Diodorus
Sex God
But do they have rides!?!?
The Original Gay Porn Community - Free Gay Movies and Photos, Gay Porn Site Reviews and Adult Gay Forums
-
Welcome To Just Us Boys - The World's Largest Gay Message Board Community
In order to comply with recent US Supreme Court rulings regarding adult content, we will be making changes in the future to require that you log into your account to view adult content on the site.
If you do not have an account, please register.
REGISTER HERE - 100% FREE / We Will Never Sell Your InfoTo register, turn off your VPN; you can re-enable the VPN after registration. You must maintain an active email address on your account: disposable email addresses cannot be used to register.
Noahs Ark housed Dinosaurs in KY Creation Museum
- Thread starter smelter
- Start date
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2005
- Posts
- 41,664
- Reaction score
- 9
- Points
- 0
- Location
- Home is where the heart is
- Website
- www.myspace.com
Oh, the lies they tell for their biblical truths.
Shameful, it truely is.
Shameful, it truely is.
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2005
- Posts
- 41,664
- Reaction score
- 9
- Points
- 0
- Location
- Home is where the heart is
- Website
- www.myspace.com
There's a whole genre in the entertainment business revolving around the mad scientist.
Ramindra
Love is in the air
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2004
- Posts
- 4,363
- Reaction score
- 4
- Points
- 0
And there I was watching all these crackpots on the telly saying that everything in the museum was based on the truth as stated in the bible. My thoughts were that I was gald that we were insulated in Australia from these cranks. The next thing I hear was that the whole idea of the "museum" was the brainchild of an Australian.
I think I might change my avatar!
I think I might change my avatar!
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2004
- Posts
- 18,135
- Reaction score
- 311
- Points
- 0
- Location
- Lexington
- Website
- hometown.aol.com
Singularity
The Fondling Observer
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2006
- Posts
- 2,027
- Reaction score
- 10
- Points
- 0
I guess this one is self-explanatory. =|
Singularity
The Fondling Observer
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2006
- Posts
- 2,027
- Reaction score
- 10
- Points
- 0
theFallenGod
P-Chan love
Jesus ... is it any wonder why I packed up and moved to a more progressive country....
The U.S. is filled with idiots who buy into this crap... read a book that promotes canniblism, vampirsm, slavery and prostitution, and yet feels homosexuality and science is the great evils of the world....
The U.S. is filled with idiots who buy into this crap... read a book that promotes canniblism, vampirsm, slavery and prostitution, and yet feels homosexuality and science is the great evils of the world....
jsd62
Porn Star
Oh no ya don't!!! You guys insisted on claiming the "Ohio" River for your own. That means you get everything south of it. We've got enough crackpots or our own.
O
OtterJoq
Guest
I just noticed ... congratulations on your 1,000th post. Just think, 5,000 more and you'll have 1 post for every year since the beginning of time!
:thewave::thewave:
LOL!
Now THAT'S funny!
Thanks, buddy.
OJ
SixPackInBoxers
Sex God
- Joined
- Nov 23, 2006
- Posts
- 874
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
Now a museum to reflect George W. Bush's enlightened beliefs! Ain't it grand having the leader of the most powerful nation on Earth believing in this fundamentalist gibberish? Little wonder his "higher Father" told him to invade to Iraq. Perhaps it was his "higher Father" that also told him not to plan for the aftermath and make sure to get bogged down there so he could not send more troops to slaughter by bringing "democracy" to Iran and North Korea.
R
RandomAccess
Guest
And the Sun & stars revolve around the Earth. Oh, yeah, and the Earth is flat.
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2006
- Posts
- 4,238
- Reaction score
- 30
- Points
- 0
If you don't want to the exhibit then don't go.... Simple as that my friend.
Not one person on this planet is making you pay a penny to support that place nor attend it.
If there are enough people that want to pay to see it then it will be successful, if not then it will fail. Either way, who cares?
You believe what you want. Those who believe differently can do what they want. Agreed?
smelter
grizzled
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2005
- Posts
- 4,805
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
I posted what I believe .... you posted what you believe.If you don't want to the exhibit then don't go.... Simple as that my friend.
Not one person on this planet is making you pay a penny to support that place nor attend it.
