# Hang on to your hats!!!!    LOL



## BANDERSNATCH (Dec 26, 2011)

"Two new Earths and the search for life"     

http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/24/opinion/urry-two-earths/index.html?hpt=hp_c2

Just wondering....after all the debates we have on here and discussions about how miraculous life here on Earth is, do any of you agnostics/atheists still get excited about the 'search for life' in space when you read articles like this?

To me, it's comic relief for my stressful day!!    :santatwo:   Always good for a laugh.

These two planets are practically on fire!!!   lol   "Hang on to your hats!"    And planet temperature is just one of thousands of 'coincidences' that will need to be in place.


----------



## WTM45 (Dec 26, 2011)

No more excited regarding the potential for other life existing in the universe than I am exicited about the potential for finding eternal life.

We will know when we get to that point.
Or not.


----------



## bullethead (Dec 26, 2011)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> "Two new Earths and the search for life"
> 
> http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/24/opinion/urry-two-earths/index.html?hpt=hp_c2
> 
> ...



Comic relief why? Because it sounds funny that a supreme being could design a creature that could live in certain conditions or ANY condition the supreme designer wishes?


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Dec 26, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Comic relief why? Because it sounds funny that a supreme being could design a creature that could live in certain conditions or ANY condition the supreme designer wishes?



No, funny that these super guru scientists think that life will just pop up out there on its own!!       all the articles read the same.....earth-sized planet, moderate temperature, a little water and --  walllaaaa --  life.      

"Hang on to your hats"!!!!!   Who writes these articles?????  LOL!!!


----------



## bullethead (Dec 26, 2011)

If one tiny amoeba like critter is found ANYWHERE else , the same arguments exist. Humans on earth won't be around long enough to see if that critter evolves into other things or if a mighty hand rolls more intricate creatures into the surface. Something will happen, but 14 billion years is a long time to see how it pans out. But THEY can argue about how THEY got there then.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Dec 26, 2011)

bullethead said:


> If one tiny amoeba like critter is found ANYWHERE else , the same arguments exist. Humans on earth won't be around long enough to see if that critter evolves into other things or if a mighty hand rolls more intricate creatures into the surface. Something will happen, but 14 billion years is a long time to see how it pans out. But THEY can argue about how THEY got there then.



Humans won't see anything evolve; they'll see things de-volve, as we've witnessed.   

An amoeba is just as much a miracle as a man....just as sophisticated.    100-gene minimum???


----------



## bullethead (Dec 26, 2011)

Have humans de-volved?


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Dec 26, 2011)

isn't there a broken gene for Vitamin C production?   lol

Surely that would not have helped us along....


----------



## bullethead (Dec 26, 2011)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> isn't there a broken gene for Vitamin C production?   lol
> 
> Surely that would not have helped us along....



And with that broken gene, humans have not evolved in any other ways?


----------



## bullethead (Dec 26, 2011)

Humans have no natural selection to weed out the sick, handicapped and elderly anymore.  The weak are weeded out in every other species so that the species gets stronger and the best possible genes for survival are passed on.We save the weak and make everything as easy as possible so that our bodies are not challenged much. We don't make Vitamin C but we get vitamin C, no need to make it anymore.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Dec 26, 2011)

bullethead said:


> And with that broken gene, humans have not evolved in any other ways?



You'd think that, if we evolved, we'd have fixed that broken gene along the way!   Just another example of information-loss in genetic code.    

blind cave fish --- used to be able to see
flightless birds --- used to be abel to fly
salamanders with stumps where legs used to be -- loss of limbs
platypus in fossil record?   still a platypus.  lol
eyes in cambrian rock ---just as complex as modern eyes.

ad infinitum...

Neanderthal man?   According to scientists, JUST AS MUCH HUMAN AS MODERN MAN       Interbred.   Same species


----------



## bullethead (Dec 26, 2011)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> You'd think that, if we evolved, we'd have fixed that broken gene along the way!   Just another example of information-loss in genetic code.
> 
> blind cave fish --- used to be able to see
> flightless birds --- used to be abel to fly
> ...



Adaptation and Evolution......not the same.


----------



## bullethead (Dec 26, 2011)

If anything we have evolved the gene right out of us. We do not need a a gene to produce vitamin c because we can get it, and do , from so many sources.

Why would God create the Gulo gene if we didn't need it?


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Dec 26, 2011)

That makes no sense, Bullet.   Since plants abound with Vitamin C, and are ubiquitous, then no animal should have that gene.


----------



## bullethead (Dec 26, 2011)

Well please tell me why we were created with the gene and now we don't have it?
Why were fish created with eyes that they do not need?
How do these and a few hundred other examples of what was make sense?


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Dec 26, 2011)

I offered them as a few of the plethora of examples of loss of genetic information....which is what is seen when it comes to 'evolution'.   In evolution, we should see ABUNDANT examples, daily, of genetic information being ADDED to the code of organisms...but we don't.   The only time we see genetic information added is when lab-coats force it in.   

I do like those glowing guppies at Walmart, though!  That was some cool genetic stuff!


----------



## bullethead (Dec 26, 2011)

Did Adam and Eve have the Gulo gene?

Loss of genetic information is because we don't need it or it is not needed in animals. It is almost a form of evolution. We are evolving to make do with what we need or don"t need. It is not as simple as "we should have TWO Gulo genes by now if we are evolving" NO, we don't need to make Vitamin C because we get it elsewhere, as do other animals that have a break in the gene. 

You seem to have some examples of this as a base for NON evolution, but what are your thoughts on why a designer would purposely design these things into it's creatures and then those creatures do not need them?
I don't wanna bore you with a cut/paste of all the ways animals and humans have are still evolving so I'll let you search for yourself.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Dec 26, 2011)

bullethead said:


> I don't wanna bore you with a cut/paste of all the ways animals and humans have are still evolving so I'll let you search for yourself.




OMG!!!   Thank you, Bullet!     I'll consider that as a Christmas present!


----------



## bullethead (Dec 26, 2011)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> OMG!!!   Thank you, Bullet!     I'll consider that as a Christmas present!



There is a lot you can learn if you search for the examples yourself and there was a lot more you refuse to answer above my Xmas present to you.

I can find as many examples of "bad design" as you can for "de-evolution".
I'd say de-evolution is compatible for random acts of nature rather than Intelligent Design.


----------



## mtnwoman (Dec 26, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Why were fish created with eyes that they do not need?



I thought fish needed eyes to see those handy dandy hand tied flies??? 

I used to quiz my late husband why he spent hours making them, when you could get them for a dime at kmart.....I knew it, I knew it.....


----------



## mtnwoman (Dec 26, 2011)

I'm just pulling this out of nowhere...well somewhere, but...anyway.

Algae is one thing that has animal and plant properties, so I've heard...so perhaps that's the bridge?


----------



## WTM45 (Dec 26, 2011)

mtnwoman said:


> I thought fish needed eyes to see those handy dandy hand tied flies???
> 
> I used to quiz my ex of why he spent hours making them, when you could get them for a dime at kmart.....I knew it, I knew it.....



Thank goodness the trout near me are not human.  They would display a hankering for only the best hand rolled Cuban cigars with CT leaf wrap, and the top shelf scotch no less than 14 years of age.

A KMart fly will not get them to even turn their heads up to look!


----------



## mtnwoman (Dec 26, 2011)

WTM45 said:


> Thank goodness the trout near me are not human.  They would display a hankering for only the best hand rolled Cuban cigars with CT leaf wrap, and the top shelf scotch no less than 14 years of age.
> 
> A KMart fly will not get them to even turn their heads up to look!


----------



## bullethead (Dec 27, 2011)

mtnwoman said:


> I'm just pulling this out of nowhere...well somewhere, but...anyway.
> 
> Algae is one thing that has animal and plant properties, so I've heard...so perhaps that's the bridge?



Here's another interesting "creature"
Prokaryotes  
http://www.earthlife.net/prokaryotes/welcome.html

Might explain the "WHY" when all these stories about early life not being able to survive in the oxygen content of early earth.

From the Article:
In 2000AD scientists at West Chester University Pennsylvania succeeded in waking up the resting spores of a bacterium (Bacillus permians) that was last active 250 million years ago. The question this caused scientists to ask was. "Is it possible some Bacteria may be immortal ??"


----------



## mtnwoman (Dec 27, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Here's another interesting "creature"
> Prokaryotes
> http://www.earthlife.net/prokaryotes/welcome.html
> 
> ...



This popped into my head, I can't help it...lol

I believe we're immortal. Course that crosses over into the supernatural. And I believe that the earth was null and void for however long, and I believe that God tweeked it so's there would be life as we know it today.


----------



## Four (Dec 28, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Have humans de-volved?



I don't think they're is really such thing. I think all change is evolution.


----------



## bullethead (Dec 28, 2011)

Four said:


> I don't think they're is really such thing. I think all change is evolution.



Correct!


----------



## dawg2 (Dec 28, 2011)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> .....Neanderthal man?   According to scientists, JUST AS MUCH HUMAN AS MODERN MAN       Interbred.   Same species


I agree.  There are still some walking around today.


----------



## bullethead (Dec 28, 2011)

dawg2 said:


> I agree.  There are still some walking around today.



True!
I wonder what/who was before neanderthal man and were they the same? Were Adam and Eve neanderthals or "modern"?


