Guest bob_barron Posted November 22, 2002 Report Posted November 22, 2002 Ummm Rob- pretty much this whole CE board is conservative- you're not the only one.
Guest RobJohnstone Posted November 22, 2002 Report Posted November 22, 2002 I guess it's just the liberals who post more. Then again I did take about a months leave from here so now I know. One thing though, why won't the christian conservatives speak up on this matter? --Rob
Guest bob_barron Posted November 22, 2002 Report Posted November 22, 2002 That's because most of the conservatives on this board aren't complete and utter retards
Guest Kotzenjunge Posted November 22, 2002 Report Posted November 22, 2002 I guess it's just the liberals who post more. Then again I did take about a months leave from here so now I know. One thing though, why won't the christian conservatives speak up on this matter? --Rob They ARE speaking on the matter. They just aren't agreeing with you, so you aren't listening. It's the same as last time we had this argument. You have yet to provide any evidence of this debate at whatever university it was where the Creationist supposedly destroyed the Evolution proponent. And how did I know you'd ignore the point of me telling you that the Catholic Church accepted Evolution? The point of me saying that was that the most conservative body on the planet acknowledged it. These are the same people who didn't admit Galileo was right until 1992. Next topic will be what, this? "Liberals Come Up With Heliocentric Theory, God Pissed Off." It's not 1900 (economic views) anymore, nor is it still 1500 (social views). It is 2002. Stop giving actual reputable and (can't believe I'm saying this) GOOD conservatives a bad name. People like you are the reason I say that Conservatism is building a better yesterday. Kotzenjunge Rob Had His Ass Handed To Him, So He Left For A Month
Guest RobJohnstone Posted November 22, 2002 Report Posted November 22, 2002 "You have yet to provide any evidence of this debate at whatever university it was where the Creationist supposedly destroyed the Evolution proponent." It's not like a video taped the event. It was at Temple University on Nov.12 2002 in Anderson Hall. Why not e-mail Dr. Richard Weisenburg, Professor of Biology at Temple University and ask him about it? "And how did I know you'd ignore the point of me telling you that the Catholic Church accepted Evolution? The point of me saying that was that the most conservative body on the planet acknowledged it. These are the same people who didn't admit Galileo was right until 1992." Yes you are right, they are idiots. Idiots enough to admit evolution is fact without having proof. "It's not 1900 (economic views) anymore, nor is it still 1500 (social views). It is 2002. Stop giving actual reputable and (can't believe I'm saying this) GOOD conservatives a bad name. People like you are the reason I say that Conservatism is building a better yesterday." You can keep on being liberal, that's fine with me. You can have your Daschle's, Clinton's and Gore's. You don't have to believe in god, that's your choice. You can support women killing babies and try to take my gun rights away. Right on dude. --Rob
Guest Kotzenjunge Posted November 22, 2002 Report Posted November 22, 2002 There you go, a Pro-Life person who wants to be able to shoot things. Anyone else fnd this incredibly funny? I would expand on the insult, but what I had in mind is a no-no around here, so I'll let it be. Needless to say, if there's ever a revolution, let it be your kind to perish first. Okay, ONCE AGAIN ignoring the point in bringing the Vatican into this and warping it to your own want. And you know us liberals, we loves us a good baby-killin'! Yee-haw. Kotzenjunge Gives Up On This TOTAL AND UTTER FUCKING MORON (that's my piece, I'm going to just avoid talking to this piece of shit from now on)
Guest NoCalMike Posted November 22, 2002 Report Posted November 22, 2002 Is it impossible to believe in both creationism and evolution at the same time to a certain extent? Isn't technology in itself a type of evolution. Look at the comforts we have in society that didn't exist before, isn't that a form of evolution right there? Oh and no one is taking away any gun rights.(hehe)
Guest RobJohnstone Posted November 22, 2002 Report Posted November 22, 2002 "There you go, a Pro-Life person who wants to be able to shoot things. Anyone else fnd this incredibly funny?" You are definitly the idiot here. You need guns to protect yourself, that's why it was written into the constitution. Just keep supporting death to children and you'll be a good liberal. --Rob
Guest bob_barron Posted November 22, 2002 Report Posted November 22, 2002 Ummm Rob- for someone who believes in God so much- How come you don't capatalize His name?
