For FFGFollower - Here's your chance!

I checked out your link. It was like a Creationist kindergarten. It reminded me of the ICR board where they wouldn't let evolutionists post. Looks like you have about 10 Creationists per evolutionist over there. Post the link on a few creto/evo debate boards, wait for a few more evos to show up, and then watch your world get turned upside down. (And don't forget that I told you so.)FK

'Now go look in the mirror. Do you realize that what you see is a trillion times more complex than the most powerful computer man has ever made? Yet evolution would have you believe it (you) were not designed or built by anyone, you just happened by random chance.'I agree, (this is from Ffg 's infamous topic) i agree ffg ,chaos there would certainly be if it were all random but what do you evolution believers think?

Arg, nothing upsets me more than this particular misstatement of evolutionary theory. (Don't you guys ever look up what evolution is before you try and argue against it?)Evolution doesn't say "everything is random". Far from it. All evolution says is that the modern diversity of life is the result of random mutation and natural selection. That's a far, far cry from "everything is random".It's like a casino. A casino has games of random chance, with no predictability whatsoever. Does that mean it's not ordered inside a casino? That it's a melee of chaos, with no rules? Of course not.Evolution is strict natural law applied to random mutation. Not just a free-for-all of random chance. To suggest that is an equivocation of the worst sort.

Mike, since you seem ready to excuse FFGFollower's rudeness, let me ask you - does this comment of his:

quote:

---

Use your brain, you obviously aren't if you believe in "Evolution"

---

represent acceptable and polite behavior to your religious tradition? Is this a comment you would consider "Christ-like"? If you don't think so, perhaps you might mention that. Perhaps FFGFollower needs to hear it from somebody who's opinion he won't immediately reject.

'Arg, nothing upsets me more than this particular misstatement of evolutionary theory. (Don't you guys ever look up what evolution is before you try and argue against it?)'sorry Crash i know your a die hard and strictly religious thinker when it comes to the toe,but i still think i was never an ape,-sorry a common ancestor i meant!

Actually, I oppose religious thinking in all it's forms. If there was a scientifically better alternative to evolution I would accept it instantly. But there's not, so the ToE is what we've got.There's nothing at all religious about my acceptance of the ToE, because I always grant that I could be wrong. Now, beliveing the fairy tales in a 2000-year-old book, that's religion. Do you believe the bible with the same tenativity that I believe in science? That is, do you admit the possibility your bible and your religion could be wrong?

'That is, do you admit the possibility your bible and your religion could be wrong? 'oof ,fairytale, here comes a big punch by apollo creed,i did not call evolution a fairytale why punch me that hard.lol.i admitt my interperetation of the bible could be wrong ,and i do not have a religion by the way , i am 'none of the above'(my topic).but then the bible is not a scientific theory.

Not quite what I asked. What I asked was, "could you admit the possibility that the bible might be wrong?"(Sorry about the uppercuts, but I'm just trying to sound you out about some stuff. Forgive me if you don't like the thrust of my argument. [This message has been edited by crashfrog, 06-17-2003]

'Not quite what I asked. What I asked was, "could you admit the possibility that the bible might be wrong?"'no , our interpretation,i am to fearful of the Creator to say his words are wrong.and i do not believe they are wrong.however i definately can say that my interpretations could definately be wrong.keep punching i am enjoying our philosophy rant.lol

Even your interpretation that the bible is the inerrant word of god? Could that interpretation be wrong?Also I was hoping you could tell FFGFollower and I whether or not you thought telling people they aren't using their brains is Christ-like. I can understand if you feel that humility demands that you not judge him, but I'd like to know. My own feeling, as I remember the lessons from my old church, is that rude comments are hardly Christ-like. Certainly I wouldn't consider them so. Would you? Glad to hear it. Me too.

Yeah.... We'll just pretend like you didn't say that.............

Tit for tat, my friend. If you can't take the heat, don't start fires.Did you have anything substantial to add, or are you just here to call names?

'Also I was hoping you could tell FFGFollower and I whether or not you thought telling people they aren't using their brains is Christ-like.'i do not agree with 'they're not using their brains' and i would not say that myself because were all in the same boat,i just from discussing topics on this sight have realised that evolutionists are extremely intelligent , and most scientific arguments i am useless at because of their intelligence.

o.k enough bum kissing Crash .lol
has the common ancestor been found?or is he just your hairy cousin?

What do you mean by a common ancestor?If you mean a species that was before the split of humans from apes (about 6 or 8 Myr BP) then it depends. There are examples from before the split and they would count but it would be more interesting to find one very close to the split. I don't think there is one "just" before the split.Do you mean a particular species or individual animal that is absolutely for sure the one that speciated into the two lines then no, and I don't think it ever will be.I presume you're focussing on humans lineages for some reason? There is a good chain connecting us back to earlier primates. The genetic information is very strong as well. Given all of that do we need a specific species as a "common ancestor"? If so, why?[This message has been edited by NosyNed, 06-17-2003]