The place to ask China-related questions!
Beijing Shanghai Guangzhou Shenzhen Chengdu Xi'an Hangzhou Qingdao Dalian Suzhou Nanjing More Cities>>

Categories

Close
Welcome to eChinacities Answers! Please or register if you wish to join conversations or ask questions relating to life in China. For help, click here.
X

Verify email

Your verification code has been sent to:

Didn`t receive your code? Resend code

By continuing you agree to eChinacities's Privacy Policy .

Sign up with Google Sign up with Facebook
Sign up with Email Already have an account? .
Posts: 1297

Governor

7
2
You must be a registered user to vote!
You must be a registered user to vote!
9

Q: how long waiting period for american man to be allowed to marry a chinese lady in china

i am a single american 50 yr man  never married wanting to marry a single  never married chinese lady in china How long is the waiting period till  get approved by the chinese governent and what forms/info do i need to  have?

8 years 41 weeks ago in  Visa & Legalities - China

 
Highest Voted
Posts: 93

Governor

9
11
You must be a registered user to vote!
You must be a registered user to vote!
2

Why is your English so sucky? U a China man posing!!! sad

 

cub:

berrycrusher,  i  have a disability from  accident years ago, i was paralized almost a year ok? i taught myself how to type i never had a computer or typed before 2 years ago!  i can sucessfully only use 1 hand 2 fingers because of muscle weaknes and nerve damage due to spinlal cord damage!   so im doing the best i can here ok? sorry if im not perfect!

8 years 41 weeks ago
Report Abuse

berrycrusher66:

Bitch please, you don't hear Stephen Hawking complaining. He is a smooth pimp of science. I find your story to stink of BS. You are a super crippled guy who is going to marry a Chinese millionaire who you have never met. You are talking about having sex with her in your other post. If you can hardly type how are you gonna f*ck a woman? You might not know Chinese women well but we all do here. No offense but there is not a chance in hell a Chinese millionaire would go for someone like you.

p.s. Does your disability stop you from using correct grammar?

8 years 41 weeks ago
Report Abuse

cub:

seriously berry i could care less about steven whoever ok? and prove to us here where i said i wanted to marry this lady for sex! u cant can u? thought so! thumbs down and Admn will get a suggestion u be banned/removed for your language and content on your pathetic post! and since when have u become a grammar expert? if u havent anything good to say then shut your trap!

8 years 40 weeks ago
Report Abuse

Spiderboenz:

Most of the people on this forum are teachers...

...Of English...

 

(In order to work in PRC, one needs to obtain an "expert certificate".  This means... they ARE experts, fit to criticize your level of English)

 

 

Also, YOU HAVE NEVER HEARD OF STEPHEN HAWKING?!  Do you live under a rock? 

8 years 40 weeks ago
Report Abuse
Report Abuse
8 years 41 weeks ago
 
Answers (26 - 33 of 33)
Comments (110)
Posts: 2774

Emperor

1
2
You must be a registered user to vote!
You must be a registered user to vote!
1

That either creationism is true or evolution is true  requires us to assume that creationism and evolution are the only two ways we can explain where complex life forms came from (and our observations about how they seem to change).

 

No argument has ever refuted evolution, and the evidence for evolution is much stronger than the evidence for creationism.

 

We have a fossil record that seems to indicate that creatures that existed in the past changed over time until they became different creatures that exist now.

 

Keep in mind that even if evolution is debunked, that does not mean creationism is true, there are other potential explanations for the existence of complex life forms. Creationists need to not only debunk evolution, but show that creationism is “better supported” by the evidence than any other alternative explanation.

 

The premises used by the current secular arguments for creationism are unjustified, and evolution has not yet been refuted. Nor creation proven. Faith is not proof.

xinyuren:

Let's put it this way:  Either life on earth had a designer / creator or it didn't ( it "created" itself).  There are only these two options.

Now you say that the abundant of evidence points in favor of Evolution.  Really?  Let's look at the evidence.

