spendius
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Oct, 2013 03:13 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
There was plenty said there, Spendius. I think you know that...and it has upset you.

Stop digging.


Same old shite. You told somebody else yesterday to stop digging.

Explain what you think you said as a response to the post it pretended to be a response to? That's a question. Answer it. The real feminists know what to think of your ideas of feminism. A dirty trick is what.

And as for upsetting me--that's just another of your kites.

What happened to the hysterical effusions of gratitude for providing you with a good laugh?
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Oct, 2013 03:16 pm
plop
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Oct, 2013 03:19 pm
@spendius,
spendius wrote:

Quote:
There was plenty said there, Spendius. I think you know that...and it has upset you.

Stop digging.


Same old shite. You told somebody else yesterday to stop digging.


And today I told you to stop digging.

But I see you can't.

Quote:
Explain what you think you said as a response to the post it pretended to be a response to?


Hummm...English words. I wish it made sense. Try again...and I will respond.

Quote:
That's a question. Answer it. The real feminists know what to think of your ideas of feminism. A dirty trick is what.


Please read my earlier response.

Quote:
And as for upsetting me--that's just another of your kites.


Really. You certainly sound upset to me.

Quote:
What happened to the hysterical effusions of gratitude for providing you with a good laugh?


I still appreciate you making my life a delight. Sometimes I do it with words. Sometimes I do it by replying to your humor quickly.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Oct, 2013 03:22 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
plop


Aah Aah!! So you bumped the page eagerly seeking to see my post? You'll not catch me bumping your posts. I don't give a **** if I never see another one.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Oct, 2013 03:29 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
Hummm...English words. I wish it made sense. Try again...and I will respond.


Bollocks! What I said was as clear as a dinner gong being whacked hard.

Quote:
You certainly sound upset to me.


That's your affair. I can see how handy it is for you though. It makes sense for you to think that.

mesquite
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Oct, 2013 03:29 pm
@neologist,
neologist wrote:

I find it interesting that this one would divert to a discussion of the eye, a true sore spot for the evolutionist unable to explain the evolutionary advantage of partial eye development.

Sore spot? You really should not pay so much attention to the malarkey from creationist websites.

There is no such sore spot.
Quote:
Biologists use the range of less complex light sensitive structures that exist in living species today to hypothesize the various evolutionary stages eyes may have gone through.

Here's how some scientists think some eyes may have evolved: The simple light-sensitive spot on the skin of some ancestral creature gave it some tiny survival advantage, perhaps allowing it to evade a predator. Random changes then created a depression in the light-sensitive patch, a deepening pit that made "vision" a little sharper. At the same time, the pit's opening gradually narrowed, so light entered through a small aperture, like a pinhole camera.

Every change had to confer a survival advantage, no matter how slight. Eventually, the light-sensitive spot evolved into a retina, the layer of cells and pigment at the back of the human eye. Over time a lens formed at the front of the eye. It could have arisen as a double-layered transparent tissue containing increasing amounts of liquid that gave it the convex curvature of the human eye.

In fact, eyes corresponding to every stage in this sequence have been found in existing living species. The existence of this range of less complex light-sensitive structures supports scientists' hypotheses about how complex eyes like ours could evolve. The first animals with anything resembling an eye lived about 550 million years ago. And, according to one scientist's calculations, only 364,000 years would have been needed for a camera-like eye to evolve from a light-sensitive patch.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Oct, 2013 03:35 pm
@spendius,
spendius wrote:

Quote:
plop


Aah Aah!! So you bumped the page eagerly seeking to see my post? You'll not catch me bumping your posts. I don't give a **** if I never see another one.


But you are here to entertain me. I want to see your posts. I look forward to your posts. I miss your posts when you are too busy to enter them.

You entertain me.

And you seem even more to be bothered.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Oct, 2013 03:36 pm
@spendius,
spendius wrote:

Quote:
Hummm...English words. I wish it made sense. Try again...and I will respond.


Bollocks! What I said was as clear as a dinner gong being whacked hard.