If there are enough people that want to pay to see it then it will be successful, if not then it will fail. Either way, who cares?
You believe what you want. Those who believe differently can do what they want. Agreed?
Thats what democracy is all about ....
Agreed.
White Eagle
JubberClubber
smelter
grizzled
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2005
- Posts
- 4,805
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
Aaaah yes, genetic inbreeding! ..... without it, where would the tribe of Phelps and the tribe of Pugs have come from .... although it could have happened by chance by cracky!That's the tribe the Phelps' came from.
radical matt
JUB Addict
Hm...how do I respond to this...? Hehe, it's rather difficult, actually... ^_^;
Okay, I should start by saying that I'm not quite sure about dinosaurs on the ark, but I did calculate the age of the earth at around 10,000 years as little as a couple years ago. I also debated (on the Creationist side) Creation versus Evolution with a friend of mine and on a few forums I used to frequent in the past (was actually quite a bit of fun, even if most of my points were grounded in reason and logic but lacking in factual support or utalizing half-truths that I had been taught as whole truth.)
Of course, I finally decided to start thinking about things and looking at more sides. Even then, I attempted to prove evolution to myself and failed, which for me was enough to oppose it at the time. More reciently I've taken up the search again (what with an interest in biology for the first time in my life.)
Honestly, my problem is finding good facts. Most of what I find is biased, toward one side or the other, and such bias permiates the conclusions they draw from all of their facts (this one pro-evolution side a friend gave me I almost like, except that the guy starts by saying that Christianity [in general, not specific] is the single most destructive event in the history of Humanity. That it is not an "event" aside, that statement itself reaks of bias, regardless of its factual truth or lack thereof.)
Of course, the biggest hurdle I've found is that if Evolution were true, I'd need to kill myself...(an yes, there's actually a very clear logic behind such a conclusion, albeit, not one people tend to view.) Well, that being one of the two options, the other is to live entirely in the moment for myself, disregarding all else and all others in the process. The odd thing is, these are things people are doing (suicide or lives emphesizing the moment and search for pleasure, regardless of who gets hurt.) I guess that indicates that my conscious logic is matched thrughout society, though to most on a subconscious level. I could share it, but I don't like to encourage such actions. ^_^
In any case, that shouldn't have any bearing on my search or conclusions. At the moment, I have an interesting conundrum in the fact that, while there is a virtual impossibility of life existing through randomness, most Biologists, who say themselves that it's virtually impossible for it to happen, believe it happened. For instance, the chance of getting the right protien out of randomly assorting a chain of ameno acids is...very small. 2 raised to the 1000th power, roughly. And yet, while saying this to point out the coomplexity of life, Biologists then say that it happened just like that. In an attempt to aleviate some of the impossibility, it is said that they developed slowly, over time, but there are some problems there too.
That said, Evolution has some things nicely wrapped up, mainly in the area of genetics. Though evolution does NOT require shared ancestry, genetic similarities (and dissimilarities), namely, what alleles code for what things, tend to lend to the idea that some life forms developed similar structures along both very similar (shared ancestry) and very different (seperate ancestry) paths based on WHERE the alleles are located on the genes (and on which DNA strands they are found.)
Of course, Natural Sellection is not evolution (and I've long had no problem with NS, it's okay in my book.) NS is simply different percentages in populations over time, no new genetic data, which is the definition of evolutionary changes.
...the PROBLEM comes with the origin of life and the origin of the universe. Evolution doesn't deal with what started life, only what seems to happen to life as it goes on. Add to that problems in explaining the origin of the universe...I haven't been able to talk to some of my profs about the Big Bang, but what I know of physics, and I just got a degree for it, mind you, says that it violates the laws that I hold to be true. Of course, it has been said that within a singularity, the laws governing what happens within is anyone's guess, and the laws of the universe proper may be suspended. However, we don't actually KNOW this is true, we just don't see it not being true (a bigger problem is that with the event horizon of a singularity, time has essentially stopped with respect to the greater universe, meaning nothing would ever change.)
...and coupled with a faith built from childhood (as well as the observed order of the universe), this really is enough to convince many people that A god exists, maybe not Yahweh of the Jews and Christians or Allah of the Muslims (though a rose of a different name...), but some form of consciousness and power, likely exists. Of course, there could be annother explanation, but at present, science hasn't been able to offer on.
