Evolution is now A FACT OF LIFE

[regnauld]

---

hahay pwede manang i drama drama oi...

Unsa man kunoy VALID REASON nga mag drama ang mga bata sama ani? Unsa may makuha nila kung magdrama drama sila beh?

State all your VALID REASONS and I will refute them one by one!

[Pein]

Analytical Psychology doesn't believe in the LITERAL DEVIL. The demons or devils are within us when we forget WHO WE REALLY ARE!

unsay buot nimong ipasabot nga literal devil? kanang ungo?

toinks! spirit nang devil oi taka taka lang ka dah...

[regnauld]

ang lawas(physical) sa tawo natural sa yuta gikan...

Ingon ka ang tawo gikan sa yuta!

[regnauld]

unsay buot nimong ipasabot nga literal devil? kanang ungo?

toinks! spirit nang devil oi taka taka lang ka dah...

Kay niingon diay ko ungo? Toinks!

DEVIL is just a symbol for us in Theosophy and not literally true as a SPIRIT! Gets?

[jamesmusslewhite]

what?! are you kidding me?

you chose to stop thinking.. you chose to stop using your brain to look for answers.. that's your choice..

why would i hate the bible? go look for trouble somewhere else.. you're barking off the wrong tree.. i respect the bible and i know where it belongs.. in religious texts.. not in a scientific community.. its you guys who are misusing science to prove your religious texts are true.. gosh, what a more ignorant way is that.. you even depend on science to prove your point.. that path has led to many more blunders in history than ever..

His facts were correct and you lied and insulted him and then you insulted me because I verified he facts were correct. So what is your problem. Too honest for you?

Why should God and science be different? A scientist as to be an atheist? If a man finds God he stops thinking? So what about devil worshipers can they be scientist and that is OK? If science can prove a point then I can not use it? My believing God is going to cause blunders? Why should be causing problems with you? I see science can only be used to try to destroy the bible, but if science helps support the bible than I can not use it? I did not stop thinking. I just stopped thinking like you. You are the one trying to use science like a weapon, as if you only have the right to use it. Then use it and tell me the theories that prove me wrong, do not use blind statements. State your evidence. Facts and not insults.

Show your facts and I will present mine, I am no preacher, or snake oil salesman. I am a scientist and will use only verifiable facts, but you to can only use verifiable facts. You kicked the wrong dog this time 30 years in the sciences and you tell me I can not use science, you call me out, insult me, big talk me, and do not use one workable theory. If all you can do is make broad statements, insult, scoff, and act childish then do not waste my time. You want a true scientific debate with someone who is well acquainted with a laboratory and more time in science text then you probably been alive. Then lets do this and never insult me again, you act like someone who barely got out of High School. If you do not know how to be respectful and conduct yourself as a gentleman and an intellectual. Then step off

[bluedes]

His facts were correct and you lied and insulted him and then you insulted me because I verified he facts were correct. So what is your problem. Too honest for you?

Why should God and science be different? A scientist as to be an atheist? If a man finds God he stops thinking? So what about devil worshipers can they be scientist and that is OK? If science can prove a point then I can not use it? My believing God is going to cause blunders? Why should be causing problems with you? I see science can only be used to try to destroy the bible, but if science helps support the bible than I can not use it? I did not stop thinking. I just stopped thinking like you. You are the one trying to use science like a weapon, as if you only have the right to use it. Then use it and tell me the theories that prove me wrong, do not use blind statements. State your evidence. Facts and not insults.

Show your facts and I will present mine, I am no preacher, or snake oil salesman. I am a scientist and will use only verifiable facts, but you to can only use verifiable facts. You kicked the wrong dog this time 30 years in the sciences and you tell me I can not use science, you call me out, insult me, big talk me, and do not use one workable theory. If all you can do is make broad statements, insult, scoff, and act childish then do not waste my time. You want a true scientific debate with someone who is well acquainted with a laboratory and more time in science text then you probably been alive. Then lets do this and never insult me again, you act like someone who barely got out of High School. If you do not know how to be respectful and conduct yourself as a gentleman and an intellectual. Then step off

facts cannot be refuted to be correct or wrong.. they are correct, so why refute them.. its the interpretation and presentation of facts.. twisting facts to prove religion?? that's really low..

why jump to concentration of oxygen when the fact of the matter was we were comparing water as the highest concentration.. so why twist the facts and show oxygen only instead? you're like only wanting to see what you want to see..

most of the oxygen in earth appears as water and NOT as earth's crust only.. so why only showing the concentration of oxygen in earth crust? where's the whole earth? earth is made up more of water than soil and crust.. gee.. so who's twisting the facts now?