Nope. Not anywhere near as clear. In fact, quite unclear.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Oct, 2013 05:01 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Do you mean you can't understand--

Quote:
Explain what you think you said as a response to the post it pretended to be a response to?
?

Really. Or is it that you can't answer the question and are claiming it is "unclear" in order to evade it? I can see your point.

After all, your posts betray slam dunk evidence that you never read a serious book in your life and that you attempting to discuss the theology of Genesis is as ridiculous as ros or cicerone attempting to discuss science.

It's almost as ridiculous as you claiming not to be a misogynist of the very nastiest type and a very serious danger to women.

I am glad you bumped that post of mine. It did my ego no end of good.

Don't forget that some of us have seen the photos in Lola's apartment in NYC.
Romeo Fabulini
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Oct, 2013 06:24 pm
After years of studying the natural sciences and collecting truckloads of assorted degrees and diplomas, here's Evolutionist Dr. Richard Dawkins' highly-detailed explanation for how birds evolved-
“My guess is that both bats and birds evolved flight by gliding downwards from the trees"- Climbing Mount Improbable, p 113/14

HAHAHA! he's a funny guy! He's saying animals used to jump out of trees and get splatted until one was somehow born with wings..Smile
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Oct, 2013 06:53 pm
@Romeo Fabulini,
Quote:
but when I hike the Grand Canyon at sunset I see the hand of God there also".


Anybody who imagines that god created the Grand Canyon isn't too smart. This planet is full of earthly movements including volcanoes and land shifts that's been ongoing for 4.5 billion years. It's called "natural" events of this planet.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Oct, 2013 07:22 pm
@spendius,
spendius wrote:

Do you mean you can't understand--

Quote:
Explain what you think you said as a response to the post it pretended to be a response to?
?

Really. Or is it that you can't answer the question and are claiming it is "unclear" in order to evade it? I can see your point.


I do not evade answering a question. I simply do not understand your question...if it is a question. Actually, I think it is an attempt at an indictment punctuated with a question mark.

Restate the question in context...so I understand what you are saying...or admit you don't really have a question.

Quote:


After all, your posts betray slam dunk evidence that you never read a serious book in your life and that you attempting to discuss the theology of Genesis is as ridiculous as ros or cicerone attempting to discuss science.


I have read many "serious books" in my life, Spendius. And my discussion attempts are of a reasonable order.

Quote:
It's almost as ridiculous as you claiming not to be a misogynist of the very nastiest type and a very serious danger to women.

I am glad you bumped that post of mine. It did my ego no end of good.

Don't forget that some of us have seen the photos in Lola's apartment in NYC.


I am not a misogynist in any way. Sorry you feel it necessary to make that accusation.

There is no photo of me in Lola's apartment that can be interpreted as showing me to be a misogynist.

You're still digging! Wink
0 Replies
 
Romeo Fabulini
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Oct, 2013 07:30 pm
Cicerone said:
Quote:
Anybody who imagines that god created the Grand Canyon isn't too smart. This planet is full of earthly movements including volcanoes and land shifts that's been ongoing for 4.5 billion years. It's called "natural" events of this planet

Yeah but McCain was probably talking about the animals down there.
Incidentally mate, you're a world traveller, so can you tell us how plants and animals first got onto small pacific islands thousands of miles from land?
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Oct, 2013 07:52 pm
@Romeo Fabulini,
All land mass used to be "ONE."

Here's a little blurb from Wiki that might be helpful in your education.

Quote:
Pangaea
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
For other uses, see Pangaea (disambiguation).
Pangaea, Pangæa, or Pangea (/pænˈdʒiːə/ pan-jee-ə;[1]) was a supercontinent that existed during the late Paleozoic and early Mesozoic eras, forming about 300 million years ago.[2] It began to break apart around 200 million years ago.[3] The single global ocean which surrounded Pangaea is accordingly named Panthalassa.


Migration was also the cause of plants and animals moving from one part to another - even to islands.

