GOD or Evilolution ??

[LuvRPgrl]

The question runs long and deep, and makes everybody ponder at some time or another.

Evolutionists claim the earth is billions of years old.
Biblical literists say, no, more like 6000 years old.

For millions of people, PROOF of God has been experienced.
But their proof is thru personal experience(s)

The thing is, a personal experience is just as valid as any other proof FOR THE PERSON WHO HAS IT. Others may or may not accept or believe that persons experience. BUt I do know that I have read many accounts from what appears to be credible people , about such experiences.

Take the guy who wrote amazing grace. He was a slave trader, I believe he captained one of the slave boats. Now, mind you, the way they treated the slaves was gruesome, worse than animals. The knew, and were willing to accept a 16% loss of cargo, that is, 1/6 of the slaves would die.

They literally chained them together and often left them until arriving at their new destination. Tied up, they would piss and crap all over the place. Food and water was scarce. Sometimes hygiene was non existent.

Some of us find it unbelievable that a human being could treat another llike that, but history is fluent with such. Now in the case of our captain, one day his eyes were opened. He had the "spiritual experience" spoken of earlier, as did Bill Wilson and Dr. Bob of Alcoholics Anonymous fame. History is also ripe with these examples. An epiphany. A personal experience that nobody could deny them. The TRUTH. This cannot happen lightly. It had to be something substantial to mark that change, such a dramatic one. He was chosen by God, for whatever reason. But certainly I'm not one to question his experience as being real and factual.

Me personally, I have had more than one. One showed me that things exist where none of our typical senses can detect it. Another flat out and out made a stunning prediction of an event to come.

Strangely, we all have experienced deja vu. Nobody even pretends to be able to explain it. Most of us have had the time(s) when we could sense a presence of someone even though none of our traditional five senses were picking it up. We just "knew" they were there. Premonitions are not uncommon. Science has no explanation.

Here is where we have the caveat. Both religion and science believers have an "out". Science can always claim that science can figure it out, and it will, it just hasn't yet.But there IS a scientific answer.
Religionists claim that God can do anything. So, whatever obstacles science puts in their way, well, "God can do that".
ANd they might be right. Evolutionists claim the world is billions of years old, so how does this reconcile with a 6000 year creation by a supernatural being?
Well, you know, not that long ago, people didn't know the extent of the universe. In fact, I'm not even sure what they thought the stars were. Just some lights up there, but surely not suns bigger than ours and billions upon billions of miles away. Not to mention, the other direction. They had no knowledge that there were trillions of little organisms alive and well throughout the world.
Their vision of God was very limited, because of the limited knowledge and experiences they had. Our ability to imagine is directly linked to the experiences we have had. Our concept of time is dictated by how long we have been alive. A newborn cant understand, wait five minutes, they want it, and want it now, nothing else exists except the right here and now. At five, you can grasp tommorrow, especially at Christmas time. At ten, next week comes into play, a teen can start thinking about their career, but not retirement, and at 45 we can grasp the concept of how long it will be til we expire.
In days gone by, apparently the persons alive couldnt even imagine, or invent other planets and stars. I mean, they didnt even think the earth was a planet, but it was a flat piece of property, maybe or maybe not held up by Hercules or a God.
Their concept of what a GOd can be is illustrated brilliantly by the myths of the Greeks. To them, the gods were simply persons with extraordiary abilities.

Today it is much different. We now know the vastness of the universe, and the same with the microscopic world. With this came science fiction and an expansion of our imagination. Now we need to believe in a God that created the vastness of the universe, huge black holes, tiny microscopic organisms, quasars, electricity and technology. Nowadays, our concept of God requires a much bigger, more powerful, intelligent and capable GOd than ever even imagined before. But still, what could God be like? What can we possibly imagine?