Guest bob_barron Posted November 22, 2002 Report Posted November 22, 2002 "There you go, a Pro-Life person who wants to be able to shoot things. Anyone else fnd this incredibly funny?" You are definitly the idiot here. You need guns to protect yourself, that's why it was written into the constitution. Just keep supporting death to children and you'll be a good liberal. --Rob In studies you're more likely to harm someone in your family then harm a burgular or what not if you have a gun. Where did Kotzenjunge say he supported children?
Guest RobJohnstone Posted November 22, 2002 Report Posted November 22, 2002 Is it impossible to believe in both creationism and evolution at the same time to a certain extent? Isn't technology in itself a type of evolution. Look at the comforts we have in society that didn't exist before, isn't that a form of evolution right there? Oh and no one is taking away any gun rights.(hehe) A form of evolution yes. But in no way did we evolve from monkeys. No way did we evolve from dirt, and no way did the big bang theory happen. Infact the big bang doesn't even work due to the laws of angular momentum. --Rob
Guest RobJohnstone Posted November 22, 2002 Report Posted November 22, 2002 "There you go, a Pro-Life person who wants to be able to shoot things. Anyone else fnd this incredibly funny?" You are definitly the idiot here. You need guns to protect yourself, that's why it was written into the constitution. Just keep supporting death to children and you'll be a good liberal. --Rob In studies you're more likely to harm someone in your family then harm a burgular or what not if you have a gun. Where did Kotzenjunge say he supported children? there are locks for triggers, very safe as long as your responsible. --Rob
Guest bob_barron Posted November 22, 2002 Report Posted November 22, 2002 That's great and all but what if in the heat of the moment you get upset and blow someone away.
Guest RobJohnstone Posted November 22, 2002 Report Posted November 22, 2002 well any normal level headed person would not just shoot someone during the heat of passion. And if that did happen they would go to jail, that's why we have laws. If you want to make the point that it wouldn;t happen if guns weren't there, let's take away cars to make sure there are not any more care accidents. That's the same logic. --Rob
Guest Snakebyte Posted November 22, 2002 Report Posted November 22, 2002 Dude, I don't usually drop into this folder, but damn, this is the dumbest thread ever. Well, at least Bobby Boy is the most retarded conservative I've seen in a long..long while. --Edit-- Oh dear... ::covers eyes:: Robstone? For crying out loud... --Edit--
Guest big Dante Cruz Posted November 22, 2002 Report Posted November 22, 2002 Listen, Rob, first off, evolution is not just the origin of life theorm. Evolution also refers to the long-term adaptation of an organism to its enviorment. Got it? Good. Second, as you like to defer to the Pope so much, he acknowledged Steven Hawking's work with the Big Bang, but said the moment before the Bang was the moment of Creation.
Guest LooseCannon Posted November 22, 2002 Report Posted November 22, 2002 You know I had forgotten this thread wasn't even about evolution or creationism. And by the way... RobStone=Missing Link
Guest EricMM Posted November 23, 2002 Report Posted November 23, 2002 HEY! I am not descended from RobJohnstone!
Guest EricMM Posted November 23, 2002 Report Posted November 23, 2002 Double post. But I'd just like to add, Rob, stop refuting our posts, and prove one of your own. Macro evolution is rare it's true, but micro evolution can account for most of the shifts from one type to another. If one animal was born mutated to have something that would enable it to survive better than it's peers, chances are it would reproduce more often. Over millions of years, the helpful mutations caused those animals to reproduce more and spread their mutations aka adaptations, and change the species.
Guest DrTom Posted November 24, 2002 Report Posted November 24, 2002 You need guns to protect yourself, that's why it was written into the constitution. This is how the Second Amendment reads: "A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." It's there so that citizens can serve in the militia. Self-defense isn't mentioned anywhere. I support the Second Amendment, with some sensible restrictions, and I loathe the NRA.
Guest Olympic Slam Posted November 24, 2002 Report Posted November 24, 2002 Is it impossible to believe in both creationism and evolution at the same time to a certain extent? I do, sort of. I don't understand why people are so locked into just one mindset. Maybe a God or some other greater power (I think we were created by aliens) did create everything and scientific forces like evolution maintain those creations. There's so much we don't understand in the world, why do we readily dismiss all other viewpoints?
