Print

[LuigiBro]

LuigiBro

Re: Humans, where did we come from?

There was angels (Not like shiny people with wings) that were on earth, and also mated with people on the earth -> Produced giants or people that are bigger. Meaning, they also reproduced with others outside the family.

If you don't mind me asking, where did that come from?

"May the innovation be with you."

www.guffa.smf4free.com

[MG-Zero]

MG-Zero

Re: Humans, where did we come from?

There was angels (Not like shiny people with wings) that were on earth, and also mated with people on the earth -> Produced giants or people that are bigger. Meaning, they also reproduced with others outside the family.

If you don't mind me asking, where did that come from?

I second that statement O_o

i love big weenies and i cannot lie

[Ben]

Ben

Re: Humans, where did we come from?

God created Adam and Eva, they reproduced and we existed <.< simple as that,

It's not just that simple though.  Just think about it for a second: 2 people have 2 kids.  A boy and a girl...they can't do much about mating as the kids will be retarded.

I'm not saying that the Adam and Eve story isn't true...it just couldn't be that simple.

I'd love for you to explain how a) you've managed to contradict the bible and therefore really destroyed your own argument and b) 2 people only have 2 kids without contraception. It's !@#$% impossible :\.

Want a place to upload your sprites and games for FREE? Look no further than GameDevotion

[FISSURE]

FISSURE

Re: Humans, where did we come from?

Boys and Girls before you go to bed I have a fairytale to tell.

1 day there was a Big Bang created from nothing and viola everything we know was created then!
and thats the end of the fairytale Boys and girls sleep well and keep dreaming.

I also have a fairy tale to tell.

One day a big man in the sky used his powers of miracles and created the world. Then he did a little dance and adam and eve popped up out of the ground like flowers. Then they all danced and ate the forbidden fruit and got kicked out of the garden of eden. The end.

What you call a fairy tale ain't a fairy tale mine is yours not.

No, mine is real, so it isn't a fairy tale.

[Halu]

Halu

Re: Humans, where did we come from?

lawl argument

IN BEFORE THE LOCK
And, I bleieve that God created us, the end.

.TakaM was here.

so my friend stole a giant bag of ketchup out of the ketchup pumping things and brought it to our table and we took it in the bathroom and i smashed it over the sink and kicked it around the bathroom and smeared it everywhere and we all took turns kicking the ketchup out of it and when we were done it looked like an african village was murdered in the bathroom

XFD.

• 

[redding]

redding

Re: Humans, where did we come from?

God created us, in his image.

Its no different from an evolutionists theory, only theres more evidence to back this view up. After all, and evolutionist can argue we came from apes, but go back to the very begining, before all this evolution started. What caused the Big Bang? Was it an accident? Again, that takes faith to believe it was an accident, just as it does to believe that someone caused the Big bang to happen, if the Big bang did.

But ultimatly, if you argue the Universe has always existed, then unless you too have always existed, you cannot argue that your theory of an eternal universe is fact, you must take a leap of faith to say that everything has always been there and will, because you werent there at the begining.


Although the faith is different from one who has a religion, its still the common leap of faith, as you are not 100% sure that your view is correct.


Being a Christian, and the fact that I konw Christ actually existed, and what was written about him in the collections of eye witness accounts, are true, and thus his identity is as he claimed, then I have 100% assurance in that leap of faith ive taken to trust him.

An evolutionists faith is ultimatly subjective, as there is no solid evidence of what happened at the begining in their view, and i reckon with in a couple of hundered years, the view will be discredited, just as every other major world view has been in earths history (egypt and their beliefs anyone? Romans and their pluralistic beliefs?)

[4Sword]

4Sword

Re: Humans, where did we come from?

How and why would the Big Bang be an accident?  It explains something that can be tested and observed today.  The Big Bang is not so much of an issue as is First Cause.

About the eternal universe, it takes less faith to say it is eternal than to believe is something that you cannot see, touch, smell, feel,  hear, or know.  People can make a greater claim that the universe is eternal in the sense that they have lived in it; they know that it has been there before them and will be there after them. 

There is no doubt that Jesus the person exists, but there is doubt to him being "Christ".  That is like having a friend named Bob who tells you that his friend Steve has magical powers and can fly and you believing that this Steve can actually do everything that Bob claimed.  It may or may not be true, but unless you can observe it, then you will never truly know.

The faiths you talked about were subject to things that would not happen today anyway; their ideas were weak and changed frequently and the Egyptians beliefs faded due to their weakening empire.  Comparing evolution to those beliefs is ridiculous though since it is not a religion.

[Vash]

Vash

Re: Humans, where did we come from?

