Creationsim

[deegs]

I grew up around a lot of kids that were Catholic. I attended church as a kid but certainly wasn't Christian. I always thought the Catholic church services were very weird. There were always stories in school about all the catholic school girls were sexaholics but because of their religion only let guys put it in their asses. But I'm sure they were just rumors.

i always wondered what makes one christian sect better than another in their follower's minds. i never understood why one person's is better than another. in the grand scheme of things, you are faithful, and good, and loyal. it seems petty to make the divisions and then proclaim the others to be wrong.

taking it a bit further, why are christians, in their own minds, the chosen people. how can the crusades be justified, but now the islamic extremists are demonized?

anyway, it's just funny that you talk about catholics that way when most non religious people see christians as just as weird.

[deegs]

Sure, if you believe the state established religion of evolution. If divergence happened 60,000 years ago, how come historical written records are all about the same age... around 5,000 years. All languages arose at the same time. There are no language-less societies. What did people do for the other 55,000 years to communicate? You'd think in that time they would have at least scratched something onto a rock? Or a piece of wood? Not trying to be sarcastic, so please don't take it that way, but there just is absolutely no proof of these 60,000 year old peoples, other that a few fragmented bones. No one found any records written down anywhere. Just guesses. I'm certainly not going to stake my eternal salvation on some crusty extinct monkey bones.

look up the cave paintings in Lascaux, France. 30, 000 years old.

[deegs]

there are also early human markings found in africa dated to be over 200,000 years old.

[deegs]

oh i can't forget the engraved drawing on deer antlers found to be 17,000 years old.

[deegs]

communication existed well before the invention of writing. it was a slow shift from drawn symbols, to sylized drawings, to more modern lettering, which really are just symbols anyhow.

[deegs]

double post

[Lord Krishna]

No. Because no we are not perfect. Have you ever stolen? Have you ever lied? Therefore you have already sinned. And the wages of sin is death. That's why we need a perfect sacrifice to go in our place. The only difference between a Christian and a non-believer is that the Christian sins but they get back up when they fall down. A Christian isn't perfect, just forgiven. Of course this doesn't mean that a Christian should stay in sin because they have grace. Because the very example of the life that a Christian leads is the thing that pulls people to God. If a Christian lives life as a pagan and rude and evil to others, then people will not want to come to know God because of a mans actions.

I say, no because you cannot live perfect. No one can, and this is why Christ had to come and take our place. All you have to do is accept Him into your heart then you will not have to try to be perfect. I hope that helps.

But why so many complications? why cant god just accept everybody in the great kingdom of he heaven????

[deegs]

i also would like to note that the first people who began to communicate with writing were not christian or jews.

they were Mesopotamian businessmen wanting to have a record of transactions. they would use wet clay to draw pictographs, then harden the clay. these later evolved into cuneiform which was a form of rebus writing. words and symbols representing syllables that sounded like the object drawn. a transaction of sheep for grain would be common.

[deegs]

also, there existed the code of hammurabi, who reigned 1792-1750 bc. these were a set of laws and their applicable punishments. THE FIRST ever such device establishing social order or justice. the commandments are nowhere to be found. these are man made laws without divine intervention.

this simply leads one to believe that man is just fine to guide himself. he doesn't need a magical ruler to reward him for being moral.

[deegs]

or scare him

[ZiLLa]

Damnit Deegs you beat me to it...

[xcept68]

i always wondered what makes one christian sect better than another in their follower's minds. i never understood why one person's is better than another. in the grand scheme of things, you are faithful, and good, and loyal. it seems petty to make the divisions and then proclaim the others to be wrong.

taking it a bit further, why are christians, in their own minds, the chosen people. how can the crusades be justified, but now the islamic extremists are demonized?

anyway, it's just funny that you talk about catholics that way when most non religious people see christians as just as weird.

People can be dogmatic about anything, and not just religion. If someone's belief is set, there is no changing it. That's also mentioned in the Bible. The reason some people are so very concerned about it would be because perhaps people care about a persons eternal soul. Maybe they just don't know the right way to express that they think they are doing it wrong or believing the wrong things to be true.

Satan is very tricky. He doesn't need you to believe in him in order to go to hell. All he needs you to do is believe Christ is someone other than who He is. If he can get you to do that, and doubt yourself and God, then he has you. Even slight changes will make him very happy in his work. Satan isn't omnipotent. He just uses the verizon network. Except his are multitudes of fallen angels and demonic entities. So he has limited resources. He hates us and wants all of us to turn away from God. Maybe, in my opinion, that he needs everyone to turn from God so that God will have to start over, thus giving Satan another opportunity?? Who knows. Much like in a police line up. If you are 6' 220# blond hair, blue eyes and your name is Skip Thompson. I describe you to the police and say your name is Skip Thompson, and you are 6' 220# brown hair, green eyes. You would probably immediately say, THAT'S NOT ME! You've got the wrong guy. You would likely walk. Right? Same goes for Christ. Christ said "Who do they say that I Am?" You could be in danger of worshipping a false god. That's all Satan wants you to do.

[xcept68]

i also would like to note that the first people who began to communicate with writing were not christian or jews.

they were Mesopotamian businessmen wanting to have a record of transactions. they would use wet clay to draw pictographs, then harden the clay. these later evolved into cuneiform which was a form of rebus writing. words and symbols representing syllables that sounded like the object drawn. a transaction of sheep for grain would be common.

uh huh... and where was Abraham from? Ur. Where's that?

[ZiLLa]

But why so many complications? why cant god just accept everybody in the great kingdom of he heaven????

Because Heaven and Hell DO NOT exsist...
It would be nice to think there is some imaginary place where "bad" people go after death, and some place up in the sky where "good" people go after death. But thats just a fairy tale.

[blevunly]

Free will can't exist, therefor all sins are either caused by God or occur randomly.

[blevunly]

Because Heaven and Hell DO NOT exsist...
It would be nice to think there is some imaginary place where "bad" people go after death, and some place up in the sky where "good" people go after death. But thats just a fairy tale.

Good and bad can describe actions, but not people.

Just felt like pointing that out...

[Lord Krishna]

Because Heaven and Hell DO NOT exsist...
It would be nice to think there is some imaginary place where "bad" people go after death, and some place up in the sky where "good" people go after death. But thats just a fairy tale.

