# Do You Believe We Came From Monkeys?



## Ima Cat

I know there are similarities but I think they are coincidental, like cats and seals both have whiskers.  But cats didn't come from seals or vice a versa.


----------



## SYTFE

We didn't.  We evolved from a common ancestor.


----------



## ScienceRocks

We're primates that developed from a common ancestor 5-7 million years ago that yes was an ape. 

That is a fact....The evidence is very strong.


----------



## Muhammed




----------



## Desperado

No chance.  Evolution may account for the differences within a species, but it does not account for new species.


----------



## usmbguest5318

"Do You Believe We Came From Monkeys?"
Monkeys?  No.  Non-monkey primates?  Yes.

In the Science & Technology subforum, that's the question you posed to us as you posed it?  Why?  (And I don't mean "why" this particular subforum.)


----------



## Jimmy_Chitwood

Ima Cat said:


> I know there are similarities but I think they are coincidental, like cats and seals both have whiskers.  But cats didn't come from seals or vice a versa.




Where do you think we came from?

Ancient Aliens?


----------



## LTCArmyRet

Matthew said:


> We're primates that developed from a common ancestor 5-7 million years ago that yes was an ape.
> 
> That is a fact....The evidence is very strong.



Not a fact, it is a theory, big difference.   And if we descended from an ape, why are there still apes?


----------



## Harry Dresden

Jimmy_Chitwood said:


> Ima Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know there are similarities but I think they are coincidental, like cats and seals both have whiskers.  But cats didn't come from seals or vice a versa.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where do you think we came from?
> 
> Ancient Aliens?
Click to expand...

yes.....i cant prove it but thats my humble story....


----------



## ChesBayJJ

SYTFE said:


> We didn't.  We evolved from a common ancestor.



Exactly so


----------



## ChesBayJJ

LTCArmyRet said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're primates that developed from a common ancestor 5-7 million years ago that yes was an ape.
> 
> That is a fact....The evidence is very strong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not a fact, it is a theory, big difference.   And if we descended from an ape, why are there still apes?
Click to expand...


Humans, Orangs, Gorillas, Chimps, we've all been evolving in parallel.


----------



## LTCArmyRet

ChesBayJJ said:


> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're primates that developed from a common ancestor 5-7 million years ago that yes was an ape.
> 
> That is a fact....The evidence is very strong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not a fact, it is a theory, big difference.   And if we descended from an ape, why are there still apes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Humans, Orangs, Gorillas, Chimps, we've all been evolving in parallel.
Click to expand...

Soooo.....we just got there first?


----------



## edthecynic

LTCArmyRet said:


> if we descended from an ape, why are there still apes?



Why wouldn't there still be apes?


----------



## gipper

ChesBayJJ said:


> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're primates that developed from a common ancestor 5-7 million years ago that yes was an ape.
> 
> That is a fact....The evidence is very strong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not a fact, it is a theory, big difference.   And if we descended from an ape, why are there still apes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Humans, Orangs, Gorillas, Chimps, we've all been evolving in parallel.
Click to expand...

When you think orangutans, gorillas, and chimps will land on the moon, master fire, make electronics, create the written word, master flight, make beautiful music, make vaccines, create the internet or nuclear weapons, etc?


----------



## ChesBayJJ

gipper said:


> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're primates that developed from a common ancestor 5-7 million years ago that yes was an ape.
> 
> That is a fact....The evidence is very strong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not a fact, it is a theory, big difference.   And if we descended from an ape, why are there still apes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Humans, Orangs, Gorillas, Chimps, we've all been evolving in parallel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When you think orangutans, gorillas, and chimps will land on the moon, master fire, make electronics, create the written word, master flight, make beautiful music, make vaccines, create the internet or nuclear weapons, etc?
Click to expand...


They won't. We _homo sapiens_ are the result of a different evolutionary path, not taken by our fellow simians. We evolved bipedalism, opposable thumbs, and larger brains.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Desperado said:


> No chance.  Evolution may account for the differences within a species, but it does not account for new species.



Why not?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

LTCArmyRet said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're primates that developed from a common ancestor 5-7 million years ago that yes was an ape.
> 
> That is a fact....The evidence is very strong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not a fact, it is a theory, big difference.   And if we descended from an ape, why are there still apes?
Click to expand...


*And if we descended from an ape, why are there still apes?*

The apes we descended from are no more.


----------



## I amso IR

gipper said:


> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're primates that developed from a common ancestor 5-7 million years ago that yes was an ape.
> 
> That is a fact....The evidence is very strong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not a fact, it is a theory, big difference.   And if we descended from an ape, why are there still apes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Humans, Orangs, Gorillas, Chimps, we've all been evolving in parallel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When you think orangutans, gorillas, and chimps will land on the moon, master fire, make electronics, create the written word, master flight, make beautiful music, make vaccines, create the internet or nuclear weapons, etc?
Click to expand...


The lack of atmosphere and oxygen might stall the fire part of that equation which will have an adverse affect upon the effects of the remainder of the equation. Bummer!


----------



## ChesBayJJ

Desperado said:


> No chance.  Evolution may account for the differences within a species, but it does not account for new species.



Sure it does. Eventually, species will evolve and become so different they no longer interbreed and they are then considered different species.

How Do New Species Evolve?


----------



## Luddly Neddite

Ima Cat said:


> I know there are similarities but I think they are coincidental, like cats and seals both have whiskers.  But cats didn't come from seals or vice a versa.




Does anyone believe that?

It seems that christians believe men sprang from nothing and women sprang from a man's rib. 

Pretty silly, I know but what is it you believe? And why did you write the post?


----------



## Hossfly

LTCArmyRet said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're primates that developed from a common ancestor 5-7 million years ago that yes was an ape.
> 
> That is a fact....The evidence is very strong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not a fact, it is a theory, big difference.   And if we descended from an ape, why are there still apes?
Click to expand...

I've asked the same question a number of times and never got an answer.


----------



## ChesBayJJ

Tree  of Life Web Project

Enjoy. I gotta depart


----------



## Hossfly

Luddly Neddite said:


> Ima Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know there are similarities but I think they are coincidental, like cats and seals both have whiskers.  But cats didn't come from seals or vice a versa.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does anyone believe that?
> 
> It seems that christians believe men sprang from nothing and women sprang from a man's rib.
> 
> Pretty silly, I know but what is it you believe? And why did you write the post?
Click to expand...

I believe we all came from West Virginia and Kentucky.


----------



## miketx

For an interesting read on "Where we came from" check out 







It outline translations from the oldest known civilization on Earth, the Sumerians.


----------



## miketx

But then, if we came from monkeys, why aren't monkeys still turning into people?


----------



## Hossfly

Desperado said:


> No chance.  Evolution may account for the differences within a species, but it does not account for new species.


I agree. IMO the only evolution that has occurred is that humans have gotten bigger, healthier, smarter and live longer. Most other animals have evolved  but much slower than humans.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

miketx said:


> But then, if we came from monkeys, why aren't monkeys still turning into people?



Given a long enough period of time and environmental stresses, they'd turn into something.
Maybe not something as smart as humans....maybe only liberals.


----------



## LTCArmyRet

Toddsterpatriot said:


> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're primates that developed from a common ancestor 5-7 million years ago that yes was an ape.
> 
> That is a fact....The evidence is very strong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not a fact, it is a theory, big difference.   And if we descended from an ape, why are there still apes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *And if we descended from an ape, why are there still apes?*
> 
> The apes we descended from are no more.
Click to expand...


The apes never existed.


----------



## koshergrl

LTCArmyRet said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're primates that developed from a common ancestor 5-7 million years ago that yes was an ape.
> 
> That is a fact....The evidence is very strong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not a fact, it is a theory, big difference.   And if we descended from an ape, why are there still apes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *And if we descended from an ape, why are there still apes?*
> 
> The apes we descended from are no more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The apes never existed.
Click to expand...


And every time they think they've found *evidence* that we are *evolved* from some non-human creature, it is debunked. 

Flores Man ‘hobbits’ found in Indonesia were NOT our human relatives, scientists confirm


----------



## ChesBayJJ

LTCArmyRet said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're primates that developed from a common ancestor 5-7 million years ago that yes was an ape.
> 
> That is a fact....The evidence is very strong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not a fact, it is a theory, big difference.   And if we descended from an ape, why are there still apes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *And if we descended from an ape, why are there still apes?*
> 
> The apes we descended from are no more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The apes never existed.
Click to expand...


They didn't? No ape like creature as our ancestor? Where did we humans come from?


----------



## miketx

Check out the book I posted.


----------



## edthecynic

miketx said:


> But then, if we came from monkeys, why aren't monkeys still turning into people?


----------



## miketx

There are no monkeys in your fake image? Do you even know what you're doing?


----------



## LTCArmyRet

ChesBayJJ said:


> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're primates that developed from a common ancestor 5-7 million years ago that yes was an ape.
> 
> That is a fact....The evidence is very strong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not a fact, it is a theory, big difference.   And if we descended from an ape, why are there still apes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *And if we descended from an ape, why are there still apes?*
> 
> The apes we descended from are no more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The apes never existed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They didn't? No ape like creature as our ancestor? Where did we humans come from?
Click to expand...


Not from apes.


----------



## PredFan

Ima Cat said:


> I know there are similarities but I think they are coincidental, like cats and seals both have whiskers.  But cats didn't come from seals or vice a versa.



We came from an animal that some monkeys also came from.


----------



## ChesBayJJ

LTCArmyRet said:


> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're primates that developed from a common ancestor 5-7 million years ago that yes was an ape.
> 
> That is a fact....The evidence is very strong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not a fact, it is a theory, big difference.   And if we descended from an ape, why are there still apes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *And if we descended from an ape, why are there still apes?*
> 
> The apes we descended from are no more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The apes never existed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They didn't? No ape like creature as our ancestor? Where did we humans come from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not from apes.
Click to expand...


