sex and rockclimbing?

[hawkeye69]

The genomic match between chimpanzees and man, for example, is somewhere north of 97%: genetically, we are very similar. So similar, in fact, that some believe we could produce hybrid offspring.

 

that explains why some climbers can hang on longer then me.......

[Seahawks]

The genomic match between chimpanzees and man, for example, is somewhere north of 97%: genetically, we are very similar. So similar, in fact, that some believe we could produce hybrid offspring.

 

 

Similarities — whether of DNA, anatomy, embryonic development, or anything else — are better explained in terms of creation by a common Designer than by evolutionary relationship. The great differences between organisms are of greater significance than the similarities, and evolutionism has no explanation for these if they all are assumed to have had the same ancestor. How could these great gaps between kinds ever arise at all, by any natural process?

[Dechristo]

it's easy to manipulate anything if you have great noodley appendages

[i_like_sun]

The genomic match between chimpanzees and man, for example, is somewhere north of 97%: genetically, we are very similar. So similar, in fact, that some believe we could produce hybrid offspring.

 

 

Similarities — whether of DNA, anatomy, embryonic development, or anything else — are better explained in terms of creation by a common Designer than by evolutionary relationship. The great differences between organisms are of greater significance than the similarities, and evolutionism has no explanation for these if they all are assumed to have had the same ancestor. How could these great gaps between kinds ever arise at all, by any natural process?

 

 

Yeah, a single creator made it all, all right. Gadda love the self induced frontal lobotomy.

[sk]

i was looking forward to this thred all day whilst i worked my little fingers to the bone at the office....and this is what i get??? where is the sex? the dirty talk? the porn and the rock talk?

 

*sigh*

 

p.s.any woman who has to ask why you would go climb isn't worth your time. NOTHING makes me feel more sexy and want to fuck more than climbing something awsome and having a great adventure. when i get home i want a shower, food and sex. not necessarily in that order.

[Billygoat]

That's funnny...i always want to watch a movie

[ken4ord]

i was looking forward to this thred all day whilst i worked my little fingers to the bone at the office....and this is what i get??? where is the sex? the dirty talk? the porn and the rock talk?

 

*sigh*

 

p.s.any woman who has to ask why you would go climb isn't worth your time. NOTHING makes me feel more sexy and want to fuck more than climbing something awsome and having a great adventure. when i get home i want a shower, food and sex. not necessarily in that order.

 

Alright Muffy, let's hear some.....

 

 

Well for myself, unlike Pink, my ex never posed the question 'leaving warm pussy for cold crack'. There was several times where we made use of the crotch zips in our gore-tex to get in a mid-climb romp in the snow. It was a very nice way of breaking up the pitches on the climbs.

[Seahawks]

The genomic match between chimpanzees and man, for example, is somewhere north of 97%: genetically, we are very similar. So similar, in fact, that some believe we could produce hybrid offspring.

 

 

Similarities — whether of DNA, anatomy, embryonic development, or anything else — are better explained in terms of creation by a common Designer than by evolutionary relationship. The great differences between organisms are of greater significance than the similarities, and evolutionism has no explanation for these if they all are assumed to have had the same ancestor. How could these great gaps between kinds ever arise at all, by any natural process?

 

 

Yeah, a single creator made it all, all right. Gadda love the self induced frontal lobotomy.

 

How does it feel?

[i_like_sun]

The genomic match between chimpanzees and man, for example, is somewhere north of 97%: genetically, we are very similar. So similar, in fact, that some believe we could produce hybrid offspring.

 

 

Similarities — whether of DNA, anatomy, embryonic development, or anything else — are better explained in terms of creation by a common Designer than by evolutionary relationship. The great differences between organisms are of greater significance than the similarities, and evolutionism has no explanation for these if they all are assumed to have had the same ancestor. How could these great gaps between kinds ever arise at all, by any natural process?

 

 

Yeah, a single creator made it all, all right. Gadda love the self induced frontal lobotomy.

 

How does it feel?

 

 

Hey you clueless twit. Fuck you.

 

So, you think you have it more figured out than the likes of Einstein and Steven Hawking? HUuummmm??? Dumbass.

[tvashtarkatena]

The great differences between organisms are of greater significance than the similarities, and morons who can't seem to bring themselves to crack a rudimentary text on the subject have no explanation for these if they all are assumed to have had the same ancestor. How could these great gaps between kinds ever arise at all, by any natural process?

