Denali Expedition 2008 - Looking for 10-12 member

[Bug]

Didn't list it there to scare you. Just to make a point it not a place in your mind. But if it does scare you good, your wise.

 

Questions for you SH:

 

1) how old is planet Earth?

2) how long have men - in their current form - existed on planet Earth?

3) upon what do you base your answers to these questions?

My curiosity seeks answers but I beleive these questions have nothing to do with spirituality except in as much as a person might mistake religion for spirituality. The two are not necessarily intertwined (sadly).

 

I didn't ask you.

Then take it off line Grumpy.

[ericb]

SH....plagiarism is a sin

[kevbone]

evolution is not the foundation of science. It a fricking theory.

 

So is the Bible....

[Bug]

[ linky

Hey gotta compliment you on actually backing up a post with a pertinent link.

It is much better than spewing your usual ill tempered rhetoric.

[Seahawks]

evolution is not the foundation of science. It a fricking theory.

 

So is the Bible....

 

There proof outside the Bible that Jesus lived. So once again your wrong.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

[ linky

Hey gotta compliment you on actually backing up a post with a pertinent link.

It is much better than spewing your usual ill tempered rhetoric.

 

go wash your ass, clownpuncher.

 

[JosephH]

Source and proof?

 

And you last asked for such source and proof about a book written by men called the bible? Yet, without a shred of either you base entire religions around it? Got it. Amazing how folks can provide no source or proof for one and cling fiercely to it while denying science.

[Seahawks]

Source and proof?

 

And you last asked for such source and proof about a book written by men called the bible? Yet, without a shred of either you base entire religions around it? Got it. Amazing how folks can provide no source or proof for one and cling fiercely to it while denying science.

 

Who's denying science. Not me. There is a the structure of science that God put in all things. I deny a theory called evolution based on lies. Even that I openly admit I can not prove on way or the other. But unlike evolution there is proof that these men of the Bible you refer to are not made up and did live outside of the Bible. That is undisputed. There were witnesses to Jesus death. Are there I witness to the age of there earth??? Your argument is terrible. You don't want to beleive fine. I'm not trying to convince you. Thats your choice, your responible for yourself. Just like the people of Jesus time wanted proof even after he healed the blind and lame and brought people back to life, you want proof. Well I'm sorry you got your proof. Make your decision and enjoy life for maybe 80 years if your lucky. Its for eternity.

[AlpineK]

You folks are all missing the point. The Inferno is a rad book about an expedition to hell. It's one of the more amusing books I've ever read.

 

Now why don't the lot of you go off and thump your bibles until the preacher calls you back to the head office for a little one on one. 8D

[wfinley]

You folks are all missing the point. The Inferno is a rad book about an expedition to hell. It's one of the more amusing books I've ever read.

Funny - I recently finished re-reading The Odyssey and was thinking about re-reading The Inferno. Thanks for the reminder to check it out again!

[kevbone]

evolution is not the foundation of science. It a fricking theory.

 

So is the Bible....

 

There proof outside the Bible that Jesus lived. So once again your wrong.

 

Proof.....where? What?

[Bug]

You folks are all missing the point. The Inferno is a rad book about an expedition to hell. It's one of the more amusing books I've ever read.

 

Now why don't the lot of you go off and thump your bibles until the preacher calls you back to the head office for a little one on one. 8D

Yes. If you have not read it, it should be near the top of your list. It is a classic and really fun.

[Jim]

A recent discovery in the field of paleontology has sent shockwaves through the scientific community. Evolutionist Mary H. Schweitzer of North Carolina State University has discovered flexible blood vessels inside the fossilized thighbone of a "68-70 million year old" Tyrannosaurus rex1 from the Hell Creek formation in eastern Montana.

 

I noticed you forgot to cite the Creation Institute on this one (http://www.icr.org/article/2033/61/).

