Oh for my sake.....
You didn't read the book did you?
Ain't no thing yo.Team SpeedDH said:
Rip it up.
For Team SpeeDH
- Thread starter Old Man G Funk
- Start date
You didn't read the book did you?
Rip it up.
So your decision to call it "gibberish" makes it so? As a reminder
Science–noun 1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
The first 5 kinds of evolution have never been seen, just the sixth kind "micro evolution"(changes within the same kind of animals) have been and can be called science.
As far as before then, both have to be believed in one way or another. If people want to think their great grand dad was a chimp then fine, I know mine was a man just like you see today.
Please
Like I said before I have a great life and am thankful for all of it. Don't try to play me off as some sap that has nothing better to do. I'm defending the biblical creation point plain and simple because I chose to.And thanks... but my life is already plenty worthwhile thanks to Him.
For the Lords sake why did you go to all the trouble to make an AE like that?
Naw, the fact that you base your life on a poorly written, many times over translated work of fiction from 2000 years ago makes it gibberish. The fact that not one iota of information from the bible is backed up by ANY evidence, makes it so.So your decision to call it "gibberish" makes it so? As a reminder
Sciencenoun 1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
The first 5 kinds of evolution have never been seen, just the sixth kind "micro evolution"(changes within the same kind of animals) have been and can be called science.
As far as before then, both have to be believed in one way or another. If people want to think their great grand dad was a chimp then fine, I know mine was a man just like you see today.
Please
And thanks... but my life is already plenty worthwhile thanks to Him.
For the Lords sake why did you go to all the trouble to make an AE like that?
You ungrateful little bastard.Team SpeedDH said:
There.
You have aids. You know.......the gay disease.
You can't argue faith!! Aha.....in your socialist face you heathen.......I mean terrorist.Transcend said:
You mean Terrirst. Your homeboy Dubya rebranded it. Haliburton copyrighted it.
Actually, no, you missed the boat. The point was that you have said you disbelieve evolution because it has not been witnessed. Yet, I presume that you believe that electrons exist? Those have not been witnessed either. In order to be consistent you should disbelieve in electrons too. Oh, and gravity, etc.
Actually, you have no objective evidence for god.
This is begging the question. There are many reasons why mythological stories maintain their grip on people's collective psyche. But, I have to ask what is the threshold of a held belief that makes it truth? There are older religions than Xtianity, so I presume that they must also be true?
The burden of proof is squarely on you to prove that god exists, if that is what you are trying to prove.
Resorting to the Bible to prove god is a circular argument. You believe god exists because the Bible says so and the Bible is authoritative because god exists and said so.
It's well known that during near death experiences the eyes start to misfire. People get tunnel vision and the visual cortex is tricked into seeing light in the middle of the eye and darkness around. Also, people go into a dreamlike state sometimes and their imaginations take over.
I don't recall anywhere in the Bible where god said that he left fossils behind that are millions of years old. What you are describing is a trickster god that lays fossils down presumably to test our faith. That if we can disregard what our eyes tell us and keep true to the word with unquestioning loyalty, then we will be saved. This not only makes god a liar, but it makes us automatons. Is this what you would have all of us believe?
Who said that someone needed to keep electrons in good order?
Once again you completely miss the boat. We know that watches and picture frames and human made objects are made by humans. We have no experience with objects made by things other than humans (with the odd exception of beaver dams and things like that) so it is an unwarranted extrapolation to infer that cells are similarly made. It reduces your argument to, "Well, life is complex so it must have been designed."
No. That is where your unsupported assertion came in. You have zero evidence to back that up.
First of all, evolution is not a sinful lifestyle. Evolution is science and is quite separate from philosophical lifestyle-type questions. Have you learned nothing? You keep trying to assert that evolution is anti-god, while simultaneously ignoring the fact that there are Christians who accept evolution.
Once again, this is meaningless unless you can derive some other sort of evidence that the Bible is correct.
I warned you.
1) God created Adam and Eve knowing full well, in advance, what they would do.
2) He did not give them knowledge of good and evil, so they had no concept of good or bad.
3) Because of number 2) they could not know that it was bad to eat the apple
4) God placed the apple within their reach, even though it was easily within his power to keep the apple away from them - he basically put it in their hands
5) Knowing what they would do, he facilitated it. If he had not wanted them to eat the apple he could have made it impossible. If he had really wanted to give them a choice he could have given them enough knowledge to make an informed decision about eating the apple or not.
Conclusion: God set them up to fail. He knew they would and let the events transpire anyway.