You are chasing the wrong car sparky

[deegs]

uh huh... and where was Abraham from? Ur. Where's that?


the point was that the invention of writing was not for religious purposes. it was for business. thus the fact that the bible/monotheism came to be a bit after was a result of people being able to write, not the other way around.

[Lord Krishna]

Good and bad can describe actions, but not people.

Just felt like pointing that out...

Not even actions. Good and bad are entirely subjective. Whats good for one is bad for the other.

[Lord Krishna]

the point was that the invention of writing was not for religious purposes. it was for business. thus the fact that the bible/monotheism came to be a bit after was a result of people being able to write, not the other way around.

He is still not convinced. You know why? because according to the bible the devil always tries to confuse and he is trying to confuse him through you.

the nigga is hypnotized

[blevunly]

Not even actions. Good and bad are entirely subjective. Whats good for one is bad for the other.

Good point, I was using it as a universal rule. What isn't harmful to someone else is good and what is is bad. But that is just my interpretation of the words.

[deegs]

He is still not convinced. You know why? because according to the bible the devil always tries to confuse and he is trying to confuse him through you.

the nigga is hypnotized

jaja, well im not really trying to convince him since he's free to believe what he likes. i just didn't like his insinuation that life began 6000 years ago and humans were instantly able to communicate with words without any sort of progession, and coincidentally, a giant book came out of adam's ass like an instruction manual.

[deegs]

can't get over shawn crawford's erector spinae.

[deegs]

that sounded kinda gay

[blevunly]

can't get over shawn crawford's erector spinae.

What about it?

[deegs]

pronounced

[xcept68]

jaja, well im not really trying to convince him since he's free to believe what he likes. i just didn't like his insinuation that life began 6000 years ago and humans were instantly able to communicate with words without any sort of progession, and coincidentally, a giant book came out of adam's ass like an instruction manual.

I don't mind your insinuation that we came from lesser species, even if you take offense to me believing an historical document that has stood the test of time and scrutiny for millenia...

As far as I can tell, Adam and Eve spoke directly to God. No instruction manual needed. God placed in them the ability at creation to know what they needed to do and not do.

Ever buy a new pair of work boots? They come with this coating on them that makes them matte in color, you cannot polish them up and get them shiny with this coating on them, even though the coating will protect the boots. So you have to scrub the boots and work with them until they are able to be taken from having looked like they have been through the ringer into some boots that are even shinier and more new than when you first bought them. This is what God does with our eternal soul. We go through things in our lives in order to test our faith and pull closer to Him. He must break down your pride and haughtyness and make you a new creation in His eyes. That's really what being a Christian is all about. Being a Christian isn't easy. I think being a pagan is easy. Because if you already don't believe in God, Satan, Jesus, Heaven, or Hell. Then Satan certainly isn't going to waste his valuable resources on you. You've done the job for him!

[lancaster]

I don't mind your insinuation that we came from lesser species

Umm lesser species? Do you think that humans are the pinnacle of greatness? Apes are stronger than us, heaps of animals can run faster than us, raptors have better vision than we do, fish can swim better than us. Our claws and teeth suck, we have no fur to keep warm, we're completely helpless for the first couple of years of our lives.

If we were created, then whoever did it did a pretty poor job of it.

[blevunly]

Umm lesser species? Do you think that humans are the pinnacle of greatness? Apes are stronger than us, heaps of animals can run faster than us, raptors have better vision than we do, fish can swim better than us. Our claws and teeth suck, we have no fur to keep warm, we're completely helpless for the first couple of years of our lives.

If we were created, then whoever did it did a pretty poor job of it.

Intelligence > physical attributes

[lancaster]

Intelligence > physical attributes

Put a single naked tiger and a single naked man on an island and see who wins.

Human's speciality is their adaptability and generality. This is why we've done so well. We're just another animal. Pretending that all other animals are lesser is just arrogant. As to intelligence, we're not tops there either. For instance, pigeon's have better spacial perception.

[ZiLLa]

Put a single naked tiger and a single naked man on an island and see who wins.

Human's speciality is their adaptability and generality. This is why we've done so well. We're just another animal. Pretending that all other animals are lesser is just arrogant. As to intelligence, we're not tops there either. For instance, pigeon's have better spacial perception.

That tiger wouldn't have shit on my pointy stick
I would win

I gotta agree with blevunly.... Intelligence > physical attributes

[xcept68]

God placed the fear of man into animals. Otherwise we probably would have already been overcome by them. Lancaster just doesn't get it. But that's ok. I don't mind discussing these issues with him. Everyone has had a stupid point or view at one point or another. Not in a bad way. I had a girlfriend once that thought that Alaska was next to Hawaii. Because that's how all maps were printed up when you look at them in school. After she looked on a globe and saw where it really was, then she felt better for having been freed of the demons of stupidity. Maybe, just maybe Lancaster will be able to do the same. Let's hope so for our sake.

[lancaster]

That tiger wouldn't have shit on my pointy stick
I would win

hahahaha, oh wait, you're serious. That makes it even funnier.

[blevunly]

hahahaha, oh wait, you're serious. That makes it even funnier.

The human could climb trees, set traps, create weapons such as stick and stones. Plus if a human and a tiger are the only mammals on the island the tiger would starve.

[lancaster]

The human could climb trees, set traps, create weapons such as stick and stones. Plus if a human and a tiger are the only mammals on the island the tiger would starve.

I'm not talking about a hypothetical computer game or survival movie. I'm talking about for real. Go outside and look at the first person you see. Could that particular person outwit a tiger by themselves? Would they know how to set a trap to kill a 250kg tiger? How about a weapon? Lets say they're really clever and manage to make a forge to smelt some ore to create for themselves a fantastic tiger killing spear. Even then, they'd still die.

Individually humans aren't that spectacularly intelligent.

Still disagree? Okay then prove it. Let's take an example, say you. How does your intelligence mean you are a greater species? Please define intelligence and give examples from your own life.

[blevunly]

I'm not talking about a hypothetical computer game or survival movie. I'm talking about for real. Go outside and look at the first person you see. Could that particular person outwit a tiger by themselves? Would they know how to set a trap to kill a 250kg tiger? How about a weapon? Lets say they're really clever and manage to make a forge to smelt some ore to create for themselves a fantastic tiger killing spear. Even then, they'd still die.

Individually humans aren't that spectacularly intelligent.