The emergence of humans


----------



## miketx

^ BS.


----------



## ChesBayJJ

Read and learn

The Ancestor's Tale

Have a good evening everyone.


----------



## HenryBHough

"We"?

The "royal 'we'"?


----------



## Old Rocks

Desperado said:


> No chance.  Evolution may account for the differences within a species, but it does not account for new species.


Says who? Certainly not DNA and the fossil record.


----------



## Eloy

Ima Cat said:


> I know there are similarities but I think they are coincidental, like cats and seals both have whiskers.  But cats didn't come from seals or vice a versa.


When I read some of the posts here, I do wonder.


----------



## Old Rocks

LTCArmyRet said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're primates that developed from a common ancestor 5-7 million years ago that yes was an ape.
> 
> That is a fact....The evidence is very strong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not a fact, it is a theory, big difference.   And if we descended from an ape, why are there still apes?
Click to expand...

Now that is a question worthy of a second grade student, one slightly retarded. And you obviously do not understand the meaning of 'Theory' in science.

*scientific theory*

Examples
noun
1.
a coherent group of propositions formulated to explain a group of factsor phenomena in the natural world and repeatedly confirmed throughexperiment or observation:
the scientific theory of evolution.

the definition of scientific theory


----------



## Old Rocks

LTCArmyRet said:


> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're primates that developed from a common ancestor 5-7 million years ago that yes was an ape.
> 
> That is a fact....The evidence is very strong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not a fact, it is a theory, big difference.   And if we descended from an ape, why are there still apes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Humans, Orangs, Gorillas, Chimps, we've all been evolving in parallel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Soooo.....we just got there first?
Click to expand...

Got where first? Do you think that the development of reason is the aim of evolution? Evolution has no direction. It is life's reactions to environment. When intellect works, it will be developed. When something else works for that environment, that will be developed.


----------



## Old Rocks

Hossfly said:


> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're primates that developed from a common ancestor 5-7 million years ago that yes was an ape.
> 
> That is a fact....The evidence is very strong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not a fact, it is a theory, big difference.   And if we descended from an ape, why are there still apes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've asked the same question a number of times and never got an answer.
Click to expand...

LOL I bet you did. LOL


----------



## Old Rocks

Hossfly said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ima Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know there are similarities but I think they are coincidental, like cats and seals both have whiskers.  But cats didn't come from seals or vice a versa.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does anyone believe that?
> 
> It seems that christians believe men sprang from nothing and women sprang from a man's rib.
> 
> Pretty silly, I know but what is it you believe? And why did you write the post?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I believe we all came from West Virginia and Kentucky.
Click to expand...

Then we are doomed. LOL


----------



## Old Rocks

koshergrl said:


> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're primates that developed from a common ancestor 5-7 million years ago that yes was an ape.
> 
> That is a fact....The evidence is very strong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not a fact, it is a theory, big difference.   And if we descended from an ape, why are there still apes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *And if we descended from an ape, why are there still apes?*
> 
> The apes we descended from are no more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The apes never existed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And every time they think they've found *evidence* that we are *evolved* from some non-human creature, it is debunked.
> 
> Flores Man ‘hobbits’ found in Indonesia were NOT our human relatives, scientists confirm
Click to expand...

LOL  Silly ass, the hobbit is related to us, through our ancestor, Homo Erectus. We are distant cousins.


----------



## Old Rocks

Toddsterpatriot said:


> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> But then, if we came from monkeys, why aren't monkeys still turning into people?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Given a long enough period of time and environmental stresses, they'd turn into something.
> Maybe not something as smart as humans....maybe only liberals.
Click to expand...

So Todd, these are your peers you are arguing with. They are also dyed in the wool 'Conservatives'. LOL


----------



## Old Rocks

miketx said:


> Check out the book I posted.


LOL  Why? What would I learn from crackpot shit like that? Have enough trouble trying to keep up with real scientists, without taking time out for obvious crackpots.


----------



## Unkotare

Ima Cat said:


> I know there are similarities but I think they are coincidental, like cats and seals both have whiskers.  But cats didn't come from seals or vice a versa.




Evolution is not based on the notion that "we came from monkeys."


----------



## Unkotare

Desperado said:


> No chance.  Evolution may account for the differences within a species, but it does not account for new species.




Of course it does.


----------



## sealybobo

Ima Cat said:


> I know there are similarities but I think they are coincidental, like cats and seals both have whiskers.  But cats didn't come from seals or vice a versa.


How did seals and cats start on planet earth?


----------



## sealybobo

Desperado said:


> No chance.  Evolution may account for the differences within a species, but it does not account for new species.



Pick any three land creatures. Pig frog dog.

How do you think the first ones started?


----------



## sealybobo

Xelor said:


> "Do You Believe We Came From Monkeys?"
> Monkeys?  No.  Non-monkey primates?  Yes.
> 
> In the Science & Technology subforum, that's the question you posed to us as you posed it?  Why?  (And I don't mean "why" this particular subforum.)


Do you know that our species of ape may not even have been the most intelligent? But our species murdered that species. Wiped them out. We have a little of them in us. What is that redhead gene?


----------



## sealybobo

LTCArmyRet said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're primates that developed from a common ancestor 5-7 million years ago that yes was an ape.
> 
> That is a fact....The evidence is very strong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not a fact, it is a theory, big difference.   And if we descended from an ape, why are there still apes?
Click to expand...

Why are their so many species of dogs?


----------



## SYTFE

miketx said:


> But then, if we came from monkeys, why aren't monkeys still turning into people?



They are, take a look in the mirror.


----------



## Divine Wind

SYTFE said:


> We didn't.  We evolved from a common ancestor.


Correct, as genes prove in our similarity.


----------



## edthecynic

edthecynic said:


>





miketx said:


> There are no monkeys in your fake image? Do you even know what you're doing?


Yes there are, the last 2., especially the last one!


----------



## IsaacNewton

We share 99% DNA with the apes. The apes have 48 chromosomes, we have 46. Read up on telomeres on why that is.


----------



## BuckToothMoron

Ima Cat said:


> I know there are similarities but I think they are coincidental, like cats and seals both have whiskers.  But cats didn't come from seals or vice a versa.



Actually, the theory of evolution does not contend we are direct descendant from monkeys, but rather we share a common ancestry.  And yes, i do subscribe to the theory of evolution.


----------



## BuckToothMoron

Matthew said:


> We're primates that developed from a common ancestor 5-7 million years ago that yes was an ape.
> 
> That is a fact....The evidence is very strong.



I hate when I have to agree with Mathew. But he got this one right.


----------



## BuckToothMoron

LTCArmyRet said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're primates that developed from a common ancestor 5-7 million years ago that yes was an ape.
> 
> That is a fact....The evidence is very strong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not a fact, it is a theory, big difference.   And if we descended from an ape, why are there still apes?
Click to expand...


Read the replies- not from apes, common ancestry as apes.


----------



## sealybobo

miketx said:


> But then, if we came from monkeys, why aren't monkeys still turning into people?


They are. Not only are gorillas evolving fast so are dogs living along side us. Some dogs can understand 200 commands.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Ima Cat said:


> I know there are similarities but I think they are coincidental, like cats and seals both have whiskers.  But cats didn't come from seals or vice a versa.



No, Monkeys would never have voted for Trump, and apparently we have "evolved" from Monkeys, which implies getting better.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Old Rocks said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> But then, if we came from monkeys, why aren't monkeys still turning into people?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Given a long enough period of time and environmental stresses, they'd turn into something.
> Maybe not something as smart as humans....maybe only liberals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So Todd, these are your peers you are arguing with. They are also dyed in the wool 'Conservatives'. LOL
Click to expand...


At least they don't want to wreck our economy and waste trillions on windmills.


----------



## skye

no
 monkeys came from human beings
there you have it!


----------



## Kat

I say no. If we came from apes, why are there still apes.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Kat said:


> I say no. If we came from apes, why are there still apes.



Dogs came from wolves, why are there still wolves?


----------



## skye

It is hard for the ape to believe he descended from man.


A wise quote my friends LOL!


----------



## Kat

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Kat said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say no. If we came from apes, why are there still apes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dogs came from wolves, why are there still wolves?
Click to expand...




Dogs Evolved From Wolves - Fact or Myth?



That is all I feel like hunting up. You are (of course) free to believe as you choose, as am I.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Kat said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kat said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say no. If we came from apes, why are there still apes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dogs came from wolves, why are there still wolves?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dogs Evolved From Wolves - Fact or Myth?
> 
> 
> 
> That is all I feel like hunting up. You are (of course) free to believe as you choose, as am I.
Click to expand...

*
The exact origin of today’s dog is unclear, but studies show both dogs and wolves evolved from an extinct species of wolf of European origin that lived 30,000 years ago.*

Just as apes and humans evolved from a common ancestor. Thanks!


----------



## Kat

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Kat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kat said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say no. If we came from apes, why are there still apes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dogs came from wolves, why are there still wolves?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dogs Evolved From Wolves - Fact or Myth?
> 
> 
> 
> That is all I feel like hunting up. You are (of course) free to believe as you choose, as am I.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> The exact origin of today’s dog is unclear, but studies show both dogs and wolves evolved from an extinct species of wolf of European origin that lived 30,000 years ago.*
> 
> Just as apes and humans evolved from a common ancestor. Thanks!
Click to expand...



Cherry picking.