Read up on Charles Darwins Theory of Evolution.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Oct, 2013 08:09 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:
He's making a list,
Checking it twice;
Gonna find out who's naughty or nice.
God is merciful. So be glad its not Romeo making the list . . . Mr. Green
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Oct, 2013 08:26 pm
@mesquite,
neologist wrote:
I find it interesting that this one would divert to a discussion of the eye, a true sore spot for the evolutionist unable to explain the evolutionary advantage of partial eye development.
mesquite wrote:
Sore spot? You really should not pay so much attention to the malarkey from creationist websites.

There is no such sore spot.
Quote:
Biologists use the range of less complex light sensitive structures that exist in living species today to hypothesize the various evolutionary stages eyes may have gone through.

Here's how some scientists think some eyes may have evolved: The simple light-sensitive spot on the skin of some ancestral creature gave it some tiny survival advantage, perhaps allowing it to evade a predator. Random changes then created a depression in the light-sensitive patch, a deepening pit that made "vision" a little sharper. At the same time, the pit's opening gradually narrowed, so light entered through a small aperture, like a pinhole camera.

Every change had to confer a survival advantage, no matter how slight. Eventually, the light-sensitive spot evolved into a retina, the layer of cells and pigment at the back of the human eye. Over time a lens formed at the front of the eye. It could have arisen as a double-layered transparent tissue containing increasing amounts of liquid that gave it the convex curvature of the human eye.

In fact, eyes corresponding to every stage in this sequence have been found in existing living species. The existence of this range of less complex light-sensitive structures supports scientists' hypotheses about how complex eyes like ours could evolve. The first animals with anything resembling an eye lived about 550 million years ago. And, according to one scientist's calculations, only 364,000 years would have been needed for a camera-like eye to evolve from a light-sensitive patch.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html
And this is your example of certainty?
Read it again.
"some scientists"
"Every change had to confer"
"only 364,000 years . . ."
Hey, maybe it did happen. I'm no genius. And even though Romeo is always right, I wouldn't believe anything he said about it either.

The one thing lacking is replication. Evolutionists can dance around it all they want. They are not at fault for the lack of replication. They are at fault for the conclusions they make without it.
Romeo Fabulini
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Oct, 2013 09:00 pm
Cicerone said;
Quote:
All land mass used to be "ONE." ..Migration was also the cause of plants and animals moving from one part to another - even to islands

But if there was only one big land mass, why didn't the different kinds of animals spread all over it?
For example nowadays why are there polar bears only in the Arctic and nowhere else?
And why are kangaroos only in Australia and nowhere else?
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Oct, 2013 09:17 pm
@Romeo Fabulini,
Romeo Fabulini wrote:

Cicerone said;
Quote:
All land mass used to be "ONE." ..Migration was also the cause of plants and animals moving from one part to another - even to islands

But if there was only one big land mass, why didn't the different kinds of animals spread all over it?
For example nowadays why are there polar bears only in the Arctic and nowhere else?
And why are kangaroos only in Australia and nowhere else?



The land masses separated and then evolution resulted in different types of animals in the separated land masses.
Romeo Fabulini
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Oct, 2013 09:23 pm
@Foofie,
But the Hawaiian islands are only 3 million years old, they started off as lifeless volcanic heaps (below), and 3 million years is nowhere near long enough for all their plants, insects and animals to evolve, so maybe Noah's Ark dropped them off..Wink
http://imageshack.us/a/img198/6357/kxr2.jpg
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Oct, 2013 09:54 pm
@Romeo Fabulini,
If humans migrated there from the South Pacific, they also brought with them plants and other goodies. Man transported many things besides themselves when they started occupying different islands - even disease. Volcanic activity is usually a temporary extinguisher of life, and depends on a great deal on the availability of water. Hawaii is a good example.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

700 Inconsistencies in the Bible - Discussion by onevoice
Why do we deliberately fool ourselves? - Discussion by coincidence
Spirituality - Question by Miller
Oneness vs. Trinity - Discussion by Arella Mae
give you chills - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence for Evolution! - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence of God! - Discussion by Bartikus
One World Order?! - Discussion by Bartikus
God loves us all....!? - Discussion by Bartikus
The Preambles to Our States - Discussion by Charli
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Define God
  3. » Page 82
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 05/06/2024 at 12:29:35