----------



## JB0704 (Dec 28, 2011)

Four said:


> I don't think they're is really such thing. I think all change is evolution.



I believe the thought is that humans did not evolve to physical strength, like most critters in the world.  Every time shark week comes on you hear the same line about how the great white has evolved into the perfect killing machine.

Why are humans the only species which evolved intelligence to the extent we have? Other animals use tools, I am assuming we started just like them.  One would think over the course of 500 million years that such intellectual achievement would not be limited to one species.

This is where evolution gets me, as a concept.  I can see the evidence, but wonder why T-rex wasn't evolving intellectually?  Why isn't the great white shark building torpedos to kill the prey from longer distances?  If nature favors survival of the fittest, and, intelligence defines the "fittest," (we are on top of the food chain) why is our species the only one to evolve to this extent?


----------



## dawg2 (Dec 28, 2011)

bullethead said:


> True!
> I wonder what/who was before neanderthal man and were they the same? Were Adam and Eve neanderthals or "modern"?



Noone knows the answer to that question.


----------



## bullethead (Dec 28, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> I believe the thought is that humans did not evolve to physical strength, like most critters in the world.  Every time shark week comes on you hear the same line about how the great white has evolved into the perfect killing machine.
> 
> Why are humans the only species which evolved intelligence to the extent we have? Other animals use tools, I am assuming we started just like them.  One would think over the course of 500 million years that such intellectual achievement would not be limited to one species.
> 
> This is where evolution gets me, as a concept.  I can see the evidence, but wonder why T-rex wasn't evolving intellectually?  Why isn't the great white shark building torpedos to kill the prey from longer distances?  If nature favors survival of the fittest, and, intelligence defines the "fittest," (we are on top of the food chain) why is our species the only one to evolve to this extent?



Different species have different capabilities that evolve into what is needed for strengths and weaknesses for that species. Throughout the millions of years humans and sharks evolved they adapted to the environment, prey,predators, and needs around them. The shark IS that torpedo! It is armed with every weapon it needs to survive. The shark does not hunt battleship fortified prey so no need for anything more than what they already have.  Humans have to think of ways to kill every other human as fast and efficient as possible in order for that individual to survive, rule and conquer. We evolved to design the ways to ensure that happens.


----------



## Four (Dec 28, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> I believe the thought is that humans did not evolve to physical strength, like most critters in the world.  Every time shark week comes on you hear the same line about how the great white has evolved into the perfect killing machine.
> 
> Why are humans the only species which evolved intelligence to the extent we have? Other animals use tools, I am assuming we started just like them.  One would think over the course of 500 million years that such intellectual achievement would not be limited to one species.
> 
> This is where evolution gets me, as a concept.  I can see the evidence, but wonder why T-rex wasn't evolving intellectually?  Why isn't the great white shark building torpedos to kill the prey from longer distances?  If nature favors survival of the fittest, and, intelligence defines the "fittest," (we are on top of the food chain) why is our species the only one to evolve to this extent?



The fittest part is a bit of a misnomer. It's survival of the most resistant to change. 

Some species would benefit from a greater intelligence, others it's just not worth it. There is a metabolic cost with change, hence why a dark race of humans if migrated to a colder, darker climate will lose pigment in the skin.

I can't explain everything, I've done some reading on biology as i find it interesting.. MAN NIPPLES ANYONE? I know that changes in environment drive change. Many species are so specialized and niched that much change in environment would extinct them. Others; like the sharks you mentioned, are so well suited to there environment that the metabolic cost of becoming more intelligent isn't worth it.

Also to note, there can only be one "top of the food chain" so maybe just by the virtue of our existence we've impacted other species intellectual evolution?

Another thing to ponder, although no other organisms have evolved an intelligence to the level of homo-sapiens, many are comparable. Other primates, naturally since they are our evolutionary cousins. Also some marine mammals, porpoise, etc. Many Birds are said to have the intelligence of a 6-8 year old. Maybe some of them are still getting smarter too, in part perhaps to the meddling of humans (breeding birds to become smarter etc) I'd love to see a study on the intelligence quotient of other species and the growth or decline of it.

No big answers for you, but i enjoy talking about it


----------



## JB0704 (Dec 28, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Humans have to think of ways to kill every other human as fast and efficient as possible in order for that individual to survive, rule and conquer. We evolved to design the ways to ensure that happens.



True.  We think of ways to do it.  But you might agree that the intellectual capacity would have had to evolve in order to do so.  If we had evolved to be ten feet tall with long canines, mails, and faster legs, such intellectual achievement might not be needed.  That is what I am asking.  Why is our evolution one of intelligence where nature tends to evolve to physical dominance?

I get the environment aspect, but our natural environment was the same as everything else's.


----------



## bullethead (Dec 28, 2011)

dawg2 said:


> Noone knows the answer to that question.



I think they do! We have fossil evidence of human like creatures that go back millions of years. I hear the argument that these creatures (long before neanderthal) are not the missing link or ape-like. They are just early humans.

OKAY, I'll buy that....but then IF that is true, and Adam and Eve were the first two humans, they MUST have been and looked similar to these tiny, out of sort, tree climbing, cave dwelling, furry, grunting, animals that resemble an ape-like creature. They would have to have been THE finest two examples of those creatures that we know existed and have evidence of! If they were not it certainly makes certain stories very suspect within religious circles.


----------



## JB0704 (Dec 28, 2011)

Four said:


> Another thing to ponder, although no other organisms have evolved an intelligence to the level of homo-sapiens, many are comparable. Other primates, naturally since they are our evolutionary cousins. Also some marine mammals, porpoise, etc. Many Birds are said to have the intelligence of a 6-8 year old. Maybe some of them are still getting smarter too, in part perhaps to the meddling of humans (breeding birds to become smarter etc) I'd love to see a study on the intelligence quotient of other species and the growth or decline of it.
> 
> No big answers for you, but i enjoy talking about it



As far as other animals being intelligent, I follow.  Seems like every time I go off-shore fishing the $#@% porpoises find our boat and steal the fish half-way up.  That's pretty smart.  If they used tools to do it, then my whole argument might be a waste.  Some animals do use tools, which indicates intelligence is not unique to humans.....I was just pointing out that we have achieved dominance through it, where in the past, dominance was achieved physically and that seems to be what is favored through evolution.

I like talking about evolution too.  It is an interesting topic, but I am not really "science" oriented, so a lot of the biology is lost on me.


----------



## Four (Dec 28, 2011)

There is a Mitochondrial Eve.  We cant trace all living humans back to her because of some mitochondrial DNA that's passed from only the mother.

We can also trace the Y-Chromosome Adam, because obviously the Y chromosome can only come from the father.

As you would expect, the two organisms lived thousands of years apart, and never bred to each other as some creation myths suggest.


----------



## bullethead (Dec 28, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> True.  We think of ways to do it.  But you might agree that the intellectual capacity would have had to evolve in order to do so.  If we had evolved to be ten feet tall with long canines, mails, and faster legs, such intellectual achievement might not be needed.  That is what I am asking.  Why is our evolution one of intelligence where nature tends to evolve to physical dominance?
> 
> I get the environment aspect, but our natural environment was the same as everything else's.



Instead of needing to be taller and faster for survival our brains evolved to make the best with what we have. As soon as we figured out we can bash somethings head in with a stick or rock we didn't need to outrun our predators. As soon as fire was "discovered" and meat became our main diet, PROTEIN jump started our brains and enhanced the thoughts to get us where we needed to be.


----------



## Four (Dec 28, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> As far as other animals being intelligent, I follow.  Seems like every time I go off-shore fishing the $#@% porpoises find our boat and steal the fish half-way up.  That's pretty smart.  If they used tools to do it, then my whole argument might be a waste.  Some animals do use tools, which indicates intelligence is not unique to humans.....I was just pointing out that we have achieved dominance through it, where in the past, dominance was achieved physically and that seems to be what is favored through evolution.
> 
> I like talking about evolution too.  It is an interesting topic, but I am not really "science" oriented, so a lot of the biology is lost on me.



I know some Octopus use tools, some are even known to collect shells and shiny objects and put them in piles, creating an octopus garden! Some species are more suited to use tools, flippers aren't exactly good for holding 

Also to note, dominance, evolutionary speaking isn't just who can kill who, its about who survives. In that respect a roach is far more dominant than a human is. The goal; if you can even say there is a goal, isn't to kill, or dominate the world, its to survive and pass on your genetic information.


----------



## JB0704 (Dec 28, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Instead of needing to be taller and faster for survival our brains evolved to make the best with what we have. As soon as we figured out we can bash somethings head in with a stick or rock we didn't need to outrun our predators. As soon as fire was "discovered" and meat became our main diet, PROTEIN jump started our brains and enhanced the thoughts to get us where we needed to be.



Ok.  I know there is only a few scientists on this board, I am just bouncing stuff off of y'all.   And I do follow your logic, but then we have to ask....why were we the first to start fire / need fire? I am sure that other animals witnessed fire way before we came on the scene.  If fire is what got the ball rolling, imagine how crazy the world might be if T-Rex had started cooking up his meals.

It seems before us, everything that needed warmth evolved thicker fur.