WEll, for my pleasure, when debating the age of the earth, I can easily state, and conclude, that God could easily make the earth appear older than it really is. People do it with physical objects all the time. So it becomes apparent that religionists always have an ace in their pocket, no matter what.
But I dont base my awareness and knowledge of a spiritual being that created everything. NOT a belief. For me, it is a fact. My personal experiences show that. Those who know me, know Im not prone to hullicinations (regardless of what MM might think/say), that I'm not taken to fantasy or cons, that I'm above avg intelligence at the least and I have a ton of credibility with them from years upon years of experience with each other.
I was once in Lemon Grove, San Diego county. A lady friend owned a house, she rented it out, and needed some stuff moved from there. So I volunteered to help. Upon arriving, I entered the house, having absolutely NO KNOWLEDGE of anything about it, its occupants, or its contents. I immediately got a very strange sense. Something I had never, never felt before.
As I got near one of the bedrooms, this intensified greatly. Like a felt a huge weight upon my shoulders, but that isn't what it was. It was something you cant describe accurately cuz nothing on earth is similiar. Again, one usually cant even imagine the feeling because it is out of most peoples realm of experience.
I approached a bedroom, as I went into the doorway, the opression got so heavy, it was creating a strong emotional feeling as well, very depressing, very evil, I just felt the presence of evil. I couldn't help but start asking questions. BINGO! Yes, that was the answer, they told me that just a few days earlier someone had hung themselves in that room.
Later, I was to go into the garage, and an old 1961 Lincoln continental in there was riddled with real bullet holes, about 25. I left and the experience, NOT A FEELING, went away. The entity of evil is simply in another dimension. One we are not aware of.

And that experience was nothing compared to one I had a few years earlier.
For millions , these experiences have proven to them an existence of a higher being. They are real, credible, undeniable, riddled throughout man's existence.
This poses a problem for evolutionists. They cant prove the experiences are not real, nor are they in possesion of any such experience that would prove evolution, or even more important, the NON existence of a God.

Now, one thing we know for sure, is that our present day concept of God has to be much bigger, more powerful and intelligent than days of yore. Our imagining of what He is has vastly expanded.
WHAT IS GOD? Who? Where? It is frustrating, futile and useless trying to figure out or imagine what those answers can be. Thats a fact, plain and simple. My brain can't wrap around a decent concept. But still we try, try and try. It begins to hurt.....problem is God now has to be bigger than all the mass of the universe. Folks, that is pretty big. Problem is, at the same time,he has to be small enough to have created micro organisms. Hmmmm, now thats a problem.

I don't think God is a physical entity or being. He tranverses the realm of reality into a dimension I cant comprehend. I know, whatever you or I imagine Him to be, FOR A FACT THAT IS WHAT HE ISNT. In fact, He may be just the opposite. He is as far away from us as eternity, but also right next to us, in us at the same time. I believe there are dimensions we arent even aware of. There might be more universes other than ours. There could be dozens of them floating around in the endless bounds of space.
There could be two or more, side by side, where God did the same thing with earth and creation. It doesnt mean there is some identical twin of me in the other parrallel universe, as suggested on the TV program Fringe, (a great show by the way). Rather a world where everyone also has a free choice, plus God is there, he is here also. TIme travel is possible, but not the kind we think of, where I can go back ten years and see myself where I was ten years ago. Time would travel for everyone and everything goes back and forth at the same time.
Entities that have no physical dimension, but rather live in another dimension unknown to us. Many dimensions may be possible. Time travel, making something out of nothing.
If God created everything, then God's abilities go soooo far beyond what was created on this earth, and anything needed to be done to create it, or any method He used is but a drop of water in the ocean of his abilities. Our life experiences show us our limits, our limits can't even touch God's shoes. Might keep that in mind if one wants to try and prove there is no God
I know one thing, whatever anyone can think of or imagine that God is, is WRONG. That is one thing for sure He isn't.

[Missileman]

LOL...David Berkowitz KNEW for a fact that an invisible talking dog told him to kill people. Your experiences pose no problems for anyone...they can be discounted as easily as the Son of Sam.

[hjmick]

As an Agnostic/borderline Atheist I have often wondered...

If there is a god, why does the choice have to be one or the other? Could not a god have planted the seeds of life on this planet and just let things take their course and evolve?

[LuvRPgrl]

As an Agnostic/borderline Atheist I have often wondered...

If there is a god, why does the choice have to be one or the other? Could not a god have planted the seeds of life on this planet and just let things take their course and evolve?

As a Christian, I totally agree with the idea. In fact, during my first years as a believer, I did take the road of God let evolution develope us.

I never had a problem with that. I didnt come to my rejection of evolution based on my religous beliefs. nobody could show me any scripture that would prove otherwise.