 

On Evolution's side, the evidence is the fossil record.  As you say, it seems to indicate that species of animals changed into other species.  I'm glad you said "seems".  Because things aren't always as they seem.  Since Evolutionary Science is always changing and there are no scientific laws that govern or describe the manner of this phenomenom, I don't quite see how you can enter this evidence in as fact.  Noone has seen a species evolve.  We have no practical analogue to it in the natural world.  It is mythical in nature.  It becomes even more amazing when we examine what must happen in order for Evolution to occur.  Evolutionists claim that:

1.  Animate matter came from inanimate.

2. Matter itself came from nothing (Universal Evolution).

3.  Life sprung from non-life.

4. Intelligence was born from non-intelligence.

 

Well, I hate to burst your bubble, but there are several well established scientific laws in your way.  Among them are the Law of Entropy,  The Law of Conservation of Energy, and the Scientific Law of Information.  Oh, there's also that pesky law that says life can't come from non-life. So in order for Evolution to be true, a person must disbelieve those established scientific laws.  So Evolution is dead in the water.  It's no wonder scientists have failed to reach a consenses on anything about Evolution.

 

Now let's look at the body of evidence for Intelligent Design (Creation).    This evidence consists of all organic living things on Earth.  To this evidence, we can apply the logic and principle that we live by every day:  Everything has a designer.  From our motor vehicles to our computers to our simple coffee mugs, not one of the physical things in this world could have come about without a designer.  This is just simple logic.  Even a rudimentary spoon was created with a purpose (the definition of design).  If someone argued against this point, you would dismiss them as crazy.  Yet, you think a tree could not have been designed!  A tree is more complex than anything created by man and it definitely has a purpose.  So it qualifies as a creation.  This is just pure logic and doesn't break any scientific laws. And I haven't even begun to talk about the human body, our ecosystem and circle of life - a complex system, each member working in harmony with each other (when their purpose is respected).

 

So let's examine your comment again, shall we?  You said it's easier to believe in the evidence of Evolution than to believe in Intelligent Design.  Well, if by easier you mean believing in something that goes against science, as we know it, as well as against common observable knowledge and logic, then I agree with you. LOL.

 

Everything on Earth with purpose required someone to design it.  Nothing with purpose ever happened by accident.  The idea that intelligent life got here by a serious of inexplicable accidents is not only statistically impossible, but also hilarious.  I can understand if you don't want to the accept the idea of a creator put forth by hardcore religionists, but there are only two possiblities.  One possiblity requires you to ignore the basic laws of science.  The other possiblity forces you to open your mind to the possiblity that there is another intelligent life form besides mankind (and aren't scientists already looking for aliens?)

 

So, considering those two choices, you tell me which explanation of life on Earth requires more faith?

8 years 16 weeks ago
Report Abuse

Lord_hanson:

@xuyuren, how can you say matter came from nothing? If you use the arguement that people haven't seen evolution (I would argue that anyone who has been to a natural history museum has) then if people didn't see matter appear from nothing it can't be assumed either. Like you have mentioned many times it is iust ignorance on the subject. Of course there could be more possibilities. We just don't know them yet. How do you explain earlier species of human that evolved to modern human?

8 years 16 weeks ago
Report Abuse

iWolf:

Well done. You almost made your faith basef belief sound reasonable. Almost. The theory of evolution does not presume to break any "laws". In fact, even at the time of Darwin publishing his famous book, the vatican agreed this was reasonable. That view continues today but they add god in as the precursor. In your reply, you assumed that i am ignorant of the bible. This is not true. It is likely that i know it better than you after 12 years at a church school and 3 years at a Christian university. It appears that the only people that do not consider evolution to be the most likely process by which life reached its current state are mostly americans of a certain persuasion. It is nice that you have faith but it is arrogant and foolish to presume that it is the one true answer to life, the universe and everything. Clearly, your assertions are merely opinion based upon your faith. There is an overwhelming body of peer reviewed evidence to support evolution and next to nothing to support creation. Intelligent design is a third theory which is not the same as creationism and also lacks any actual evidence other than the equally lacking in evidence bible. Please feel free to browse Google Scholar and check out some of the Hundreds of thousands of publish peer reviewed papers. Oh right, this is all just a big conspiracy started by lucifer and perpetuated by scientists. It is always fun to discuss science with someone who does understand it.