God created us, in his image.

Its no different from an evolutionists theory, only theres more evidence to back this view up. After all, and evolutionist can argue we came from apes, but go back to the very begining, before all this evolution started. What caused the Big Bang? Was it an accident? Again, that takes faith to believe it was an accident, just as it does to believe that someone caused the Big bang to happen, if the Big bang did.

But ultimatly, if you argue the Universe has always existed, then unless you too have always existed, you cannot argue that your theory of an eternal universe is fact, you must take a leap of faith to say that everything has always been there and will, because you werent there at the begining.


Although the faith is different from one who has a religion, its still the common leap of faith, as you are not 100% sure that your view is correct.


Being a Christian, and the fact that I konw Christ actually existed, and what was written about him in the collections of eye witness accounts, are true, and thus his identity is as he claimed, then I have 100% assurance in that leap of faith ive taken to trust him.

An evolutionists faith is ultimatly subjective, as there is no solid evidence of what happened at the begining in their view, and i reckon with in a couple of hundered years, the view will be discredited, just as every other major world view has been in earths history (egypt and their beliefs anyone? Romans and their pluralistic beliefs?)

I am not disagreeing with you, in terms of god and creation (not what I'm here to do whether i believe or not). You state that the big bang is a theory, what keeps you from assuming that christianty, too is just a theory. Not the concept of Jesus, or Alah, or other people written down in texts having to do with Christianity, or Islam, whos to say the concept itself is not just a theory? I respect your faith, you can do what you please, it is just that a faith, but do you ever wonder, what if its just a theory someone wrote up? A theory that Jesus felt was something he should follow? Realisticly, science could be followed just as easily.. I quite frankly don't understand the difference between calling science just a theory, when religion could easily be one as well.

~The Gaurdians of ZFGC~
Kirby, metallica48423, Max, Vash, walnut100

[2awesome4apossum]

2awesome4apossum

Re: Humans, where did we come from?

God created us, in his image.

So God would have looked like us?  And us like him?

Hmm... I thought you were pretty much against that idea.

EDIT: And Swiftu... besides that wiki article you gave me (which reads as follows, actually... I don't think you read the whole thing before trying to debunk me with it:)

The feathers of Archaeopteryx were highly asymmetrical, as in the wings and tail of modern birds. This implies that the wings and tail were used for lift generation, but it is unclear whether Archaeopteryx was simply a glider, or capable of flapping flight. The lack of a bony breastbone suggests that Archaeopteryx was not a very strong flier, but flight muscles might have attached to the thick, boomerang-shaped wishbone, the platelike coracoids, or perhaps to a cartilagenous sternum.

Archaeopteryx wings were relatively large, which would have resulted in a low stall speed and reduced turning radius. The short and rounded shape of the wings would have increased drag, but could also have improved Archaeopteryx' ability to fly through cluttered environments such as trees and brush (similar wing shapes are seen in birds which fly through trees and brush, such as crows and pheasants).

In 2004, scientists analyzing a detailed CT scan of Archaeopteryx's braincase, concluded that its brain was significantly larger than that of most dinosaurs, indicating that it possessed the brain size necessary for flying. The overall brain anatomy was reconstructed using the scan. The reconstruction showed that the regions associated with vision took up nearly one-third of the brain. Other well-developed areas involved hearing and muscle coordination (Winter, 2004). The skull scan also revealed the structure of the inner ear. The structure more closely resembles that of modern birds than the inner ear of reptiles. These characteristics taken together suggest that Archaeopteryx had the keen sense of hearing, balance, spatial perception and coordination needed to fly (Alnso et al., 2004).

Archaeopteryx continues to play an important part in scientific debates about the origin and evolution of birds. Some scientists see Archaeopteryx as climbing through the trees like a squirrel, following the idea that birds evolved from tree-dwelling gliders (the "trees down" hypothesis for the evolution of flight proposed by O.C. Marsh). Other scientists see Archaeopteryx as running quickly along the ground, supporting the idea that birds evolved flight by running (the "ground up" hypothesis proposed by Samuel Wendall Williston). Still others suggest that Archaeopteryx might have been at home both in the trees and on the ground, like modern crows. So far, Archaeopteryx has perhaps produced as many questions as answers, and the latest findings on this fossil are unlikely to provide the last word.

..you still have failed to address my points with "science".

You had quite humorous responses to my sarcastic comments though, that was fun ^_^

EDIT2: And one more thing about the wiki article.  I love how they say "assume it could fly, now it probably wasn't good at turning, probably very clunky, probably sucked at it... but it's brain shows evidence that it was able to use it's wings!"