----------



## JB0704 (Dec 28, 2011)

Four said:


> Also to note, dominance, evolutionary speaking isn't just who can kill who, its about who survives. In that respect a roach is far more dominant than a human is. The goal; if you can even say there is a goal, isn't to kill, or dominate the world, its to survive and pass on your genetic information.



Dominance, as in, survival, like you said.  Ours is achieved through intelligence, not physical.  That's all I'm saying.  Though we are a "weaker" species than many who we compete with for food, we still were able to survive the pre-historic times through intelligence.


----------



## Four (Dec 28, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> Ok.  I know there is only a few scientists on this board, I am just bouncing stuff off of y'all.   And I do follow your logic, but then we have to ask....why were we the first to start fire / need fire? I am sure that other animals witnessed fire way before we came on the scene.  If fire is what got the ball rolling, imagine how crazy the world might be if T-Rex had started cooking up his meals.
> 
> It seems before us, everything that needed warmth evolved thicker fur.



Why do we have to ask that? We could just as easily ask any number of other questions about why was X,Y,Z species the first to have certain other traits. 

Just like everything, it was a combination of genetic mutation, environment, and natural selection.


----------



## bullethead (Dec 28, 2011)

Four said:


> I know some Octopus use tools, some are even known to collect shells and shiny objects and put them in piles, creating an octopus garden! Some species are more suited to use tools, flippers aren't exactly good for holding
> 
> Also to note, dominance, evolutionary speaking isn't just who can kill who, its about who survives. In that respect a roach is far more dominant than a human is. The goal; if you can even say there is a goal, isn't to kill, or dominate the world, its to survive and pass on your genetic information.



True!
There are videos of a crow that wants a treat and cannot reach it. The crow finds a piece of straight wire and then bends it to make a hook in order to grab the treat.

Survival! Exactly! We are tops in the food chain and tops at killing all manner of living things but we are not close to being the best at passing the best genes of the species on. Most creatures weed out the sick, weak, elderly, handicapped, call it "less than the fittest" in order that the prime examples of the rest of the species reproduce and pass on the finest traits. Humans do their darndest to save all these "less than fittest" and encourage them to breed in some cases! If we were all thrust into a situation where we HAD to survive with the minimal of tools, we all have a good idea of who we would bet on to make it and who wouldn't last a day. (Not talking about anyone on here, use the people you see and know everyday in life). Nature would weed them out REAL quick!


----------



## bullethead (Dec 28, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> Ok.  I know there is only a few scientists on this board, I am just bouncing stuff off of y'all.   And I do follow your logic, but then we have to ask....why were we the first to start fire / need fire? I am sure that other animals witnessed fire way before we came on the scene.  If fire is what got the ball rolling, imagine how crazy the world might be if T-Rex had started cooking up his meals.
> 
> It seems before us, everything that needed warmth evolved thicker fur.



We(all species) are limited to our individual capabilities. If every species was similar to every other species in speed, size, thought process, use of tools etc etc etc etc.... it would be a planet of Disney Pixar Cartoon Movies.

We HAD that thicker fur until we discovered fire. As we found other ways to keep warm the fur went away.


----------



## Four (Dec 28, 2011)

bullethead said:


> True!
> There are videos of a crow that wants a treat and cannot reach it. The crow finds a piece of straight wire and then bends it to make a hook in order to grab the treat.
> 
> Survival! Exactly! We are tops in the food chain and tops at killing all manner of living things but we are not close to being the best at passing the best genes of the species on. Most creatures weed out the sick, weak, elderly, handicapped, call it "less than the fittest" in order that the prime examples of the rest of the species reproduce and pass on the finest traits. Humans do their darndest to save all these "less than fittest" and encourage them to breed in some cases! If we were all thrust into a situation where we HAD to survive with the minimal of tools, we all have a good idea of who we would bet on to make it and who wouldn't last a day. (Not talking about anyone on here, use the people you see and know everyday in life). Nature would weed them out REAL quick!



That trait would be a social trait that is passed on, so long as our species continues to thrive, it doesn't matter if a physically weak example of a human breeds. That organism IS fit by virtue of the fact it passed it's genetic code off.

What is considered "fit" or not isn't for you or I to judge. If it works evolutionary, so be it.


----------



## JB0704 (Dec 28, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Most creatures weed out the sick, weak, elderly, handicapped, call it "less than the fittest" in order that the prime examples of the rest of the species reproduce and pass on the finest traits. Humans do their darndest to save all these "less than fittest" and encourage them to breed in some cases!





We haven't always done this, though.  I believe ancient civilizations would weed out the sick, etc. to ensure the survival of the people.....resources were scarce.  Sparta tried to create a physically dominant race, it goes on.  Such thinking was prevalent in less civilized times. 

I know, and admit, that many animals have the ability to use tools.  That kind-of goes along with my thinking though.  Is the argument that we got really good at using tools because of fire? IF other animals evolve limited intelligence, why hasn't another species evolved it to the extent we have?  

I know this is all just theoretical, and we won't have answers, I am just asking for what y'all believe and have read (again, I paid very little attention in Biology courses over the years).


----------



## JB0704 (Dec 28, 2011)

Four said:


> Why do we have to ask that? We could just as easily ask any number of other questions about why was X,Y,Z species the first to have certain other traits.



Because it gets to the root of the question, which is:  why are humans the only species to achieve survival through intelligence to the extent we have?  We have a 400 million year record of life which survived through physical engineering, then, we have humans.


----------



## Four (Dec 28, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> Because it gets to the root of the question, which is:  why are humans the only species to achieve survival through intelligence to the extent we have?  We have a 400 million year record of life which survived through physical engineering, then, we have humans.



Plenty of other species have survived through intelligence. Intelligence is a factor in the survival of many species.

Is intelligence not physical? Our brain is just another organ. If your referring to strength.

I wont however argue that humans aren't unique in our intelligence. I'm sure there are plenty of other species that are unique in other areas, camouflage, temperature tolerances, etc.


----------



## stringmusic (Dec 28, 2011)

Four said:


> That trait would be a social trait that is passed on, so long as our species continues to thrive, it doesn't matter if a physically weak example of a human breeds. That organism IS fit by virtue of the fact it passed it's genetic code off.
> 
> *What is considered "fit" or not isn't for you or I to judge. If it works evolutionary, so be it*.



Oh how us Christians get poked fun at when we make comments like this.

I hope everyone gets my stupid jokes when I talk about Mr. Evolution and Mrs. Nature, the gods of atheist.

..if not, I'll still laugh at them...


----------



## Four (Dec 28, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> Oh how us Christians get poked fun at when we make comments like this.
> 
> I hope everyone gets my stupid jokes when I talk about Mr. Evolution and Mrs. Nature, the gods of atheist.
> 
> ..if not, I'll still laugh at them...



Eh? I'm just trying to say what is "fit" from an evolution standpoint is what organism passes it's genetic code on to the next generation, regardless.


----------



## stringmusic (Dec 28, 2011)

Four said:


> Is intelligence not physical? Our brain is just another organ.



Is intelligence physical? A brain in and of itself is not intelligence is it?


----------



## Four (Dec 28, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> Is intelligence physical? A brain in and of itself is not intelligence is it?



the brain is the organ responsible for intelligence.


----------



## JB0704 (Dec 28, 2011)

Four said:


> the brain is the organ responsible for intelligence.



And ours is the only one that evolved to say "hey, maybe fire would help us survive."


----------



## Four (Dec 28, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> And ours is the only one that evolved to say "hey, maybe fire would help us survive."



Seems that way. Maybe some other primates?


----------



## stringmusic (Dec 28, 2011)

Four said:


> the brain is the organ responsible for intelligence.



Does that make the nature of intelligence physical?

Could intelligence be like describing God in you cannot use your five senses to physically understand it yet you know it's there?


----------



## JB0704 (Dec 28, 2011)

Four said:


> Seems that way. Maybe some other primates?



Ok.  All this aside, I see humans as a unique species capable of many things which are not relevant to the natural need for survival.  It goes to the basis of my belief system, which indicates we are different for a reason....created in such a way.  The method used for creation, be it evolution or "poofing" into existence, to me, is irrelevant to the fact of man being created different than the rest of the natural world.

That's why we probably won't come to a consensus on this topic


----------



## stringmusic (Dec 28, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> And ours is the only one that evolved to say "hey, maybe fire would help us survive."



It would seem we were_ designed _that way huh?


----------



## Four (Dec 28, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> Ok.  All this aside, I see humans as a unique species capable of many things which are not relevant to the natural need for survival.  It goes to the basis of my belief system, which indicates we are different for a reason....created in such a way.  The method used for creation, be it evolution or "poofing" into existence, to me, is irrelevant to the fact of man being created different than the rest of the natural world.
> 
> That's why we probably won't come to a consensus on this topic



I was wondering when this was going to happen. I didn't see why you kept asking "why" all the time about things we know to be true.

So your thesis is, Unique --> Divine? To the best of our knowledge man wasn't created.



stringmusic said:


> Does that make the nature of intelligence physical?



I don't really understand the question.


----------



## JB0704 (Dec 28, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> It would seem we were_ designed _that way huh?



Yep.  I am more of an intelligent design believer, though that gets hammered in here.  But, the record of life favors humans being a little bit "special," from my perspective anyway.

But now, we are going to have to argue about the knee and the eye, and some bacterial flagellum......


