Shoutbox

Refresh History
  • littlebit: Makes sense.
    July 16, 2017, 04:40:28 AM
  • Lepard LLC: Boards will stay open for a place people can find history information longer. I am not allowing anyone to sign up for now because of so many foreginers just wanting to promote their business..
    December 10, 2016, 05:10:27 AM
  • Lepard LLC: Not sure why didn't look, I may be shutting down these message boards..
    November 17, 2016, 12:42:43 AM
  • ~kathy~: rick why is the timestamp showing up a day in advance?
    September 13, 2016, 12:27:46 AM
  • Valor7: What I tried to say is that the actual money would not be there that quick. But a loan against that would work if they are willing to do that.
    August 08, 2016, 01:51:51 PM
  • Lepard LLC: Why so long before it comes online? 911 took out a loan or bond with the known guarantee payment and began building..
    August 08, 2016, 07:46:34 AM
  • Valor7: Actually no it is not, a dependable Revenue stream will not come on line until the 4th quarter of 2017 so 2018 budget will be up in the air, not quite sure what they will have. By 2019 budget all will be well.
    August 04, 2016, 09:27:17 PM
  • Valor7: You mean that tax that the Commissioners would not put on the ballot for so many years? Strange things happened when the citizens got a chance to vote on that issue.
    August 03, 2016, 06:43:06 PM
  • Lepard LLC: Back up is now available withe the new tax..
    August 03, 2016, 05:01:35 PM
  • Valor7: Thanks a lot Ladies!!
    July 29, 2016, 01:16:13 PM
  • littlebit: ((*(*&
    July 27, 2016, 03:47:52 PM
  • ~kathy~: lol
    July 15, 2016, 09:34:56 AM
  • Valor7: A guy could get killed around here while waiting for backup!
    July 13, 2016, 07:31:58 PM
  • Lepard LLC: You are not alone..
    July 13, 2016, 07:28:53 PM
  • Valor7: I just hate it when I talk to myself!!!!
    July 08, 2016, 12:54:09 PM
  • Valor7: I could have worded that better, we talked details, options, the pros and cons of each, in  order to arrive at the best ballot language to present to the voters. Hope that makes this clearer.
    April 15, 2016, 06:36:14 PM
  • Valor7: sorry about the typos still working with just one arm in action
    April 13, 2016, 01:10:42 PM
  • Valor7: Yes and no. We talked details and options until we were blue in the face but I never heardbring it over, it was always the time was not right for the issue to pass. Glad to see the time in now right and I for one shall vote yes on the ballot. I would urge all others to do the sameour county is busting at the seams crimewise and no matter how many bad guys we send off there always seems to someone to replace them. The Sheriff's Office needs the help.
    April 13, 2016, 01:08:35 PM
  • Lepard LLC: Is that true Valor? Did he ask you what you wanted?
    March 01, 2016, 04:55:37 AM
  • Lepard LLC: Gene Newkirk Rick I have waited for a Sheriff to bring it to me on what he wanted. I have pushed Mr long for a while to get it to me. He told me he was close to having or done. Now hopefully the people will get to decide on it. I spoke with Steve about this a few times.
    March 01, 2016, 04:54:54 AM
  • Kimberly: Wow- I have a new name..........
    February 23, 2016, 10:25:15 PM
  • Lepard LLC: Works on mine, improvements are being done here. I may kick back into her a lot and post but working on different technologies right now. Seeing how things interact.
    January 18, 2016, 09:01:20 AM
  • Valor7: Yes it is working. If you need a laugh the wife showed me how to correctly use the silly thing.
    January 04, 2016, 05:32:59 PM
  • Valor7: Think so, mine is trying to work but it is now user and password protected and I dont know mine
    December 17, 2015, 01:32:16 PM
  • "DJ": Is there still a working android app for the PCSD
    December 14, 2015, 08:14:53 PM

Author Topic: NOT ENOUGH MONKEYS  (Read 17731 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline What_The?

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 2787
  • Karma: +916590/-9868
    • View Profile
Re: NOT ENOUGH MONKEYS
« Reply #30 on: August 06, 2008, 09:55:35 PM »

Share/Bookmark

"There are plenty of good reasons for fighting, but no good reason ever to hate without reservation, to imagine that God almighty Himself hates with you, too. Where's evil? It's that large part of every man that wants to hate without limit, that wants to hate with God on its side." - Kurt Vonnegut

Offline fish

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 8885
  • Karma: +349278/-349867
    • View Profile
Re: NOT ENOUGH MONKEYS
« Reply #31 on: August 07, 2008, 02:02:16 AM »
I don't hate anyone, Mark is very entertaining and knowledgeable. It is also nice to see he isn't being watched, for now. I enjoy a lively debate with people passionate about their beliefs. It is also nice to see the desenters provide proofs of their beliefs, which still hasn't happened.

