creationism.

There ARE a small number of scientists who take this approach -
that God created life,
then we evolved.

This is a minority view of course.

Intelligent Designers may disagree with you, but that's a whole new kettle of worms.

ID is just creationism re-packaged,
it has no value.


Iasion

 

[Iasion]

Greetings Woody,

Welcome to sciforums, home of narrowminded trolls like ... resorting to personal attacks

Hmmm..
How bizarre...

You attack members here for being trolls, and making persnal insults,
while
making personal insults and behaving like a troll...

Did you think we would not notice your rude hypocrisy?

There hasn't been a lab experiment to initiate life,

There have been numerous experiments (e.g. the famous Miller / Urey )
dealing with this issue - piece by piece we are learning more.

Iason said:

It's a funny thing -
so many creationists cannot get my name right.

This shows just how carefully you read,
just how carefully you check your work,
just how carefully you proof-read what you wrote -
i.e. NOT AT ALL.

It is not neccessary to prove the moon orbits the earth when it can be clearly observed and fits within the law of gravitation.

This is a very confused statement -
do you not believe the moon orbits the earth?
What does "not necessary to prove" mean, then?

We made observations, and eventually came up with the theory that the moon orbits the earth - in spite of centuries with the Church doing what they could to STOP this correct discovery being made.

A molecular level event (origin of life) is on a little smaller scale, and should be observable in a laboratory -- given the right conditions which nobody can come up with.

False.
We HAVE done some experiments which cover some of this,
and work is still proceeding.

But this is really a fantasy land for atheists to comfort one another in denial, as you have already witnessed (quickly I might add).

What a laugh -
Woody's posts consist of insults, religious mumbo-jumbo, mis-understandings, false claims, etc.
he ignores or dismisses the evidence adduced here,
he never produces any facts or evidence for his case -
then he pretends we are in denial !

Sad, really.


Iasion

 

[Iasion]

Greetings,

Thus, based on the lab observations of micro-evolution (which is a fact; I do not doubt that micro-evolution occurs), you postulate ON FAITH that macro-evolution also occurs, even though you haven't seen it.

This is nonsense,.
You do not appear to be making any effort to grasp this.

There is no barrier between micro and macro - they are false concepts made up by creationists.

Your argument sounds as silly as this one:

* giant sequoia trees take 400 years to grow to full size
* humans have only seen sequoias grow a fraction of full size
* NO human has ever seen a sequoia grow to full size

Therefore sequoias do not grow to full size.
(even though we can observe full size sequoia trees.)

It is not "faith" that makes us believe in (what YOU call "macro"evolution)
it is the EVIDENCE we have observed.

Essentially your argument boils down to:

anything which takes longer than one human lifetime is not true

Which is obvious nonsense.

Why do you think this obvious silly argument means anything?

If you disagree with my faith in creation/God, it is not incumbent upon me that I'm some ignorant fundie who doesn't agree with science.

Your posts are prima facie evidence that you are an ignorant fundy.
Your posts show considerable ignorance of science.
Your posts show claims that fundies like to make.

I just want to point out that science has its limits, and evolution has its own articles that require FAITH.

Totally,
completely,
100%
WRONG.

Science is based on evidence, not faith.
But creationists like to pretend otherwise,
so they can pretend their faithful religious views
are on a par
with evidence-supported science.

How silly.

Iasion

 

[Iasion]

Greetings,

p.s. the Bible is actually the most verifiable of ancient manuscripts available.

Rubbish.
This false claim is often made by the faithful,
but it is not true.

We have many works far better attested than the Bible.

Also,
claims about the NT being the "best-attested" or "most verifiable" confuse two UN-related issues -
* reliability of the text,
* truthfulness of the contents.

Firstly, it is not true that the NT is "the most verifiable document in all of antiquity" because there are some documents even older than the NT for which we have the ORIGINAL literally carved in stone (e.g. Behistun inscription, Egyptian tomb inscriptions, the Rosetta Stone, the Moabite Stone) - making them absolutely 100% accurately attested from the original because they ARE the original, and thus much better attested than the NT.
http://visopsys.org/andy/essays/darius-bisitun.html

It's true the NT is fairly well-attested (in terms of quantity) compared to SOME ancient writings - in the sense that we have many old copies (24,000 or more in total). However the vast majority of these copies are from the middle-ages. The number of NT manuscripts from before the dark ages is about a hundred.