Mary Schweitzer found some T. rex bones with dried blood cells in them in 1990. This was surprising because the blood should have completely disintegrated if the bones were really 65 million years old. She published her findings in the June 1996 issue of Earth, a now-defunct science magazine written for the general public. It was not a prestigious, peer-reviewed journal. The article was reviewed in the September-November 1997 issue of Creation Ex Nihilo, a creationist magazine published by Answers in Genesis.

 

Mary Schweitzer was from Montana State University Northern,

and had been figuratively tarred and feathered, and run out of town on a rail for publishing her discovery in the popular press. (Mary is now at North Carolina State University.)

 

[Seahawks]

evolution is not the foundation of science. It a fricking theory.

 

So is the Bible....

 

There proof outside the Bible that Jesus lived. So once again your wrong.

 

Proof.....where? What?

 

Want more?

 

• Flavius Josephus (A.D. 37-100) wrote a monumental history, Antiquities of the Jews, in which he referred to Jesus twice. In section 18.3.3 he called Jesus "the Christ" and wrote of His "marvelous deeds." In section 20.9.1 he referred to the trial of James and identified him as the "the brother of Jesus, the so-called Christ."

 

• Pliny the Younger, governor of Bithynia (in northern Turkey), wrote a letter (Epistle X.96) to Roman Emperor Trajan (c. A.D. 112) seeking counsel on how to deal with Christians whose practice it was to meet on appointed days to sing a hymn "to Christ as if to God."

 

• Cornelius Tacitus was a Roman historian who, in his Annals (XV.44, c. A.D. 115), wrote of "Christus" (from Christos, Greek for "Christ") who "was executed at the hands of the procurator Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius."

 

• Suetonius, the popular Roman writer, about A.D. 120 described how the Emperor Claudius commanded the Jews to depart from Rome for "continually making disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus" (Vita Claudii XXV.4). "Chrestus" is again a corrupted form of Christos (Christ). Luke made reference to this situation in Rome in Acts 18:2.

 

During the later part of the second through the fifth centuries, many more historical references to Jesus were made in Jewish rabbinical literature, especially the Talmud. Several prominent pagan philosophers—Celsus, Lucian of Samosata and Porphyry of Tyre—wrote attacks on Jesus, His teachings and followers. Early Christian writers and church leaders—Polycarp (c. A.D. 69-155), Irenaeus (c. A.D. 130-200) and others—wrote extensively about Jesus Christ as well.

 

Archaeology has also contributed tremendously to our knowledge of the historicity of Christ through excavations on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem and elsewhere in Israel, Turkey, Greece and Rome. These excavations have confirmed the Bible's amazing historical accuracy.

 

We seldom hear of anyone challenging the historicity of Muhammad, Confucius or Buddha. But some, challenge the historical existence of Christ. Why is that?

 

It is because the true Jesus Christ of the Bible and history makes people feel uncomfortable—even guilty.

 

 

 

 

 

[kevbone]

But unlike evolution there is proof that these men of the Bible you refer to are not made up and did live outside of the Bible. That is undisputed. There were witnesses to Jesus death.

 

 

Are you high? Dude….are you referring to proof as the written word that was written by men? If so who is to say these men who wrote these “eye witness” accounts you are referring too did not make it all up…..or the people who wrote about the “eye witness” accounts didn’t make that all up…..point is your “undisputed” facts just got disputed.

 

BUT…..lets go down to the museum and check out the bones they dug up…..oh sorry let me rephrase that….the physical evidence of evolution…..

 

 

[kevbone]

evolution is not the foundation of science. It a fricking theory.

 

So is the Bible....

 

There proof outside the Bible that Jesus lived. So once again your wrong.

 

Proof.....where? What?

 

Want more?

 

• Flavius Josephus (A.D. 37-100) wrote a monumental history, Antiquities of the Jews, in which he referred to Jesus twice. In section 18.3.3 he called Jesus "the Christ" and wrote of His "marvelous deeds." In section 20.9.1 he referred to the trial of James and identified him as the "the brother of Jesus, the so-called Christ."

 

• Pliny the Younger, governor of Bithynia (in northern Turkey), wrote a letter (Epistle X.96) to Roman Emperor Trajan (c. A.D. 112) seeking counsel on how to deal with Christians whose practice it was to meet on appointed days to sing a hymn "to Christ as if to God."