> Researchers have shown that while the modern day gray wolf is related to dogs genetically, dogs are not direct descendants of the modern gray wolf. According to studies, the gray wolf and dog separated from a common ancestor at least 27,000 years ago (so 30,000 is a rough estimate). That common ancestor wolf, called a Taimyr, is since extinct.[3]
> 
> To sum this up, dogs and gray wolves come from the same common ancestor, a type of now-extinct wolf called a Taimyr that lived nearly 30,000 years ago. Below we explore the details of the early divergence of the domestic dog, its ancestors, and admixture into high-latitude breeds.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Kat said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kat said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say no. If we came from apes, why are there still apes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dogs came from wolves, why are there still wolves?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dogs Evolved From Wolves - Fact or Myth?
> 
> 
> 
> That is all I feel like hunting up. You are (of course) free to believe as you choose, as am I.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> The exact origin of today’s dog is unclear, but studies show both dogs and wolves evolved from an extinct species of wolf of European origin that lived 30,000 years ago.*
> 
> Just as apes and humans evolved from a common ancestor. Thanks!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Cherry picking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Researchers have shown that while the modern day gray wolf is related to dogs genetically, dogs are not direct descendants of the modern gray wolf. According to studies, the gray wolf and dog separated from a common ancestor at least 27,000 years ago (so 30,000 is a rough estimate). That common ancestor wolf, called a Taimyr, is since extinct.[3]
> 
> To sum this up, dogs and gray wolves come from the same common ancestor, a type of now-extinct wolf called a Taimyr that lived nearly 30,000 years ago. Below we explore the details of the early divergence of the domestic dog, its ancestors, and admixture into high-latitude breeds.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

*
To sum this up, dogs and gray wolves come from the same common ancestor*
_
_
*Humans*_ did not evolve from _*apes*_, gorillas or chimps. We are all modern species that have followed different evolutionary paths, though _*humans share a common ancestor*_ with some primates, such as the African _*ape*_. The timeline of _*human*_ evolution is long and controversial, with significant gaps_


----------



## Kat

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Kat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kat said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say no. If we came from apes, why are there still apes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dogs came from wolves, why are there still wolves?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dogs Evolved From Wolves - Fact or Myth?
> 
> 
> 
> That is all I feel like hunting up. You are (of course) free to believe as you choose, as am I.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> The exact origin of today’s dog is unclear, but studies show both dogs and wolves evolved from an extinct species of wolf of European origin that lived 30,000 years ago.*
> 
> Just as apes and humans evolved from a common ancestor. Thanks!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Cherry picking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Researchers have shown that while the modern day gray wolf is related to dogs genetically, dogs are not direct descendants of the modern gray wolf. According to studies, the gray wolf and dog separated from a common ancestor at least 27,000 years ago (so 30,000 is a rough estimate). That common ancestor wolf, called a Taimyr, is since extinct.[3]
> 
> To sum this up, dogs and gray wolves come from the same common ancestor, a type of now-extinct wolf called a Taimyr that lived nearly 30,000 years ago. Below we explore the details of the early divergence of the domestic dog, its ancestors, and admixture into high-latitude breeds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> To sum this up, dogs and gray wolves come from the same common ancestor*
> _
> _
> *Humans*_ did not evolve from _*apes*_, gorillas or chimps. We are all modern species that have followed different evolutionary paths, though _*humans share a common ancestor*_ with some primates, such as the African _*ape*_. The timeline of _*human*_ evolution is long and controversial, with significant gaps_
Click to expand...




I agree with you in part. But, I did not come from an ape. I know who created me.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Kat said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dogs came from wolves, why are there still wolves?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dogs Evolved From Wolves - Fact or Myth?
> 
> 
> 
> That is all I feel like hunting up. You are (of course) free to believe as you choose, as am I.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> The exact origin of today’s dog is unclear, but studies show both dogs and wolves evolved from an extinct species of wolf of European origin that lived 30,000 years ago.*
> 
> Just as apes and humans evolved from a common ancestor. Thanks!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Cherry picking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Researchers have shown that while the modern day gray wolf is related to dogs genetically, dogs are not direct descendants of the modern gray wolf. According to studies, the gray wolf and dog separated from a common ancestor at least 27,000 years ago (so 30,000 is a rough estimate). That common ancestor wolf, called a Taimyr, is since extinct.[3]
> 
> To sum this up, dogs and gray wolves come from the same common ancestor, a type of now-extinct wolf called a Taimyr that lived nearly 30,000 years ago. Below we explore the details of the early divergence of the domestic dog, its ancestors, and admixture into high-latitude breeds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> To sum this up, dogs and gray wolves come from the same common ancestor*
> _
> _
> *Humans*_ did not evolve from _*apes*_, gorillas or chimps. We are all modern species that have followed different evolutionary paths, though _*humans share a common ancestor*_ with some primates, such as the African _*ape*_. The timeline of _*human*_ evolution is long and controversial, with significant gaps_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with you in part. But, I did not come from an ape. I know who created me.
Click to expand...


God was cool enough to use evolution. Wild, eh?


----------



## Kat

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Kat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dogs Evolved From Wolves - Fact or Myth?
> 
> 
> 
> That is all I feel like hunting up. You are (of course) free to believe as you choose, as am I.
> 
> 
> 
> *
> The exact origin of today’s dog is unclear, but studies show both dogs and wolves evolved from an extinct species of wolf of European origin that lived 30,000 years ago.*
> 
> Just as apes and humans evolved from a common ancestor. Thanks!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Cherry picking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Researchers have shown that while the modern day gray wolf is related to dogs genetically, dogs are not direct descendants of the modern gray wolf. According to studies, the gray wolf and dog separated from a common ancestor at least 27,000 years ago (so 30,000 is a rough estimate). That common ancestor wolf, called a Taimyr, is since extinct.[3]
> 
> To sum this up, dogs and gray wolves come from the same common ancestor, a type of now-extinct wolf called a Taimyr that lived nearly 30,000 years ago. Below we explore the details of the early divergence of the domestic dog, its ancestors, and admixture into high-latitude breeds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> To sum this up, dogs and gray wolves come from the same common ancestor*
> _
> _
> *Humans*_ did not evolve from _*apes*_, gorillas or chimps. We are all modern species that have followed different evolutionary paths, though _*humans share a common ancestor*_ with some primates, such as the African _*ape*_. The timeline of _*human*_ evolution is long and controversial, with significant gaps_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with you in part. But, I did not come from an ape. I know who created me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God was cool enough to use evolution. Wild, eh?
Click to expand...



Could be, but He didn't need it.


----------



## keepitreal

edthecynic said:


> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> 
> if we descended from an ape, why are there still apes?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why wouldn't there still be apes?
Click to expand...

Because they evolved into humans, that's why!

Fucking moron


----------



## Ima Cat

SYTFE said:


> We didn't.  We evolved from a common ancestor.



We didn't come from monkeys but from a common ancestor??  

Like a squirrel?  Did we come from squirrels?


----------



## sealybobo

Ima Cat said:


> SYTFE said:
> 
> 
> 
> We didn't.  We evolved from a common ancestor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We didn't come from monkeys but from a common ancestor??
> 
> Like a squirrel?  Did we come from squirrels?
Click to expand...

We share a common ancestor with all living things. Watch the Cosmos


----------



## sealybobo

Ima Cat said:


> I know there are similarities but I think they are coincidental, like cats and seals both have whiskers.  But cats didn't come from seals or vice a versa.


I asked you how cats and seals and all other land animals got here and you didn't answer. What's your theory?


----------



## sealybobo

Desperado said:


> No chance.  Evolution may account for the differences within a species, but it does not account for new species.


I asked you what your alternate theory is and you didn't answer. Why? Because your theory is the Bible story and you're embarrassed to admit that's your theory. Am I right? If not please tell us how all the land animals got here.

You think a god poofed all the land animals into existence. Waved his hand and suddenly full grown humans and giraffe and cats were walking around.


----------



## JQPublic1

Matthew said:


> We're primates that developed from a common ancestor 5-7 million years ago that yes was an ape.
> 
> That is a fact....The evidence is very strong.


Curiously, the elusive  missing link that would establish a nexus between the hominids and the apes has never been found if it ever existed at all. The Australopithecines ...lucy and the gang... are the closest thing to it thus far


----------



## JQPublic1

ChesBayJJ said:


> Desperado said:
> 
> 
> 
> No chance.  Evolution may account for the differences within a species, but it does not account for new species.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure it does. Eventually, species will evolve and become so different they no longer interbreed and they are then considered different species.
> 
> How Do New Species Evolve?
Click to expand...

That is all speculation.


----------



## gipper

ChesBayJJ said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're primates that developed from a common ancestor 5-7 million years ago that yes was an ape.
> 
> That is a fact....The evidence is very strong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not a fact, it is a theory, big difference.   And if we descended from an ape, why are there still apes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Humans, Orangs, Gorillas, Chimps, we've all been evolving in parallel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When you think orangutans, gorillas, and chimps will land on the moon, master fire, make electronics, create the written word, master flight, make beautiful music, make vaccines, create the internet or nuclear weapons, etc?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They won't. We _homo sapiens_ are the result of a different evolutionary path, not taken by our fellow simians. We evolved bipedalism, opposable thumbs, and larger brains.
Click to expand...

and yet you claim all these species evolved in parallel.


----------



## gipper

Luddly Neddite said:


> Ima Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know there are similarities but I think they are coincidental, like cats and seals both have whiskers.  But cats didn't come from seals or vice a versa.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does anyone believe that?
> 
> It seems that christians believe men sprang from nothing and women sprang from a man's rib.
> 
> Pretty silly, I know but what is it you believe? And why did you write the post?
Click to expand...

What is pretty silly is to think all creation....just happened.  That somehow the enormous universe just came about without any involvement from anyone or anything.  That man somehow evolved into a thinking species capable of creating amazing things, but all other species did not and this just...happened with no outside force making it happen.

Seems illogical to me.