[Seahawks]

The genomic match between chimpanzees and man, for example, is somewhere north of 97%: genetically, we are very similar. So similar, in fact, that some believe we could produce hybrid offspring.

 

 

Similarities — whether of DNA, anatomy, embryonic development, or anything else — are better explained in terms of creation by a common Designer than by evolutionary relationship. The great differences between organisms are of greater significance than the similarities, and evolutionism has no explanation for these if they all are assumed to have had the same ancestor. How could these great gaps between kinds ever arise at all, by any natural process?

 

 

Yeah, a single creator made it all, all right. Gadda love the self induced frontal lobotomy.

 

How does it feel?

 

 

Hey you clueless twit. Fuck you.

 

So, you think you have it more figured out than the likes of Einstein and Steven Hawking? HUuummmm??? Dumbass.

 

Even Einstein beleived in a way, dumbass. He was smart enough to know all this wasn't by chance.

 

So, the quick answer to the question is that Einstein did not believe in a personal God. It is however, interesting how he arrived at that conclusion. In developing the theory of relativity, Einstein realized that the equations led to the conclusion that the universe had a beginning. He didn't like the idea of a beginning, because he thought one would have to conclude that the universe was created by God. So, he added a cosmological constant to the equation to attempt to get rid of the beginning. He said this was one of the worst mistakes of his life. Of course, the results of Edwin Hubble confirmed that the universe was expanding and had a beginning at some point in the past. So, Einstein became a deist - a believer in an impersonal creator God:

 

"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings."

 

"But, on the other hand, every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe - a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble. In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is indeed quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive. [c. Dukas and Hoffman]"

 

Edited June 13, 2007 by Seahawks

[Dechristo]

"But, on the other hand, every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe - a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble. In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is indeed quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive. [c. Dukas and Hoffman]"

 

This reminds me of a persona that made their first appearance on cc.com during the Mt Hood spectacle in December... hmmmm...I wonder who?

[Seahawks]

"But, on the other hand, every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe - a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble. In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is indeed quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive. [c. Dukas and Hoffman]"

 

This reminds me of a persona that made their first appearance on cc.com during the Mt Hood spectacle in December... hmmmm...I wonder who?

 

Is that all you got?? You are weak. Same crap, get shot down and then just insults. Typical.

[Dechristo]

wtf? Talk about weak:

 

you can't answer questions I've posed to you about the basics of your own religion, frustrated naive one.

[knotzen]

The insult thread is the next door down, eh.

[Seahawks]

wtf? Talk about weak:

 

you can't answer questions I've posed to you about the basics of your own religion, frustrated naive one.

 

Just like i sun, Tell me that Eistien is so smart and really not know what Eistien beleived. Just babble. Just like you. Spew crap and not know a fricking thing. Think sometimes, but hell then you might have to change something. Easier just chugging that beer.

Edited June 13, 2007 by Seahawks

[kevbone]

The insult thread is the next door down, eh.

 

 

Ah.....the insult thread what a funny thread.

[Kat_Roslyn]

[quote=Seahawks

 

Is that all you got?? You are weak. Same crap, get shot down and then just insults. Typical.

 

You are the person demeaning "handicaps".

[tvashtarkatena]

Even Einstein beleived in a way, dumbass. He was smart enough to know all this wasn't by chance.

 

So, the quick answer to the question is that Einstein did not believe in a personal God. It is however, interesting how he arrived at that conclusion. In developing the theory of relativity, Einstein realized that the equations led to the conclusion that the universe had a beginning. He didn't like the idea of a beginning, because he thought one would have to conclude that the universe was created by God. So, he added a cosmological constant to the equation to attempt to get rid of the beginning. He said this was one of the worst mistakes of his life. Of course, the results of Edwin Hubble confirmed that the universe was expanding and had a beginning at some point in the past. So, Einstein became a deist - a believer in an impersonal creator God:

 

Einstein defined his religious views in a letter he wrote in response to those who claimed that he worshipped a Judeo-Christian god: "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."[37][38]

 

Eistein did not believe in a diety of any kind. You've made up your own stories and selectively misquoted him to define him as such; a common occurance throughout his life against which he repeatedly defended himself. But Einstein was consistently clear regarding is lack of faith in a deity, most particularly a Christian one. He was no more religious, in a Christian sense, than I am, and believe me, no Cosmological Constant is required to measure my absolute zero level of Christian belief.

 

"But, on the other hand, every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe - a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble. In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is indeed quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive. [c. Dukas and Hoffman]"

 

The 'someone more naive' refers to Christians and other diests: i.e., people like you, amigo. I'm pretty sure you didn't quite get that before posting this.