----------



## stringmusic (Dec 28, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> Yep.  I am more of an intelligent design believer, though that gets hammered in here.  But, the record of life favors humans being a little bit "special," from my perspective anyway.
> 
> *But now, we are going to have to argue about the knee and the eye, and some bacterial flagellum......*



 That's probably when I'll head back to the waterfowl forum...


----------



## Four (Dec 28, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> But now, we are going to have to argue about the knee and the eye, and some bacterial flagellum......



Yea . .  I was just starting to sit back and realize this is just a bunch of people talking about a subject that don't know that much about and trying to draw big conclusions.


----------



## stringmusic (Dec 28, 2011)

Four said:


> I don't really understand the question.


Does the brain being physical make intelligence physical?
and...


stringmusic said:


> Could intelligence be like describing God in you cannot use your five senses to physically understand it yet you know it's there?


----------



## bullethead (Dec 28, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> Oh how us Christians get poked fun at when we make comments like this.
> 
> I hope everyone gets my stupid jokes when I talk about Mr. Evolution and Mrs. Nature, the gods of atheist.
> 
> ..if not, I'll still laugh at them...



Mr evolution and Mr Nature do not talk through man for spiritual guidance. E&N do not have the whacky stories and claims made up by man. E&N are what they are. You confuse looking out your window and seeing God when you are ACTUALLY seeing NATURE! Nature is your God too, you just refuse to acknowledge it.


----------



## stringmusic (Dec 28, 2011)

Four said:


> Yea . .  I was just starting to sit back and realize this is just a bunch of people talking about a subject that don't know that much about and trying to draw big conclusions.



Who is this "bunch of people"?


----------



## JB0704 (Dec 28, 2011)

Four said:


> I was wondering when this was going to happen. I didn't see why you kept asking "why" all the time about things we know to be true.
> 
> So your thesis is, Unique --> Divine? To the best of our knowledge man wasn't created.



Come on, now....you knew I was one of "them."  Yes, I view the evidence around us, see the uniqueness within the record, and understand that this points to a creator. 

We can discuss how fire has affected our intellectual capacity, and we can clearly see how certain species have evolved.  But in the context of the engine of evolution (survival of the fittest), our evolutionary history doesn't make sense in the fact that we are so different from everything else.


----------



## Four (Dec 28, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> Does the brain being physical make intelligence physical?



I suppose it might depend on definitions. But it's all just neurons firing right? Which is physical. Intelligence is a word to describe a concept, mainly how well the brain works, right?

What are we driving at here? I'm losing interest


----------



## JB0704 (Dec 28, 2011)

Four said:


> Yea . .  I was just starting to sit back and realize this is just a bunch of people talking about a subject that don't know that much about and trying to draw big conclusions.



But, for me anyway, it makes for a pretty good time.  My office life would be pretty dull if I didn't have you guys to debate this stuff with.


----------



## bullethead (Dec 28, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> Ok.  All this aside, I see humans as a unique species capable of many things which are not relevant to the natural need for survival.  It goes to the basis of my belief system, which indicates we are different for a reason....created in such a way.  The method used for creation, be it evolution or "poofing" into existence, to me, is irrelevant to the fact of man being created different than the rest of the natural world.
> 
> That's why we probably won't come to a consensus on this topic



Humans, while quite capable of OUR capabilities, are not able to do everything that every other creature on the planet can do.  We try our best to use our intelligence to replicate many things that other creatures do naturally. Each has it's own special qualities and those qualities are what has made them survive. The ones that no longer could adapt and evolve are long gone.


----------



## Four (Dec 28, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> Come on, now....you knew I was one of "them."  Yes, I view the evidence around us, see the uniqueness within the record, and understand that this points to a creator.
> 
> We can discuss how fire has affected our intellectual capacity, and we can clearly see how certain species have evolved.  But in the context of the engine of evolution (survival of the fittest), our evolutionary history doesn't make sense in the fact that we are so different from everything else.



Why doesn't it make sense? Have you posed this question to a biologist? 

If uniqueness  = created, and only humans are unique, does that mean every other species was not created?



stringmusic said:


> Who is this "bunch of people"?



Presumably everyone in this thread. Certainly myself included. I'm a software engineer, not a biologist.


----------



## bullethead (Dec 28, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> It would seem we were_ designed _that way huh?



Designed! On another thread someone is arguing about "flaws" in our species or DE-EVOLUTION( but they don't believe in EVOLUTION) and they show many examples to support their claim BUT if Evolution is not true then De-Evolution is not true and those "flaws" are the result of BAD DESIGN......not much of pat on the back for the ultimate designer is it?


----------



## JB0704 (Dec 28, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Mr evolution and Mr Nature do not talk through man for spiritual guidance. E&N do not have the whacky stories and claims made up by man.



Let's look at man in context on nature:

This Friday night, go to whatever night club is closest to your residence and witness the mating habits of humans.

Then, go hunting, and witness the mating habits in nature.

Two very different purposes, and very different methods.  We are "different," and the historical record supports this (any historical literature relevant to romance does not support men finding mates by chasing them through the forrest until they get too tired to resist).


----------



## stringmusic (Dec 28, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Mr evolution and Mr Nature do not talk through man for spiritual guidance.


No, they are what they are, the gods of atheists.



> You confuse looking out your window and seeing God when you are ACTUALLY seeing NATURE! Nature is your God too, you just refuse to acknowledge it.



Ah yes, Mrs Nature who desides where things ought to go and where things ought to be. The decisions put forth by the A/A guys about E&N are what gets me, thats where the stupid joke came from. "They" are E&N, "they" do not make decisions.


----------



## stringmusic (Dec 28, 2011)

Four said:


> I suppose it might depend on definitions. But it's all just neurons firing right? Which is physical. Intelligence is a word to describe a concept, mainly how well the brain works, right?
> 
> What are we driving at here? I'm losing interest



Well, you have skipped over my other question twice now.


----------



## bullethead (Dec 28, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> Let's look at man in context on nature:
> 
> This Friday night, go to whatever night club is closest to your residence and witness the mating habits of humans.
> 
> ...



You best check out the The Bonobo


----------



## JB0704 (Dec 28, 2011)

Four said:


> Why doesn't it make sense? Have you posed this question to a biologist?
> 
> If uniqueness  = created, and only humans are unique, does that mean every other species was not created?.



No.  And no.  I don't know any biologists.  If you check out my "reading list" thread on the SD&S you will see that I have an evolution book on it.  I am all ears to all sides, and I do see the evididence for evolutionary developments within nature.  My whole argument hinges on the fact that intellectual achievement has created the "fittest" species currently known.  We would survive all manner of natural calamaties.  But we did not do this physically.  If such an achievement is random, one would think the dinos would have built group shelters to survive the multiple asteroids that rained on their global dominance.



Four said:


> Presumably everyone in this thread. Certainly myself included. I'm a software engineer, not a biologist.




I'm an IT guy with an MS in accounting (recent development).  Like I said, all this is just me bouncing stuff off of y'all.


----------



## JB0704 (Dec 28, 2011)

bullethead said:


> You best check out the The Bonobo



Not aware of that one (I have been out of the "game" for a few years), but saw the flaw in my argument as soon as I hit submit 

The general point is that romance for humans has always been pursued, as far as history tells us, a little differently.


----------



## bullethead (Dec 28, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> Let's look at man in context on nature:
> 
> This Friday night, go to whatever night club is closest to your residence and witness the mating habits of humans.
> 
> ...



What night clubs were there a million years ago? We know an awful lot about "modern" mating habits but I do not know anyone keeping a diary when we were sleeping in caves. Except for the paintings on the walls where a rival clan was fought, the men killed, their offspring killed, and their women taken to be bred. Sounds a LOT like what happens in nature to me.


----------



## JB0704 (Dec 28, 2011)

bullethead said:


> What night clubs were there a million years ago? We know an awful lot about "modern" mating habits but I do not know anyone keeping a diary when we were sleeping in caves. Except for the paintings on the walls where a rival clan was fought, the men killed, their offspring killed, and their women taken to be bred. Sounds a LOT like what happens in nature to me.



But, we "evolved" to where we are.  Why don't the bears "woo" their women? I am not aware of a T-Rex version of the Song of Solomon (which is an inter-racial couple....always like throwing that out there for the few prejudiced folks left within my faith).

Look, I get that the argument is odd.  And really, it is a half-hearted attempt on my part.  But, the point is that we have evolved in an entirely different direction than anything ever has.


----------



## stringmusic (Dec 28, 2011)

bullethead said:


> What night clubs were there a million years ago? We know an awful lot about "modern" mating habits but I do not know anyone keeping a diary when we were sleeping in caves. Except for the paintings on the walls where a rival clan was fought, the men killed, their offspring killed, and their women taken to be bred. Sounds a LOT like what happens in nature to me.



Bullet, I promis you people have "mated" for fun for a long, long time.


----------



## stringmusic (Dec 28, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> But, we "evolved" to where we are.  Why don't the bears "woo" their women? I am not aware of a T-Rex version of the Song of Solomon (which is an inter-racial couple....always like throwing that out there for the few prejudiced folks left within my faith).
> 
> Look, I get that the argument is odd.  And really, it is a half-hearted attempt on my part. * But, the point is that we have evolved in an entirely different direction than anything ever has.*



Mr. Evolution and Mrs. Nature sent their only son, Natural Selection, for that to happen. 