----------



## LTCArmyRet

Old Rocks said:


> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're primates that developed from a common ancestor 5-7 million years ago that yes was an ape.
> 
> That is a fact....The evidence is very strong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not a fact, it is a theory, big difference.   And if we descended from an ape, why are there still apes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now that is a question worthy of a second grade student, one slightly retarded. And you obviously do not understand the meaning of 'Theory' in science.
> 
> *scientific theory*
> 
> Examples
> noun
> 1.
> a coherent group of *propositions* formulated to explain a group of factsor phenomena in the natural world and repeatedly confirmed throughexperiment or observation:
> the scientific theory of evolution.
> 
> the definition of scientific theory
Click to expand...


still not a FACT, do you understand that?  or does your second grade education not allow for that?  Many scientific theories have been proven untrue.


----------



## longknife

Ima Cat said:


> I know there are similarities but I think they are coincidental, like cats and seals both have whiskers.  But cats didn't come from seals or vice a versa.



All one has to do is watch the regressive Snowflakes. They're showing exactly where we came from!


----------



## Old Rocks

Ima Cat said:


> SYTFE said:
> 
> 
> 
> We didn't.  We evolved from a common ancestor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We didn't come from monkeys but from a common ancestor??
> 
> Like a squirrel?  Did we come from squirrels?
Click to expand...

*Well, we are distantly related to squirrels and other rodents. Look at their front paws and hind feet. Just one of the similiarities;*

*Similarity in form and function of the hippocampus in rodents, monkeys, and humans*
Robert E. Clarka,b,1 and Larry R. Squirea,b,c,d

Here, we describe the successful development during the past few decades of a model of human memory and human memory impairment in monkeys and rodents. This work, which focused on the hippocampus and anatomically related brain regions, provides a robust illustration of similar neuroanatomy and function across species. The expectation that the study of experimental animals should yield insights into the organization of human memory is certainly reasonable when considered in the light of evolution and evolutionary theory. Indeed, the central idea behind the study of nonhuman mammals is the notion that what can be learned about mammalian behavior and mammalian brains can improve understanding of the human brain and the human condition. However, this perspective was not so easily attained. We begin by describing an historical scientific debate in which this fundamental idea (continuity between nonhumans and humans) was challenged on the basis of supposed neuroanatomical differences between humans and other primates. The debate took place in the early 1860s, just after the 1859 publication of Darwin’s _On the Origin of Species_ (1). We then describe the difficult road that was traveled to develop an animal model of human memory impairment.

Similarity in form and function of the hippocampus in rodents, monkeys, and humans

*Yes, what is being said is that a rat is your distant cousin. LOL*


----------



## Old Rocks

longknife said:


> Ima Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know there are similarities but I think they are coincidental, like cats and seals both have whiskers.  But cats didn't come from seals or vice a versa.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All one has to do is watch the regressive Snowflakes. They're showing exactly where we came from!
Click to expand...

Hey dingleberry, it is the knuckle dragging 'Conservatives' that are unable to see the obvious evidence that life has evolved and is still evolving. Look at the number of idiots in the orange clown's admin that are Creationists.


----------



## Old Rocks

LTCArmyRet said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're primates that developed from a common ancestor 5-7 million years ago that yes was an ape.
> 
> That is a fact....The evidence is very strong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not a fact, it is a theory, big difference.   And if we descended from an ape, why are there still apes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now that is a question worthy of a second grade student, one slightly retarded. And you obviously do not understand the meaning of 'Theory' in science.
> 
> *scientific theory*
> 
> Examples
> noun
> 1.
> a coherent group of *propositions* formulated to explain a group of factsor phenomena in the natural world and repeatedly confirmed throughexperiment or observation:
> the scientific theory of evolution.
> 
> the definition of scientific theory
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> still not a FACT, do you understand that?  or does your second grade education not allow for that?  Many scientific theories have been proven untrue.
Click to expand...

LOL  God, you are a stupid fuck. So, most of the scientific theories have been proven untrue? So this computer that you are using to post on has nothing at all to do with electrical and electronics theory? It was prayed into being by your nearest holy roller preacher, right? That airplane that you have ridden in has nothing to do with aerodynamic theory? Facts support theories. Theory is a good as it gets in science. I wish dumb fucks like you would actually research something instead of just posting your willful ignorance all over the boards.


----------



## Old Rocks

Kat said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The exact origin of today’s dog is unclear, but studies show both dogs and wolves evolved from an extinct species of wolf of European origin that lived 30,000 years ago.*
> 
> Just as apes and humans evolved from a common ancestor. Thanks!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cherry picking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Researchers have shown that while the modern day gray wolf is related to dogs genetically, dogs are not direct descendants of the modern gray wolf. According to studies, the gray wolf and dog separated from a common ancestor at least 27,000 years ago (so 30,000 is a rough estimate). That common ancestor wolf, called a Taimyr, is since extinct.[3]
> 
> To sum this up, dogs and gray wolves come from the same common ancestor, a type of now-extinct wolf called a Taimyr that lived nearly 30,000 years ago. Below we explore the details of the early divergence of the domestic dog, its ancestors, and admixture into high-latitude breeds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> To sum this up, dogs and gray wolves come from the same common ancestor*
> _
> _
> *Humans*_ did not evolve from _*apes*_, gorillas or chimps. We are all modern species that have followed different evolutionary paths, though _*humans share a common ancestor*_ with some primates, such as the African _*ape*_. The timeline of _*human*_ evolution is long and controversial, with significant gaps_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with you in part. But, I did not come from an ape. I know who created me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God was cool enough to use evolution. Wild, eh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Could be, but He didn't need it.
Click to expand...

Your proof of which is?


----------



## Vastator

Ima Cat said:


> I know there are similarities but I think they are coincidental, like cats and seals both have whiskers.  But cats didn't come from seals or vice a versa.


So much stupid; packed into one little post...
This has to be a record!


----------



## Luddly Neddite

longknife said:


> Ima Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know there are similarities but I think they are coincidental, like cats and seals both have whiskers.  But cats didn't come from seals or vice a versa.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All one has to do is watch the regressive Snowflakes. They're showing exactly where we came from!
Click to expand...


longknife

No need to pollute the thread with a nasty attack on RWNJs. Let's just stick to the topic, shall we?


----------



## Luddly Neddite

gipper said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ima Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know there are similarities but I think they are coincidental, like cats and seals both have whiskers.  But cats didn't come from seals or vice a versa.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does anyone believe that?
> 
> It seems that christians believe men sprang from nothing and women sprang from a man's rib.
> 
> Pretty silly, I know but what is it you believe? And why did you write the post?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is pretty silly is to think all creation....just happened.  That somehow the enormous universe just came about without any involvement from anyone or anything.  That man somehow evolved into a thinking species capable of creating amazing things, but all other species did not and this just...happened with no outside force making it happen.
> 
> Seems illogical to me.
Click to expand...


gipper

Exactly. Even if I were able to believe in an invisible, all knowing, all seeing, petulant, vicious, creature who creates and destroys on a whim, there's just no way that I could believe "he' created the earth, the planets, the stars, plant and animal (including the human animal) life  and then rested on Sunday.


----------



## sealybobo

JQPublic1 said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're primates that developed from a common ancestor 5-7 million years ago that yes was an ape.
> 
> That is a fact....The evidence is very strong.
> 
> 
> 
> Curiously, the elusive  missing link that would establish a nexus between the hominids and the apes has never been found if it ever existed at all. The Australopithecines ...lucy and the gang... are the closest thing to it thus far
Click to expand...

Science has already explained this.  You aren't going to find a missing link.  Do you see the difference between your grandfather and your grandson?  There is a difference but you can't see it because it happens so gradually over time.  If you have a million years you'll see it.


----------



## sealybobo

I rest my fucking case.  If you DO NOT believe we "came from monkeys" then please tell us intelligent people what your fucking scientific theory is.  We are fucking waiting!!!!


----------



## sealybobo

Luddly Neddite said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ima Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know there are similarities but I think they are coincidental, like cats and seals both have whiskers.  But cats didn't come from seals or vice a versa.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does anyone believe that?
> 
> It seems that christians believe men sprang from nothing and women sprang from a man's rib.
> 
> Pretty silly, I know but what is it you believe? And why did you write the post?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is pretty silly is to think all creation....just happened.  That somehow the enormous universe just came about without any involvement from anyone or anything.  That man somehow evolved into a thinking species capable of creating amazing things, but all other species did not and this just...happened with no outside force making it happen.
> 
> Seems illogical to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> gipper
> 
> Exactly. Even if I were able to believe in an invisible, all knowing, all seeing, petulant, vicious, creature who creates and destroys on a whim, there's just no way that I could believe "he' created the earth, the planets, the stars, plant and animal (including the human animal) life  and then rested on Sunday.
Click to expand...


Religious people have an answer for everything.  The earth is 14 trillion years old.  7 days, right?  So they say to god 1 day is 2 trillion years.


----------



## The Sage of Main Street

ChesBayJJ said:


> Desperado said:
> 
> 
> 
> No chance.  Evolution may account for the differences within a species, but it does not account for new species.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure it does. Eventually, species will evolve and become so different they no longer interbreed and they are then considered different species.
> 
> How Do New Species Evolve?
Click to expand...

*Prometheus Bound*

What species has been evolving from us?  _Homo sapiens _implies that only High IQs are human.  They invented everything that prevented the rest from living like wild animals, so that's what the rest really are.  But the ungrateful and insulting subhumans credit everything good to their King Apes; that's why our simian rulers try to humiliate High IQs from childhood on, to keep them from manning up.  Any smart person who acts like a gutless conformist nerd weakling is a traitor to his species.