Edited June 13, 2007 by tvashtarkatena

[Dechristo]

Answer the question or shut your babbling gob.

[Seahawks]

Even Einstein beleived in a way, dumbass. He was smart enough to know all this wasn't by chance.

 

So, the quick answer to the question is that Einstein did not believe in a personal God. It is however, interesting how he arrived at that conclusion. In developing the theory of relativity, Einstein realized that the equations led to the conclusion that the universe had a beginning. He didn't like the idea of a beginning, because he thought one would have to conclude that the universe was created by God. So, he added a cosmological constant to the equation to attempt to get rid of the beginning. He said this was one of the worst mistakes of his life. Of course, the results of Edwin Hubble confirmed that the universe was expanding and had a beginning at some point in the past. So, Einstein became a deist - a believer in an impersonal creator God:

 

Einstein defined his religious views in a letter he wrote in response to those who claimed that he worshipped a Judeo-Christian god: "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."[37][38]

 

Eistein did not believe in a diety of any kind. You've made up your own stories and selectively misquoted him to define him as such; a common occurance throughout his life against which he repeatedly defended himself. But Einstein was consistently clear regarding is lack of faith in a deity, most particularly a Christian one. He was no more religious, in a Christian sense, than I am, and believe me, no Cosmological Constant is required to measure my absolute zero level of Christian belief.

 

"But, on the other hand, every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe - a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble. In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is indeed quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive. [c. Dukas and Hoffman]"

 

The 'someone more naive' refers to Christians and other diests: i.e., people like you, amigo. I'm pretty sure you didn't quite get that before posting this.

 

That why I put "in a way"

[Seahawks]

Answer the question or shut your babbling gob.

 

First you say I qoute scripture. I think your false on your pretenses. But to humor you I will answer. I'm not really sure what name you want as there are more than one. So what is the point of the question.

[catbirdseat]

The genomic match between chimpanzees and man, for example, is somewhere north of 97%: genetically, we are very similar. So similar, in fact, that some believe we could produce hybrid offspring.

 

 

Similarities — whether of DNA, anatomy, embryonic development, or anything else — are better explained in terms of creation by a common Designer than by evolutionary relationship. The great differences between organisms are of greater significance than the similarities, and evolutionism has no explanation for these if they all are assumed to have had the same ancestor. How could these great gaps between kinds ever arise at all, by any natural process?

One studies relationships by looking at both similarities and differences. We study evolution by making some assumtions about the rate at which differences arise (which we validate when we can, such as through the fossil record). The greater the differences the greater the evolutionary distance, i.e. time has elapsed since the common ancestor lived on earth.

 

If we look at the accumulation of genetic markers in the Y-chromosome and mitochondria of modern man (more recent than 30,000 years) we can study his geographical migrations through time from the common ancestor in Africa. We can compare the data we get to similarities in languages. Furthermore we can also use radiocarbon dating of remains. All three of these methods agree fairly well.

 

Extend this to the study of more ancient and distantly related hominids. The genetic differences accumulate to the point that they become significant enough to define a species boundary.

 

As different as the many "races" of man may seem to each other there is really little difference. We know that within populations of people there is much more genetic variation than between populations. The reverse is true when comparing different species.

Edited June 13, 2007 by catbirdseat

[i_like_sun]

The genomic match between chimpanzees and man, for example, is somewhere north of 97%: genetically, we are very similar. So similar, in fact, that some believe we could produce hybrid offspring.

 

 

Similarities — whether of DNA, anatomy, embryonic development, or anything else — are better explained in terms of creation by a common Designer than by evolutionary relationship. The great differences between organisms are of greater significance than the similarities, and evolutionism has no explanation for these if they all are assumed to have had the same ancestor. How could these great gaps between kinds ever arise at all, by any natural process?

 

 

Yeah, a single creator made it all, all right. Gadda love the self induced frontal lobotomy.

 

How does it feel?

 

 

Hey you clueless twit. Fuck you.

 

So, you think you have it more figured out than the likes of Einstein and Steven Hawking? HUuummmm??? Dumbass.

 

Even Einstein beleived in a way, dumbass. He was smart enough to know all this wasn't by chance.