8 years 16 weeks ago
Report Abuse

iWolf:

I might add, regarding your erroneous understanding of the laws you quoted:

 

The Second Law of Thermodynamics says that systems must become more disordered over time. Living cells therefore could not have evolved from inanimate chemicals, and multicellular life could not have evolved from protozoa.
This argument derives from a misunderstanding of the Second Law. If it were valid, mineral crystals and snowflakes would also be impossible, because they, too, are complex structures that form spontaneously from disordered parts.

The Second Law actually states that the total entropy of a closed system (one that no energy or matter leaves or enters) cannot decrease. Entropy is a physical concept often casually described as disorder, but it differs significantly from the conversational use of the word.

More important, however, the Second Law permits parts of a system to decrease in entropy as long as other parts experience an offsetting increase. Thus, our planet as a whole can grow more complex because the sun pours heat and light onto it, and the greater entropy associated with the sun's nuclear fusion more than rebalances the scales. Simple organisms can fuel their rise toward complexity by consuming other forms of life and nonliving materials.

8 years 16 weeks ago
Report Abuse

xinyuren:

iWolf, first let me make it clear that I'm not promoting any faction, whether it be the so-called Creationists or those who support Intelligent Design (though I like the moniker).  I'm just defending the Bible with common sense and logic.  It sounds like you were raised in a Catholic school.  If so, I stand by my claim that you are ignorant on this topic.  You may know your catechism and your church dogma, but the Bible is neither.  But it does explain your alienation with the idea of a God. Ironically, religion has done more to discredit the Creator than any scientist can hope to.

So about your comment.  Evolution is still a theory for a reason.  As you say, there are many, many papers, but many of them are conflicting and still have major problems with science.  I've read quite a few.  Most of them cover small aspects of the Evolutionary process without explaining other important conditions that need to be met before the process can occur.  None of them can explain the full process with scientific laws because they can't get the science to harmonize.  To add to the confusion, Evolutionary theory is constantly in flux as scientists take stabs in the dark trying to explain how the impossible could have happened.  There is no unified theory or thought on Evolution.  There is no agreement among scientists except this one thing:  There is no God.

 

You see, the Evolutionists have the same bug up their butt as you.  They refuse to believe in a Creator.  Is it reasonable for them to believe in alien life somewhere? Scientists accept this.  Steven Hawking recently said it was inevitable that we will find it.  But whatever this life form is, it did not create life on Earth!  That idea is crazy, right? " Proposterous!", says Evolutionists      Why?  Because it's not scientifically feasible?  Because it breaks a law of science?   "No Why!", Evolutionists answer.

 

If there were so much evidence supporting Evolution (which version of Evolution?), it would be a scientific fact with it's own set of laws.  The truth is, and again, I've read the summaries of many of these papers, there are gaping holes in all the evolutionary theories.  Scientists have to fill these holes with wild assumptions.  All because they refuse to accept the simple answer that has already been given:  There is life outside of earth.  This life created the Earth.  I don't need a scientist to publish a paper for me to see that this is the most logical elementary answer to the question.  The odds of life getting here by a "happy accident" is astronomically low.  Beyond astronomically low.  But it is clear as day that my body, with it's circulatory system and brain and 100's of other system working efficiently, is a product of design.  Somebody designed it.  That's not faith.  That's common sense.  Your belief in Evolution is faith.  It requires a miracle to reconcile evolutionary thought with real science.

8 years 16 weeks ago
Report Abuse

iWolf:

Well done xinyuren. You do present some logic in your reply but remain fixated on the premise that there was a plan or "intelligent design". I still struggle to see how the theory of evolution contradicts god, as the vatican also says.

 

Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.
Many people learned in elementary school that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty--above a mere hypothesis but below a law. Scientists do not use the terms that way, however. According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution--or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter--they are not expressing reservations about its truth.