----------



## sealybobo

The Sage of Main Street said:


> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Desperado said:
> 
> 
> 
> No chance.  Evolution may account for the differences within a species, but it does not account for new species.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure it does. Eventually, species will evolve and become so different they no longer interbreed and they are then considered different species.
> 
> How Do New Species Evolve?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Prometheus Bound*
> 
> What species has been evolving from us?  _Homo sapiens _implies that only High IQs are human.  They invented everything that prevented the rest from living like wild animals, so that's what the rest really are.  But the ungrateful and insulting subhumans credit everything good to their King Apes; that's why our simian rulers try to humiliate High IQs from childhood on, to keep them from manning up.  Any smart person who acts like a gutless conformist nerd weakling is a traitor to his species.
Click to expand...


It is so true.  If a kid shows superior intelligence in church the preacher or nun will shut that shit down lickity split.  Sure the occasional person like me escapes the brainwashing after 30 years but by then is it too late?  And if one smart person tells 3 dummies they are dumb, will they believe him?  

I watch religious shows for kids.  Those kids are being brainwashed and the group is not having an honest discussion.  Kids aren't free or comfortable to speak their minds and ultimately even if the kid does ask enough questions the preacher is going to tell him he/she just has to have faith in the ridiculous.


----------



## gipper

Luddly Neddite said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ima Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know there are similarities but I think they are coincidental, like cats and seals both have whiskers.  But cats didn't come from seals or vice a versa.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does anyone believe that?
> 
> It seems that christians believe men sprang from nothing and women sprang from a man's rib.
> 
> Pretty silly, I know but what is it you believe? And why did you write the post?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is pretty silly is to think all creation....just happened.  That somehow the enormous universe just came about without any involvement from anyone or anything.  That man somehow evolved into a thinking species capable of creating amazing things, but all other species did not and this just...happened with no outside force making it happen.
> 
> Seems illogical to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> gipper
> 
> Exactly. Even if I were able to believe in an invisible, all knowing, all seeing, petulant, vicious, creature who creates and destroys on a whim, there's just no way that I could believe "he' created the earth, the planets, the stars, plant and animal (including the human animal) life  and then rested on Sunday.
Click to expand...

So...then it just happened.  It's MAGIC!!!


----------



## gipper

sealybobo said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ima Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know there are similarities but I think they are coincidental, like cats and seals both have whiskers.  But cats didn't come from seals or vice a versa.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does anyone believe that?
> 
> It seems that christians believe men sprang from nothing and women sprang from a man's rib.
> 
> Pretty silly, I know but what is it you believe? And why did you write the post?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is pretty silly is to think all creation....just happened.  That somehow the enormous universe just came about without any involvement from anyone or anything.  That man somehow evolved into a thinking species capable of creating amazing things, but all other species did not and this just...happened with no outside force making it happen.
> 
> Seems illogical to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> gipper
> 
> Exactly. Even if I were able to believe in an invisible, all knowing, all seeing, petulant, vicious, creature who creates and destroys on a whim, there's just no way that I could believe "he' created the earth, the planets, the stars, plant and animal (including the human animal) life  and then rested on Sunday.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Religious people have an answer for everything.  The earth is 14 trillion years old.  7 days, right?  So they say to god 1 day is 2 trillion years.
Click to expand...

Who posted anything about God or religion?  Not me.  

That's the thing about you lefties, you automatically think anyone who disputes your kooky evolution THEORY, must think everything in the Bible is true.  STFU!

To think it all magically happened, is to not think.  

At any rate, evolution can co-exist with a superior being.


----------



## Unkotare

That bobomengele would talk about shutting down intelligence is enough to induce dangerous hyper-irony shock. That the stupidest bullshitter on this site watches children's television shows in a futile attempt to feel superior is the only part of that post to make sense.


----------



## gipper

sealybobo said:


> The Sage of Main Street said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Desperado said:
> 
> 
> 
> No chance.  Evolution may account for the differences within a species, but it does not account for new species.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure it does. Eventually, species will evolve and become so different they no longer interbreed and they are then considered different species.
> 
> How Do New Species Evolve?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Prometheus Bound*
> 
> What species has been evolving from us?  _Homo sapiens _implies that only High IQs are human.  They invented everything that prevented the rest from living like wild animals, so that's what the rest really are.  But the ungrateful and insulting subhumans credit everything good to their King Apes; that's why our simian rulers try to humiliate High IQs from childhood on, to keep them from manning up.  Any smart person who acts like a gutless conformist nerd weakling is a traitor to his species.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is so true.  If a kid shows superior intelligence in church the preacher or nun will shut that shit down lickity split.  Sure the occasional person like me escapes the brainwashing after 30 years but by then is it too late?  And if one smart person tells 3 dummies they are dumb, will they believe him?
> 
> I watch religious shows for kids.  Those kids are being brainwashed and the group is not having an honest discussion.  Kids aren't free or comfortable to speak their minds and ultimately even if the kid does ask enough questions the preacher is going to tell him he/she just has to have faith in the ridiculous.
Click to expand...

When the smallest living thing on the planet is complex in it's design (INTELLIGENT DESIGN)....oh it just happened this way MAGICALLY....


----------



## sealybobo

gipper said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Sage of Main Street said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Desperado said:
> 
> 
> 
> No chance.  Evolution may account for the differences within a species, but it does not account for new species.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure it does. Eventually, species will evolve and become so different they no longer interbreed and they are then considered different species.
> 
> How Do New Species Evolve?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Prometheus Bound*
> 
> What species has been evolving from us?  _Homo sapiens _implies that only High IQs are human.  They invented everything that prevented the rest from living like wild animals, so that's what the rest really are.  But the ungrateful and insulting subhumans credit everything good to their King Apes; that's why our simian rulers try to humiliate High IQs from childhood on, to keep them from manning up.  Any smart person who acts like a gutless conformist nerd weakling is a traitor to his species.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is so true.  If a kid shows superior intelligence in church the preacher or nun will shut that shit down lickity split.  Sure the occasional person like me escapes the brainwashing after 30 years but by then is it too late?  And if one smart person tells 3 dummies they are dumb, will they believe him?
> 
> I watch religious shows for kids.  Those kids are being brainwashed and the group is not having an honest discussion.  Kids aren't free or comfortable to speak their minds and ultimately even if the kid does ask enough questions the preacher is going to tell him he/she just has to have faith in the ridiculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When the smallest living thing on the planet is complex in it's design (INTELLIGENT DESIGN)....oh it just happened this way MAGICALLY....
Click to expand...

How do you think it happened?

The correct answer might be we don't know yet. What's your theory?

If you're going to dismiss our theory tell us yours


----------



## sealybobo

gipper said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Sage of Main Street said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Desperado said:
> 
> 
> 
> No chance.  Evolution may account for the differences within a species, but it does not account for new species.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure it does. Eventually, species will evolve and become so different they no longer interbreed and they are then considered different species.
> 
> How Do New Species Evolve?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Prometheus Bound*
> 
> What species has been evolving from us?  _Homo sapiens _implies that only High IQs are human.  They invented everything that prevented the rest from living like wild animals, so that's what the rest really are.  But the ungrateful and insulting subhumans credit everything good to their King Apes; that's why our simian rulers try to humiliate High IQs from childhood on, to keep them from manning up.  Any smart person who acts like a gutless conformist nerd weakling is a traitor to his species.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is so true.  If a kid shows superior intelligence in church the preacher or nun will shut that shit down lickity split.  Sure the occasional person like me escapes the brainwashing after 30 years but by then is it too late?  And if one smart person tells 3 dummies they are dumb, will they believe him?
> 
> I watch religious shows for kids.  Those kids are being brainwashed and the group is not having an honest discussion.  Kids aren't free or comfortable to speak their minds and ultimately even if the kid does ask enough questions the preacher is going to tell him he/she just has to have faith in the ridiculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When the smallest living thing on the planet is complex in it's design (INTELLIGENT DESIGN)....oh it just happened this way MAGICALLY....
Click to expand...

Why does it have to be intelligent design? Your parents created you. They're just animals. Who created them? Something physical that can be explained by nature.

But what created your intelligent designer? See, your answers bring up more questions that can't be answered. So what makes you comfortable is that there must be an intelligent designer. Not necessarily true.

And who said magically? If you don't know is it always magic?


----------



## sealybobo

gipper said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Sage of Main Street said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Desperado said:
> 
> 
> 
> No chance.  Evolution may account for the differences within a species, but it does not account for new species.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure it does. Eventually, species will evolve and become so different they no longer interbreed and they are then considered different species.
> 
> How Do New Species Evolve?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Prometheus Bound*
> 
> What species has been evolving from us?  _Homo sapiens _implies that only High IQs are human.  They invented everything that prevented the rest from living like wild animals, so that's what the rest really are.  But the ungrateful and insulting subhumans credit everything good to their King Apes; that's why our simian rulers try to humiliate High IQs from childhood on, to keep them from manning up.  Any smart person who acts like a gutless conformist nerd weakling is a traitor to his species.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is so true.  If a kid shows superior intelligence in church the preacher or nun will shut that shit down lickity split.  Sure the occasional person like me escapes the brainwashing after 30 years but by then is it too late?  And if one smart person tells 3 dummies they are dumb, will they believe him?
> 
> I watch religious shows for kids.  Those kids are being brainwashed and the group is not having an honest discussion.  Kids aren't free or comfortable to speak their minds and ultimately even if the kid does ask enough questions the preacher is going to tell him he/she just has to have faith in the ridiculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When the smallest living thing on the planet is complex in it's design (INTELLIGENT DESIGN)....oh it just happened this way MAGICALLY....
Click to expand...