Guest NoCalMike Posted November 25, 2002 Report Posted November 25, 2002 Well yah Olympic Slam, I agree. I mean every year we have scientific breakthroughs on every level, so things such as the origin of life is still WAY BEYOND OUR COMPREHENSION, and even if we think we have it figured out, tommorow's research could take a totally different turn.
Guest Kahran Ramsus Posted November 25, 2002 Report Posted November 25, 2002 There have been proven cases of micro evolution but... A horse comes from a horse, not a lizard or a fish or any other animal. Again, we can prove that a salamander comes from a fish. Two completely unrelated animals otherwise. We can also prove the reptile-to-mammal link and the amphibean-to-reptile link. This is why they are never talked about, because we know what happened. We cannot directly prove the lineage of mammal to fish (maybe God did create some amphibean out of the blue somewhere down the line that led to reptiles, but had nothing to do with fish (ex. we cannot, as far as I know, find a direct line from frogs to fish), but we do have cases where the evidence is there if you choose to actually look at it. Finally, Evolution says nothing about the Big Bang (which cannot be proven) and the Origin of Life (likewise) which is why you can believe in God and still not be close-minded to the facts of evolution. Evolution is a road map to get from Animal A to Animal B. It says nothing how Animal A came into being.
Guest NoCalMike Posted November 25, 2002 Report Posted November 25, 2002 Exactly Kahran, nobody that supports amoeba - organism - fish - mammal - ape - man, says that the amoeba came from nowhere, just that whenever it got here, it started changing and evolving.
Guest Kotzenjunge Posted November 25, 2002 Report Posted November 25, 2002 I can tell you where it came from. Free elements were forced to bond through static electricty such as lightning on primordial Earth. From these came polyatomic ions and compounds, as the polyatomic ions had charges and were attracted to others and so on and so on until such structures as proteins, nucleotides, things like that, formed. The process up to this point is proven by the Miller-Urey experiment of 1952. These structures came together to make the first procaryotes, but we have yet to figure out how this step took place, which is why we have yet to synthetically create life in a laboratory. We're getting closer by the day though, I'm sure. Can't wait for the day that we do either. Fo sheez, Kotzenjunge
Guest big Dante Cruz Posted November 25, 2002 Report Posted November 25, 2002 Kotz, I'm sorry, but no. The Spark Theory didn't prove how life began. The Spark Theory proves how you can get proteins and nucleotides in that fashion, but that didn't bond them together or create life. If it did, then conceivibly the thousands of attempts to recreate this phenomenoa in laboratories aroudn the world would have at least come close at some point.
Guest Kotzenjunge Posted November 25, 2002 Report Posted November 25, 2002 Like I said, they created the structures that make life up, but not life itself. It didn't really prove how life began, but illustrated that a perfectly natural beginning was totally possible and most likely. Kotzenjunge Was Misunderstood
Guest RobJohnstone Posted November 29, 2002 Report Posted November 29, 2002 I'm intrested in your theory about how life began. Care to share? --Rob
Guest Kotzenjunge Posted November 29, 2002 Report Posted November 29, 2002 Like I said, they created the structures that make life up, but not life itself. It didn't really prove how life began, but illustrated that a perfectly natural beginning was totally possible and most likely. Kotzenjunge Was Misunderstood Read the post, or would that require a form of listening to someone else? Here, to help, I have quoted my own post. Read it. Oh, and I await your immediate pouncing upon me for a lack of my own theory. In case you ignored the first one too, here it is: I can tell you where it came from. Free elements were forced to bond through static electricty such as lightning on primordial Earth. From these came polyatomic ions and compounds, as the polyatomic ions had charges and were attracted to others and so on and so on until such structures as proteins, nucleotides, things like that, formed. The process up to this point is proven by the Miller-Urey experiment of 1952. These structures came together to make the first procaryotes, but we have yet to figure out how this step took place, which is why we have yet to synthetically create life in a laboratory. We're getting closer by the day though, I'm sure. Can't wait for the day that we do either. Nowhere in either do I say what my own theory for the beginning of life was. As if your approach is so novel. If anything, it's the path of least resistance. Kotzenjunge Is Getting Really Angry With This Person (seriously man, if I didn't worry about offending people, I'd say what I want to)
Guest Kahran Ramsus Posted November 29, 2002 Report Posted November 29, 2002 I'm intrested in your theory about how life began. Care to share? --Rob Idiot. He already posted it. Do you even read other people's posts? I disagree with it, but at least I am willing to listen.
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now