...which is why I think peopl are beginning to be more comfortable with the idea that evolution and God may coexist. Evolution deals with the change in life forms, not in their creation. Generally speaking, "God" deals with the origin of life and the universe, and the domain of the spirit and soul, but in life and after death, not a long process of evolutionary changes. So I can see that people could see both of them being true.
As a kid, I was a staunch Creationist, which persisted through my teenage years. As a degreed scientist...I'm actually rather neutral on the issue. If God exists, then with the power such a being has, such feats are entirely possible, similar to how if we had the capabilities of the Next Generation starship Enterprise we could blow up moons or move people/things in the blink of an eye with transporters. Such thinking has led to the belief that "God" is a being or race of technologically advanced beings...but that still doesn't get us over the hurdle of the origin of the universe...or, for that matter, its inevitable end, whether by crunch or by energy death. And what I find interesting is, speaking with people that believe such things, they don't like it when I bring up the end of the universe. They believe the death is the end and there is nothing else, yet they are saddened by the thought of the universe ending, which their belief necessitates. I dunno, for some reason, that's somewhat confusing to me.
In any case, as a scientist, I'm still out on the whole thing. If God exists, and has the power ascribed to him/her/it, then doing miracles and such is a simple thing (though why only in the past...), and doesn't violate or confliect, at least directly, with evolution or an "old earth". Indeed, "God" is a fairly simplistic possible source for "punctuated equilibrium", a concept where, occasionally, evolution happens rappidly (such as a post-flood era.) I, personally, am still at present neutral and undecided on the issue, which, if nothing else, could be ascribed to an open mind.
Oh, and I will say that things taught in school are not always science. Many of my peers BELIEVE (note the word) evolution. They have been told all through school it was a reality. They were told they evoloved. However, when asked for the methods and processes of evolution, they are silent, saying they only know evolution is true because scientists and their teachers taught it to them and believed it and said it was true. Folks, that isn't science, that's faith. I was homeschooled, but even I'm skeptical of believing things because someone else told me they were true. I'm almost 25, not 5, I can be given data and make my own conclusions, and at the moment, the data I have on evolution aren't nearly so conclusive that I will take the word of someone else on its valitity. To do so would say that I should throw away this degree I've earned and join a seminary somewhere; at least they let you know up front that it's all on faith.
If you're going to believe, believe. If you're going to know, know. But don't condemn others for just what you're doing. (Gee, it's been a while since I debated Evolution...would be fun to again, except now I don't exactly believe in Creationism...oh bother...) And if you're going to be a scientist, be a scientist. Look at all the facts with a keen eye, and give facts to others, then let them make their own conclusions and make your own. In the end, that is what science and education are really about, showing, prooving, but not TELLING or BELIEVING. Too many people attemt to make religion out of science, and as a scientist, I find that rather insulting. If I want religion, I'll have it on the side, thank you very much. I don't like nuts in my bread or BBQ sauce in my salads, I'll have them seperate. If religion and science overlap, so be it, but one should never be used in place of the other, atheists beware.
Ya know, on second thought, I doubt I'd end up killing myself, even if life is pointless as a result. After all, there's always lusts and sins that are no longer lust and sins, and freedom to be selfish instead of selfless...though I still think that contradicts my nature too much, though what is nature if all we are is nurture? Just something that can be changed if one wishes. Still, t'would be an intresting thing that would considerably change my life I guess...or not, since at the moment I'm neutral either way. -shrug- Still, if there is no god, there is no sin, and if there is no spirit and afterlife, than there's absolutely no reason to help others and one should step on others whenever they're between the person and getting pleasure and happiness. But I suppose those are only (ONLY, but still very real) philisophical outpourings from there being no god. Hehe, but then I have to remember that non-physical existance is something that I do believe in through actual knowledge...hm...
Anyway, let them have their fun, don't be so defensive. The education in this nation is suffering because of the attitudes of this nation, not simply by people being religious. Geeze, some people with their closed minded preconceptions...