Sounds like god of the gaps. Everything you don't know must be god. Or as you call him intelligent designer


----------



## JQPublic1

gipper said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Sage of Main Street said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Desperado said:
> 
> 
> 
> No chance.  Evolution may account for the differences within a species, but it does not account for new species.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure it does. Eventually, species will evolve and become so different they no longer interbreed and they are then considered different species.
> 
> How Do New Species Evolve?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Prometheus Bound*
> 
> What species has been evolving from us?  _Homo sapiens _implies that only High IQs are human.  They invented everything that prevented the rest from living like wild animals, so that's what the rest really are.  But the ungrateful and insulting subhumans credit everything good to their King Apes; that's why our simian rulers try to humiliate High IQs from childhood on, to keep them from manning up.  Any smart person who acts like a gutless conformist nerd weakling is a traitor to his species.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is so true.  If a kid shows superior intelligence in church the preacher or nun will shut that shit down lickity split.  Sure the occasional person like me escapes the brainwashing after 30 years but by then is it too late?  And if one smart person tells 3 dummies they are dumb, will they believe him?
> 
> I watch religious shows for kids.  Those kids are being brainwashed and the group is not having an honest discussion.  Kids aren't free or comfortable to speak their minds and ultimately even if the kid does ask enough questions the preacher is going to tell him he/she just has to have faith in the ridiculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When the smallest living thing on the planet is complex in it's design (INTELLIGENT DESIGN)....oh it just happened this way MAGICALLY....
Click to expand...

 If life is ever found on another planet the foundations of Christianity will be rocked. But some Christian experts have anticipated that by declaring UFOs vehicles of the Devil. Others point to Ezekiel's  "Wheel in the middle of a wheel

*Ezekiel 1:16 Context*

was like burning coals of fire, _and_ like the appearance of lamps: it went up and down among the living creatures; and the fire was bright, and out of the fire went forth lightning.As for the likeness of the living creatures, their appearance _was_ like burning coals of fire, _and_ like the appearance of lamps: it went up and down among the living creatures; and the fire was bright, and out of the fire went forth lightning. 14And the living creatures ran and returned as the appearance of a flash of lightning. 15Now as I beheld the living creatures, behold one wheel upon the earth by the living creatures, with his four faces. was like unto the colour of a beryl: and they four had one likeness: and their appearance and their work _was_ as it were a wheel in the middle of a wheel." *The appearance of the wheels and their work was like unto the colour of a beryl: and they four had one likeness: and their appearance and their work was as it were a wheel in the middle of a wheel.* and they turned not when they went.When they went, they went upon their four sides: _and_ they turned not when they went. were full of eyes round about them four.As for their rings, they were so high that they were dreadful; and their rings _were_ full of eyes round about them four. 19And when the living creatures went, the wheels went by them: and when the living creatures were lifted up from the earth, the wheels were lifted up.


----------



## ScienceRocks

Early Primate Evolution:  The First Primates


> Among the numerous Miocene primate species were the ancestors of all modern apes and humans.  By 14 million years ago, the group of apes that included our ancestors was apparently in the process of adapting to life on the edges of the expanding savannas in Southern Europe.  They were very likely members of the genus _ *Dryopithecus*_
> 
> , which were generally similar in appearance to modern African apes.  These apes evolved mostly during a relatively short global heat wave that began around 15 million years ago.  This caused enough polar ice to melt so that sea levels once again rose 80-130 feet.






> Toward the end of the Miocene, less hospitable cooler conditions in the northern hemisphere once again caused many primate species to become extinct while some survived by migrating south into Africa and South Asia where it remained relatively warm. * About 8-9 million years ago, the descendants of the dryopithecines *
> 
> in Africa diverged into two lines--one that led to gorillas and *another to humans,* chimpanzees, and bonobos.  Around 7 million years ago, a further divergence occurred which separated the ancestors of modern chimpanzees and bonobos from the early *hominins*
> 
> (human-like primates) that were our direct ancestors.


----------



## JQPublic1

sealybobo said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're primates that developed from a common ancestor 5-7 million years ago that yes was an ape.
> 
> That is a fact....The evidence is very strong.
> 
> 
> 
> Curiously, the elusive  missing link that would establish a nexus between the hominids and the apes has never been found if it ever existed at all. The Australopithecines ...lucy and the gang... are the closest thing to it thus far
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Science has already explained this.  You aren't going to find a missing link.  Do you see the difference between your grandfather and your grandson?  There is a difference but you can't see it because it happens so gradually over time.  If you have a million years you'll see it.
Click to expand...

All we have is the word of scientists who claim to have studied the fossil record. Hopefully, they are telling us the truth.


----------



## ScienceRocks

Here is the evidence! Pretty fucking solid...

Early Hominin Evolution: Discovery of Early Hominids

*Discovery of Early Hominins*


*The immediate ancestors of humans were members of the genus *_*Australopithecus*_* 

.  The * *australopithecines 

 (or australopiths) were intermediate between apes and people.  Both australopithecines and humans are biologically similar enough to be classified as members of the same biological tribe--the *_ *Hominini*_* 

.  All people, past and present, along with the australopithecines are hominins 

.  We share in common not only the fact that we evolved from the same ape ancestors in Africa but that both genera are habitually bipedal 

, or two-footed, upright walkers.  By comparison, chimpanzees, bonobos, and gorillas are primarily quadrupedal 

, or four-footed.  *






*Over the last decade, there have been a number of important fossil discoveries in Africa of what may be very early transitional ape/hominins, or  proto-hominins.  These creatures lived just after the divergence from our common hominid ancestor with chimpanzees and bonobos, during the late Miocene and early Pliocene Epochs.  The fossils have been tentatively classified as members of three distinct genera--*_*Sahelanthropus*_* 

, Orrorin 

, and *_*Ardipithecus*_* 

.  Sahelanthropus was the earliest, dating 7-6 million years ago.  Orrorin lived about 6 million years ago, while Ardipithecus remains have been dated to 5.8-4.4 million years ago.  At present, the vote is still out as to whether any of these three primates were in fact true hominins and if they were our ancestors.  The classification of Sahelanthropus has been the most in question.*

*The earliest australopithecines very likely did not evolve until 5 million years ago or shortly thereafter (during the beginning of the Pliocene Epoch) in East Africa.  The primate fossil record for this crucial transitional period leading to australopithecines is still scanty and somewhat confusing.  However, by about 4.2 million years ago, unquestionable australopithecines were present.  By 3 million years ago, they were common in both East and South Africa.  Some have been found dating to this period in North Central Africa also.  As the australopithecines evolved, they exploited more types of environments.  Their early proto-hominin ancestors had been predominantly tropical forest animals.  However, African forests were progressively giving way to sparse woodlands and dry grasslands, or savannas 

.  The australopithecines took advantage of these new conditions.  In the more open environments, bipedalism would very likely have been an advantage.*

*By 2.5 million years ago, there were at least 2 evolutionary lines of hominins descended from the early australopithecines.  One line apparently was adapted primarily to the food resources in lake margin grassland environments and had an omnivorous diet that increasingly included meat.  Among them were our early human ancestors who started to make stone tools by this time.  The other line seems to have lived more in mixed grassland and woodland environments, like the earlier australopithecines, and was primarily vegetarian.  This second, more conservative line of early hominins died out by 1 million years ago or shortly before then.  It is likely that all of the early hominins, including humans, supplemented their diets with protein and fat rich termites and ants just as some chimpanzees do today.*

Major early
hominin sites






*
 History of Discovery*

*In his 1871 book entitled The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex, Charles Darwin speculated that fossils of the earliest humans and their immediate progenitors ultimately would be found somewhere in Africa.  He based this on the fact that the natural range of our nearest living relatives, chimpanzees and gorillas, is limited to Africa.  He concluded that we ultimately must have shared a now extinct common ancestor with those apes in Africa.  This view was mostly rejected by the scientific world of the time.  Before the 1920's, knowledge of our fossil ancestors only went back to the Neandertals 

 in Europe and some presumably earlier human-like forms from Java, in Southeast Asia.  Few researchers were willing to estimate the time period of the earliest hominins at much more than 100,000 years, and there was no inkling of anything older from Africa.  In addition, there was a bias among the predominantly European paleoanthropologists against accepting early Africans as the ancestors of all humanity.*





Raymond Dart    
(1893-1989)   





"Taung child" reconstruction
  (_Australopithecus africanus_)

*In 1924, Raymond Dart, an Australian anatomy professor at the University of Witerwatersrand in Johannesburg, South Africa, obtained a fossil skull that had been blasted out of a nearby limestone quarry at Taung 

.  It took him 73 days to chisel the skull free from its surrounding stone matrix and 4 years of spare time to free the jaw and the fossilized brain.  However, long before then, Dart recognized the importance of this find.  In 1925 he named it * *Australopithecus africanus 

 (literally "southern ape from Africa").  Because of its small size, he called it the "Taung baby."  In fact, its teeth indicate that it was a 3-4 year old child.  Despite its relatively small brain, he concluded that this species was intermediate between apes and humans.  He based this mainly on the shape and position of the base of the brain cast.  It indicated that the foramen magnum 

, or hole in the skull through which the spinal cord passes, pointed downward and was nearly at the central balance point of the skull.  This meant that the Taung child must have been bipedal.  In addition, the canine 

 teeth were relatively short.  In both of these traits, the Taung child was much more like a human than an ape.  Most paleoanthropologists in the 1920's rejected Dart's claims that Australopithecus africanus was intermediate between apes and humans in favor of the view that it was just an ape.  Dart's claims were not widely accepted until the late 1940's.*





Robert Broom
(1866-1951)    


*Following Dart's discovery, several other caves were investigated in South Africa.  Most of the work was done by * *Robert Broom from 1936 through the 1940's.  Broom was a medical doctor and an enthusiastic amateur paleontologist from Scotland.  In 1903, he was appointed professor of geology at the University of Stellenbosch in South Africa and became internationally respected for his studies of early mammal-like reptiles.  His insistence on the correctness of the theory of evolution led to his dismissal from this conservative religious university in 1910.  Consequently, he returned to being a medical doctor in a rural town in South Africa but continued paleontological research in his spare time.  In 1934, at the age of 68, he retired from his medical practice and joined the staff of the Transvaal Museum in Pretoria as a paleoanthropologist.  The rest of his life was spent searching for early hominin fossils.   *

*Robert Broom's most important discoveries were made in the Sterkfontein valley of South Africa.  It was there in 1936 that he found the first known adult Australopithecus africanus while excavating in * *Sterkfontein 

 * * cave.  In 1938, he discovered more fossil remains of africanus and other early hominins in * *Kromdraai 

  cave.  Some of these fossils were larger boned and more muscular with powerful jaws.  Broom named them *_ *Paranthropus robustus*_* 

 (Paranthropus means "parallel to man").  Significantly, these robust hominins also differed in having a * *sagittal crest * * 

, or ridge of bone extending from front to back, along the midline of the top of the skull.  A sagittal crest serves as an anchor attachment for exceptionally large, strong jaw muscles.  This skeletal feature is also present in large apes but not in africanus or humans.*

_Australopithecus africanus
_




_Paranthropus robustus_


----------



## ScienceRocks

*Explain to me how all this evidence has been found if humanity didn't come from it? 