 I kill myself sometimes....


----------



## bullethead (Dec 28, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> Bullet, I promis you people have "mated" for fun for a long, long time.



I do not deny that ONE single iota. But they also HAD to breed OUTSIDE of their clan to ensure the spread of the best genes. I can promise you that there were no "Night at the Roxy" scenes back then. What they did when they conquered the women and got them back to the cave is what it is. What happens in Cave, stays in Cave.

That mate for fun is not exclusive to humans. there are many examples in other species but the most examples are within the primates..........odd that they are similar to us or we are to them in that and so many ways.....


----------



## bullethead (Dec 28, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> Mr. Evolution and Mrs. Nature sent their only son, Natural Selection, for that to happen.
> 
> I kill myself sometimes....



Then their son flew up into the sky to be with them........YOU BET it is beyond ridiculous!


----------



## stringmusic (Dec 28, 2011)

bullethead said:


> I do not deny that ONE single iota. But they also HAD to breed OUTSIDE of their clan to ensure the spread of the best genes. I can promise you that there were no "Night at the Roxy" scenes back then. What they did when they conquered the women and got them back to the cave is what it is.* What happens in Cave, stays in Cave.*
> That mate for fun is not exclusive to humans. there are many examples in other species but the most examples are within the primates..........odd that they are similar to us or we are to them in that and so many ways.....


----------



## bullethead (Dec 28, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> But, we "evolved" to where we are.  Why don't the bears "woo" their women? I am not aware of a T-Rex version of the Song of Solomon (which is an inter-racial couple....always like throwing that out there for the few prejudiced folks left within my faith).
> 
> Look, I get that the argument is odd.  And really, it is a half-hearted attempt on my part.  But, the point is that we have evolved in an entirely different direction than anything ever has.



For the same reason we do not hibernate. Some things, traits.....are exclusive to certain species. Some animals besides us "Woo" the gals. Ever see a turkey in full strut? Are they monogamous?


----------



## bullethead (Dec 28, 2011)

stringmusic said:


>



Remember the movie "The Clan of the Cave Bear"? When the head honcho captured Ayla (Daryll Hannah) the blond from another clan now in with a clan of brunettes and all he did was give her the look....say Ayla....and hit his fist in his palm and give the "signal". Assume the position!!

Anyone that didn't obey got the club! Where do you think "clubbing" on a friday night came from?


----------



## JB0704 (Dec 28, 2011)

bullethead said:


> For the same reason we do not hibernate. Some things, traits.....are exclusive to certain species. Some animals besides us "Woo" the gals. Ever see a turkey in full strut? Are they monogamous?



Funny side note, I do not hunt turkeys because it just seems wrong to trick a gobbler in such a way.....thinking things are about to work out, then "bang!"  I just can't do it.


----------



## JB0704 (Dec 28, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Anyone that didn't obey got the club! Where do you think "clubbing" on a friday night came from?





All that aside, do you follow my logic in reference to men being different (I know you don't agree).  I probably drug the thread in a different direction than it needed to go.

As far as mating for fun goes, how do we really know if it is for fun or a show of dominance within the animal kingdom?  I'm just curious, and have no idea what is known about this.


----------



## bullethead (Dec 28, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> Funny side note, I do not hunt turkeys because it just seems wrong to trick a gobbler in such a way.....thinking things are about to work out, then "bang!"  I just can't do it.



To each his own....

But that Gobbler isn't coming in to that decoy because they have known each other since high school and have held off waiting for the day they are married. He's looking for her and her sister and every other honey in the area.


----------



## stringmusic (Dec 28, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Remember the movie "The Clan of the Cave Bear"? When the head honcho captured Ayla (Daryll Hannah) the blond from another clan now in with a clan of brunettes and all he did was give her the look....say Ayla....and hit his fist in his palm and give the "signal". Assume the position!!
> 
> Anyone that didn't obey got the club! Where do you think "clubbing" on a friday night came from?



Ahhhh, learn something new everyday.


----------



## bullethead (Dec 28, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> All that aside, do you follow my logic in reference to men being different (I know you don't agree).  I probably drug the thread in a different direction than it needed to go.
> 
> As far as mating for fun goes, how do we really know if it is for fun or a show of dominance within the animal kingdom?  I'm just curious, and have no idea what is known about this.



If it isn't a show of dominance in "our" kingdom I don't know what is!!!!! The "studs" in school and our buddies that are single and quite the Ladies Man hold a spot on a pedestal like it or not!


----------



## JB0704 (Dec 28, 2011)

bullethead said:


> To each his own.....



Yep, I prefer fishing in the spring anyway.



bullethead said:


> But that Gobbler isn't coming in to that decoy because they have known each other since high school and have held off waiting for the day they are married. He's looking for her and her sister and every other honey in the area.



I know, so it's not like he is missing out on some magical mystery moment, but still, it's not in me to rain on his parade like that.  

Even though humans and turkeys both "strut," we might agree, in light of your paragraph, that the goals of such are different.  What do you think 'ol Tom turkey would say if that hen expected dinner first?  Not sure he would care what her "feelings" on the subject would be.


----------



## JB0704 (Dec 28, 2011)

bullethead said:


> If it isn't a show of dominance in "our" kingdom I don't know what is!!!!! The "studs" in school and our buddies that are single and quite the Ladies Man hold a spot on a pedestal like it or not!



Point taken.


----------



## bullethead (Dec 28, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> Yep, I prefer fishing in the spring anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I doubt "we" bought anybody dinner before we became civilized. I think rapists are a good example of our primal side. Act on instinct instead of civilized.


----------



## JB0704 (Dec 28, 2011)

bullethead said:


> I doubt "we" bought anybody dinner before we became civilized. I think rapists are a good example of our primal side. Act on instinct instead of civilized.



Rapists are typically environmentally affected, such as themselves being raped, or having an evil mother, or watching too much porn, etc.  From what little I know on the subject, they typically have an excuse, and few say they were "born rapists."

I am sure the dinner and a movie thing is a recent development, but written history indicates "romance" has long been in our nature.  We can go from Shakespeare, to Solomon, to the ancient greeks and Egyptians.  Heck, even South American tribes would build stutues honoring such things (and one might consider them very inclined to act on primitive instincts).

So, is the rapist the natural default or the romantic?  We have every indication that the romantic is the "dominant gene" because it is currently that which we see within our species.  I  think in nature it is pretty evident that rapist would be dominant, as that is pretty much what we see when we go hunting.

Like I said, I just think we are "different." And yes, I am very aware at how ridiculous this whole example has been.


----------



## bullethead (Dec 28, 2011)

We evolved to be different and yet still have primal instincts that rise to the surface sometimes.


----------



## mtnwoman (Dec 28, 2011)

Four said:


> I know some Octopus use tools, some are even known to collect shells and shiny objects and put them in piles, creating an octopus garden! Some species are more suited to use tools, flippers aren't exactly good for holding



When I can't find hair ties, I know where to look, the kitties put them all in the same place, under an antique desk, and I mean all of them go there. I look at them and say wow, thanks for keeping them safe for me.
Course cats are more domesticated than an octopus, but still when you talk to them or command them to do something they just ignore you like you don't exist...acting ignorant.


----------



## mtnwoman (Dec 28, 2011)

bullethead said:


> We evolved to be different and yet still have primal instincts that rise to the surface sometimes.



Dat's right!


----------



## Thanatos (Dec 29, 2011)

Four said:


> I don't think they're is really such thing. I think all change is evolution.



Correct. A pretty BA process created by God. 

What is more significant? Saying, "poof!" here are some animals, or creating a mechanism which all animals flourish, or cease to exist by?


----------



## bullethead (Dec 29, 2011)

Thanatos said:


> Correct. A pretty BA process created by God.
> 
> What is more significant? Saying, "poof!" here are some animals, or creating a mechanism which all animals flourish, or cease to exist by?



But so many other Gods lay claim to creation......


----------



## Thanatos (Dec 29, 2011)

bullethead said:


> But so many other Gods lay claim to creation......



If your an agnostic theist then i've done 1/2 my job. 

If you want to into why believe in Christianity go reread the thread about Hitchen's death.


----------



## VisionCasting (Dec 30, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> Bullet, I promis you people have "mated" for fun for a long, long time.



There are a bunch of jokes waiting to be told here...  all of which would get a 'violation' from a Mod.


----------



## mtnwoman (Dec 30, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> Bullet, I promis you people have "mated" for fun for a long, long time.



Wasn't adam asleep when God made eve? God knew what adam needed and wanted and what pleasures she and adam together could enjoy. God didn't need no input from adam. No tellin' what adam woulda come up with


----------



## bullethead (Dec 30, 2011)

mtnwoman said:


> Wasn't adam asleep when God made eve? God knew what adam needed and wanted and what pleasures she and adam together could enjoy. God didn't need no input from adam. No tellin' what adam woulda come up with



What happened to Adam's free will?


----------



## ted_BSR (Dec 30, 2011)

I have read every post on this thread (painful as it has been). I have nothing to say.


----------



## bullethead (Dec 31, 2011)

ted_BSR said:


> I have read every post on this thread (painful as it has been). I have nothing to say.