Okay, I should start by saying that I'm not quite sure about dinosaurs on the ark, but I did calculate the age of the earth at around 10,000 years as little as a couple years ago. I also debated (on the Creationist side) Creation versus Evolution with a friend of mine and on a few forums I used to frequent in the past (was actually quite a bit of fun, even if most of my points were grounded in reason and logic but lacking in factual support or utalizing half-truths that I had been taught as whole truth.)
Of course, I finally decided to start thinking about things and looking at more sides. Even then, I attempted to prove evolution to myself and failed, which for me was enough to oppose it at the time. More reciently I've taken up the search again (what with an interest in biology for the first time in my life.)
Honestly, my problem is finding good facts. Most of what I find is biased, toward one side or the other, and such bias permiates the conclusions they draw from all of their facts (this one pro-evolution side a friend gave me I almost like, except that the guy starts by saying that Christianity [in general, not specific] is the single most destructive event in the history of Humanity. That it is not an "event" aside, that statement itself reaks of bias, regardless of its factual truth or lack thereof.)
Of course, the biggest hurdle I've found is that if Evolution were true, I'd need to kill myself...(an yes, there's actually a very clear logic behind such a conclusion, albeit, not one people tend to view.) Well, that being one of the two options, the other is to live entirely in the moment for myself, disregarding all else and all others in the process. The odd thing is, these are things people are doing (suicide or lives emphesizing the moment and search for pleasure, regardless of who gets hurt.) I guess that indicates that my conscious logic is matched thrughout society, though to most on a subconscious level. I could share it, but I don't like to encourage such actions. ^_^
In any case, that shouldn't have any bearing on my search or conclusions. At the moment, I have an interesting conundrum in the fact that, while there is a virtual impossibility of life existing through randomness, most Biologists, who say themselves that it's virtually impossible for it to happen, believe it happened. For instance, the chance of getting the right protien out of randomly assorting a chain of ameno acids is...very small. 2 raised to the 1000th power, roughly. And yet, while saying this to point out the coomplexity of life, Biologists then say that it happened just like that. In an attempt to aleviate some of the impossibility, it is said that they developed slowly, over time, but there are some problems there too.
That said, Evolution has some things nicely wrapped up, mainly in the area of genetics. Though evolution does NOT require shared ancestry, genetic similarities (and dissimilarities), namely, what alleles code for what things, tend to lend to the idea that some life forms developed similar structures along both very similar (shared ancestry) and very different (seperate ancestry) paths based on WHERE the alleles are located on the genes (and on which DNA strands they are found.)
Of course, Natural Sellection is not evolution (and I've long had no problem with NS, it's okay in my book.) NS is simply different percentages in populations over time, no new genetic data, which is the definition of evolutionary changes.
...the PROBLEM comes with the origin of life and the origin of the universe. Evolution doesn't deal with what started life, only what seems to happen to life as it goes on. Add to that problems in explaining the origin of the universe...I haven't been able to talk to some of my profs about the Big Bang, but what I know of physics, and I just got a degree for it, mind you, says that it violates the laws that I hold to be true. Of course, it has been said that within a singularity, the laws governing what happens within is anyone's guess, and the laws of the universe proper may be suspended. However, we don't actually KNOW this is true, we just don't see it not being true (a bigger problem is that with the event horizon of a singularity, time has essentially stopped with respect to the greater universe, meaning nothing would ever change.)
...and coupled with a faith built from childhood (as well as the observed order of the universe), this really is enough to convince many people that A god exists, maybe not Yahweh of the Jews and Christians or Allah of the Muslims (though a rose of a different name...), but some form of consciousness and power, likely exists. Of course, there could be annother explanation, but at present, science hasn't been able to offer on.
...which is why I think peopl are beginning to be more comfortable with the idea that evolution and God may coexist. Evolution deals with the change in life forms, not in their creation. Generally speaking, "God" deals with the origin of life and the universe, and the domain of the spirit and soul, but in life and after death, not a long process of evolutionary changes. So I can see that people could see both of them being true.
As a kid, I was a staunch Creationist, which persisted through my teenage years. As a degreed scientist...I'm actually rather neutral on the issue. If God exists, then with the power such a being has, such feats are entirely possible, similar to how if we had the capabilities of the Next Generation starship Enterprise we could blow up moons or move people/things in the blink of an eye with transporters. Such thinking has led to the belief that "God" is a being or race of technologically advanced beings...but that still doesn't get us over the hurdle of the origin of the universe...or, for that matter, its inevitable end, whether by crunch or by energy death. And what I find interesting is, speaking with people that believe such things, they don't like it when I bring up the end of the universe. They believe the death is the end and there is nothing else, yet they are saddened by the thought of the universe ending, which their belief necessitates. I dunno, for some reason, that's somewhat confusing to me.