Still disagree? Okay then prove it. Let's take an example, say you. How does your intelligence mean you are a greater species? Please define intelligence and give examples from your own life.

On an island with no other mammals a tiger would starve first, because it is larger and requires more energy to go about its day.

The evidence is all around you, whose ontop of the food chain right now? Physical atributes are more of an instant bonus yeah they're great at the moment, but you know tigers physical attributes don't change very quickly; where as compare that to how far humans have come in just 200 years. How advanced we are now comparitively to tigers and you'll see the value of rational intelligent thought which anmals do not posses.

My intelligence helps me not to go and eat wild animals that might be diseased. I live in a shelter that keeps me safe and healthy. I eat food that is good for me and will lead to me living a longer life.

[lancaster]

On an island with no other mammals a tiger would starve first, because it is larger and requires more energy to go about its day.

No, we put both the human and the tiger on the island. The tiger eats the human. We're talking real life, not some hypothetical island with no food sources apart from a tiger proof bunker filled with cans of food and a can opener.

... where as compare that to how far humans have come in just 200 years. How advanced we are now comparitively to tigers and you'll see the value of rational intelligent thought which anmals do not posses.

Confusion abounds! We're talking about humans, not humankind. Just as an entire ant hill is more intelligent than the ants themselves, so too is humankind more intelligent than individual humans. And remember the specific example of humans that we are using is you.

My intelligence helps me not to go and eat wild animals that might be diseased. I live in a shelter that keeps me safe and healthy. I eat food that is good for me and will lead to me living a longer life.

Gee, even the dummest animal can do that. Don't you have better examples? You know, the ones that demonstrate that you're a greater species?

Remember the original argument was that humans are a greater species due to <insert reason here>. My argument is that we're just another animal. We're not special.

[blevunly]

No, we put both the human and the tiger on the island. The tiger eats the human. We're talking real life, not some hypothetical island with no food sources apart from a tiger proof bunker filled with cans of food and a can opener.

I was referring to humans eating thing like plants or fruits and berries in trees, also a human can climb trees a tiger can't. I didn't realize the island was a 5 by 5 grassy plain.

Confusion abounds! We're talking about humans, not humankind. Just as an entire ant hill is more intelligent than the ants themselves, so too is humankind more intelligent than individual humans. And remember the specific example of humans that we are using is you.


Yes and our intelligence combined together has produce far superior results than all other animals banning together. You're right though if humans didn't use their intelligence to work together then we would have never reached the top of the food chain.

Gee, even the dummest animal can do that. Don't you have better examples? You know, the ones that demonstrate that you're a greater species?

Remember the original argument was that humans are a greater species due to <insert reason here>. My argument is that we're just another animal. We're not special.

Wow animals know about the nutritional contents of all the food they eat. That's amazing!

I like how you try to make it personal like I'm supposed to be superior by myself I'm 18 years old and I haven't really got a chance to contribute much to the human race I guess that completely discredits people like thomas edison, benjamin franklin, and john locke. I'll rephrase my point again humans use their intelligence to ban together, build shelter, study organisms, conquer other species, understand their body, extend their life expectancy... need I go on?

[lancaster]

I like how you try to make it personal like I'm supposed to be superior by myself I'm 18 years old and I haven't really got a chance to contribute much to the human race I guess that completely discredits people like thomas edison, benjamin franklin, and john locke. I'll rephrase my point again humans use their intelligence to ban together, build shelter, study organisms, conquer other species, understand their body, extend their life expectancy... need I go on?

It wasn't supposed to be a personal attack on you. Those people you mentioned are smart, but they are the exception. To compare groups, you need to compare the averages, not the best examples. I just picked you as a convenient average.

We're arguing at cross purposes. I agree with you that collectively humans are smart. It takes some serious intelligence to build a car. But a single average human couldn't do it in isolation.

Yes mankind's collective intelligence has shot up in the last 200 years. This is due to improved communication between the really smart people. The average intelligence of the individual really hasn't increased much.

So yes the average human is mostly more intelligent than the other animals - afterall, it's our speciality. But how does that make us greater? We're smarter, but not by a whole lot. How does that increase in intelligence balance against our deficiencies?

Anyway back to creationism which is the topic of this thread. If we were created, then the creator did a poor job. Our physical attributes are lacking, and so is our intelligence for that matter. The average person really is pretty dumb. Why did the creator do such a poor job?

[blevunly]

It wasn't supposed to be a personal attack on you. Those people you mentioned are smart, but they are the exception. To compare groups, you need to compare the averages, not the best examples. I just picked you as a convenient average.

I didn't take it as a personal attack, sorry if it seemed that way.

We're arguing at cross purposes. I agree with you that collectively humans are smart. It takes some serious intelligence to build a car. But a single average human couldn't do it in isolation.

Yeah of course just like most if not all animals stay in packs. Humans are just the most efficient of all animals, this is because of our ability for rational thought.

Yes mankind's collective intelligence has shot up in the last 200 years. This is due to improved communication between the really smart people. The average intelligence of the individual really hasn't increased much.

Yes, but we as a whole are still light years ahead of all other species. Like I said before physical attributes are like an instant bonus, intelligence takes time to really get the most out of it.

So yes the average human is mostly more intelligent than the other animals - afterall, it's our speciality. But how does that make us greater? We're smarter, but not by a whole lot. How does that increase in intelligence balance against our deficiencies?


the average human being is way more intelligent than other animals and posses rational thought which is a big contributor to that intelligence. I never said we were greater, I said we were superior meaning we live longer healthier lives and are capable of more things. The increase in intelligence completely makes up for our lack of physical attributes, but it doesn't work vice versa. Intelligence has given us clothes to make up for our lack of fur, glasses to make up for our eye sight, weapons to make up for our teeth and nails the list goes on and on name something animals have over us and we've found a way to compensate and that makes us superior the fact we can dive to the depths like a fish, soar through the sky like a bird, and travel at faster speds than any living creature.

Anyway back to creationism which is the topic of this thread. If we were created, then the creator did a poor job. Our physical attributes are lacking, and so is our intelligence for that matter. The average person really is pretty dumb. Why did the creator do such a poor job?

Well the creator did make us mortal so the fact that things can kill us doesn't come as much of a surprise. Why do you assume the creators goal was to make the greatest species ever thought up?

[Lord Krishna]

It wasn't supposed to be a personal attack on you. Those people you mentioned are smart, but they are the exception. To compare groups, you need to compare the averages, not the best examples. I just picked you as a convenient average.