But there are NO originals for ANY of the NT writings - all we have is copies of copies, all varying from each other (that's right - every single manuscript we have is slightly different from every other - not counting very tiny scraps) from long after the alleged events :
* NO copies from 1st century,
* a few tiny fragments from 2nd century (e.g. P52, P90),
* a few UNCOMPLETE copies from late 2nd / early 3rd (e.g. P75, P46),
* several fairly complete copies in 3rd / 4th century.
List by century :
http://rosetta.reltech.org/TC/extras/Robinson-list.html
Detailed contents of all NT MSS :
http://www.tyndale.cam.ac.uk/Tyndale/staff/Head/EGBMP.htm

And, there is considerable variation in Gospel manuscripts, and it often DOES reach to core beliefs and events :

The words of God at the baptism in early MSS and quotes have
"...this day have I begotten thee"
(echoing Psalm 2) - later, as dogma about when Jesus become god had crystallized, thus phrase became
"..in thee I am well pleased".
If Christians scribes can change the alleged words of God, they can change anything.

Another important variation is the ending of G.Mark - there are four different endings to this Gospels in various MSS, the original ending being 16:8

Other MSS variations include :
* the issue of salvation through the Christ's Blood,
* the Trinity - found in no Greek MSS before the 16th century!
* the Lord's prayer - much variations in manuscripts,
* the names of the 12 apostles are highly variable in MSS and indeed the Gospels.
http://members.aol.com/PS418/manuscript.html

These are just some issues of manuscripts variations - contradictions between different Gospel's versions of the Jesus stories is another very smelly kettle of fish :
* the widely variant birth stories,
* the names of the 12 apostles vary among Gospels.
* the completely irreconcilable Easter morning stories :
http://www.ffrf.org/books/lfif/stone.php

In other words,
the text of the NT is corrupt.


But anyway,
even if we had originals - so what?

Having an original work does not prove it is true.

We have the original MSS for Harry Potter -
does that make it true?

We have the original MSS for LOTR (I think) -
does that make it true?

We have very early MSS for the Book of Mormon -
does that make it true?

We have the ORIGINAL Ancient Pyramid texts inscribed in stone in pyramids over 2000 years old -
does that make those myths true?

No.
Of course not.

The accuracy of MSS has NOTHING to do with the truth of the contents.

If you are interested in seeing how accurate the translations are, take a look at the Bible entry at wikipedia, or any respected Biblical site.

Wiki?
Completely UN-reliable.
Probably the WORST reference you could cite.
(You DO know why, right?)

Well,
apart from "respected Biblical sites"
by which I am sure you mean BELIEVERS sites

Some issues with the unreliable NT can be seen here :
http://members.aol.com/PS418/manuscript.html


Iasion

 

[Iasion]

Greetings,

The question of where life originated has been stated to be a philosophical one, and should be admitted as such.

Yes, it touches on philosophy,
yes, many have admitted that -
what is your point, exactly?

If evolution does not have an answer to that question, it is only honest to admit it.

What?
We DO admit it.
We TOLD you this,
because you were ignorant of the facts.

We know evolution does not have an answer to abiogenesis - because they are different issues.

YOU did not understand this,
and we had to inform you they are different.

Now YOU have the gall to say WE should "admit it" ?!

Admit something we said ALL ALONG,
somthing YOU did not understand?

What a crock of old dingoes kidneys.

It is exactly this sort of dishonest and ignorant behaviour which causes creationists to be so ridiculed.

I agree that Christian creationism should not be forcibly taught in public schools, but evolution should be honestly presented as well.

It IS honestly presented.

You have yet to present any evidence otherwise,
all you have shown is that YOU do not understand these issues.

However, it has not been seen, since it takes a long time to occur (as according to its propenents). It is taken on faith that micro will lead to macro. I simply do not believe that macro-evolution takes place.

What nonsense.

So,
you do NOT believe giant sequoias can grow to full height?
you do NOT believe that glaciers can flow to the sea?

This is the very epitome of close-minded ignorance.

Did anyone here SEE God create man?
No.
But you are happy to believe that,
based on no more than an old fairy tale from the Bronze Age.

It is clear from your posts you have no intention of learning about these issues,
you are here to PREACH your religious views.

Good luck,
you'll need it


Iasion

 

[SnakeLord]

You asked me when would a lifeform become a lifeform and cease being a chemical reaction; I was saying in essence that I can't compare a thing with an action.

It seems you haven't really understood the question, (not to mention that chemical reactions do not 'cease').

the failure to illustrate the circular logic in geological dating (the age of rocks are used to determine the age of the fossils contained in these rock formations...which are used to define the agre of the rock formations)

That is really quite basic understanding. I would suggest you look further into the issue before making such statements.

Basically, my complaint is that the THEORY of evolution is presented as a FACT.

Wrong. The fact of evolution is presented as fact, while the theories concerning evolution are presented as theories. It's really quite simple.

I've seen many breeds of dogs developed for many purposes; but they all remained dogs.

Technically we could say none of them remained dogs, (but they all remained wolves). Still, it's quite early days yet as far as dog breeding goes, and you can already see astounding differences, (for example pug vs great dane). Let's consider that those changes keep escalating.. What's to stop them becoming incapable of mating?