Funny thing, when I would argue evolution is true, as my knowledge was limited compared to today,; people would accuse me of not being a Christian, even though I was.
Then, during the debate, if I told them I was a Christian, I was accused of being a non Christian because I didnt have a true understanding of Gods word, or I would realize evolution is bogus.
Then, when I was made aware, which came as a revelation directly to me while working one day. A question about evolution came to my mind, then another and another, which led to some serious thoughts about the topic. that led me to questions evolutionists have never been able to answer.
Now, when I argue against evolution, people automatically assume I'm a Christian, and I don't believe in evolution based on my religous beliefs, but fact of the matter is, my religous beliefs dont affect my view on evolution one iota, as I still cant find anything in scripture which addresses the issue, pro or con.
And Im not sold on the literalists interpetation of the Bible that the world is only 6000 years old.


LOL...David Berkowitz KNEW for a fact that an invisible talking dog told him to kill people. Your experiences pose no problems for anyone...they can be discounted as easily as the Son of Sam.

Nice try. But if you tried to play devils advocate against your own ideas before accepting them, it would be easy to see that

those guys were hulicanting on a regular basis. They didnt get those messages just once.
My experience was different in many ways. It only occured once or twice. It was not hulicinations as I stated, Im not the kind of person who has those, I think if you interviewed son of sam you would find his mind id messed up in every aspect of reality.

nice try though. I know the post was pretty lenghty, I wasnt sure if anyone would read all the way through, or if there would be any responses.

Thanks for reading dude, YOU TOO HMJK !!!!


As an Agnostic/borderline Atheist I have often wondered...

If there is a god, why does the choice have to be one or the other? Could not a god have planted the seeds of life on this planet and just let things take their course and evolve?

I noticed you are in Albequerque, spell?, maybe one day we can meet up. You will see what kind of guy I am, then you can come to your own conclusion about my experiences.
I've always wanted to see ALB., I know the landscape in SW USA is the most beautiful anywhere. I know that cuz Ive driven cross country several times. I thought when I got to the great south west, I would only want to take a pic or two, cuz it would be the same ol, same ol.

But fact of the matter is, once I hit the SW, New Mexico, it was absolutely spectacular. I ran out of room on my media card I took so many pics.
I will stay in touch with you and next summer I might be in your neck of the woods. Later, Ron

[Missileman]

As a Christian, I totally agree with the idea. In fact, during my first years as a believer, I did take the road of God let evolution develope us.

I never had a problem with that. I didnt come to my rejection of evolution based on my religous beliefs. nobody could show me any scripture that would prove otherwise.

Funny thing, when I would argue evolution is true, as my knowledge was limited compared to today,; people would accuse me of not being a Christian, even though I was.
Then, during the debate, if I told them I was a Christian, I was accused of being a non Christian because I didnt have a true understanding of Gods word, or I would realize evolution is bogus.
Then, when I was made aware, which came as a revelation directly to me while working one day. A question about evolution came to my mind, then another and another, which led to some serious thoughts about the topic. that led me to questions evolutionists have never been able to answer.
Now, when I argue against evolution, people automatically assume I'm a Christian, and I don't believe in evolution based on my religous beliefs, but fact of the matter is, my religous beliefs dont affect my view on evolution one iota, as I still cant find anything in scripture which addresses the issue, pro or con.
And Im not sold on the literalists interpetation of the Bible that the world is only 6000 years old.


You've said a couple times now that your rejection of evolution isn't based in religion. Since it can't possibly be based in science, I'm curious what it is based in.

[darin]

Here are a couple areas which make Macro evolution mysticism in my mind.

First - Nothing ever sprung from non-something. That is to say, Nothing ever self-generated. To think a microbe could 'magically' better itself is beyond my capacity for faith. I do not have nearly enough faith to believe by some sorta random luck nothing turns into something.

Secondly - the 'design' of everything we see betrays a designER. The complexity of the universe - on down to the atom - shouts 'designer'. Just plain EASY to see. Much the same as I feel when I think about my car. I look at my car and notice the way the car works together to go fast. Taking the 'leap of faith' to assume my car was designed intelligently - with and because of a purpose - is the easy, logical choice. I'd be laughed off the interwebs if I suggested my RX8 'evolved' from a Mazda2. If I said "see the similarity between the design elements of the Mazda2 and the RX - I believe the Mazda2, given millions or billions of years, will eventually become something other than what it is.