FYI, I dont lie about facts.. unlike creationists who just twist things to support their twisted ideologies.. use your common sense bro.. you're the one who threw blatant accusations that I don't respect the bible.. well, you're barking the wrong tree.. and the more you ally yourself with creationists who twist the facts to suit their claims, the more you'll become like them.. good luck..

[classdismiss]

i think this issue is beyond resolve...it's impossible to put parameters here...as you can see, one is focused on science and her produce while the other maintains on religion and her claims...the problem with religion and science occurs when we want them collide with each other...objectively, they can develop without conflicting each other...this could be expressed by our cliche "minding our own business." for as long as religion does not infringe into the realm of science and vice-versa, there would be no problem...after all, this would boil down to personal conviction...anyways, religion is a personal affair...i suggest take on the existential-phenomenological approach...there would probably be lesser conflict...hehe

[brownprose]

For a layman to understand and fully appreciate the fact about evolution one has to spend some time to get to know it.

And when more than 99% of scientists declare that it is a fact only means that more than 99% of them are willing to risk their profession, honor, reputation and scientific labor for what they have so believed and declared.

[chad_tukes]

Why dont you guys read my thread "Compatibility of science and religion" and let's get this over with once and for all. You people are getting way out of hand you almost sound like idiots.

[jamesmusslewhite]

facts cannot be refuted to be correct or wrong.. they are correct, so why refute them.. its the interpretation and presentation of facts.. twisting facts to prove religion?? that's really low..

why jump to concentration of oxygen when the fact of the matter was we were comparing water as the highest concentration.. so why twist the facts and show oxygen only instead? you're like only wanting to see what you want to see..

most of the oxygen in earth appears as water and NOT as earth's crust only.. so why only showing the concentration of oxygen in earth crust? where's the whole earth? earth is made up more of water than soil and crust.. gee.. so who's twisting the facts now?

FYI, I dont lie about facts.. unlike creationists who just twist things to support their twisted ideologies.. use your common sense bro.. you're the one who threw blatant accusations that I don't respect the bible.. well, you're barking the wrong tree.. and the more you ally yourself with creationists who twist the facts to suit their claims, the more you'll become like them.. good luck..

You do not like the Mineral Composition charts which measure water at the atomic level

Mineral and Chemicals Composition Charts:
Bloodindex - The Human Body's Mineral Content
Determining bone and total body mineral content from body density and bioelectrical response spectroscopy -- Siconolfi et al. 85 (4): 1578 -- Journal of Applied Physiology
Human Body Composition: In Vivo Methods -- Ellis 80 (2): 649 -- Physiological Reviews
Composition of the human body - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So I found you a Composition Chart that only measures Composition and not Atomic brake down.
Body composition: Information from Answers.com

This is because you want to show that the water content in the Human body is greater than "DRY" dirt, which is why you debunked the earlier chart. But man was made from dry dirt which was turned into clay. Most clay recipes used 2-1/2 cups soil composition to 1-1/2 Water. Therefor clay is by nature 60-65% water. Please prove me wrong if you wish.

This is not magic, it is the science of a building material that has directly influenced man long before our recorded history. Obviously you have never mixed clay or mixed concrete, or you would have been able to grasp this simple concept. The water content can be higher if a wetter mix is requires, this is refereed to extra-wet concrete, and in clay it is called mud. You never made mud as a child? Or is mud and wet soil a Creationist trick and not based in fact in natural science? That the theory of evolution dictate that clay and mud are different somehow in the natural sciences?

Sorry I must ask because I have been told that as scientist and believer in the Bible, that my brain had stopped working. So I am just too stupid to crasp that the mineral and compositions of the human body and common clay are very if not almost actually the same. So please show me and everyone else your vast superior intellect and show this dumb old boy were I am wrong. They look like the same to me. In fact almost a perfect match. Please show the sources of your rebuttal and please no blank statements. after all you are such a smart guy. Well are you?

Mineral Composition of Clay:
http://www.voronoi.com/wiki/images/c...n_mixtures.pdf

You must compare the actual mediums, the human body and simple clay.