Forgive me for not just accepting your word that my statement is inaccurate at this point.

I don't want you to, I merely advised study before dismissing it the way you seem to be doing.

I have to know the basic outline of what's going on.

I would suggest more than a basic outline.

From what i've studied and read of evolution, I can believe that micro-evolution exists, but to believe that new species can occur due to random mutation in sufficient numbers and mutations to provide the diversity of life that I see on this planet is not a logical conclusion to my mind.

Then you clearly have not studied enough.

Human beings make/create things

Ok, so once again.. that is evidence of what exactly?

Anything that begins to exist has a creator; the only thing that does not begin to exist is that which always existed.

You mean.. the universe?

 

[Woody]

smallaxe sez:

If at least one person can read what I write and at least come away seeing that being a religious person does not mean that one has to become reject science, logic or common sense, then I am happy.

Yes, it does mean you must reject science, logic and common sense. If you didn't reject them, then you wouldn't be a religious person, would you?

smallaxe, See what I mean?

Issac Newton was a religious man, likewise for Edison, Kelvin, Faraday,and many others in the science hall of fame. But somehow "Q" thinks he is above them all, like he is more rational, scientific, and logical than they are, simply because they believed in a God. How obtuse!

The truth of the matter is they (most atheists) do not want to understand a believer's point of view. They've already made up their mind about it -- that all religious people are the same -- it's part of the denial mentality. Nobody said they have to agree with you -- but they just can't get past it.

 

[Woody]

Iasion said:

There have been numerous experiments (e.g. the famous Miller / Urey )
dealing with this issue - piece by piece we are learning more.

Miller's experiment-- that stuff is ancient age -- before most of us were born. It didn't start life either, though it almost predates the existence of life.

It's a funny thing -
so many creationists cannot get my name right.

I've always been a bad speller, even before I came to faith. I accept evolution as true. It's not a deal-breaker for me.

Is "Iasion" your real name or is it a made up "straw man" as Ophiolite calls it. "Woody" is my real name, Oaf-idiot is his real name.

We made observations, and eventually came up with the theory that the moon orbits the earth - in spite of centuries with the Church doing what they could to STOP this correct discovery being made.

So you were there when it all happened -- Is this grandfather clock talking? Kepler was a christian, and so was Copernicus -- and you put them in the "they" crowd.

I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use. -- Galileo Galilee

Yeah, the Catholic church had a problem with Galileo, but we believers are used to being persecuted for believing the truth.

And what astronomer does the atheist group bring to the science hall of fame -- none other than Huxley -- originator of the big bang theory -- big deal.

False.
We HAVE done some experiments which cover some of this,
and work is still proceeding.

Good, keep it up. I take it that you are a part of those experiments as in "we HAVE".

What a laugh -
Woody's posts consist of insults, religious mumbo-jumbo, mis-understandings, false claims, etc.
he ignores or dismisses the evidence adduced here,
he never produces any facts or evidence for his case -
then he pretends we are in denial !

Sad, really.

Well which is it? Are we supposed to laugh or cry? Laughter is more fun -- enjoy yourself.

We have many works far better attested than the Bible.

Such as what - your calendar?

Did anyone here SEE God create man?

Well ...er .. no..not exactly-- Adam saw it, but he died a long time ago.

What's the dude's name that saw man evolve?

So,
you do NOT believe giant sequoias can grow to full height?
you do NOT believe that glaciers can flow to the sea?

Where did that come from? I don't know. Are these lyrics to a new song?

 

[Lerxst]

smallaxe sez:

If at least one person can read what I write and at least come away seeing that being a religious person does not mean that one has to become reject science, logic or common sense, then I am happy.

Yes, it does mean you must reject science, logic and common sense. If you didn't reject them, then you wouldn't be a religious person, would you?

Do you know who Martin Gardner is?

 

[Woody]

S/L said:

Technically we could say none of them remained dogs, (but they all remained wolves). Still, it's quite early days yet as far as dog breeding goes, and you can already see astounding differences, (for example pug vs great dane). Let's consider that those changes keep escalating.. What's to stop them becoming incapable of mating?

Well I suppose a male pug would have a lot of trouble getting a female dane's attention. Likewise a female pug would probably have a great deal of discomfort with a male dane -- I don't think it would work -- you have a point there.

Other than the plumbing issues, dogs that are not carefully bred eventually revert back to the mongrel state, hence pedigrees are needed to preserve the breed.

But perhaps someday the different breeds of dog could "speciate." Aside from the humor I agree with your point.

 

[The Devil Inside]

still waiting, woody.
answer me about jesus getting out of hell, if NOONE ever did....

 

[Woody]

still waiting, woody.
answer me about jesus getting out of hell, if NOONE ever did....

He went to Abraham's bosom where Abraham and all the OT saints resided. Jesus came out and brought them with him. I hope you can join them someday.