That's not to say species aren't evolving in a sense, within the species. Humans are getting taller, fatter, etc, or whatever. But to make the jump from that aspect to 'some magic happened and life suddenly appeared from non-life' is...I dunno... archaic? It's reminiscent of hundreds of years ago when folks thought meat 'produced' maggots if left un-cured. I cant understand why seemingly intelligent folks buy into a simpleton-view of things just sort of happening by accident.

[hjmick]

Ron, I do not question what kind of person you are nor do I take any issue with your beliefs. If my comment offended in any way, I offer my sincerest apologies.

ANd the next time you find yourself in ABQ, absolutely drop me a line. I am always open to meeting members, and I know of a couple of great breweries in town.

[Missileman]

Secondly - the 'design' of everything we see betrays a designER. The complexity of the universe - on down to the atom - shouts 'designer'. Just plain EASY to see. Much the same as I feel when I think about my car. I look at my car and notice the way the car works together to go fast. Taking the 'leap of faith' to assume my car was designed intelligently - with and because of a purpose - is the easy, logical choice. I'd be laughed off the interwebs if I suggested my RX8 'evolved' from a Mazda2. If I said "see the similarity between the design elements of the Mazda2 and the RX - I believe the Mazda2, given millions or billions of years, will eventually become something other than what it is.


On the contrary, the complexity points away from a designer, especially one touted as capable of the supernatural. Consider the story of the creation of man from a lump of clay. A designer, with magic at his disposal, would have wound up with something that looked like Gumby. No designer in his right mind would make something with trillions of parts if he could make it with one.

[LuvRPgrl]

You've said a couple times now that your rejection of evolution isn't based in religion. Since it can't possibly be based in science, I'm curious what it is based in.

First, its based ON, not IN.

Show me one arguement I have put up that is based on relligion for the non belief of evolution.

But like others, your arrogance shows you dont desire truth, real debate, real answers, AGREE WITH US OR YOUR WRONG mantra doesn't work with me.

You supposed "science" people arent even practicing real science. Science is suppose to be open to ALL POSSIBILITES, but you mindless myoptic fucks out of hand reject anything that doesnt comply with your nazi like edicts.


Here are a couple areas which make Macro evolution mysticism in my mind.

First - Nothing ever sprung from non-something. That is to say, Nothing ever self-generated. To think a microbe could 'magically' better itself is beyond my capacity for faith. I do not have nearly enough faith to believe by some sorta random luck nothing turns into something.

Secondly - the 'design' of everything we see betrays a designER. The complexity of the universe - on down to the atom - shouts 'designer'. Just plain EASY to see. Much the same as I feel when I think about my car. I look at my car and notice the way the car works together to go fast. Taking the 'leap of faith' to assume my car was designed intelligently - with and because of a purpose - is the easy, logical choice. I'd be laughed off the interwebs if I suggested my RX8 'evolved' from a Mazda2. If I said "see the similarity between the design elements of the Mazda2 and the RX - I believe the Mazda2, given millions or billions of years, will eventually become something other than what it is.

That's not to say species aren't evolving in a sense, within the species. Humans are getting taller, fatter, etc, or whatever. But to make the jump from that aspect to 'some magic happened and life suddenly appeared from non-life' is...I dunno... archaic? It's reminiscent of hundreds of years ago when folks thought meat 'produced' maggots if left un-cured. I cant understand why seemingly intelligent folks buy into a simpleton-view of things just sort of happening by accident.


Such logic, how dare you !!!!!!!!!!!!!

Micro evolution is the beginning part, from inorganic to living, MACRO is the overall picture, monkeys becoming people, etc etc.

What you are talking about is so true. When I go about daily business, I notice this all the time.
The inter twined systems that nature has, they do scream DESIGN, especially I notice that some animals have a dependence on each other, sometimes 3-4 different species are interacting and without each other the other 3 just wont survive,

Logic tells you they all had to "start" their existence at the same time. I think the odds of four species all evolving at the same time and being interdependent on each other is mathematically astronomical.