 

• Cornelius Tacitus was a Roman historian who, in his Annals (XV.44, c. A.D. 115), wrote of "Christus" (from Christos, Greek for "Christ") who "was executed at the hands of the procurator Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius."

 

• Suetonius, the popular Roman writer, about A.D. 120 described how the Emperor Claudius commanded the Jews to depart from Rome for "continually making disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus" (Vita Claudii XXV.4). "Chrestus" is again a corrupted form of Christos (Christ). Luke made reference to this situation in Rome in Acts 18:2.

 

During the later part of the second through the fifth centuries, many more historical references to Jesus were made in Jewish rabbinical literature, especially the Talmud. Several prominent pagan philosophers—Celsus, Lucian of Samosata and Porphyry of Tyre—wrote attacks on Jesus, His teachings and followers. Early Christian writers and church leaders—Polycarp (c. A.D. 69-155), Irenaeus (c. A.D. 130-200) and others—wrote extensively about Jesus Christ as well.

 

Archaeology has also contributed tremendously to our knowledge of the historicity of Christ through excavations on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem and elsewhere in Israel, Turkey, Greece and Rome. These excavations have confirmed the Bible's amazing historical accuracy.

 

We seldom hear of anyone challenging the historicity of Muhammad, Confucius or Buddha. But some, challenge the historical existence of Christ. Why is that?

 

It is because the true Jesus Christ of the Bible and history makes people feel uncomfortable—even guilty.

 

 

 

 

 

Are you called writing of 1000’s of year old proof? Who is to say they were drunk at the time and made it all up? That is no proof……

 

[Jim]

If evolution is a fact it still doesn't disprove the existence of God. Neither does retroviral DNA insertions, the laws of gravity, quarks, people with vestigal tails, the dinosaurs, galaxies a hundred thousand light years away, string theory, or even TTK's hermaphroditic titties.

 

An omnipotent Creator can of course have created the laws of nature that science observes, and science does not disprove the Creator.

 

As for the question of why teach evolution in secondary school - Eric B is 100% correct. It's not that damn important. The fact is our public education system sucks ass as it is, and we would do well to focus on the basics anyway, and evolution is a small subject in a large ocean of knowledge that should be taught. Personally, I studied evolution in 10th grade as a part of AP Biology, and even then it was one very small part of a large curriculum. Moreover, to say we must teach it because it is science is nonsense, and a non sequitur. We can teach whatever the hell we want to teach and that should be decided at the local level.

 

Your correct on the first count. That's because one is religion and one is science. Faith is what it is, it does not require any backup - and that's fine for those who choose to adhere to their beliefs. But science and religion don't, and should not, mix.

 

And if you're pinning the foundations of evolution on a high school science course, well I would agree that your school did not teach it well - or maybe you were as open minded as you are now. Evolution is not just some trival side show in biology. It is the foundation of ecology, biology, many components of medicine and genetics, animal husbandry, (except in Enumclaw), crop science, etc. No scientist would say that belief in evolution negates belief in God. But the Christian right, for whatever reason, believes that faith in God eliminates adhernce to a scientific theory that has withstood scruinity for 150 years.

 

I'd sugget two books to read: "The Panda's Thumb" and "Letter to a Christian Nation"

 

 

evolution is not the foundation of science. It a fricking theory. Science can stand on it own with out the theories of evolution.

 

You understanding of science is outpaced only by your reading comprehension. Try and read it again s-l-o-w-l-y. And your perceptions of what is a theory are ignorant.

 

"In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science--that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."

Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.

 

Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

 

Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution."

 

- Stephen J. Gould, " Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981

 

Evolution as a process that has always gone on in the history of the earth can be doubted only by those who are ignorant of the evidence or are resistant to evidence, owing to emotional blocks or to plain bigotry. By contrast, the mechanisms that bring evolution about certainly need study and clarification. There are no alternatives to evolution as history that can withstand critical examination. Yet we are constantly learning new and important facts about evolutionary mechanisms.