Yet here you are.


----------



## mtnwoman (Dec 31, 2011)

bullethead said:


> What happened to Adam's free will?



He used it when he woke up and saw eve.
I don't know what adams free will had to do with God's creation of eve, anyway.


----------



## mtnwoman (Dec 31, 2011)

bullethead said:


> We know an awful lot about "modern" mating habits but I do not know anyone keeping a diary when we were sleeping in caves. Except for the paintings on the walls where a rival clan was fought, the men killed, their offspring killed, and their women taken to be bred. Sounds a LOT like what happens in nature to me.



Pretty much as it is today all over the world


----------



## bullethead (Dec 31, 2011)

mtnwoman said:


> He used it when he woke up and saw eve.
> I don't know what adams free will had to do with God's creation of eve, anyway.



You said God knew what Adam wanted. Adam didn't have much choice when he woke up.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jan 3, 2012)

bullethead said:


> You said God knew what Adam wanted. Adam didn't have much choice when he woke up.



Personally, I think He did pretty good!   But, I'm heterosexual.


----------



## ted_BSR (Jan 3, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Yet here you are.



Thanks BH, I was lost for a second.


----------



## mtnwoman (Jan 7, 2012)

bullethead said:


> You said God knew what Adam wanted. Adam didn't have much choice when he woke up.



But Adam liked it, you don't?


----------



## mtnwoman (Jan 7, 2012)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> Personally, I think He did pretty good!   But, I'm heterosexual.



Yep! God did good on that one....male and female.

Someone or something got that one perfect...hard to believe that poofed into existance.
He-ape and a she-ape evolved into that? I doubt it for man or animals!


----------



## bullethead (Jan 7, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> But Adam liked it, you don't?



If there is a God and he created woman then he gets 2 thumbs up from me!

Getting back to Adam, he didn't have a choice. It was Him and Her. He didn't get to choose between Eve and 5 other women. When your the only two people on the planet beauty is only a light switch away........


----------



## bullethead (Jan 7, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> Yep! God did good on that one....male and female.
> 
> Someone or something got that one perfect...hard to believe that poofed into existance.
> He-ape and a she-ape evolved into that? I doubt it for man or animals!




In your mind did Adam and Eve look like "us"....modern "us" or were they more like neanderthals or even pre-neanderthal being that even bandersnatch says neanderthal is related to modern human. 
More clearer(hopefully), we have early skeletons of tiny humans that are not like "us" of today. Being that Adam and Eve WERE the first two humans, did they look and act like these examples we have? Did they have a language? Could they make fire? Did they sleep in a house or in a tree or in a cave?


----------



## mtnwoman (Jan 7, 2012)

bullethead said:


> If there is a God and he created woman then he gets 2 thumbs up from me!
> 
> Getting back to Adam, he didn't have a choice. It was Him and Her. He didn't get to choose between Eve and 5 other women. When your the only two people on the planet beauty is only a light switch away........



Well that isn't my point, whether Adam had a choice of 5 differnet women. They are all made alike right? So the point is that God knew what to create that pleased a male and it was a female made exactly as she is without any input from man.... God, I'd like one of these and two of these and a bit of this and that....God made a woman perfect for man. Don't matter whether it was adam and or eve, just that it was male and female, that's my point. You say thumbs up on that.....I'm just sayin' thumbs up to God for providing for man something he needed and wanted...I assume your wife isn't named Eve...eh? Be happy God gave you a choice of which woman you wanted.


----------



## mtnwoman (Jan 7, 2012)

bullethead said:


> In your mind did Adam and Eve look like "us"....modern "us" or were they more like neanderthals or even pre-neanderthal being that even bandersnatch says neanderthal is related to modern human.
> More clearer(hopefully), we have early skeletons of tiny humans that are not like "us" of today. Being that Adam and Eve WERE the first two humans, did they look and act like these examples we have? Did they have a language? Could they make fire? Did they sleep in a house or in a tree or in a cave?



Adam and Eve lived in a garden for a time....and I believe they looked like us. God made us in His image as He did His son....so that correlates to that.
Of course they had a language, and I guess they slept in the woods after they were booted out of the garden.

I doubt seriously they were monkeys living in a tree, or cavemen in a cave....if in fact those things existed it was much longer ago than the creation...ie 50 gazillion years ago...eh?  Do you not believe that if evolution exists it is much older than the Bible? I do.


----------



## Ronnie T (Jan 7, 2012)

bullethead said:


> In your mind did Adam and Eve look like "us"....modern "us" or were they more like neanderthals or even pre-neanderthal being that even bandersnatch says neanderthal is related to modern human.
> More clearer(hopefully), we have early skeletons of tiny humans that are not like "us" of today. Being that Adam and Eve WERE the first two humans, did they look and act like these examples we have? Did they have a language? Could they make fire? Did they sleep in a house or in a tree or in a cave?




That's a very good question.  We make a lot of assumptions about the couple in the garden don't we.  But there aren't answers to the questions.
I still question whether they had belly buttons or not.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 7, 2012)

Ronnie T said:


> That's a very good question.  We make a lot of assumptions about the couple in the garden don't we.  But there aren't answers to the questions.
> I still question whether they had belly buttons or not.



BELLY BUTTONS! Ya threw me for a new loop Ron, I never thought of that! I LOVE it when when things make me go Hmmmmmmm!


----------



## bullethead (Jan 7, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> Adam and Eve lived in a garden for a time....and I believe they looked like us. God made us in His image as He did His son....so that correlates to that.
> Of course they had a language, and I guess they slept in the woods after they were booted out of the garden.
> 
> I doubt seriously they were monkeys living in a tree, or cavemen in a cave....if in fact those things existed it was much longer ago than the creation...ie 50 gazillion years ago...eh?  Do you not believe that if evolution exists it is much older than the Bible? I do.



How could something exist before it was created? 

I absolutely 100% believe that there were many many many many things on earth before the Bible and got here in a way that directly goes against the Bible's description of how it happened.


----------



## mtnwoman (Jan 8, 2012)

bullethead said:


> How could something exist before it was created? Like what do you mean?
> 
> I absolutely 100% believe that there were many many many many things on earth before the Bible and got here in a way that directly goes against the Bible's description of how it happened.*Prove it. Not that I disagree, except Gen. says the earth was null and void.*



Example, I've heard this story and don't have a problem believing it...nor do I think it to be impossible.....
The majority of the dinosauers ate plants, so when they went around pooping seeds, they became kinda like johnny appleseeds of the earth. Perhaps 1 day of creation was a 1000 years. Then poof the dinosauers were gone, I don't know if anyone knows why they are extinct, but they are. Perhaps God was done with planting His garden on earth.

I don't know how it was all done, but I know it was done and I believe God caused it.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 8, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> Prove it. Not that I disagree, except Gen. says the earth was null and void.
> 
> Example, I've heard this story and don't have a problem believing it...nor do I think it to be impossible.....
> The majority of the dinosauers ate plants, so when they went around pooping seeds, they became kinda like johnny appleseeds of the earth. Perhaps 1 day of creation was a 1000 years. Then poof the dinosauers were gone, I don't know if anyone knows why they are extinct, but they are. Perhaps God was done with planting His garden on earth.
> ...



mtnwoman, it is posts like these that often take a conversation beyond the boundaries of rational thought.

With very little effort you can easily search online or go to a museum and find out about the earth, dinosaurs, how long they inhabited the earth, how they died and how some did not die and the species lives today.

It is totally your choice if you want to overlook direct evidence to your answers and choose to go with a line in a book as your proof instead.


----------



## mtnwoman (Jan 8, 2012)

bullethead said:


> mtnwoman, it is posts like these that often take a conversation beyond the boundaries of rational thought.
> 
> With very little effort you can easily search online*and expect the total unmistaken information ie history books as you described before.* or go to a museum and find out about the earth, dinosaurs, how long they inhabited the earth, how they died and how some did not die and the species lives today.*I'm not that interested to be truthful with you...not really interested in even talking about it. I don't have a point to prove about dinosauers. I'm sure I could go to a forum even that would cover all this, but I don't even like science and I hate math even worse. What is, is. I only mention it because someone has mentioned it, I'd never even bring anything up about dinosauers, or dogs, or cats or any other animal....except I personally don't like to kill them....perhaps that is why the buffalo are nearly extinct or the whales or the seals..I know what killing animals for the purposes of man does to the animal kingdom.*
> 
> ...



So history/science books are incorrect, as you say, in so many areas, but not when it comes to dinosaurs, eh? Alrighty then.



...


----------



## bullethead (Jan 8, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> So history/science books are incorrect, as you say, in so many areas, but not when it comes to dinosaurs, eh? Alrighty then.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I totally understand your lack of interest in science and dinosaurs. That is your choice and nothing wrong with that.  
It doesn't help the cause though if you want to make guesses about their existence.

No one needs to crack open a history book to find out about dinosaurs. There are people that dig them up, piece together their bones and find out everything from the plants and animals that were around them, what they ate, how fast they ran to cause of death and everything in between. Museums are full of their displays along with information. You could be right that the "books" have it all wrong. But....there are actual physical specimens to examine. There are clues within the surrounding landscape that tell the tales of how they lived, how long they lived and how long ago they lived.
You don't go to a museum and there is just a book, nothing else but a book, written by anonymous writers, that say "this is what they are and this is how it happened" and everyone shakes their head in agreement and thinks, "well if it's in the book it has got to be true!" Nothing in life works that way EXCEPT for religion, fairy tales, and pure fiction.