I totally agree with your assesment, its just common sense,


Ron, I do not question what kind of person you are nor do I take any issue with your beliefs. If my comment offended in any way, I offer my sincerest apologies.

ANd the next time you find yourself in ABQ, absolutely drop me a line. I am always open to meeting members, and I know of a couple of great breweries in town.

I accept your apology, but no need at all.

You didn't offend me in any way shape or form.
Actually, you can't. I have a thread where I pretty much told my life story. SOBER 25 years now. I can go to any brewery with you if you want, I just will be sticking to the "near beer" :)

I've pretty much been there done that on many things.
I'm also an open book, and nothing can offend me. Even with my mom, my two brothers lost it mentally/emotionally and are homeless now.
Mom was an alcoholic too. Unfortunately she was also staggering good looking. So men routinely took advantage of her, and she so often was drunk passed out, they would even do it right in front of us.
I was lucky for two reasons. I was younger and didnt fully understand what was going on, but also, as I became of age and discovered my own alcoholism, rather than deny my mom was a whore and a slut, I openly admit it, but KNOWING IT WAS BECAUSE OF HER ALCOHOLISM. And I know what kind of woman she was previous to that.
Plus, I have heard many, many stories of women in AA, who were like my mom, but got sober, and now they are the most beautiful,gracious and ethical women I know.
So, you cant insult me by callig me any names, or my family, either its false, and I will laugh, or its true, and I have to either accept it, or change it.
Now, if its downright disrepectful and in public, I will take a lead pipe to your head if necessary, And those who know me, know I will. Gunnys sig is what I live my life by, which is why I have physically taken down and done citizens arrests, one guy much bigger than me. And regularly confronted and been told "Im gonna fuck you up" when I dont stand by while assholes act like assholes.
In fact, at the US embassy Manila, a guy cut in line and started saying he was an American citizen and didnt have to stand in line behind the ilipinos. I confronted him, made him get back in line and he insisted he was going to "fuck me up" when he comes out. Well, I waited for him, but he never showed up.
Funny thing is, when I came out, alot of the people clapped for me, and the filipino security personnel shook my hand and thanked me. The filipino people are extremely non confrontationall.

anyways, I will stop by some time. Might even bring a few sand diegan board members along :)


On the contrary, the complexity points away from a designer, especially one touted as capable of the supernatural. Consider the story of the creation of man from a lump of clay. A designer, with magic at his disposal, would have wound up with something that looked like Gumby. No designer in his right mind would make something with trillions of parts if he could make it with one.

Well, if you really think about it, first, it wasnt clay He made us from, but the dust of the earth. The area around there isnt clay in nature.

Now, you gotta figure, everything we eat eventually goes back to being "dirt". Plants grow, they take dirt and sunshine and water, and put it through a process and provide what we eat. So, we are eating something made from sun, water and GUESS WHAT,,,,,DIRT !!!!

ANd then when we die, OUr bodies, uhhhh, turn back into
GUESS WHAT ?????????? DIRT !!!!!!!!!!

[Missileman]

First, its based ON, not IN.

Show me one arguement I have put up that is based on relligion for the non belief of evolution.

But like others, your arrogance shows you dont desire truth, real debate, real answers, AGREE WITH US OR YOUR WRONG mantra doesn't work with me.

You supposed "science" people arent even practicing real science. Science is suppose to be open to ALL POSSIBILITES, but you mindless myoptic fucks out of hand reject anything that doesnt comply with your nazi like edicts.

I asked you on what basis you reject evolution. You've said it has nothing to do with religion. I believe you. That still leaves the question of the basis of your rejection, which you haven't answered.

And FYI, it's MYOPIC, not MYOPTIC...idiot!

And more FYI, science isn't supposed to be open to all possibilities, only those that pass muster through the scientific method. According to you, a scientist should be open to the possibility that invisible leprechauns are holding up the sky.

[Missileman]

Well, if you really think about it, first, it wasnt clay He made us from, but the dust of the earth. The area around there isnt clay in nature.

Now, you gotta figure, everything we eat eventually goes back to being "dirt". Plants grow, they take dirt and sunshine and water, and put it through a process and provide what we eat. So, we are eating something made from sun, water and GUESS WHAT,,,,,DIRT !!!!