We're arguing at cross purposes. I agree with you that collectively humans are smart. It takes some serious intelligence to build a car. But a single average human couldn't do it in isolation.

Yes mankind's collective intelligence has shot up in the last 200 years. This is due to improved communication between the really smart people. The average intelligence of the individual really hasn't increased much.

So yes the average human is mostly more intelligent than the other animals - afterall, it's our speciality. But how does that make us greater? We're smarter, but not by a whole lot. How does that increase in intelligence balance against our deficiencies?

Anyway back to creationism which is the topic of this thread. If we were created, then the creator did a poor job. Our physical attributes are lacking, and so is our intelligence for that matter. The average person really is pretty dumb. Why did the creator do such a poor job?

christian blah blah satan blah blah jesus blah blah blah blah blah

[Lord Krishna]

If there is actually a creator he is a fucking asshole making life unecessarily difficult for everyone with his holier than thou attitude. If not then everything makes perfect sense.

[blevunly]

If there is actually a creator he is a fucking asshole making life unecessarily difficult for everyone with his holier than thou attitude. If not then everything makes perfect sense.

I agree.

[deegs]

He's sadistic.

[lancaster]

christian blah blah satan blah blah jesus blah blah blah blah blah

Thanks for volunteering yourself, but we're using the example of average human intelligence. When we need an example of below average we'll get back to you.

[xcept68]

Originally Posted by lancaster
It wasn't supposed to be a personal attack on you. Those people you mentioned are smart, but they are the exception. To compare groups, you need to compare the averages, not the best examples. I just picked you as a convenient average.

We're arguing at cross purposes. I agree with you that collectively humans are smart. It takes some serious intelligence to build a car. But a single average human couldn't do it in isolation.

Yes mankind's collective intelligence has shot up in the last 200 years. This is due to improved communication between the really smart people. The average intelligence of the individual really hasn't increased much.

So yes the average human is mostly more intelligent than the other animals - afterall, it's our speciality. But how does that make us greater? We're smarter, but not by a whole lot. How does that increase in intelligence balance against our deficiencies?

Anyway back to creationism which is the topic of this thread. If we were created, then the creator did a poor job. Our physical attributes are lacking, and so is our intelligence for that matter. The average person really is pretty dumb. Why did the creator do such a poor job?

Our Creator gave us all the tools necessary to fulfill our purpose here upon earth. Afterwards when the world is created anew, then our bodies will be different. They will be eternal. We are weak and made strong through Jesus.

[deegs]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23468364/

[xcept68]

yes I read that the other day. Funny you would post it. Many critical errors with their statements, and whether it's taken out of proportion from the original researcher or not I do not know. But it's quite errant. I will edit this post and give you something more truthful to understand. Firstly, why would you believe this, if you in fact do. In order to believe this, you would have to believe the Biblical account of Moses, then you would have to believe that 2 million plus people were in a desert and found enough hallucinating mushrooms in order to keep them all high for 40 years.

[lancaster]

In order to believe this, you would have to believe the Biblical account of Moses, then you would have to believe that 2 million plus people were in a desert and found enough hallucinating mushrooms in order to keep them all high for 40 years.

Well if not mushrooms then they must have been on something. It's a 10 day quick march from Egypt to Israel. Or about 30 days if they took the scenic route and stopped to admire the view. The only way they could have taken 40 years is if they were off their faces.

[xcept68]

Well if not mushrooms then they must have been on something. It's a 10 day quick march from Egypt to Israel. Or about 30 days if they took the scenic route and stopped to admire the view. The only way they could have taken 40 years is if they were off their faces.

People have been found dead and lost a mere thousand feet from roads at camping areas. The wilderness in Isreal is probably the worst terrain you could possibly be in every hill and mount looks the same, there aren't shrubs even anywhere. The main reason is God kept them from getting to the promised land of canaan until they were ready to defeat the peoples currently residing there. That mean't fulfilling the promise that the first generation peoples wouldn't make it. travelling and marching 40 years would certainly strengthen the groups resolve in being battle ready. There are alot of things positive about this. There are alot of things taken negatively. They kept defying God, and God kept punishing them for their defiance. I wasn't there, you weren't there, all we have is the account and speculation on our parts and on the parts of some psychologist who himself admitted to taking drugs. Why should we believe his word?

[kronker]

Okay, but which 10 commandments? The 10 commandments are listed in three separate places in the bible (Deuteronomy 5:6-21, Exodus 20:3-17, and Exodus 34:12:26) and each of these listings are different. I'll go with the list from Exodus 34:12:26, as that is the most recent one.

1. Make no covenant with the people where thou goest.
2. Thou shall not worship any other god.
3. Thou shall not make any molten gods.
4. The feast of unleavened bread shall thou keep.
5. The first offspring from every womb belongs to me.
6. Rest on the seventh day.
7. Observe the feast of weeks.
8. Thou shall not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leaven.
9. The first of the fruits of thy land belong to me.
10. Thou shall not boil a kid in its mother's milk

Umm, okay. So Kronker, how is following these commandments supposed to keep peace and love together?

I was going by the ones on the movie "The Ten Commandments".

http://imdb.com/title/tt0049833/

Have fun.

[kronker]

ummm the Big Bang is A FACT
And so is evolution
The earth is around 3-4 billion years old and universe is 13.7 billion years old.
These are FACTS

Albert Einstein once said
"Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe - a spirit vastly superior to that of man...In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is indeed quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive."

The world use to be square and that was a fact.
The sun use to revolve around the earth and that was a fact.
Then the earth was made up of objects that were a certain composition and that was a fact.
Then these compositions were made up of smaller parts of energy and that was a fact.
Then it was realized that everything contained energy and that was fact.


If it wasn't for people who dared to question "facts", we wouldn't be where we are today.

The big bang theory is a theory, that is all.
And as for evolution, that is also a theory. And we can't prove or disprove that some group of energy or consciousness or "God" is driving the force of evolution.

[kronker]

Well the creator did make us mortal so the fact that things can kill us doesn't come as much of a surprise. Why do you assume the creators goal was to make the greatest species ever thought up?

Um, he did make us the greatest species ever thought up. You're telling me that this man isn't the greatest specie ever thought up?