Offline mark

  • http://www.gayalpinesurvival.com/
  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 5138
  • Karma: +90/-81225007
  • Gender: Male
  • Proud Father
    • View Profile
Re: NOT ENOUGH MONKEYS
« Reply #32 on: August 07, 2008, 11:23:55 AM »
Evolution Test:  Click on link below.  (P.S. I'll pay one U.S. dollar to anyone who can copy and paste this page for me.)  And Fish you can say it. Say I love you Mark.

[attachment deleted by admin]
We are not human beings having a spiritual experience.
We are spiritual beings having a human experience.
~Teilhard de Chardin

Offline julymorning

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 7740
  • Karma: +2431300/-2500
  • Gender: Female
    • View Profile
Re: NOT ENOUGH MONKEYS
« Reply #33 on: August 07, 2008, 05:03:03 PM »
"Do You Believe that Evolution is True?If so, then provide an answer to the following questions. "Evolution" in this context is the idea that natural, undirected processes are sufficient to account for the existence of all natural things.   
  • Something from nothing?
    The "Big Bang", the most widely accepted theory of the beginning of the universe, states that everything developed from a small dense cloud of subatomic particles and radiation which exploded, forming hydrogen (and some helium) gas. Where did this energy/matter come from? How reasonable is it to assume it came into being from nothing? And even if it did come into being, what would cause it to explode?  We know from common experience that explosions are destructive and lead to disorder. How reasonable is it to assume that a "big bang" explosion produced the opposite effect - increasing "information", order and the formation of useful structures, such as stars and planets, and eventually people?  Physical laws an accident?
    We know the universe is governed by several fundamental physical laws, such as electromagnetic forces, gravity, conservation of mass and energy, etc. The activities of our universe depend upon these principles like a computer program depends upon the existence of computer hardware with an instruction set. How reasonable is it to say that these great controlling principles developed by accident?  Order from disorder?
    The Second Law of Thermodynamics may be the most verified law of science. It states that systems become more disordered over time, unless energy is supplied and directed to create order. Evolutionists says that the opposite has taken place - that order increased over time, without any directed energy. How can this be?  ASIDE: Evolutionists commonly object that the Second Law applies to closed, or isolated systems, and that the Earth is certainly not a closed system (it gets lots of raw energy from the Sun, for example). However, all systems, whether open or closed, tend to deteriorate. For example, living organisms are open systems but they all decay and die. Also, the universe in total is a closed system. To say that the chaos of the big bang has transformed itself into the human brain with its 120 trillion connections is a clear violation of the Second Law.
    We should also point out that the availability of raw energy to a system is a necessary but far from sufficient condition for a local decrease in entropy to occur. Certainly the application of a blow torch to bicycle parts will not result in a bicycle being assembled - only the careful application of directed energy will, such as from the hands of a person following a plan. The presence of energy from the Sun does NOT solve the evolutionist's problem of how increasing order could occur on the Earth, contrary to the Second Law.  Information from Randomness?
    Information theory states that "information" never arises out of randomness or chance events. Our human experience verifies this every day. How can the origin of the tremendous increase in information from simple organisms up to man be accounted for? Information is always introduced from the outside. It is impossible for natural processes to produce their own actual information, or meaning, which is what evolutionists claim has happened. Random typing might produce the string "dog", but it only means something to an intelligent observer who has applied a definition to this sequence of letters. The generation of information always requires intelligence, yet evolution claims that no intelligence was involved in the ultimate formation of a human being whose many systems contain vast amounts of information.  Life from dead chemicals?
    Evolutionists claim that life formed from non-life (dead chemicals), so-called "abiogenesis", even though it is a biological law ("biogenesis") that life only comes from life. The probability of the simplest imaginable replicating system forming by itself from non-living chemicals has been calculated to be so very small as to be essentially zero - much less than one chance in the number of electron-sized particles that could fit in the entire visible universe! Given these odds, is it reasonable to believe that life formed itself?  Complex DNA and RNA by chance?
    The continued existence (the reproduction) of a cell requires both DNA (the "plan") and RNA (the "copy mechanism"), both of which are tremendously complex. How reasonable is it to believe that these two co-dependent necessities came into existence by chance at exactly the same time?  Life is complex.
    We know and appreciate the tremendous amount of intelligent design and planning that went into landing a man on the moon. Yet the complexity of this task pales in comparison to the complexity of even the simplest life form. How reasonable is it to believe that purely natural processes, with no designer, no intelligence, and no plan, produced a human being.  Where are the transitional fossils?