In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the fact of evolution. The NAS defines a fact as "an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as 'true.'" The fossil record and abundant other forms evidence testify that organisms have evolved through time. Although no one observed those transformations, the indirect evidence is clear, unambiguous and compelling.

All sciences frequently rely on indirect evidence. Physicists cannot see subatomic particles directly, for instance, so they verify their existence by watching for telltale tracks that the particles leave in cloud chambers. The absence of direct observation does not make physicists' conclusions less certain.

8 years 16 weeks ago
Report Abuse

xinyuren:

Regarding your second comment about the scientific law of Thermodynamics (which i didn't quote, btw),  i beg to differ.  While the law may allow for the earth to get more complex with sunlight as it's fuel, there is no evidence that this is what happened.  In fact, all the evidence points to the idea that energy is just energy.  It can't create anything complex on its own.  It can't create anything simple on its own.  It certainly can't create anything living on it's own.  So, on it's "rise toward complexity", where did the order come from? because everything with complexity in this world is a product of planning and some sort of order.  We use energy as fuel for our tools and our brains to design things.  In this rise to complexity, where is the brain?

 

You only mentioned the one law.  There are many others laws of science Evolutionists have to traverse to get to the ending they want.  They will never get there.  They need more faith.

8 years 16 weeks ago
Report Abuse

xinyuren:

@iWolf - Your information about a scientific theory is true.  Does this apply to the theory of Evolution?  If so, then please inform us as to which theory is right?  Which of the many different conflicting schisms speak the truth about evolution.  There are almost as many theories as there are scientists.  When you sort that out, get back with me.

8 years 16 weeks ago
Report Abuse

xinyuren:

Finally, i will comment on your "evidence", the fossil record.  Archeology can tell you many things.  they can give you an idea of when an organism died (although very imperfect).  They can dig up the thing for you so you can see the bones.  But they can't tell you with any accuracy that a creature evolved into another species.  This is an assumption by scientists. A big assumption at that, since there is no analog in the natural world.  It is one thing to make assumptions about mutations within a species which we can witness.  It is quite another to make assumptions about interspecies evolution.  So I'm going to say that Evolution is still a theory for this reason and cannot be looked at as fact.

8 years 16 weeks ago
Report Abuse

iWolf:

You have hit on a very good point. (and I might add that I find our discussion quite interesting and thought provoking)

 

There are several theories of evolution. That is the scientific process and by its nature a theory must be tested. The evidence gathered from each test contributes to a body of evidence. When further evidence is discovered, it should be added to the theory. The socratic method? But this is what science does. We once believed that the earth was flat and the sun and planets revolved about the earth. Evidence demonstrated this was incorrect over time. With this knowledge and proof of such the widely held beliefs were overturned.

 

Perhaps for this discussion, not enough time or tests have been done to refute one claim or another? That is a question for smarter and better informed people than me. However, I must say that from what I know, natural selection does appear plausible.

 

To my knowledge each of these tests contributes to the basic premise of Darwin. I am interested to hear details of any studies which do not agree apart from biblical sources which cannot be tested.

 

We understand how various elements and amino acids can combine to form self sustaining compounds, how they further combine to create life is a question that cannot yet be answered. However, I am confident that it will be.

 

The reason why there are many theories of evolution as opposed to natural selection is that the matter is extremely complex and can only be investigated regarding very specific criteria. Hence the large number of papers. We know that particles behave differently depending upon their size, for example, quantum particles, nutrinos and such. Some are not even consistent in their behaviour or behave in ways which we don't understand yet. So these different theories are trying to determine the veracity of the main idea or refute it. The thing to remember is that as more evidence is accumulated the body of evidence 'evolves'. This is a good thing. We are all after the truth.