<embed style="width:400px; height:326px;" id="VideoPlayback" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=8153677270851269335&hl=en-CA" flashvars=""> </embed>

[xcept68]

The world use to be square and that was a fact.
The sun use to revolve around the earth and that was a fact.
Then the earth was made up of objects that were a certain composition and that was a fact.
Then these compositions were made up of smaller parts of energy and that was a fact.
Then it was realized that everything contained energy and that was fact.


If it wasn't for people who dared to question "facts", we wouldn't be where we are today.

The big bang theory is a theory, that is all.
And as for evolution, that is also a theory. And we can't prove or disprove that some group of energy or consciousness or "God" is driving the force of evolution.


Very nice list of previous facts. I like the fact on how many stars were thought to be in the sky as it gradually grew to "limitless" from approximately 10,000. Of course, the Bible stated that 3500 years ago that there are more stars than sands on the seashore. Probably just another reason the Bible still stands today. Quite a few proved scientific facts that weren't generally believed at the time it was written.

[ZiLLa]

The world use to be square and that was a fact.
The sun use to revolve around the earth and that was a fact.
Then the earth was made up of objects that were a certain composition and that was a fact.
Then these compositions were made up of smaller parts of energy and that was a fact.
Then it was realized that everything contained energy and that was fact.


If it wasn't for people who dared to question "facts", we wouldn't be where we are today.

The big bang theory is a theory, that is all.
And as for evolution, that is also a theory. And we can't prove or disprove that some group of energy or consciousness or "God" is driving the force of evolution.


Big Bang is not a theory...what came before the Big Bang is what is now the ultimate question in science. You obviously have no idea what modern astrophysicists believe the Big Bang to be.

Evolution is not a theory...I saw a special with Alec Baldwin(the greatest actor on the planet) and he outlined the exsistance of the human species and the last 3.5 million years of human evolution.

[lancaster]

And as for evolution, that is also a theory.

Evolution is both a fact and a theory. The word theory is a technical term and it's meaning is different from the casual usage which is closer to hypothesis.

A very short explanation of this is at http://www.notjustatheory.com/

[blevunly]

Evolution is both a fact and a theory. The word theory is a technical term and it's meaning is different from the casual usage which is closer to hypothesis.

A very short explanation of this is at http://www.notjustatheory.com/

Yeah people forget that a theory has been tested wheras hypothesises are just educated guesses. Evolution is definately a theory in terms of origins, but in terms of things evolving evolution outlines it is fact.

[xcept68]

Yeah people forget that a theory has been tested wheras hypothesises are just educated guesses. Evolution is definately a theory in terms of origins, but in terms of things evolving evolution outlines it is fact.

Actually there is no proof for evolution (meaning one species evolving into another distinct species). Speciation (Micro evolution) is a fact, but we Christians believe that too. It fits just fine into the Biblical model, in fact would have had to have happened much faster than what evolutionary theories dictate. Look at the number of cat species (over 4700) we have today and most of these cat species were bred fairly recently. That's merely speciation, not true evolution. Oh and that was covered very well in Genesis 30 when Jacob varied the cattle.

[xcept68]

Yeah people forget that a theory has been tested wheras hypothesises are just educated guesses. Evolution is definately a theory in terms of origins, but in terms of things evolving evolution outlines it is fact.

Actually there is no proof for evolution (meaning one species evolving into another distinct species). Speciation (Micro evolution) is a fact, but we Christians believe that too. It fits just fine into the Biblical model, in fact would have had to have happened much faster than what evolutionary theories dictate. Look at the number of cat species (over 4700) we have today and most of these cat species were bred fairly recently. That's merely speciation, not true evolution. Oh and that was covered very well in Genesis 30 when Jacob varied the cattle.

[xcept68]

Double posting... So I will use this window to give my view upon evolution.

Firstly, our current theory of evolution assumes the first 3 parts of evolution to be true and factual, when they haven't been proven at all.

1st step of evolution is stellar evolution... type 1 stars, which are supposed to form into type 2 stars then to type 3 stars and type 4 stars... (never been observed only assumed)

Next is planets to have evolved (never observed) No new stellar entity has ever been observed forming new by man. We only see stars die out, which is proof of a dying universe.

Next is life forming and evolving. Then species jumping from in the ocean, to out of the ocean, to building computers. (none of this was ever observed)

Finally evolution comes right down to variances within a species, such as changes in allele frequencies over a period of time... well that fits right in with that I believe... so since I believe this part, does that mean I must accept the other part as fact? No... it means I will also require the same proofs that I have for this part of the theory, as to the rest of the theory being factual. I don't want some scientist that survives on grant monies to be pissing down my back and tell me it's raining. I'd rather him stick to the facts. Science is about observation. If it or the effects of it hasn't been observed, then it cannot be called fact.

[blevunly]

Actually there is no proof for evolution (meaning one species evolving into another distinct species). Speciation (Micro evolution) is a fact, but we Christians believe that too. It fits just fine into the Biblical model, in fact would have had to have happened much faster than what evolutionary theories dictate. Look at the number of cat species (over 4700) we have today and most of these cat species were bred fairly recently. That's merely speciation, not true evolution. Oh and that was covered very well in Genesis 30 when Jacob varied the cattle.

You have to admit that if you believe in micro evolution macro evolution is possible, enough small changes over time equal a big change.

Double posting... So I will use this window to give my view upon evolution.

Firstly, our current theory of evolution assumes the first 3 parts of evolution to be true and factual, when they haven't been proven at all.

1st step of evolution is stellar evolution... type 1 stars, which are supposed to form into type 2 stars then to type 3 stars and type 4 stars... (never been observed only assumed)

Next is planets to have evolved (never observed) No new stellar entity has ever been observed forming new by man. We only see stars die out, which is proof of a dying universe.

Next is life forming and evolving. Then species jumping from in the ocean, to out of the ocean, to building computers. (none of this was ever observed)

Finally evolution comes right down to variances within a species, such as changes in allele frequencies over a period of time... well that fits right in with that I believe... so since I believe this part, does that mean I must accept the other part as fact? No... it means I will also require the same proofs that I have for this part of the theory, as to the rest of the theory being factual. I don't want some scientist that survives on grant monies to be pissing down my back and tell me it's raining. I'd rather him stick to the facts. Science is about observation. If it or the effects of it hasn't been observed, then it cannot be called fact.

You expect humans that have been around for a couple thousand years or so to observe a process that took over 4 billion years on earth alone?