    If evolution has taken place our museums should be overflowing with the skeletons of countless transitional forms. Yet after over one hundred years of intense searching only a small number of transitional candidates are touted as proof of evolution. If evolution has really taken place, where are the transitional forms? And why does the fossil record actually show all species first appearing fully formed, with most nearly identical to current instances of the species?  ASIDE: Most of the examples touted by evolutionists concentrate on just one feature of the anatomy, like a particular bone or the skull. A true transitional fossil should be intermediate in many if not all aspects. The next time someone shows you how this bone changed over time, ask them about the rest of the creature too!
    Many evolutionists still like to believe in the "scarcity" of the fossil record. Yet simple statistics will show that given you have found a number of fossil instances of a creature, the chances that you have missed every one of its imagined predecessors is very small. Consider the trilobites for example. These fossils are so common you can buy one for under $20, yet no fossils of a predecessor have been found!Could an intermediate even survive?
    Evolution requires the transition from one kind to another to be gradual. And don't forget that "natural selection" is supposed to retain those individuals which have developed an advantage of some sort. How could an animal intermediate between one kind and another even survive (and why would it ever be selected for), when it would not be well-suited to either its old environment or its new environment? Can you even imagine a possible sequence of small changes which takes a creature from one kind to another, all the while keeping it not only alive, but improved?  ASIDE: Certainly a "light-sensitive spot" is better than no vision at all. But why would such a spot even develop? (evolutionists like to take this for granted). And even if it did develop, to believe that mutations of such a spot eventually brought about the tremendous complexities of the human eye strains all common sense and experience.  Reproduction without reproduction?
    A main tenet of evolution is the idea that things develop by an (unguided) series of small changes, caused by mutations, which are "selected" for, keeping the "better" changes" over a very long period of time. How could the ability to reproduce evolve, without the ability to reproduce? Can you even imagine a theoretical scenario which would allow this to happen? And why would evolution produce two sexes, many times over? Asexual reproduction would seem to be more likely and efficient!  ASIDE: To relegate the question of reproduction to "abiogenesis" does NOT address the problem. To assume existing, reproducing life for the principles of evolution to work on is a HUGE assumption which is seldom focused on in popular discussions.  Plants without photosynthesis?
    The process of photosynthesis in plants is very complex. How could the first plant survive unless it already possessed this remarkable capability?  How do you explain symbiotic relationships?
    There are many examples of plants and animals which have a "symbiotic" relationship (they need each other to survive). How can evolution explain this?  It's no good unless it's complete.
    We know from everyday experience that an item is not generally useful until it is complete, whether it be a car, a cake, or a computer program. Why would natural selection start to make an eye, or an ear, or a wing (or anything else) when this item would not benefit the animal until it was completed?  ASIDE: Note that even a "light-sensitive spot" or the simplest version of any feature is far from a "one-jump" change that is trivial to produce.  Explain metamorphosis!
    How can evolution explain the metamorphosis of the butterfly? Once the caterpillar evolves into the "mass of jelly" (out of which the butterfly comes), wouldn't it appear to be "stuck"?  It should be easy to show evolution.
    If evolution is the grand mechanism that has produced all natural things from a simple gas, surely this mechanism must be easily seen. It should be possible to prove its existence in a matter of weeks or days, if not hours. Yet scientists have been bombarding countless generations of fruit flies with radiation for several decades in order to show evolution in action and still have only produced ... more (deformed) fruit flies. How reasonable is it to believe that evolution is a fact when even the simplest of experiments has not been able to document it?  ASIDE: The artificial creation of a new species is far too small of a change to prove that true "macro-evolution" is possible. A higher-order change, where the information content of the organism has been increased should be showable and is not. Developing a new species changes the existing information, but does not add new information, such as would be needed for a new organ, for example.  Complex things require intelligent design folks!
    People are intelligent. If a team of engineers were to one day design a robot which could cross all types of terrain, could dig large holes, could carry several times its weight, found its own energy sources, could make more robots like itself, and was only 1/8 of an inch tall, we would marvel at this achievement. All of our life's experiences lead us to know that such a robot could never come about by accident, or assemble itself by chance, even if all of the parts were available laying next to each other. And we are certain beyond doubt that a canister of hydrogen gas, no matter how long we left it there or what type of raw energy we might apply to it, would never result in such a robot being produced. But we already have such a "robot" - it is called an "ant", and we squash them because they are "nothing" compared to people. And God made them, and he made us. Can there be any other explanation? "
Go to Creation Science home page (source of quote)
Hey, it's just me, Suzi