In 1948, Robert Broom found more paranthropoid fossils at * *Swartkrans 

 * * cave in South Africa.  Following that excavation, he dedicated the rest of his life to writing everything known about all of the early hominins.  He completed this compendium work in 1951.  He was 85 years old and ill.  As he finally finished his writing, he reportedly said "now it is done and so am I."  He died a few minutes later.*






 Leopard canines fit
 punctures in hominin
 skull from Swartkrans

* Between 1965 and 1983,  Swartkrans* * cave was carefully reinvestigated by another South African paleoanthropologist, * *C. K. Brain, using more thorough field and laboratory techniques than had been used by Robert Broom a generation earlier.  Many thousands of bone fragments, including the remains of 130 individual hominins, were recovered by Brain.  These bones were from australopithecines and paranthropoids as well as early members of our genus, * * Homo.  Because many of the bones had chewing marks and at least one of the skulls had peculiar depressions reminiscent of punctures made by the canine teeth of a leopard, Brain hypothesized that some of the Swartkrans hominins had been eaten by these big cats.  The early hominin fossil-bearing strata in the cave also contained 195 stones that were from locations distant from the cave.  Brain believed that 30 of them may have been used as tools or weapons.  In any case, the presence of these stones suggests that not all of the early hominins in the cave were there as a result of being the victims of carnivores.*

*Unfortunately, most of the South African sites where early hominin fossils have been found are not easily dated because they lack association with volcanic deposits that would readily allow radiometric dating.  That is not the case with most of the early hominin sites in East Africa.*

*The oldest fossil hominins have been recovered from sites in East Africa, especially in the Great Rift Valley.  One of the most important sites there is * *Olduvai Gorge 

.  It is an approximately 30 mile (48 km.) long, eroded canyon complex cutting into the Serengeti 

 Plain in Northern Tanzania.  It is only about 295 feet (90 m.) deep, but its neatly stratified layers of dirt and rock interspersed with easily datable volcanic ash and lava layers cover the last 2.1 million years of geological and evolutionary history.  The remains of many australopithecines, paranthropoids, and early humans have been found at Olduvai.  When these ancient hominins lived there, it was a lake margin grassland area that had abundant plant food and meat sources that could be exploited by scavenging.  *





Mary and Louis Leakey with
the "_Zinjanthropus boisei"_
palate and a modern human
skull in 1959





_Zinjanthropus boisei
(Paranthropus boisei)_

*Early hominin fossils from Olduvai Gorge are known mostly as a result of the many expeditions of * *Louis and Mary Leakey 

.  Louis began searching there in 1931, and his second wife Mary joined him in 1935.  However, it was not until 1959 that they found their first early hominin fossil.  Louis gave it a new genus and species designation, * _ *Zinjanthropus boisei*_* 

 (literally "East African man").  Subsequently, it was recognized to be only a super robust paranthropoid.  It is now generally referred to as * _*Paranthropus *_* boisei 

.  Using the then new potassium-argon dating method, the fossil was determined to be 1.75 ± * * .25 million years old.  This was a startlingly early date when it was made public in 1959.  Louis Leakey and Zinjanthropus instantly became international media stars, and both of their pictures were on the front page of newspapers around the world.  Louis was also the focus of several television documentary programs.  In the years after his death in 1972, Mary became well known as a paleoanthropologist in her own right.*

_NOTE:   *Louis Leakey gave his Zinjanthropus find the species name boisei in honor of Charles Boise, a wealthy American who funded fieldwork by the Leakeys. * _

*In 1974, a team of paleoanthropologists, under the direction of an American, * *Donald Johanson, found an even more ancient species of australopithecine at the * *Hadar 

 site in the Afar 

 Desert region of Northern Ethiopia.  It was a 40% complete skeleton of an adult female whom they named * *Lucy.  She had been only 3 feet 3 inches (1 m.) tall with a slender body weighing only about 60 pounds (27 kg.).  She lived 3.2-3.18 million years ago.  Johanson concluded that Lucy was from a different species than had been previously discovered.   He classified her as an * _ *Australopithecus afarensis*_* 

 (named for the Afar region).  Many other specimens of this species and later ones were found in Ethiopia since 1974, but none is as complete as Lucy.  *





"Lucy" skeleton (_Australopithecus afarensis_)



  Finding Lucy--how she was discovered
         This link takes you to a video at an external website.  To return here, you must
        click the "back" button on your browser program.      (length = 4 mins, 33 secs)


  Becoming a Fossil--how Lucy was preserved
         This link takes you to a video at an external website.  To return here, you must
        click the "back" button on your browser program.      (length = 2 mins, 34 secs)





Early hominin footprints
at Laetoli, Tanzania


*About 30 miles south of Olduvai Gorge in Northern Tanzania is the * *Laetoli 

 site.  It was investigated in the late 1930's by Louis and Mary Leakey, but no fossil hominins were found at that time.  Mary Leakey returned to Laetoli with Tim White, an American paleoanthropologist in 1978.  They found bones of what were likely Australopithecus afarensis dating 3.7-3.5 million years ago (several hundred thousand years older than Lucy).  They also found 59 footprints of bipedal hominins (presumably afarensis) in a now hardened volcanic ash layer.  These individuals walked in two close parallel tracks across volcanic dust at least 3.5 million years ago.  The footprints look almost like those of modern humans.  They are narrow with a low arch, and they clearly show that the big toe was in line with the others.  These are all traits of humans but not of apes.  Based on the characteristics of the footprints, Mary Leakey concluded that their makers were adults who were 4 feet 9 inches and 4 feet 1 inch tall and that they walked parallel to each other in a strolling fashion with relatively short strides.  In addition, there are a child's footprints within those of the larger adult.*



  Laetoli Footprints--how they were formed and preserved
        This link takes you to a video at an external website.  To return here, you must
        click the "back" button on your browser program.      (length = 3 mins, 20 secs)






The "Black Skull"
(_Paranthropus aethiopicus_)


*In northern Kenya and southern Ethiopia, there is an arid region around * *Lake Turkana 

 in the Great Rift Valley that has exposed geological deposits dating to at least 4.3 million years ago.  * *Richard Leakey, the son of Mary and Louis Leakey, began looking for hominin fossils there in the late 1960's.  During the 1970's, his team of field researchers from the National Museum of Kenya made a number of important finds, including fossils of early humans who will be described in the next tutorial of this series.  *

*While working on the western side of Lake Turkana in 1985, an American paleoanthropologist named * *Alan Walker made an important discovery.  This was a nearly complete paranthropoid skull with an unusually large sagittal crest and some features reminiscent of the more ancient Australopithecus anamensis (described below).  Manganese in the soil deposit where it was located stained it black.  As a result, this unusual fossil has become known as the "black skull."  It has been classified as*_* Paranthropus aethiopicus*_* (named after Ethiopia).  Since it dates to 2.5 million years ago, it is a prime candidate for being the earliest paranthropoid species.*

*In 1995, * *Meave Leakey, the wife of Richard Leakey, began discovering bones of a very early australopithecine species at several sites southwest of Lake Turkana.  She named it * *Australopithecus anamensis * * 

 ("anam" is "lake" in the Turkana language).  The dentition of this hominin seems to be transitional between apes and later australopithecines.  This fits with the 4.2-3.9 million year dates for the volcanic ash associated with the anamensis fossils.  The shapes of the arm and leg bones of this species indicate that it was bipedal.  Anamensis is currently the earliest known australopithecine species.  Bones from at least 8 more anamensis skeletons have been found in Ethiopia.*

* In 1996, Berhane Asfaw, an Ethiopian researcher, and Tim White found a 2.5 million year old  hominin fossil * * in the Middle Awash Valley of Ethiopia that remains problematical.  The skull characteristics are similar in some ways to Australopithecus afarensis, but it lived several hundred thousand years after that species had presumably ended.  Asfaw named his new hominin, * *Australopithecus garhi* * 

 ("garhi" is "surprise" in one of the languages of the Afar Desert region).  Whether or not garhi was a late afarensis, a variant of  africanus, or a distinct species is not clear.  Associated with the remains of garhi were animal bones with what appear to be cut marks made by simple stone tools.   If they were using such tools, this is remarkable because only early humans have heretofore been associated with stone tool making. *

*In 2001, Meave Leakey announced the discovery of a 3.5-3.2 million year old hominin skull from the west side of Lake Turkana.  She suggested that this fossil may displace Lucy (Australopithecus afarensis) as the progenitor of humans.  Meave named it * *Kenyanthropus platyops ("flat-faced man of Kenya").  This hominin lived during the same time period as Lucy.  However, it had a comparatively large, flat face and smaller teeth.  The latter characteristic suggests that Kenyanthropus regularly ate softer foods than did Lucy.  However, it is not yet clear where this new discovery fits within our evolution.  Some paleoanthropologists have suggested that it is only a variant of Australopithecus afarensis.