ANd then when we die, OUr bodies, uhhhh, turn back into
GUESS WHAT ?????????? DIRT !!!!!!!!!!

Well jeez Wally....what happens to the sun and water? Leave it to you to totally miss the point.

[LuvRPgrl]

Well jeez Wally....what happens to the sun and water? Leave it to you to totally miss the point.

:More to the point, what happens to the dirt, and the fertilizer? The water passes thru, or is used to keep the body of the plant or animal hydrated, and in the case of plants, is what is used to carry the nutrients to the various parts of theplant, the rest of the materials composing the body structure is made up of non water, so, the dirt in the soil eventually becomes what we are, the sun is where the plant gets the energy to do its thing, but its the soil that creates the food,
which we eat.....

[Missileman]

:More to the point, what happens to the dirt, and the fertilizer? The water passes thru, or is used to keep the body of the plant or animal hydrated, and in the case of plants, is what is used to carry the nutrients to the various parts of theplant, the rest of the materials composing the body structure is made up of non water, so, the dirt in the soil eventually becomes what we are, the sun is where the plant gets the energy to do its thing, but its the soil that creates the food,
which we eat.....

LOL...you are a maroon! Most, if not all, of the plants we use as food don't consume dirt. Ever hear of hydroponics?

[Kathianne]

As an Agnostic/borderline Atheist I have often wondered...

If there is a god, why does the choice have to be one or the other? Could not a god have planted the seeds of life on this planet and just let things take their course and evolve?

I'm not borderline on God. I too believe that God's hand is in the making of the universe from the beginning. I'm just not finding ways to think that God 'tricked us' into thinking it's older than it is. :laugh2: There was a divine Creator, his divinity is still present in the changes from the beginning of time and what will come.

[LuvRPgrl]

LOL...you are a maroon! Most, if not all, of the plants we use as food don't consume dirt. Ever hear of hydroponics?

You are just continuing to show your ignorance.
Natural soil is composed of many things, that the plants use, and many they dont, those that they dont use, is a medium to holld the plant and its roots in place.
Hydroponics is simply putting the plants in a container so when you run the water through, you can keep the water by draining it out into a container and then run the wate through again later.
But they have to have a medium still holding the plants in place, a medium that is waterproof, so to speak, so the water wouldnt break it down, and the medium can continue to hold the plants in place, like sand, small rocks, styrofoam.
But they still have to put FOOD into the water for the plants to grow, if they only ran water through, the plants would die for lack of food just like we would if on a water only diet.
Today we can synthetically make the food for plants just like we can make vitamins for people, but it is a chemical compund that is the same as the stuff they naturally get out of the dirt, so technically, chemically speaking, it is still dirt, just like you can get your vitamin c from an orange or a pill, but it is still vitamin c.
The synthetic food for plants contains all kinds of minerals and micro minerals, which are found in DIRT,,,so the plant still uses DIRT TO GROW.

[LuvRPgrl]

I'm not borderline on God. I too believe that God's hand is in the making of the universe from the beginning. I'm just not finding ways to think that God 'tricked us' into thinking it's older than it is. :laugh2: There was a divine Creator, his divinity is still present in the changes from the beginning of time and what will come. '

iM NOT saing he did trick us, Im just saying He could have.

[PostmodernProphet]

someday I would like to see a macro-evolutionist explain butterflies to me......

are they a crawling creature that adapted because it could survive better as a flying creature, but stopped half way through?......or are they a flying creature that adapted because it could survive better as a crawling creature, but stopped half way through.......

[LuvRPgrl]

someday I would like to see a macro-evolutionist explain butterflies to me......

are they a crawling creature that adapted because it could survive better as a flying creature, but stopped half way through?......or are they a flying creature that adapted because it could survive better as a crawling creature, but stopped half way through.......


Ohhhh, dont get me started !

The more you learn about the massive complexity of mother nature, it becomes clear that it didnt just happen on its own.

Ever read abouit the humming bird? Its truly amazing.