Offline julymorning

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 7740
  • Karma: +2431300/-2500
  • Gender: Female
    • View Profile
Re: NOT ENOUGH MONKEYS
« Reply #34 on: August 07, 2008, 05:04:48 PM »
Is that what you wanted, Mark?
Hey, it's just me, Suzi


Offline What_The?

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 2787
  • Karma: +916590/-9868
    • View Profile
Re: NOT ENOUGH MONKEYS
« Reply #35 on: August 07, 2008, 05:10:24 PM »
Biblical theory:  If it is printed in the Bible, it is 100% true.
 
Biblical theory:  If it is a modern scientific theory that disproves anything in the Bible, it is 100% wrong.
 
 
"There are plenty of good reasons for fighting, but no good reason ever to hate without reservation, to imagine that God almighty Himself hates with you, too. Where's evil? It's that large part of every man that wants to hate without limit, that wants to hate with God on its side." - Kurt Vonnegut

Offline mark

  • http://www.gayalpinesurvival.com/
  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 5138
  • Karma: +90/-81225007
  • Gender: Male
  • Proud Father
    • View Profile
Re: NOT ENOUGH MONKEYS
« Reply #36 on: August 07, 2008, 08:24:23 PM »
Is that what you wanted, Mark?
Yes, thank you, I owe you a dollar.
We are not human beings having a spiritual experience.
We are spiritual beings having a human experience.
~Teilhard de Chardin

Offline mark

  • http://www.gayalpinesurvival.com/
  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 5138
  • Karma: +90/-81225007
  • Gender: Male
  • Proud Father
    • View Profile
Re: NOT ENOUGH MONKEYS
« Reply #37 on: August 07, 2008, 08:25:52 PM »
Biblical theory:  If it is printed in the Bible, it is 100% true.
 
Biblical theory:  If it is a modern scientific theory that disproves anything in the Bible, it is 100% wrong.
 
 
I'm so glad you finally figured it out "What The".
We are not human beings having a spiritual experience.
We are spiritual beings having a human experience.
~Teilhard de Chardin

Offline What_The?

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 2787
  • Karma: +916590/-9868
    • View Profile
Re: NOT ENOUGH MONKEYS
« Reply #38 on: August 07, 2008, 08:34:28 PM »
I'm so glad you finally figured it out "What The".

Figured out that you can't think for yourself?
 
I knew that ages ago.
"There are plenty of good reasons for fighting, but no good reason ever to hate without reservation, to imagine that God almighty Himself hates with you, too. Where's evil? It's that large part of every man that wants to hate without limit, that wants to hate with God on its side." - Kurt Vonnegut

Offline Coyote

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 7335
  • Karma: +1304173/-9201
  • Gender: Female
    • View Profile
Re: NOT ENOUGH MONKEYS
« Reply #39 on: August 07, 2008, 08:55:57 PM »
What did "modern scientific theory" disprove?
 
Biblical theory:  If it is printed in the Bible, it is 100% true.
 
Biblical theory:  If it is a modern scientific theory that disproves anything in the Bible, it is 100% wrong.
 
 
....and that night as the moon crossed the mountain, one more Coyote was heard...

Offline prE4chEr

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 2811
  • Karma: +257500/-11759
  • Gender: Male
  • Go to Heaven for the climate, Hell for the company
    • View Profile
Re: NOT ENOUGH MONKEYS
« Reply #40 on: August 08, 2008, 12:58:08 AM »
Mark (sorry Julymorning),
Basically your whole argument against evolution is that life is too complex to happen by chance. You think everything seems so perfect that it had to be created. With that same reasoning, one must question how God came about. Is God not more complex and perfect than the human brain? No matter what you believe, something came from nothing. The unlikeless of evolution isn't a sound argument for God. You are only pointing out how irrational it is to believe in a perfect all powerful infinitly existing being. That is far more unbelievable than evolution creating a butterfly. As for the life being created from inorganic materials, I have already gone over it another thread. Check there or google Miller's experiment. There has also recently been experiments where DNA was created from RNA. I can't remember where I read it. I think it might have been popular science sometime last year. Give me a little while to find it. I will google it, and then discuss it in the other thread as well.
 