 

So, the quick answer to the question is that Einstein did not believe in a personal God. It is however, interesting how he arrived at that conclusion. In developing the theory of relativity, Einstein realized that the equations led to the conclusion that the universe had a beginning. He didn't like the idea of a beginning, because he thought one would have to conclude that the universe was created by God. So, he added a cosmological constant to the equation to attempt to get rid of the beginning. He said this was one of the worst mistakes of his life. Of course, the results of Edwin Hubble confirmed that the universe was expanding and had a beginning at some point in the past. So, Einstein became a deist - a believer in an impersonal creator God:

 

"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings."

 

"But, on the other hand, every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe - a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble. In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is indeed quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive. [c. Dukas and Hoffman]"

 

 

 

Alright, Seahawks, you've gained some ground with me.

 

Agreed, Einstein was a very spiritually minded physicist. I don't remember the exact quote, but it was something to the effect of him saying "the universe is too beautiful, perfect and imperfect to have been formed by pure chance".

 

If you ask more modern thinkers about the ideas of god and creation (namely thinking of Richard Dawkins and Steven Hawking), it seems as though atheism is a bit of a cultural trend right now. I personally am not atheist, nor am I religious in any way. I find myself making this observation: the longer I live, the more I realize how infinitely complex and beautiful the world and universe is. It therefore seems logical that death is equally as mysterious. A simple blackout seems like a pretty simple and easy answer to the end of human life. I wonder that there just may be something far more interesting. Who knows.

 

My earlier response to your post stemmed from the fact that I have a very low tolerance for people who are excessively rigid with their beliefs about creationism. I've known way too many people who have essentially stopped their intellectual development because they never question and think about the possibility that theoretical science might be on to something.

 

cheers.

[Seahawks]

The genomic match between chimpanzees and man, for example, is somewhere north of 97%: genetically, we are very similar. So similar, in fact, that some believe we could produce hybrid offspring.

 

 

Similarities — whether of DNA, anatomy, embryonic development, or anything else — are better explained in terms of creation by a common Designer than by evolutionary relationship. The great differences between organisms are of greater significance than the similarities, and evolutionism has no explanation for these if they all are assumed to have had the same ancestor. How could these great gaps between kinds ever arise at all, by any natural process?

 

 

Yeah, a single creator made it all, all right. Gadda love the self induced frontal lobotomy.

 

How does it feel?

 

 

Hey you clueless twit. Fuck you.

 

So, you think you have it more figured out than the likes of Einstein and Steven Hawking? HUuummmm??? Dumbass.

 

Even Einstein beleived in a way, dumbass. He was smart enough to know all this wasn't by chance.

 

So, the quick answer to the question is that Einstein did not believe in a personal God. It is however, interesting how he arrived at that conclusion. In developing the theory of relativity, Einstein realized that the equations led to the conclusion that the universe had a beginning. He didn't like the idea of a beginning, because he thought one would have to conclude that the universe was created by God. So, he added a cosmological constant to the equation to attempt to get rid of the beginning. He said this was one of the worst mistakes of his life. Of course, the results of Edwin Hubble confirmed that the universe was expanding and had a beginning at some point in the past. So, Einstein became a deist - a believer in an impersonal creator God:

 

"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings."

 

"But, on the other hand, every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe - a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble. In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is indeed quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive. [c. Dukas and Hoffman]"

 

 

 

Alright, Seahawks, you've gained some ground with me.

 

Agreed, Einstein was a very spiritually minded physicist. I don't remember the exact quote, but it was something to the effect of him saying "the universe is too beautiful, perfect and imperfect to have been formed by pure chance".

 

If you ask more modern thinkers about the ideas of god and creation (namely thinking of Richard Dawkins and Steven Hawking), it seems as though atheism is a bit of a cultural trend right now. I personally am not atheist, nor am I religious in any way. I find myself making this observation: the longer I live, the more I realize how infinitely complex and beautiful the world and universe is. It therefore seems logical that death is equally as mysterious. A simple blackout seems like a pretty simple and easy answer to the end of human life. I wonder that there just may be something far more interesting. Who knows.

 

My earlier response to your post stemmed from the fact that I have a very low tolerance for people who are excessively rigid with their beliefs about creationism. I've known way too many people who have essentially stopped their intellectual development because they never question and think about the possibility that theoretical science might be on to something.

 

cheers.

 

I can totally respect that. The fact that you were so open about your feelings, is due respect. I feel almost the same way as you but in the oppisite of your last pharagraph. Alot of people read a text book and feel they have they answers to all science becuase the book says. (Isn't that the same with religion?) Never struggling with the million of problems with the theories but telling everyone else they are idiots for beleiving that all this was not because of chance. Intolerant that there might be something more.