Jump to content

Trolldeg

Banned
  • Posts

    1,372
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Trolldeg

  1. So, creationists are arguing that evolutionists can't explain where all the matter of the universe were at before the Big Bang, and at the same time agrue that god is beyond time and space and we can't understand her. If god works on a bigger scale than we humans can't grasp, what says the big bang came into being in some way we humans can't fathom? Maybe there was no before, maybe it's been expanding and contracting through eternety. Maybe the universe, at a big enough scale, works in a way we humans can't understand. Personally I "belive" that time and space is curved, that if you travel far enuogh you'll end up were you started.

  2. from http://www.mala.bc.ca/~johnstoi/essays/courtenay1.htm

    The first step in demonstrating the truth of evolution is to make the claim that all living creatures must have a living parent. This point has been overwhelmingly established in the past century and a half, ever since the French scientist Louis Pasteur demonstrated how fermentation took place and thus laid to rest centuries of stories about beetles arising spontaneously out of dung or gut worms being miraculously produced from non-living material. There is absolutely no evidence for this ancient belief. Living creatures must come from other living creatures. It does no damage to this point to claim that life must have had some origin way back in time, perhaps in a chemical reaction of inorganic materials (in some primordial soup) or in some invasion from outer space. That may well be true. But what is clear is that any such origin for living things or living material must result in a very simple organism. There is no evidence whatsoever (except in science fiction like Frankenstein) that inorganic chemical processes can produce complex, multi-cellular living creatures (the recent experiments cloning sheep, of course, are based on living tissue from other sheep).

    The second important point in the case for evolution is that some living creatures are very different from some others. This, I take it, is self-evident. Let me cite a common example: many animals have what we call an internal skeletal structure featuring a backbone and skull. We call these animals vertebrates. Most animals do not have these features (we call them invertebrates). The distinction between vertebrates and invertebrates is something no one who cares to look at samples of both can reasonably deny, and, so far as I am aware, no one hostile to evolution has ever denied a fact so apparent to anyone who observes the world for a few moments.

    The final point in the case for evolution is this: simple animals and plants existed on earth long before more complex ones (invertebrate animals, for example, were around for a very long time before there were any vertebrates). Here again, the evidence from fossils is overwhelming. In the deepest rock layers, there are no signs of life. The first fossil remains are of very simple living things. As the strata get more recent, the variety and complexity of life increase (although not at a uniform rate). In all the countless geological excavations and inspections (for example, of the Grand Canyon), no one has ever come up with a genuine fossil remnant which goes against this general principle (and it would only take one genuine find to overturn this principle).

    Well, if we put these three points together, the case for evolution is air tight. If all living creatures must have a living parent, if living creatures are different, and if simpler forms were around before the more complex forms, then the more complex forms must have come from the simpler forms (e.g., vertebrates from invertebrates). There is simply no other way of dealing reasonably with the evidence we have. Of course, one might deny (as some do) that the layers of the earth represent a succession of very lengthy epochs and claim, for example, that the Grand Canyon was created in a matter of days, but this surely violates scientific observation as much as does the claim that, say, vertebrates just, well, appeared one day out of a spontaneous combination of chemicals.

  3. The leather quality is good, the only bugbear being that the heel tip is plastic. This is easy enough to fix if you can get metal tips .... I sometimes scrounge them from part worn shoes I buy at thrift shops.

    are they lined with leather as well?

  4. Like my father used to say, don't let your problems become my problems. And, if you don’t support me in my times of adversity, don’t ask for my support when your a** is in a crack. Rest assured. The United States will do whatever is necessary to protect it's territory, citizens and quality of life. We American's don't need acquiescence of the United Nations or any European government in order to protect our own.

    in what way is attacking Iraq protecting the US territory?

    in what way is attacking Iraq protecting US citizens?

    in what way is attacking Iraq protecting the american way of life?

  5. if Bush so badly wants a puppet to control in Iraq, why not send a small team of special forces in? my standpoint is: no, I don't like Saddam, and I think he should be removed from power. a war to do so might be necessary. but only as a last resort. what I don't like is the USA doing what they please all over the world. if we don't watch out, we'll soon all be americans.

  6. Yes, you are right, you gave us your opinion on how Shoe sees the world. But unfortunately the world that Shoe sees is very different from the real one (what really goes on). I am going to cause a major controversy here but remember, what you are about to read comes from a person who has studied the Muslims in depth and has read many books, magazine publications, etc. And most importantly he has many friends and colleagues how come from and live in the region who he talks to on a daily basis (Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iran, Yemen, and Qatar). What are the Muslim Causes? Real simple – there are no Muslim Causes. There is no legitimate reason to use unconventional tactics. I could be brutal and ask you to enlighten us all and show us how I came to that conclusion but I am not. That is not my style. :lol: Besides you couldn’t do it anyway because your education span evidently doesn’t go beyond the Daily Mail. Oh wait, let me guess, you already threw that copy away right? :(

    If I lived in poverty I would be very happy that the U.S. was coming to attack my country. I am once again going to cause another major controversy here but the best thing that could ever happen to country in today’s world is to get involved in a war with the United States. Yes, how did I reach that conclusion, hmmm (hint: don't even try to figure it out because you will not be able to),? I think that I just heard everyone’s jaw hit the floor when they just read this - in disbelief that is!

    one word: propaganda

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using High Heel Place, you agree to our Terms of Use.