[Missileman]

You are just continuing to show your ignorance.
Natural soil is composed of many things, that the plants use, and many they dont, those that they dont use, is a medium to holld the plant and its roots in place.
Hydroponics is simply putting the plants in a container so when you run the water through, you can keep the water by draining it out into a container and then run the wate through again later.
But they have to have a medium still holding the plants in place, a medium that is waterproof, so to speak, so the water wouldnt break it down, and the medium can continue to hold the plants in place, like sand, small rocks, styrofoam.
But they still have to put FOOD into the water for the plants to grow, if they only ran water through, the plants would die for lack of food just like we would if on a water only diet.
Today we can synthetically make the food for plants just like we can make vitamins for people, but it is a chemical compund that is the same as the stuff they naturally get out of the dirt, so technically, chemically speaking, it is still dirt, just like you can get your vitamin c from an orange or a pill, but it is still vitamin c.
The synthetic food for plants contains all kinds of minerals and micro minerals, which are found in DIRT,,,so the plant still uses DIRT TO GROW.

Plants aren't made of dirt as you wrote earlier.

[LuvRPgrl]

Plants aren't made of dirt as you wrote earlier.

Yes they are. Science says there are three things, plant, animal and mineral.

When plants grow, they dont use animals to grow, they use minerals in the soil, they use water to transport the minerals, and they use sunshine to get the energy to do the work.

So, they are made of dirt, sooooooooooooo sorrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrry to inform you of that.

SO, if it would be as you say, plants dont use dirt, the soil, or things in the soil to grow, then what do they use? Tell me how a plant can grow without minerals and materials that previously was a part of the earth.

[Missileman]

Yes they are. Science says there are three things, plant, animal and mineral.

When plants grow, they dont use animals to grow, they use minerals in the soil, they use water to transport the minerals, and they use sunshine to get the energy to do the work.

So, they are made of dirt, sooooooooooooo sorrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrry to inform you of that.

SO, if it would be as you say, plants dont use dirt, the soil, or things in the soil to grow, then what do they use? Tell me how a plant can grow without minerals and materials that previously was a part of the earth.

Most plants feed of the dead organic material in the ground or manure or chemical fertilizers. They don't consume minerals.

[LuvRPgrl]

Most plants feed of the dead organic material in the ground or manure or chemical fertilizers. They don't consume minerals.

OH MY !

So you just admitted you were wrong in the first place.

Plants grow by consuming dirt, soil,

Got news for you, you dont even realize you just admitted you were wrong cuz you didnt think about the fact that manure, organic material in the ground and chemical fertilizers are all part of the "dirt".
AND YOU SHOW YOUR IGNORANCE OF THE ENTIRE PROCESS, YES THEY DO CONSUME THE MINERALS, IN VERY MINUTE AMOUNTS, JUST LIKE PEOPLE, THERE IS A SMALL AMOUNT OF CERTAIN MINERALS WHICH ARE ESSENTIAL (THE PLANT, OR US, WILL DIE WITHOUT THEM - OR HAVE SOME SERIOUS HEALTH PROBLEMS). Go do some research.

SO, to head you off, where do you think the chemical fertilizers came from?

But if we go back to times before chemical fert., most plants grew where there was no manure, and grew only off the soil/dirt. Another clue: organic material is part of the soil/dirt. WHich is why in the older days, farmers would look for soil rich in organic materials, cuz they knew it was better,

first, not all soil is rich in organic material, yet plants grow there

But the farmers had specific needs cuz the plants they needed to grow were very specific. So, while most plants grow without the soil being rich in organic materials, but the farmers still referred to the organic materials as being part of the soil.

After all, what is soil, it is what is in the ground below us, a combination of all the ingredients, which includes tiny, tiny pieces of inert rock, organic materials, minerals, salts...\

while the plant only consumes some of those ingredients, you cant, so that it can satisfy your bogus arguement, claim that only some of those items are the dirt.THEY ARE ALL PART OF THE DIRT OR SOIL OF THE GROUND, ALL OF THEM

[LuvRPgrl]

Originally Posted by Missileman
Most plants feed of the dead organic material in the ground or manure or chemical fertilizers. They don't consume minerals.

You are so intent on being right, instead of learning what is true, that you just spout things from your mouth that will support your arguement, whether they are based in fact or not.