----------



## mtnwoman (Jan 8, 2012)

bullethead said:


> I totally understand your lack of interest in science and dinosaurs. That is your choice and nothing wrong with that.
> It doesn't help the cause though if you want to make guesses about their existence.*I don't doubt their existance, I believe there were dinosaurs, I don't get what you mean. I know they have bones of dinosaurs and have no doubt they existed. Just not sure what killed them off, or if they lived during the time of Adam or Eve, and don't really care about it, if they did live then I suppose Adam and Eve knew how to dodge them. I dunno.*
> 
> No one needs to crack open a history book to find out about dinosaurs. There are people that dig them up, piece together their bones and find out everything from the plants and animals that were around them, what they ate, how fast they ran to cause of death and everything in between. *What makes you think that information is correct? I'm not saying it isn't, you were the one saying that everything that is written down isn't always true. *Museums are full of their displays along with information. You could be right that the "books" have it all wrong.*Actually you were saying books could have it all wrong. I tended to believe in history and science books. * But....there are actual physical specimens to examine.*I don't doubt that.* There are clues within the surrounding landscape that tell the tales of how they lived, how long they lived and how long ago they lived.*Okay I have no problem with that, I'm not questioning that at all. What I'm questioning is you saying in one post that because of your son's history books and that they're wrong sometimes, and then you tell me to look it up, I'm just taking your word for it that somethings may not be correctly documented.*
> You don't go to a museum and there is just a book, nothing else but a book, written by anonymous writers, that say "this is what they are and this is how it happened" and everyone shakes their head in agreement and thinks, "well if it's in the book it has got to be true!" Nothing in life works that way EXCEPT for religion, fairy tales, and pure fiction.


*Alrighty then. Now all of a sudden all information about dinosaurs are correct, I'm not the one that said it wasn't. You can pick and choose what you want to believe is true in any book, any info online or even anything in a museum, but then so can I.*

I'm not the one that said history books were also wrong in some points, no more wrong than things in the bible, eh?
It's all the same, if it's written as a truth and then turns out to be wrong then...well ok...so be it. 

The Bible was written as a history book and I have little doubt that there could be some misconceptions in the book by many. But again I tend to believe the Bible as much as I believe any other history book.
I research what I'm interested in, not what makes little influence on my life that I know of....ie dinosaurs, which once again, I've always believed in dinosaurs.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 8, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> *Alrighty then. Now all of a sudden all information about dinosaurs are correct, I'm not the one that said it wasn't. You can pick and choose what you want to believe is true in any book, any info online or even anything in a museum, but then so can I.*
> 
> I'm not the one that said history books were also wrong in some points, no more wrong than things in the bible, eh?
> It's all the same, if it's written as a truth and then turns out to be wrong then...well ok...so be it.
> ...



What I am saying is that while you can't believe everything you read, it sure helps to have actual physical evidence of what you are reading to back it up.
Dinosaurs lived millions to hundreds of millions of years before the timeline in the Bible says things existed. The Bible may cover more time than what is printed within it's pages but we cannot add or subtract anything other than what is written there and as a history book it fails miserably. Creation took 6 days about 5000 years ago. Just Not So.

Many Christian sources online state that the Bible was not intended to be nor is a History book.


----------



## mtnwoman (Jan 8, 2012)

bullethead said:


> What I am saying is that while you can't believe everything you read, it sure helps to have actual physical evidence of what you are reading to back it up.*If no one can prove what happened only 2000 years ago, or 5000 years ago, or even 350 years ago to be factual, how can they prove what happened a million to hundreds of millions of years ago? If our 'modern day history books' aren't correct how can anything else be correct? I don't care how long ago it was.
> *
> Dinosaurs lived millions to hundreds of millions of years before the timeline in the Bible says things existed.*No one can really prove that...if only a few hundred years ago our world history books are incorrect how can anyone know what happened and when more than a million years ago. I'm not saying I don't believe the earth has been here for a million years, and I'm also not saying that what happened 500 or 2000 years ago is absolutely correct either. * The Bible may cover more time than what is printed within it's pages but we cannot add or subtract anything other than what is written there and as a history book it fails miserably. Creation took 6 days about 5000 years ago. Just Not So.*I didn't say it did...didn't I just say that  one day could have been a thousand years as far as creation is concerned?*
> 
> Many Christian sources online state that the Bible was not intended to be nor is a History book.




I don't really care if the bible is a history book or not by whoever, I believe it's the story of Christ...I do not  care if you can dissect a frog that used to be an itty bitty worm that evolved into a frog...it's still gross. Especially when you watch your hubs gig one....eeek. My heart is not of this world, it is of the supernatural and really I don't feel like I need to prove anything to myself or anyone else. I know what I know and no science book, or history book will change that, I don't need to know those things by proving or disproving.....I just don't. Almost like I've never used pie are square, no pie are round.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 8, 2012)

Actually yes all those things can and have been proven outside of history books. They are proved and then inserted into history and if anything is ever found to be different then the new information is included in the latest version of books.

The difference is that the things in the Bible are not trying to be disproved, they are trying to be proved and cannot. There just is no evidence of it outside of the Bible. Places and people are real, there is some truth to events, but most of it is embellished and/or just has no evidence of it ever happening or being recorded like other events that happened in the same time period. People recorded births and deaths, taxes, land sales, laws, battles and so on, but no one bothered to write down that the Son of God was crucified, died, came back to life and then launched into the sky....despite dozens if not hundreds of witnesses. They just went on about their business and let someone else write about it decades later. I can only think that those happenings were either  so common that no one batted an eye when they happened so no one wrote down what they saw or that they didn't happen so there was nothing to record.


----------



## Ronnie T (Jan 8, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Actually yes all those things can and have been proven outside of history books. They are proved and then inserted into history and if anything is ever found to be different then the new information is included in the latest version of books.
> 
> The difference is that the things in the Bible are not trying to be disproved, they are trying to be proved and cannot. There just is no evidence of it outside of the Bible. Places and people are real, there is some truth to events, but most of it is embellished and/or just has no evidence of it ever happening or being recorded like other events that happened in the same time period. People recorded births and deaths, taxes, land sales, laws, battles and so on, but no one bothered to write down that the Son of God was crucified, died, came back to life and then launched into the sky....despite dozens if not hundreds of witnesses. They just went on about their business and let someone else write about it decades later. I can only think that those happenings were either  so common that no one batted an eye when they happened so no one wrote down what they saw or that they didn't happen so there was nothing to record.



Proven and Disproven are very fluid words.
How do you "prove" that a fossil is actually 3 billion years old??  It's difficult to prove something that happened 150 years ago, let alone a billion years ago.

Forensic scientist sometimes have difficulty determining the date of death of a decaying corpse, so these billion years claims don't actually carry a lot of weight with me.

Scientists are usually absolutely certain of their findings, until they find new evidence and have to make amemdments.  Then they're absolutely certain of their new understandings.  Don't get me wrong, they figure out some neat stuff.  But all their conclusions are a work in progress.

Carbon dating!  I trust the Bible more than a man made system of dating that supposedly dates back into the billions of years.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 8, 2012)

Ronnie T said:


> Proven and Disproven are very fluid words.
> How do you "prove" that a fossil is actually 3 billion years old??  It's difficult to prove something that happened 150 years ago, let alone a billion years ago.
> 
> Forensic scientist sometimes have difficulty determining the date of death of a decaying corpse, so these billion years claims don't actually carry a lot of weight with me.
> ...



Ron, again, valid points but let me try to explain.

Science and the search for knowledge is an ever changing process. As options become available to further the knowledge and gather better evidence, things can and do change. At least there is evidence to make the change and people willing to accept the new evidence as factual.
Unlike religion where believers have to stick to what was written thousands of years ago because any change is detrimental to it's core. At the time it was written it sounded pretty good. 5000-2000 years later it still sounds good but the flaws, errors and lack of proof for most of it really stands out.

My stand is this: Extraordinary claims need Extraordinary evidence.

If someone tells me or I read in a book that an ancient pigmy tribe in Borneo lived 10,000 years ago, hunted and fished to survive, used carved wood as bowls and plates and lived in a cave....and then shows pictures of an archeological dig in Borneo where they found a cave and inside that cave was the bones of 3ft tall people, pieces of wooden bowls and plates, arrowheads and bone fish hooks and it was found under sediment that is thought to be in layers that would be @ 10,000 years old. I am gonna tend to think that even if not 100% correct, those guys are onto something.
Historical claims are backed up by multiple sources, multiple witnesses, and evidence gathered that all lead to a preponderance of the evidence. More likely than not, with what has been gathered, this is how it happened.

Now on the other hand, tell me there was a humongous Ark capable of holding thousands upon thousands of animals and yet there is not a toothpick sized piece of wood to support that......

Tell me that there was a man that claimed to be the Son of a God(one of hundreds to make that claim before and after) Walk on water, heal, revive the dead, arise from the dead, fly into heaven and everything in between......

Sure I'll believe it, I have a very open mind, I just want to get some proof. OKAY, it says so in scripture so lets back that up with eyewitnesses.....none. Multiple accounts written at the time it happened....none. Evidence.....none.