Also, the human body is far from perfect. If it were perect, we wouldn't have organs we don't use. Google appendix.
(\__/)
(o.O )
(> < )  Look into my evil eye. Bunny needs brains.....BRAINS!!!


"All that we see or seem
Is but a dream within a dream" Edgar Allan Poe

Offline mark

  • http://www.gayalpinesurvival.com/
  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 5138
  • Karma: +90/-81225007
  • Gender: Male
  • Proud Father
    • View Profile
Re: NOT ENOUGH MONKEYS
« Reply #41 on: August 08, 2008, 01:17:45 AM »
God didn't "come about" He's always been.
We are not human beings having a spiritual experience.
We are spiritual beings having a human experience.
~Teilhard de Chardin

Offline julymorning

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 7740
  • Karma: +2431300/-2500
  • Gender: Female
    • View Profile
Re: NOT ENOUGH MONKEYS
« Reply #42 on: August 08, 2008, 01:42:30 AM »
Julymorning,
Basically your whole argument against evolution is that life is too complex to happen by chance. You think everything seems so perfect that it had to be created. With that same reasoning, one must question how God came about. Is God not more complex and perfect than the human brain? No matter what you believe, something came from nothing. The unlikeless of evolution isn't a sound argument for God. You are only pointing out how irrational it is to believe in a perfect all powerful infinitly existing being. That is far more unbelievable than evolution creating a butterfly. As for the life being created from inorganic materials, I have already gone over it another thread. Check there or google Miller's experiment. There has also recently been experiments where DNA was created from RNA. I can't remember where I read it. I think it might have been popular science sometime last year. Give me a little while to find it. I will google it, and then discuss it in the other thread as well.
 
Also, the human body is far from perfect. If it were perect, we wouldn't have organs we don't use. Google appendix.

Why are u directing this at me?  All I did was a favor for Mark and paste that article for him.
And I know very well the human body is not perfect and I know why. 
But that is mans' fault, not God's.  No more so than you can always blame the parent when the offspring go wrong.
 
 
Hey, it's just me, Suzi


Offline prE4chEr

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 2811
  • Karma: +257500/-11759
  • Gender: Male
  • Go to Heaven for the climate, Hell for the company
    • View Profile
Re: NOT ENOUGH MONKEYS
« Reply #43 on: August 08, 2008, 01:43:43 AM »
If you take the bible literally, then there must a beginning to God. Revelations 1:8 says the God is the alpha and the omega, the beginning and the end. So God himself recognizes a beginning. You should heed his word. I wouldn't want to be the guy calling God a liar.
(\__/)
(o.O )
(> < )  Look into my evil eye. Bunny needs brains.....BRAINS!!!


"All that we see or seem
Is but a dream within a dream" Edgar Allan Poe

Offline prE4chEr

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 2811
  • Karma: +257500/-11759
  • Gender: Male
  • Go to Heaven for the climate, Hell for the company
    • View Profile
Re: NOT ENOUGH MONKEYS
« Reply #44 on: August 08, 2008, 01:46:12 AM »
Sorry Julymorning for directing it to you. I overlooked the part that said you pasted it for him. I will try to stay more focused in the future. Again, I am sorry. >>>>>
(\__/)
(o.O )
(> < )  Look into my evil eye. Bunny needs brains.....BRAINS!!!


"All that we see or seem
Is but a dream within a dream" Edgar Allan Poe

Offline julymorning

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 7740
  • Karma: +2431300/-2500
  • Gender: Female
    • View Profile
Re: NOT ENOUGH MONKEYS
« Reply #45 on: August 08, 2008, 01:51:07 AM »
If you take the bible literally, then there must a beginning to God. Revelations 1:8 says the God is the alpha and the omega, the beginning and the end. So God himself recognizes a beginning. You should heed his word. I wouldn't want to be the guy calling God a liar.