[xcept68]

You have to admit that if you believe in micro evolution macro evolution is possible, enough small changes over time equal a big change. You would be correct to assume this, however still doesn't make it right. I heard a story about two aliens came to earth and wanted to figure out the average age and height of humans. Not knowing our growth cycles. They take a 9 yr old who's 70lbs at 54" and figure that the boy started at 0 and grows at the rate of 6" and 7.5lbs per year. At 20 yrs old he would be 10ft tall and 150lbs. So the story goes, they didn't observe growth or even birth or death. So they assumed everything based on the middle. Much like evolutionary theories does.


You expect humans that have been around for a couple thousand years or so to observe a process that took over 4 billion years on earth alone? Firstly, prove that the earth is 4 bil yrs old. Don't worry about that, I wouldn't believe it just as you wouldn't believe anything I stated. Difference is I used to believe the 4.55 bya theory. Now I know better.

[blevunly]

You would be correct to assume this, however still doesn't make it right. I heard a story about two aliens came to earth and wanted to figure out the average age and height of humans. Not knowing our growth cycles. They take a 9 yr old who's 70lbs at 54" and figure that the boy started at 0 and grows at the rate of 6" and 7.5lbs per year. At 20 yrs old he would be 10ft tall and 150lbs. So the story goes, they didn't observe growth or even birth or death. So they assumed everything based on the middle. Much like evolutionary theories does.


Firstly, prove that the earth is 4 bil yrs old. Don't worry about that, I wouldn't believe it just as you wouldn't believe anything I stated. Difference is I used to believe the 4.55 bya theory. Now I know better.

1. Hey I never said macro evolution happened just that it could've

2. I wouldn't bother anyway, doesn't discredit that it's a possibility same as your God is only a possibility.

[xcept68]

1. Hey I never said macro evolution happened just that it could've

2. I wouldn't bother anyway, doesn't discredit that it's a possibility same as your God is only a possibility.

1. Sorry bout that. I should have caught that.

2. ok. Which sounds better?

[blevunly]

1. Sorry bout that. I should have caught that.

2. ok. Which sounds better?

1. It's all good.

2. Neither they are equally believable to me. On one hand you have a process that hapened in the past so it's very difficult to prove or even find evidence for it now. On the other hand you have a God who left all his evidence in the past as well. Although God could still show his existence today, yet chooses(assuming God exists of course) not to so that kinda confuses me.

[xcept68]

1. It's all good.

2. Neither they are equally believable to me. On one hand you have a process that hapened in the past so it's very difficult to prove or even find evidence for it now. On the other hand you have a God who left all his evidence in the past as well. Although God could still show his existence today, yet chooses(assuming God exists of course) not to so that kinda confuses me.

okay. So sorry for such a broad question, but how do you think we got to where we are today? The earth, plants, animals, atmosphere in condition it's in now. According to the theory of evolution, things are supposed to be getting better and more ordered. Do you see that happening? I see things unraveling and becoming more run-down. Law of Thermodynamics works if you take the universe as a closed environment. Can this be observed that the universe is a closed environment... not as far as I know. It would seem to make more sense. We know the universe is expanding Faster instead of slowing down like the Big Bang states. I rambled completely off track with that paragraph. You can merely discard it if you want to. I will talk tomorrow when I'm more up to speed. Please give me some questions, I know that's probably not your thing, being a fence sitter and all, but I'd still like to try to answer some that YOU may have. Maybe being a fence sitter you don't have a need for questions.

[lancaster]

Actually there is no proof for evolution (meaning one species evolving into another distinct species).

There is plenty of evidence for macroevolution.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Oh and if you're going back to your word games, of course there can not be "proof" for macroevolution. There can not be "proof" for anything in history, there can only be evidence. You can not prove that say, Stalin existed, you can only provide evidence that he did.

[blevunly]

okay. So sorry for such a broad question, but how do you think we got to where we are today? The earth, plants, animals, atmosphere in condition it's in now. According to the theory of evolution, things are supposed to be getting better and more ordered. Do you see that happening? I see things unraveling and becoming more run-down. Law of Thermodynamics works if you take the universe as a closed environment. Can this be observed that the universe is a closed environment... not as far as I know. It would seem to make more sense. We know the universe is expanding Faster instead of slowing down like the Big Bang states. I rambled completely off track with that paragraph. You can merely discard it if you want to. I will talk tomorrow when I'm more up to speed. Please give me some questions, I know that's probably not your thing, being a fence sitter and all, but I'd still like to try to answer some that YOU may have. Maybe being a fence sitter you don't have a need for questions.

How are things supposed to be getting better according to evolution?

[xcept68]

Things better in evolution... "Man is supposed to have evolved from lesser species, and everything else is to have adapted and changed to allow it to exist and perform it's specific function adequately. The planets formed from stardust which clumped together after the big bang, which is an explosion that allowed everything to start forming."
~ This is something I read that was written by another person on the net in a forum debate, I liked his wording of it, because it shows unsurity of what he was stating and how little they listened in science classes.

[xcept68]

There is plenty of evidence for macroevolution.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Oh and if you're going back to your word games, of course there can not be "proof" for macroevolution. There can not be "proof" for anything in history, there can only be evidence. You can not prove that say, Stalin existed, you can only provide evidence that he did.

I think you misstyped your link...

Shouldn't it be trueorigins.org

Yeah, that's where you will find the real information, which is similar to your talkorigins.org site. These two sites are in battle with each other providing information to uproot each other, not so much to help out the user but in a battle for internet superiority.

Here's a few links for you if you would like

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/TJ/TJv14n2_Vestigial.pdf
http://www.icr.org/article/110/

[blevunly]

Things better in evolution... "Man is supposed to have evolved from lesser species, and everything else is to have adapted and changed to allow it to exist and perform it's specific function adequately. The planets formed from stardust which clumped together after the big bang, which is an explosion that allowed everything to start forming."
~ This is something I read that was written by another person on the net in a forum debate, I liked his wording of it, because it shows unsurity of what he was stating and how little they listened in science classes.

That's how it works, but mutations don't occur and become widespread instantly it took us 4 billion years to get to where we're at according to evolution.

[lancaster]

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/TJ/TJv14n2_Vestigial.pdf


I'm asuming that you agree with this "paper" because it's pro creationism. Do you also agree with its stance that the world is more than 6000 years old? Or should I just ignore that bit and skip straight to the conclusion which is that if you confuse and misrepresent the definition of vestigial you can somehow prove that God exists.