 

My personal belief is that to draw a line between creationism and evolution as the only 2 possibilities is limiting. I'm not saying it is erroneous. Perhaps one day some bright spark will discover an irrefutable new idea. Until that day arrives, I am yet to be convinced of intelligent design. Aliens? Probably not but in a universe of infinite possibilities, anything is possible. The key is to keep searching for the truth. Yes it is still a theory however, the body of current evidence does make it appear plausible. As to fossil evidence, fossils have been found that do present that animals do change for various reasons. This is natural selection and has been verified in many studies with animal populations that breed rapidly. There is no dispute on this point due to overwhelming scientific data from interlocking scientific disciplines. A simple search will show this.

 

 

 

8 years 16 weeks ago
Report Abuse

iWolf:

@ Mr xinyuren

 

Thanks again for this stimulating debate.

 

Apologies to others for hijacking this thread.

8 years 16 weeks ago
Report Abuse

xinyuren:

Yes, it was a fine debate.  I admit, the science is very complicated.  I will quote to you my reply to Lord_hanson: " my intention was to make a scientific and logical defense for the Bible's account of creation.  I have successfully done so.  There is nothing in my answers that contradict the laws of science.  Whether or not you choose to believe them is your problem.  Neither idea can be empirically proven because noone was there to witness the process.  So we have to make educated conclusions based on the evidence.   The Bible account is both logical and scientific. Evolution's account is convoluted at best."

8 years 16 weeks ago
Report Abuse

iWolf:

You achieved what you set out to do but I am still not swayed. I don't think you expected me to be. But you did give me some points to consider, I hope I did the same.

 

Best of luck to you.

8 years 16 weeks ago
Report Abuse
Report Abuse
8 years 16 weeks ago
 
Posts: 2774

Emperor

1
2
You must be a registered user to vote!
You must be a registered user to vote!
1

Hey, it looks like Cub has yet another personality.

This one has better english and some rudimentary knowledge of the bible.

How many people is that using this account? At least 3 that are ovbious. Or of course, Cub may have an epic dissociative personality disorder.

That's unlikely because none of his operators have shown much personality othe than a dummy spitting cry-baby, a hillbilly yokle with a fondness for corresponding with ISIS, the Chinese dating site lothario and the thick as a brick wide eyed enquirer of all things mundane in China.

Nice back stories chaps but you really need to standardise the vernacular to make this charade more plausible. Keep up the good work.

Report Abuse
8 years 16 weeks ago
 
Posts: 2855

Emperor

2
3
You must be a registered user to vote!
You must be a registered user to vote!
1

13 years 11 months 7 days 5 hours, and 32 minutes is the mandatory waiting period.

Report Abuse
8 years 16 weeks ago
 
Posts: 827

Shifu

0
0
You must be a registered user to vote!
You must be a registered user to vote!
0

You should go to the American consulate to find out.
 I like answering these old questions because I get points.

Report Abuse
7 years 8 weeks ago
 
Posts: 724

Shifu

0
0
You must be a registered user to vote!
You must be a registered user to vote!
0

LMFAO thought you were 50 2 years ago? What a TROLL!

 

cub:

get with the program idiot sponge, look at WHEN the post was posted ok? And as a troll u answered a old post over a year old?

7 years 8 weeks ago
Report Abuse
Report Abuse
7 years 8 weeks ago
 
Know the answer ?
Please or register to post answer.

Report Abuse

Security Code: * Enter the text diplayed in the box below
Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <img> <br> <p> <u>
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Textual smileys will be replaced with graphical ones.

More information about formatting options

Forward Question

Answer of the DayMORE >>
A:  "... through ..."?  Only "through" comes to mind is "S
A: "... through ..."?  Only "through" comes to mind is "Shenzhen agent can connect you with an employer, who's authorized to hire waigouren ... and can sponsor Z visa." It's not like every 10th person you meet in Shenzhen's hood can sponsor work visa ...  The only way to change from student to labourer visa is just a regular way by: 1. Finding an employer, who'll apply for an Invitation letter; 2. Exit China and apply for Z visa in your home country's Chinese embassy; 3. Enter China in 30-days after Z visa was stamped into your travelling instrument ...As I am aware, you won't be able to switch to Working permit by remaining in China....,so make ready for a return to your home .... -- icnif77