"The title "the Alpha and the Omega" carries the same thought as "the first and the last" and "the beginnning and the end" when these terms are used with reference to Jehovah God.  Before him there was no Almightly God, and there will be none after him.   He will bring to a successful conclusion the issue over Godship, forever vindicated as the one and only Almighty God. (Compare Isa 44:6)" Insight on the Scriptures, Vol. 1 pg. 80,80.
Hey, it's just me, Suzi


Offline fish

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 8885
  • Karma: +349278/-349867
    • View Profile
Re: NOT ENOUGH MONKEYS
« Reply #46 on: August 08, 2008, 01:53:02 AM »
the alpha and the omega means God has always been and always will be. the first is just that, no one before first. the last is just that,not an ending but the last. there is nothing after last.

Offline julymorning

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 7740
  • Karma: +2431300/-2500
  • Gender: Female
    • View Profile
Re: NOT ENOUGH MONKEYS
« Reply #47 on: August 08, 2008, 02:14:35 AM »
Sorry Julymorning for directing it to you. I overlooked the part that said you pasted it for him. I will try to stay more focused in the future. Again, I am sorry. >>>>>

Forgiven, lol.
 
I saw nothing wrong with the article, however, it was very lengthy, with many points covering alot of territory.
It is almost impossible to do much more than exchange babble on both sides of the discussion if too many subjects  are covered in a non-systematic fashion.
I do not try to descredit science.  Or scientists' attempts to dissect life.
To me, that's not the real issue.
Hey, it's just me, Suzi


Offline Digital Narcosis

  • Global Moderator
  • **************
  • Posts: 2513
  • Karma: +2261252/-8
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: NOT ENOUGH MONKEYS
« Reply #48 on: August 12, 2008, 09:38:09 AM »
"When the hurt turns to hate."

Offline prE4chEr

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 2811
  • Karma: +257500/-11759
  • Gender: Male
  • Go to Heaven for the climate, Hell for the company
    • View Profile
Re: NOT ENOUGH MONKEYS
« Reply #49 on: August 12, 2008, 11:11:56 AM »
I harbor no animosity towards anyone on this thread. I might bear contempt for some of the extremely vague rebuttals, but in no way have I allowed that to affect my high opinions of everyone on this thread. Ok. I might be exaggerating that last part, but I honestly have no ill will towards anyone on here.
(\__/)
(o.O )
(> < )  Look into my evil eye. Bunny needs brains.....BRAINS!!!


"All that we see or seem
Is but a dream within a dream" Edgar Allan Poe

Offline mark

  • http://www.gayalpinesurvival.com/
  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 5138
  • Karma: +90/-81225007
  • Gender: Male
  • Proud Father
    • View Profile
Re: NOT ENOUGH MONKEYS
« Reply #50 on: August 17, 2008, 01:34:44 PM »
What if we could see the signature of a creator imbedded upon His creation? For years, the debate has raged; is there a God? How can we be sure? Christians are often confronted with the challenge of proving the existence of God. And yet He can be seen throughout the marvels of His creation. Romans 1:20 tells us that "the invisible things of him (God) from the creation of the world are clearly seen...by the things that are made." So can we really see an invisible God simply by looking around us?  The cuttlefish is a cephalopod which operates with such sophisticated technology that scientists today are struggling to understand just how this creature came to be. This creature is a perfect example of God's magnificent design, demonstrating stealth tactics, among other features, which include not only changing colors, but also texture, to blend in perfectly with its surroundings. If it is perched atop a barnacle-covered rock, it can conform to mirror the rock as well as the barnacles. But God's amazing creation goes further. The cuttlefish can perform this feat in a split second, and never even look at itself to examine its disguise. He does it by instinct. God is showing forth his glory through his creation. We understand that complexity demands an intelligent designer. The amazing thing is that this Designer has told us in his word to examine His creation in order to "see" Him. And when we take a look, even at a humble sea creature such as the cuttlefish, we are amazed at the complexity and genius of His creation. In fact, when we look at something as amazing as the cuttlefish, in a way, we see God. And the last part of Romans 1:20 tells us that when we look at His creation and see Him, we are "without excuse" for not beliveing in a Creator.  Open your eyes!
We are not human beings having a spiritual experience.
We are spiritual beings having a human experience.
~Teilhard de Chardin

Offline prE4chEr

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 2811
  • Karma: +257500/-11759
  • Gender: Male
  • Go to Heaven for the climate, Hell for the company
    • View Profile
Re: NOT ENOUGH MONKEYS
« Reply #51 on: August 17, 2008, 04:06:07 PM »
 &&&&^%   Oh cuttlefish, how you elude me!!!   :anger:   Pun most definitly intended.
(\__/)
(o.O )
(> < )  Look into my evil eye. Bunny needs brains.....BRAINS!!!