[lancaster]

http://www.icr.org/article/110/

The introduction to this article:
Evolution pretends to be biology but it plays us for fools because it provides no successful experimental documentation. Let's see if there is one scintilla of scientific evidence to support evolution.

No scientific evidence to support evolution? Hahahaha. Evolution is a fact baby. It's been proven multiple times in the lab. xcept68, you need to stop using google to do your research for you as you're just referencing shit.

[xcept68]

I'm asuming that you agree with this "paper" because it's pro creationism. Do you also agree with its stance that the world is more than 6000 years old? Or should I just ignore that bit and skip straight to the conclusion which is that if you confuse and misrepresent the definition of vestigial you can somehow prove that God exists.

actually that is a secular paper, that shoots down every vestigial body part that was supposed to have been left over from evolution. Just because it talks about mammals from 1 mya to 50k doesn't make the work done in the paper less relevant. I wanted to give you something that referenced these things that you can relate to, not merely citing of Bible verses.

But yes, I believe the earth to be around 6000 years old. Why can't it be?

[xcept68]

The introduction to this article:


No scientific evidence to support evolution? Hahahaha. Evolution is a fact baby. It's been proven multiple times in the lab. xcept68, you need to stop using google to do your research for you as you're just referencing shit.


Evolution is a fact? Oh. So you are basically stating this from a belief standpoint. Kind of like your religious viewpoint. Well I cannot argue with that. Because it's your belief and you don't require any proof you just believe it because it was taught to you that way. I won't argue this with you, we can agree to disagree.

[xcept68]

That's how it works, but mutations don't occur and become widespread instantly it took us 4 billion years to get to where we're at according to evolution.

Who says? According to who? Darwin? About everything Darwin stated in his origin of species has been debunked and overturned. Seriously, I tire of this debate where there is no evidence presented of why you believe in your theory of evolution. I really see no point if you are going to dogmatically state it, then if you believe it because you want to and not based upon the facts presented, then we really have no arguement here. Just your views differ from mine.

[lancaster]

Evolution is a fact? Oh. So you are basically stating this from a belief standpoint.

Google Diane Dodd. Evolution has been experimentally demonstrated in the laboratory. That makes it a fact (from Webster fact noun: an actual occurrence).

[xcept68]

Google Diane Dodd. Evolution has been experimentally demonstrated in the laboratory. That makes it a fact (from Webster fact noun: an actual occurrence).

a fruit fly is still a fruit fly. a finch is still a finch. mutations in fruit flies always work themselves out of the population after just a few generations. Mutations are all bad, never good. This alone disproves evolution. There are many articles about this on ICR's website as well as Answersingenesis.

I know one of the staff PhD Biologists at ICR personally. I'd be glad to ask him any question you want exactly as you word it and give you his answer back to you just as he words it.

Evolution isn't speciation, that's just speciation. Evolution means from one species to another species.

An orange can turn green to orange then to brown when it rots, but it doesn't change the fact it's still an orange.

[xcept68]

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/VC1fEvidenceSpeciation.shtml

This says evidence for SPECIATION. Not evidence for evolution. I hope this helps you out.

[lancaster]

From my biology textbook:

Evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next.

This has been experimentally demonstrated, and hence is a fact. Care to be a man and admit that Evolution is a fact?

[blevunly]

Who says? According to who? Darwin? About everything Darwin stated in his origin of species has been debunked and overturned. Seriously, I tire of this debate where there is no evidence presented of why you believe in your theory of evolution. I really see no point if you are going to dogmatically state it, then if you believe it because you want to and not based upon the facts presented, then we really have no arguement here. Just your views differ from mine.

You have to let natural/sexual selection take its course. If a mutation occured today the animal would have to have time to spread its seed and for the weaker versions of the species to die out. The animal with the mutation could be hit by a car a couple days into its life ending its ability to pass off its mutation. And if we're talking about enough mutations to actually transform a species then you're gonna be waiting for a long time.

When did I ever say I believed in evolution as in origins?

There is a ton of evidence in favor of evolution, no proof but as lancaster stated proof of even the simplest things can be a burden. As I've stated previously God could instantly show himself at anytime evolution doesn't have that luxury.

[xcept68]

From my biology textbook:



This has been experimentally demonstrated, and hence is a fact. Care to be a man and admit that Evolution is a fact?

The definition you provided is indeed a fact, as I stated that evolution is currently defined as what is merely observed, the problem I have, and many others in the world today have is the assumptions that took place in order to get to where they are at now. Stating that evolution has done things that it not only hasn't done and cannot be recreated in a lab at all, merely shows a bit of hocus pocus.

David Blaine levitates on TV. The camera showed this as a fact. What they didn't show you is that he used two different audience reactions to two different tricks, the one that the bystanders saw and the one that was used with the wires for the viewer on TV to witness. We see David Blaine or Criss Angel levitate, we see only the effects of it now, not what took place in order for him to be able to levitate. Maybe a bad example, however look at what we are supposing that evolution has accomplished by assuming that it has done so with NO EVIDENCE of this whatsoever. You can find a north american snail in Indonesia and seeing how slow it moves assume that it got there over a period of 1 million years of migrating from the US to it's resting place in Indonesia from various offspring continuing the journey for it.

Evolution doesn't have any proof for the previous claims and previous definitions of which have been altered moreso than the actual act has happened upon mankind.

Yeah everyone agrees with the change in alleles over a period of time within a species, not enough for a species to jump from one to the next.

[FLemshady]

Neither can be proved or disproved

Both require faith

Which do you believe?

:P

[blevunly]

Neither can be proved or disproved

Both require faith

Which do you believe?

:P

Neither hence why I'm Agnostic.

[lancaster]

Neither can be proved or disproved

Both require faith

Which do you believe?

:P

A poor attempt to equate belief in creationism with belief in evolution.

As I've already stated, you can't prove anything from history you can only provide evidence. There is plenty of evidence of evolution. There isn't any for creationism - apart from the bible.

If evolution was disproved, everyone would drop it immediately. Can you say the same for creationism?

[TapOut136]

The definition you provided is indeed a fact, as I stated that evolution is currently defined as what is merely observed, the problem I have, and many others in the world today have is the assumptions that took place in order to get to where they are at now. Stating that evolution has done things that it not only hasn't done and cannot be recreated in a lab at all, merely shows a bit of hocus pocus.