Literally bits and pieces of ancient writings by anonymous authors were assembled from incomplete pieces of papyrus and then what is missing was filled in by WHO?

These extraordinary claims are made all throughout the Bible from OT to NT and many are true up to a point. People are real, places are real and the event sometimes might be real, but the extraordinary events that supposedly happened are recorded no where outside of those writings. Egypt lost a Pharaoh and an army.......funny how they don't mention it as it might have been a game changer.
Other stories within the pages are told by other cultures....now we're getting onto something...a possible second source to back up the claims.....Only the second source was written BEFORE the "first" source and has a completely different ending! Tower of Babel, Creation story, Born of a Virgin, risen from dead, ascend into the sky......all have been written about, claimed and were borrowed by those writers.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 8, 2012)

Ronnie T said:


> Carbon dating!  I trust the Bible more than a man made system of dating that supposedly dates back into the billions of years.



So trusting writings made by 2000 year old men is a safer bet than trusting the best technology we have from men today...........to each his own.


----------



## mtnwoman (Jan 8, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Ron, again, valid points but let me try to explain.
> 
> Science and the search for knowledge is an ever changing process. As options become available to further the knowledge and gather better evidence, things can and do change. At least there is evidence to make the change and people willing to accept the new evidence as factual.
> Unlike religion where believers have to stick to what was written thousands of years ago because any change is detrimental to it's core. At the time it was written it sounded pretty good. 5000-2000 years later it still sounds good but the flaws, errors and lack of proof for most of it really stands out.
> ...



If the 3ft pigmy dig was never found, does that mean they never existed?

Did gravity exist before newton discovered it 300 years ago?


----------



## bullethead (Jan 8, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> If the 3ft pigmy dig was never found, does that mean they never existed?
> 
> Did gravity exist before newton discovered it 300 years ago?



If someone claimed either did exist they had to put up or shut up in order to back up the claims.  Archeologists and Newton put up. 

If no one knows about it and never makes a claim then it is an entirely different scenario. No one knows something exists until it is discovered or a theory is found to be fact.

Religious claims are not only made but referred to as fact, all without anything to back them up.


----------



## Ronnie T (Jan 8, 2012)

But my faith in God overpowers all else.

.


----------



## mtnwoman (Jan 8, 2012)

bullethead said:


> If someone claimed either did exist they had to put up or shut up in order to back up the claims.  Archeologists and Newton put up.
> 
> If no one knows about it and never makes a claim then it is an entirely different scenario. No one knows something exists until it is discovered or a theory is found to be fact.
> 
> Religious claims are not only made but referred to as fact, all without anything to back them up.



Could I just get a yes or no answer.

Was there gravity before Newton discovered it?


----------



## bullethead (Jan 8, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> Could I just get a yes or no answer.
> 
> Was there gravity before Newton discovered it?



The force of attraction between two objects has always existed, Newton just named it Gravity.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 8, 2012)

Ronnie T said:


> But my faith in God overpowers all else.
> 
> .



Understood.


----------



## mtnwoman (Jan 9, 2012)

bullethead said:


> The force of attraction between two objects has always existed, Newton just named it Gravity.



So Newton didn't actually discover gravity, he just named it? The science books then need to change that, don't they? Wonder how many people before Newton try to prove something was there, and people thought they were crazy? Only 300yrs ago out of millions of years to discover it? or even think about it? Does not mean it wasn't alway true that it was.

What about electricity, has it always been there and how about sound waves that could be captured by telephone that probably every one at that time never dreamed existed.

I'm sure the early sea travellers couldn't prove to anyone that the earth was round, either. But it was.

I'm sure everyone thought the early fliers ie wright bros, etc...were lunatics when they themselves knew that could fly before they could actually prove it.

My point is things exist whether we can prove it or not.

You keep mentioning virgin birth.....we know that IS possible.  We know that 'fiery chariots' are possible.

What about cell phones, computers, 60 yrs ago, no one would believe that could possibly be, but it's always been possible, we just didn't know HOW it was possible. 

What about cars?....people travelled ahoof by horse or their own feet for thousands of years, never in 10 million yrs did they even know they could drive in a car, yet they had the wheel.

No one would've ever discovered these things or invented them without some FAITH that they could do so. Would they?
That plus all the naysayers saying it was impossible.


Just because I can't prove everything or even just some things in the bible are true, doesn't mean that I don't have faith that they are true....and the bible says that. So many folks who wrote the bible must of had the forethought to know that it is hard to believe, but just have faith.

That is what the Holy Spirit gives me, is faith. Don't think for a moment that most of us have some doubts about some things but very few of us believers doubt anything about the gospel, because that is what we must have faith in.


Like I said before this is probably very simplistic to most of y'all who are all into science and history, etc. But ever since I've been on this earth, 1949, I have seen many things that have developed out of men's faith that it could be possible. I started working at bellsouth when I was 18, and worked on a cord board. Never did I dream that people could dial long distance directly, never did I dream anything about cell phones. I've seen so many things developed in my 30yrs in telecommunication that seemed impossible that if someone didn't have initial faith that it would work, they never would've tried to devlope such a thing.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 9, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> So Newton didn't actually discover gravity, he just named it? The science books then need to change that, don't they? Wonder how many people before Newton try to prove something was there, and people thought they were crazy? Only 300yrs ago out of millions of years to discover it? or even think about it? Does not mean it wasn't alway true that it was.
> 
> What about electricity, has it always been there and how about sound waves that could be captured by telephone that probably every one at that time never dreamed existed.
> 
> ...



History books and info on the internet are not wrong. A quick search will easily show you that "gravity" (although not called that then) was known back into the 3rd and 4th centuries and before that people were well aware that things fell down when dropped. It took a scientist to figure out WHY.


----------



## mtnwoman (Jan 9, 2012)

bullethead said:


> History books and info on the internet are not wrong. A quick search will easily show you that "gravity" (although not called that then) was known back into the 3rd and 4th centuries and before that people were well aware that things fell down when dropped. It took a scientist to figure out WHY.



Ok, I agree. The OT says there's nothing new under the sun. That's my point, all things that are true will come to light at one time or other. I'm sure in 10 yrs we'll know more than we do now.  And you say people didn't know exactly 'why' things did as they did because of gravity, but they 'KNEW' it was there. I can't explain God either, but I know God is there.


----------



## ted_BSR (Jan 9, 2012)

bullethead said:


> So trusting writings made by 2000 year old men is a safer bet than trusting the best technology we have from men today...........to each his own.



Dude - you believe in little tiny skeletons?


----------



## ted_BSR (Jan 9, 2012)

bullethead said:


> History books and info on the internet are not wrong. A quick search will easily show you that "gravity" (although not called that then) was known back into the 3rd and 4th centuries and before that people were well aware that things fell down when dropped. It took a scientist to figure out WHY.



Yes they are. I have found many instances where the internet was wrong, not by any religious standards, but by scientific standards. I have found these examples quoted/cited in reports by the EPA and the GA EPD. Your faith in the internet is stronger than my faith in God.

History books have historically been systematically written to omit facts that are not deemed favorable to certain guberment entities. Ever read a Chinese history book? How about a Nazi history book? You have plenty of faith BH, try to focus it.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 10, 2012)

ted_BSR said:


> Yes they are. I have found many instances where the internet was wrong, not by any religious standards, but by scientific standards. I have found these examples quoted/cited in reports by the EPA and the GA EPD. Your faith in the internet is stronger than my faith in God.
> 
> History books have historically been systematically written to omit facts that are not deemed favorable to certain guberment entities. Ever read a Chinese history book? How about a Nazi history book? You have plenty of faith BH, try to focus it.



Ted. Take my comment in context with the conversation I was having.
It was not a blanket statement covering all History books and Writings on the internet. I know for a fact manure farmers have less shikkaka laying around than what is on the internet.......


----------



## mtnwoman (Jan 11, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Ted. Take my comment in context with the conversation I was having.
> It was not a blanket statement covering all History books and Writings on the internet. I know for a fact manure farmers have less shikkaka laying around than what is on the internet.......



What do you think of the vander sloot news today? What do you think about Tim Tevow news today? 
Coinkdinky, I suspect you would say. But just tell me.


----------



## mtnwoman (Jan 11, 2012)

bullethead said:


> So trusting writings made by 2000 year old men is a safer bet than trusting the best technology we have from men today...........to each his own.



Well the same technology was available 2000 years ago....
just that no one conceived it, or believed it....same as today.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 12, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> What do you think of the vander sloot news today? What do you think about Tim Tevow news today?
> Coinkdinky, I suspect you would say. But just tell me.



I see since that you have to bring it up in two different posts you want to share your thoughts about the two of those guys, so please do.
I don't know what specific news you are talking about so I cannot answer your question.


----------



## mtnwoman (Jan 12, 2012)

bullethead said:


> I see since that you have to bring it up in two different posts you want to share your thoughts about the two of those guys, so please do.
> I don't know what specific news you are talking about so I cannot answer your question.



See my apology.
I do have something to say about it, but I've got to get unfogged up in here.

So this is the 3rd.

Thanks MrBulletDude, and yes I'm still a little loopty loo. 
Wow! Not sure if I feel good or bad....


----------