"All that we see or seem
Is but a dream within a dream" Edgar Allan Poe

Offline mark

  • http://www.gayalpinesurvival.com/
  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 5138
  • Karma: +90/-81225007
  • Gender: Male
  • Proud Father
    • View Profile
Re: NOT ENOUGH MONKEYS
« Reply #52 on: August 17, 2008, 05:04:50 PM »
Do you think "Instinct" (which is in every animal) can be explained by evolution?
We are not human beings having a spiritual experience.
We are spiritual beings having a human experience.
~Teilhard de Chardin

Offline okie the thread killer

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 4857
  • Karma: +2619917/-766
    • View Profile
Re: NOT ENOUGH MONKEYS
« Reply #53 on: August 17, 2008, 06:06:11 PM »
But don't you think that instinct evolves with need? Human instincts vary greatly from animal instincts. And wild animal instincts vary from pet animals.
I have it on good authority that the Hokey-Pokey really IS what it's all about.

Offline okie the thread killer

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 4857
  • Karma: +2619917/-766
    • View Profile
Re: NOT ENOUGH MONKEYS
« Reply #54 on: August 17, 2008, 06:26:36 PM »
BTW Mark, I am not necessarily just an evolutionist. Just think it more than likely that God caused evolution to happen, just as he created free will. I believe that everything evolves.
I have it on good authority that the Hokey-Pokey really IS what it's all about.

Offline mark

  • http://www.gayalpinesurvival.com/
  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 5138
  • Karma: +90/-81225007
  • Gender: Male
  • Proud Father
    • View Profile
Re: NOT ENOUGH MONKEYS
« Reply #55 on: August 17, 2008, 08:03:31 PM »
Instinct is a God given inherent trait in all animals and people that cannot be explained by evolution.
We are not human beings having a spiritual experience.
We are spiritual beings having a human experience.
~Teilhard de Chardin

Offline okie the thread killer

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 4857
  • Karma: +2619917/-766
    • View Profile
Re: NOT ENOUGH MONKEYS
« Reply #56 on: August 17, 2008, 08:10:44 PM »
I just feel that all things adapt to their environment, and that is a form of evolution. No disrespect to your beliefs, jmo
I have it on good authority that the Hokey-Pokey really IS what it's all about.

Offline mark

  • http://www.gayalpinesurvival.com/
  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 5138
  • Karma: +90/-81225007
  • Gender: Male
  • Proud Father
    • View Profile
Re: NOT ENOUGH MONKEYS
« Reply #57 on: August 17, 2008, 08:24:01 PM »
They adapt and speiciate no one disputes that, but they do not change from one type of animal to another. The wolf has changed into many types of dogs, no one disputes this. But they are still dogs and it can be argued they are not better are stronger. I think a wolf can whip a poodle. God created many kinds of animals that can adapt rapidly to new environments. One type of animal cannot "evolve" into another type. No matter how much time you hide behind to make it sound feasable.
We are not human beings having a spiritual experience.
We are spiritual beings having a human experience.
~Teilhard de Chardin

Offline ♥♣ ~Maynard~♣♥

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 10503
  • Karma: +3034109/-159781
  • Gender: Male
  • GOING GREEN: Save a tree,eat a beaver.
    • View Profile
Re: NOT ENOUGH MONKEYS
« Reply #58 on: August 17, 2008, 08:24:18 PM »
I just feel that all things adapt to their environment, and that is a form of evolution. No disrespect to your beliefs, jmo
Thats called adaptation not evolution.
Like when the shortstop adjust to a left handed batter ( terms you will understand  ((*(*& LOL)
Remember I'm a nudist so when you respond to one of my post yor talking to a naked man  :)


For entertainment purposes only. Any resemblance to real persons living or dead is purely coincidental.

Offline okie the thread killer

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 4857
  • Karma: +2619917/-766
    • View Profile
Re: NOT ENOUGH MONKEYS
« Reply #59 on: August 17, 2008, 08:26:56 PM »
Yeah, well to be honest, my team didn't "evolve" very well today. Maybe I didn't have enough time to hide behind, lol
I have it on good authority that the Hokey-Pokey really IS what it's all about.