In any case, as a scientist, I'm still out on the whole thing. If God exists, and has the power ascribed to him/her/it, then doing miracles and such is a simple thing (though why only in the past...), and doesn't violate or confliect, at least directly, with evolution or an "old earth". Indeed, "God" is a fairly simplistic possible source for "punctuated equilibrium", a concept where, occasionally, evolution happens rappidly (such as a post-flood era.) I, personally, am still at present neutral and undecided on the issue, which, if nothing else, could be ascribed to an open mind.
Oh, and I will say that things taught in school are not always science. Many of my peers BELIEVE (note the word) evolution. They have been told all through school it was a reality. They were told they evoloved. However, when asked for the methods and processes of evolution, they are silent, saying they only know evolution is true because scientists and their teachers taught it to them and believed it and said it was true. Folks, that isn't science, that's faith. I was homeschooled, but even I'm skeptical of believing things because someone else told me they were true. I'm almost 25, not 5, I can be given data and make my own conclusions, and at the moment, the data I have on evolution aren't nearly so conclusive that I will take the word of someone else on its valitity. To do so would say that I should throw away this degree I've earned and join a seminary somewhere; at least they let you know up front that it's all on faith.
If you're going to believe, believe. If you're going to know, know. But don't condemn others for just what you're doing. (Gee, it's been a while since I debated Evolution...would be fun to again, except now I don't exactly believe in Creationism...oh bother...) And if you're going to be a scientist, be a scientist. Look at all the facts with a keen eye, and give facts to others, then let them make their own conclusions and make your own. In the end, that is what science and education are really about, showing, prooving, but not TELLING or BELIEVING. Too many people attemt to make religion out of science, and as a scientist, I find that rather insulting. If I want religion, I'll have it on the side, thank you very much. I don't like nuts in my bread or BBQ sauce in my salads, I'll have them seperate. If religion and science overlap, so be it, but one should never be used in place of the other, atheists beware.
Ya know, on second thought, I doubt I'd end up killing myself, even if life is pointless as a result. After all, there's always lusts and sins that are no longer lust and sins, and freedom to be selfish instead of selfless...though I still think that contradicts my nature too much, though what is nature if all we are is nurture? Just something that can be changed if one wishes. Still, t'would be an intresting thing that would considerably change my life I guess...or not, since at the moment I'm neutral either way. -shrug- Still, if there is no god, there is no sin, and if there is no spirit and afterlife, than there's absolutely no reason to help others and one should step on others whenever they're between the person and getting pleasure and happiness. But I suppose those are only (ONLY, but still very real) philisophical outpourings from there being no god. Hehe, but then I have to remember that non-physical existance is something that I do believe in through actual knowledge...hm...
Anyway, let them have their fun, don't be so defensive. The education in this nation is suffering because of the attitudes of this nation, not simply by people being religious. Geeze, some people with their closed minded preconceptions...
smelter
grizzled
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2005
- Posts
- 4,805
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
^I come to this discussion with an appalling lack of scientific credentials so know upfront I'm not prepared nor do I care to debate anyone. I have a layman's question for you:
You calculated the age of the earth to be 10,000 years. The KY museum says 6,000. Thats a difference of 4,000 years so we can write that off to a rounding error. The evolution scientists estimate earth to be 14 billion years old. I think you'd agree that the delta here is far too great to explain as a math error.
The 14 billion year crowd employ carbon dating techniques on rocks and fossils.
Question: What dating technique did you use and why do you think yours is more accurate?
You calculated the age of the earth to be 10,000 years. The KY museum says 6,000. Thats a difference of 4,000 years so we can write that off to a rounding error. The evolution scientists estimate earth to be 14 billion years old. I think you'd agree that the delta here is far too great to explain as a math error.
The 14 billion year crowd employ carbon dating techniques on rocks and fossils.
Question: What dating technique did you use and why do you think yours is more accurate?