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/05/nitrogen-it-doe/

Agriculture gives us civilization exactly because it disrupts this balance. Humans use plants to mine nutrients out of the soil and then eat them. We can even measure the amount of nutrients that a crop can mine for us. For example, a hectare of maize in the US needs about 22 kilograms pounds of nitrogen per tonne of yield. We call this the plant’s mineral uptake.

[darin]

Geez guys - this doesn't have to be 'lets prove our point' as much as it can be 'allow me to explain my point of view'. Just sayin.

[LuvRPgrl]

Geez guys - this doesn't have to be 'lets prove our point' as much as it can be 'allow me to explain my point of view'. Just sayin.

Well, just a little research shows what MM is saying is flat out wrong. It just takes a little too many posts to prove it cuz he is so intent on nit picking and making stupid little comments that are completely WRONG>

for example, saying plants dont consume minerals. A FLAT OUT BONEHEAD STATEMENT. And so easy to disprove, anybody who knows anything about plants know they consume minerals.

[LuvRPgrl]

Most plants feed of the dead organic material in the ground or manure or chemical fertilizers. They don't consume minerals.

I think someone has a SIG that refers to statements like the one above

"YOU DIDNT REALLY JUST SAY THAT DID YOU???"

[Missileman]

Plants grow by consuming dirt, soil,


NO, THEY DON"T. Their mineral intake is limited to the mineral content of the water they absorb.

[LuvRPgrl]

NO, THEY DON"T. Their mineral intake is limited to the mineral content of the water they absorb.


Uh, yea, so limited or not, what does the plant do with those minerals?

[Missileman]

Uh, yea, so limited or not, what does the plant do with those minerals?

It absorbs them and they're stored in the plant.

[LuvRPgrl]

NO, THEY DON"T. Their mineral intake is limited to the mineral content of the water they absorb.


Uhhh, yea, I dont get paid cash. Oh, the amount of cash I get paid is limited by the amount of work I do.


UHHHHHHHHHH

YOU HAVE LITERALLY GOT TO BE THE DUMBEST MOTHERFUCKER I HAVE EVER ENCOUNTERED ON ANY OF THESE BOARDS.


It absorbs them and they're stored in the plant.

Whatever the plant does with it, its still part of the plant, just like fat is part of our body.

But the plant doesnt just store minerals. There are many minerals the plant takes in and they do many things.

The only parts of any materials inside the plant at any given time that are not a part of the plant are those that it expels as waste after absorbing it and that particular material never did anything other than getting absorbed and being expelled.

LET ME CLUE YOU IN BUDDY,,,,YOU DONT GET TO RE WRITE BOOKS AND SCIENCE TO THE WAY YOU WANT IT TO BE SO IT FITS YOUR NEEDS AND WORD THINGS SO IT MAKEES IT SOUND LIKE YOUR POV IS CORRECT.


It absorbs them and they're stored in the plant.

Oh yea, mind naming which minerals it stores, and the purpose of storing them?

[Missileman]

Oh yea, mind naming which minerals it stores, and the purpose of storing them?

If the nutrients are still there for us to use by eating the plants, they haven't been consumed. Your own link talked about having to restock the ground with nutrients(fertilize) because we consume the nutrients in the plants instead of them going back to the soil when the plants die.

[LuvRPgrl]

if the nutrients are still there for us to use by eating the plants, they haven't been consumed. Your own link talked about having to restock the ground with nutrients(fertilize) because we consume the nutrients in the plants instead of them going back to the soil when the plants die.



sooo ??????????????

[Missileman]

sooo ??????????????

Plants don't eat dirt.

[gabosaurus]

One word ... dinosaurs.

<iframe width="425" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/KMB5L0VoszI" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[LuvRPgrl]

One word ... dinosaurs.

<iframe width="425" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/KMB5L0VoszI" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I hope the guy doesn't quit his day job.

[gabosaurus]

I hope the guy doesn't quit his day job.

Bill Hicks is only the funniest man who ever lived. You lose.

Otherwise, what is this "Evilolution" that you speak of? Is this about the genesis of Jim's family?
I wonder what Sir Evil would think about "Evilolution"? :p

[LuvRPgrl]

Plants don't eat dirt.

Plants, technically dont eat anything, but they do get nutrients from the soil, so, while they dont consume every bit of soil, the non nutrioius parts, they do consume the nutriouis part of the soil, hence, they consume soil/dirt.