David Blaine levitates on TV. The camera showed this as a fact. What they didn't show you is that he used two different audience reactions to two different tricks, the one that the bystanders saw and the one that was used with the wires for the viewer on TV to witness. We see David Blaine or Criss Angel levitate, we see only the effects of it now, not what took place in order for him to be able to levitate. Maybe a bad example, however look at what we are supposing that evolution has accomplished by assuming that it has done so with NO EVIDENCE of this whatsoever. You can find a north american snail in Indonesia and seeing how slow it moves assume that it got there over a period of 1 million years of migrating from the US to it's resting place in Indonesia from various offspring continuing the journey for it.

Evolution doesn't have any proof for the previous claims and previous definitions of which have been altered moreso than the actual act has happened upon mankind.

Yeah everyone agrees with the change in alleles over a period of time within a species, not enough for a species to jump from one to the next.

Holy shit what bunch of jibberish.

[xcept68]

Holy shit what bunch of jibberish.

Yeah I know, I was highly medicated when I wrote that. Thanks for noticing it. I'm in a wheelchair and I have a Jesus fish bumber sticker on the back of my chair!! Cool huh?.

[kronker]

Yeah I know, I was highly medicated when I wrote that. Thanks for noticing it. I'm in a wheelchair and I have a Jesus fish bumber sticker on the back of my chair!! Cool huh?.

Thats fucking a hilarious post because I think you're being sarcastic. If you're being serious then....

I'm sorry. Get well soon.

[xcept68]

sarcasm is the lowest form of humor. I'm just trying to blend in with you guys and gals! GREAT!!

[GiantRobotDelux]

How do you know which particular parts of the bible are literal truth, and which parts are metaphors? The only person who could possibly know that would be Jesus. So Jesus, aka Rob, your cover is blown. Jesus, now that I've got a direct line to you, I've been praying for a Wii for christmas. You'd better deliver or else I'll stop believing in you.


Jesus did not write the bible. He was busy boneing hookers and rocking out with his cocking out. So he had is slaves write it for him, and he just signed his name at the end.

Love, Jesus.

and the silly of the world said, "Durrrrrrrr I believe it do say Love Jesus in dis book Vern.. GOD TOLD ME TO LOVE JESUS!"

[GiantRobotDelux]

sarcasm is the lowest form of humor. I'm just trying to blend in with you guys and gals! GREAT!!

I think the lowest form of humour is putting up a picture of MAriah Carey next to a homeless man as a joke.

[lancaster]

Jesus did not write the bible. He was busy boneing hookers and rocking out with his cocking out.

Did Jesus bone hookers? Now that would be an interesting poll.

[xcept68]

You have to let natural/sexual selection take its course. If a mutation occured today the animal would have to have time to spread its seed and for the weaker versions of the species to die out. The animal with the mutation could be hit by a car a couple days into its life ending its ability to pass off its mutation. And if we're talking about enough mutations to actually transform a species then you're gonna be waiting for a long time.

When did I ever say I believed in evolution as in origins?

There is a ton of evidence in favor of evolution, no proof but as lancaster stated proof of even the simplest things can be a burden. As I've stated previously God could instantly show himself at anytime evolution doesn't have that luxury.

No mutations are positive. Ever.

[lancaster]

http://www.ourbetternature.org/images/deformedfrogbw.jpg

[blevunly]

No mutations are positive. Ever.

They can be mutation is how your "speciation" works.

[deegs]

No mutations are positive. Ever.

the survival of a species is not positive?

[xcept68]

They can be mutation is how your "speciation" works.

Okay nighcrawler! Wouldn't that be cool! Mutations and have a bunch of comic book superheros because that's what science is trying to make out of all the various animals. I think most of them are probably vegans and perhaps by some chance people will start to accept cows as our equals if someone is walking around with a fricken cow heart in their chest, or a pig lung, or a cow eyeball, or if some clones were harvested from sheep then bred to give burn victims a nice warm wool coat instead of skin!

Yeah, that's about the stupidest sci-fi movie I have ever thought up, and with the 3-ring circus in my head every morning, that's pretty stupid!

So back to your regularly scheduled debate.

The simple answer is... no. And how about if you try not to start every sentence with "What if?" Instead go find and article or even a printed piece of material that proves that it actually has happened instead of stating "What if".

[xcept68]

the survival of a species is not positive?

yes, it's 100%, not because of survival of the fittest, which doesn't fit with ANYTHING in nature. Just look at the Bombadier beetle! Which is quite different from yourself... a dung beetle. Okay, just messin with you, I know you aren't really evolved from a dung beetle. But do you actually know that? What if?

[xcept68]

http://www.ourbetternature.org/images/deformedfrogbw.jpg

My boss does that to me everytime he sees me screwing around with you idiots on line while at work. I think his foot is almost part of my ass he kicks me so hard. So what's the point.

Only thing is, much like that frog... my kids won't be born with a foot up their ass either, although my boss may say otherwise!

[blevunly]

Okay nighcrawler! Wouldn't that be cool! Mutations and have a bunch of comic book superheros because that's what science is trying to make out of all the various animals. I think most of them are probably vegans and perhaps by some chance people will start to accept cows as our equals if someone is walking around with a fricken cow heart in their chest, or a pig lung, or a cow eyeball, or if some clones were harvested from sheep then bred to give burn victims a nice warm wool coat instead of skin!

Yeah, that's about the stupidest sci-fi movie I have ever thought up, and with the 3-ring circus in my head every morning, that's pretty stupid!

So back to your regularly scheduled debate.

The simple answer is... no. And how about if you try not to start every sentence with "What if?" Instead go find and article or even a printed piece of material that proves that it actually has happened instead of stating "What if".

I don't use "What if?" at every sentence.


Here is an article talking about a mutation in the myostatin gene and allowing more muscle growth.
http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pgen.0030079

Here is a baby born with the myostatin mutation, scientists think it could lead to a cure for muscular dystrophy.
http://www.cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Science/2004/06/24/512617.html

Dexter Jackson also has the mutation he doesn't seem to be doing too badly.
http://images.google.com/url?q=http://www.europasports.com/flextime/images/shows/jackson.jpg&usg=AFQjCNG67F0VW__m3IaawkdOUrXWQl7T5A

So much for all mutations being bad...