 

[Bug]

[ linky

Hey gotta compliment you on actually backing up a post with a pertinent link.

It is much better than spewing your usual ill tempered rhetoric.

 

go wash your ass, clownpuncher.

Merry Christmas.

I gave you an easy avenue for a angry vent.

Hope it helped you feel better.

[TREETOAD]

http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=110802

 

 

[KaskadskyjKozak]

[ linky

Hey gotta compliment you on actually backing up a post with a pertinent link.

It is much better than spewing your usual ill tempered rhetoric.

 

go wash your ass, clownpuncher.

Merry Christmas.

I gave you an easy avenue for a angry vent.

Hope it helped you feel better.

 

sorry, bud, but I'm not angry - just having fun!

 

and Merry Christmas to you!

 

Христос раждається!

[ClimbingPanther]

I noticed you forgot to cite the Creation Institute on this one (http://www.icr.org/article/2033/61/).

Mary Schweitzer found some T. rex bones with dried blood cells in them in 1990. This was surprising because the blood should have completely disintegrated if the bones were really 65 million years old. She published her findings in the June 1996 issue of Earth, a now-defunct science magazine written for the general public. It was not a prestigious, peer-reviewed journal. The article was reviewed in the September-November 1997 issue of Creation Ex Nihilo, a creationist magazine published by Answers in Genesis.

 

Mary Schweitzer was from Montana State University Northern,

and had been figuratively tarred and feathered, and run out of town on a rail for publishing her discovery in the popular press. (Mary is now at North Carolina State University.)

 

You spend a lot of time discrediting her and where she published... what about the discovery? Sure she didn't publish appropriately, but I wonder how many real journals turned her down and for what reasons?

 

However, the discovery is still subject to her own integrity. I also wonder if the cells were planted, as numerous "discoveries" have been falsified on both sides of the young/old creation/evolution. The integrity of the find can be tested... I wonder if any follow up work has been done on the specimens or other specimens found in the same area?

[Seahawks]

But unlike evolution there is proof that these men of the Bible you refer to are not made up and did live outside of the Bible. That is undisputed. There were witnesses to Jesus death.

 

 

Are you high? Dude….are you referring to proof as the written word that was written by men? If so who is to say these men who wrote these “eye witness” accounts you are referring too did not make it all up…..or the people who wrote about the “eye witness” accounts didn’t make that all up…..point is your “undisputed” facts just got disputed.

 

BUT…..lets go down to the museum and check out the bones they dug up…..oh sorry let me rephrase that….the physical evidence of evolution…..

 

 

Whos saying the fossil don't exist dumb ass. Nobody saying they don't exist. Follow the argument.

 

Since your so smarter than all these other here, you show me the intermediate fossils. Book a trip to the museum and I'll go with and you show me the the missing links. They should be everywhere. That is evolution, not wether a fossil existed.

[Seahawks]

 

 

Are you called writing of 1000’s of year old proof? Who is to say they were drunk at the time and made it all up? That is no proof……

 

Even your wikipedia doesn't deny it.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus_Christ#Jesus_as_a_historical_person

[kevbone]

Whos saying the fossil don't exist dumb ass. Nobody saying they don't exist. Follow the argument.

 

Since your so smarter than all these other here, you show me the intermediate fossils. Book a trip to the museum and I'll go with and you show me the the missing links. They should be everywhere. That is evolution, not wether a fossil existed.

 

 

 

That sounds like a great idea….next time I am in Seattle I will PM you and we will go to check out the fossils…. you can then point out why God exists and the scientists are full of shit. Then we will get beer and laugh at how dumb we are for even arguing a philosophy……I’m buying……..sound good?

 

 

[Jim]

You spend a lot of time discrediting her and where she published... what about the discovery?

 

Got news for you. If it's not published in a peer reviewed journal - it's not science. Anyone can post something on the web or get something in some general interest publication that does not have any peer-review process. Publish anything you want in People magazine, just don't try and claim it's science. You're looking foolish.