Further: God, knowing that they would do this, punished them for it and punished all people afterwards for it, even though he caused it to happen. His thirst for blood and sacrifice was so great that it could only be appeased by a huge sacrifice, a blood sacrifice. That's where Jesus comes in, right? But, why did god need a human, blood sacrifice to appease himself? Why could he simply not just forgive? This is about as immoral as one can get. He knew it would happen and let it happen, he facilitated it even, he punished us all, and in his thirst for blood he could not forgive us until he had extracted his pound of flesh. Is this the god you want to follow?
More begging the question. You assume the answer you seek.
Note that it says nothing about god or being anti-god. That is baggage that you bring to it.
Stop about your kinds of evolution garbage. The way you are using it is simply change over time and then attributing some other aspect of the world, like chemistry or cosmology. It is incorrect usage. If you want to talk about the formation of the stars or formation of the heavy elements, so be it, but evolution is a theory in science that specifically deals with the speciation and common ancestry.
Also, I will once again point out that you must not believe in gravity or electrons since neither of those have ever been seen either.
You don't even have the right theory. Man and apes share a common ancestor. Ugh. Also, equating the "beliefs" is flat incorrect. We have evidence of evolution, i.e. fossil record, homology, etc. We have no evidence of god.
Fine by me. Just don't take it out on science that you choose to believe in that which has no evidence instead of that which does.
Remember, evolution does not exist! God placed the fossils there just to confuse us!
http://www.calacademy.org/science_now/headline_science/T-rex_soft_tissue.html
HEADLINE SCIENCE: Dino Discovery
Scientists see the softer side of Tyrannosaurus rex.
When paleontologists find fossilized dinosaur bones during a dig, they usually do everything in their power to protect them, using tools like toothbrushes to carefully unearth the bones without inflicting any damage. However, when scientists found a massive Tyrannosaurus rex thigh bone in a remote region of Montana a few months ago, they were forced to break the bone in two in order to fit it into the transport helicopter. This act of necessity revealed a startling surprise: soft tissue that had seemingly resisted fossilization still existed inside the bone. This tissue, including blood vessels, bone cells, and perhaps even blood cells, was so well preserved that it was still stretchy and flexible.
A scanning electron microscope revealed that the dinosaur blood vessels, which are 70 million years old, are virtually identical to those recovered from modern ostrich bones. The ostrich is today’s largest bird, and many paleontologists believe that birds are the living descendants of dinosaurs. Scientists may be able to confirm this evolutionary relationship if they can isolate certain proteins from the recently discovered T. rex tissue. These proteins could also help solve another puzzle: whether dinosaurs were cold-blooded like other reptiles or warm-blooded like mammals.
Does this discovery of soft dinosaur tissue mean that scientists will soon be able to clone a Tyrannosaurus rex? Probably not – most scientists believe that DNA cannot survive for 70 million years. Then again, before this discovery, most scientists believed that soft tissue could not survive for 70 million years either.
http://www.calacademy.org/science_now/headline_science/T-rex_soft_tissue.html
HEADLINE SCIENCE: Dino Discovery
Scientists see the softer side of Tyrannosaurus rex.
When paleontologists find fossilized dinosaur bones during a dig, they usually do everything in their power to protect them, using tools like toothbrushes to carefully unearth the bones without inflicting any damage. However, when scientists found a massive Tyrannosaurus rex thigh bone in a remote region of Montana a few months ago, they were forced to break the bone in two in order to fit it into the transport helicopter. This act of necessity revealed a startling surprise: soft tissue that had seemingly resisted fossilization still existed inside the bone. This tissue, including blood vessels, bone cells, and perhaps even blood cells, was so well preserved that it was still stretchy and flexible.
A scanning electron microscope revealed that the dinosaur blood vessels, which are 70 million years old, are virtually identical to those recovered from modern ostrich bones. The ostrich is today’s largest bird, and many paleontologists believe that birds are the living descendants of dinosaurs. Scientists may be able to confirm this evolutionary relationship if they can isolate certain proteins from the recently discovered T. rex tissue. These proteins could also help solve another puzzle: whether dinosaurs were cold-blooded like other reptiles or warm-blooded like mammals.
Does this discovery of soft dinosaur tissue mean that scientists will soon be able to clone a Tyrannosaurus rex? Probably not – most scientists believe that DNA cannot survive for 70 million years. Then again, before this discovery, most scientists believed that soft tissue could not survive for 70 million years either.
god placed the soft tissue there too.
Geez, it's easy being a creationist.
Geez, it's easy being a creationist.
And he did it to trick the non-believers into even more fervently non-believing. Clever, he is.
Oh this is where I left my brick wall. I've been wondering where it went.