Home*


----------



## JQPublic1

Matthew said:


> Early Primate Evolution:  The First Primates
> 
> 
> 
> Among the numerous Miocene primate species were the ancestors of all modern apes and humans.  By 14 million years ago, the group of apes that included our ancestors was apparently in the process of adapting to life on the edges of the expanding savannas in Southern Europe.  They were very likely members of the genus _ *Dryopithecus*_
> 
> , which were generally similar in appearance to modern African apes.  These apes evolved mostly during a relatively short global heat wave that began around 15 million years ago.  This caused enough polar ice to melt so that sea levels once again rose 80-130 feet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toward the end of the Miocene, less hospitable cooler conditions in the northern hemisphere once again caused many primate species to become extinct while some survived by migrating south into Africa and South Asia where it remained relatively warm. * About 8-9 million years ago, the descendants of the dryopithecines *
> 
> in Africa diverged into two lines--one that led to gorillas and *another to humans,* chimpanzees, and bonobos.  Around 7 million years ago, a further divergence occurred which separated the ancestors of modern chimpanzees and bonobos from the early *hominins*
> 
> (human-like primates) that were our direct ancestors.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

But just where are the bones of that common ancestor? Without them, the divergent ancestor of man and ape remains a mythical creature.


----------



## sealybobo

JQPublic1 said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Sage of Main Street said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Desperado said:
> 
> 
> 
> No chance.  Evolution may account for the differences within a species, but it does not account for new species.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure it does. Eventually, species will evolve and become so different they no longer interbreed and they are then considered different species.
> 
> How Do New Species Evolve?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Prometheus Bound*
> 
> What species has been evolving from us?  _Homo sapiens _implies that only High IQs are human.  They invented everything that prevented the rest from living like wild animals, so that's what the rest really are.  But the ungrateful and insulting subhumans credit everything good to their King Apes; that's why our simian rulers try to humiliate High IQs from childhood on, to keep them from manning up.  Any smart person who acts like a gutless conformist nerd weakling is a traitor to his species.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is so true.  If a kid shows superior intelligence in church the preacher or nun will shut that shit down lickity split.  Sure the occasional person like me escapes the brainwashing after 30 years but by then is it too late?  And if one smart person tells 3 dummies they are dumb, will they believe him?
> 
> I watch religious shows for kids.  Those kids are being brainwashed and the group is not having an honest discussion.  Kids aren't free or comfortable to speak their minds and ultimately even if the kid does ask enough questions the preacher is going to tell him he/she just has to have faith in the ridiculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When the smallest living thing on the planet is complex in it's design (INTELLIGENT DESIGN)....oh it just happened this way MAGICALLY....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If life is ever found on another planet the foundations of Christianity will be rocked. But some Christian experts have anticipated that by declaring UFOs vehicles of the Devil. Others point to Ezekiel's  "Wheel in the middle of a wheel
> 
> *Ezekiel 1:16 Context*
> 
> was like burning coals of fire, _and_ like the appearance of lamps: it went up and down among the living creatures; and the fire was bright, and out of the fire went forth lightning.As for the likeness of the living creatures, their appearance _was_ like burning coals of fire, _and_ like the appearance of lamps: it went up and down among the living creatures; and the fire was bright, and out of the fire went forth lightning. 14And the living creatures ran and returned as the appearance of a flash of lightning. 15Now as I beheld the living creatures, behold one wheel upon the earth by the living creatures, with his four faces. was like unto the colour of a beryl: and they four had one likeness: and their appearance and their work _was_ as it were a wheel in the middle of a wheel." *The appearance of the wheels and their work was like unto the colour of a beryl: and they four had one likeness: and their appearance and their work was as it were a wheel in the middle of a wheel.* and they turned not when they went.When they went, they went upon their four sides: _and_ they turned not when they went. were full of eyes round about them four.As for their rings, they were so high that they were dreadful; and their rings _were_ full of eyes round about them four. 19And when the living creatures went, the wheels went by them: and when the living creatures were lifted up from the earth, the wheels were lifted up.
Click to expand...

Actually I know lots of Christians who don't think we are alone. So I think Christianity will just easily overcome that by moving the goalpost.

Besides, I read the Bible. Where does it say we are the only life in the universe?

Christians easily blow off the old testament as if god made all those mistakes then hit the new testament reset button


----------



## JQPublic1

Matthew said:


> Here is the evidence! Pretty fucking solid...
> 
> Early Hominin Evolution: Discovery of Early Hominids
> 
> *Discovery of Early Hominins*
> 
> 
> *The immediate ancestors of humans were members of the genus *_*Australopithecus*_*
> 
> .  The * *australopithecines
> 
> (or australopiths) were intermediate between apes and people.  Both australopithecines and humans are biologically similar enough to be classified as members of the same biological tribe--the *_ *Hominini*_*
> 
> .  All people, past and present, along with the australopithecines are hominins
> 
> .  We share in common not only the fact that we evolved from the same ape ancestors in Africa but that both genera are habitually bipedal
> 
> , or two-footed, upright walkers.  By comparison, chimpanzees, bonobos, and gorillas are primarily quadrupedal
> 
> , or four-footed.  *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Over the last decade, there have been a number of important fossil discoveries in Africa of what may be very early transitional ape/hominins, or  proto-hominins.  These creatures lived just after the divergence from our common hominid ancestor with chimpanzees and bonobos, during the late Miocene and early Pliocene Epochs.  The fossils have been tentatively classified as members of three distinct genera--*_*Sahelanthropus*_*
> 
> , Orrorin
> 
> , and *_*Ardipithecus*_*
> 
> .  Sahelanthropus was the earliest, dating 7-6 million years ago.  Orrorin lived about 6 million years ago, while Ardipithecus remains have been dated to 5.8-4.4 million years ago.  At present, the vote is still out as to whether any of these three primates were in fact true hominins and if they were our ancestors.  The classification of Sahelanthropus has been the most in question.*
> 
> *The earliest australopithecines very likely did not evolve until 5 million years ago or shortly thereafter (during the beginning of the Pliocene Epoch) in East Africa.  The primate fossil record for this crucial transitional period leading to australopithecines is still scanty and somewhat confusing.  However, by about 4.2 million years ago, unquestionable australopithecines were present.  By 3 million years ago, they were common in both East and South Africa.  Some have been found dating to this period in North Central Africa also.  As the australopithecines evolved, they exploited more types of environments.  Their early proto-hominin ancestors had been predominantly tropical forest animals.  However, African forests were progressively giving way to sparse woodlands and dry grasslands, or savannas
> 
> .  The australopithecines took advantage of these new conditions.  In the more open environments, bipedalism would very likely have been an advantage.*
> 
> *By 2.5 million years ago, there were at least 2 evolutionary lines of hominins descended from the early australopithecines.  One line apparently was adapted primarily to the food resources in lake margin grassland environments and had an omnivorous diet that increasingly included meat.  Among them were our early human ancestors who started to make stone tools by this time.  The other line seems to have lived more in mixed grassland and woodland environments, like the earlier australopithecines, and was primarily vegetarian.  This second, more conservative line of early hominins died out by 1 million years ago or shortly before then.  It is likely that all of the early hominins, including humans, supplemented their diets with protein and fat rich termites and ants just as some chimpanzees do today.*
> 
> Major early
> hominin sites
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> History of Discovery*
> 
> *In his 1871 book entitled The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex, Charles Darwin speculated that fossils of the earliest humans and their immediate progenitors ultimately would be found somewhere in Africa.  He based this on the fact that the natural range of our nearest living relatives, chimpanzees and gorillas, is limited to Africa.  He concluded that we ultimately must have shared a now extinct common ancestor with those apes in Africa.  This view was mostly rejected by the scientific world of the time.  Before the 1920's, knowledge of our fossil ancestors only went back to the Neandertals
> 
> in Europe and some presumably earlier human-like forms from Java, in Southeast Asia.  Few researchers were willing to estimate the time period of the earliest hominins at much more than 100,000 years, and there was no inkling of anything older from Africa.  In addition, there was a bias among the predominantly European paleoanthropologists against accepting early Africans as the ancestors of all humanity.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Raymond Dart
> (1893-1989)






This skull looks more like a Neanderthal than an Australopithecine ..


----------



## sealybobo

JQPublic1 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're primates that developed from a common ancestor 5-7 million years ago that yes was an ape.
> 
> That is a fact....The evidence is very strong.
> 
> 
> 
> Curiously, the elusive  missing link that would establish a nexus between the hominids and the apes has never been found if it ever existed at all. The Australopithecines ...lucy and the gang... are the closest thing to it thus far
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Science has already explained this.  You aren't going to find a missing link.  Do you see the difference between your grandfather and your grandson?  There is a difference but you can't see it because it happens so gradually over time.  If you have a million years you'll see it.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All we have is the word of scientists who claim to have studied the fossil record. Hopefully, they are telling us the truth.
Click to expand...

Probably they aren't all lying.

This reminds me of how conservatives believe the GW scientists are lying, not the oil companies. The church is the oil company. Very very big business.

Is there an industry bigger than religion? I don't think so. Add them all up


----------



## JQPublic1

sealybobo said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Sage of Main Street said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure it does. Eventually, species will evolve and become so different they no longer interbreed and they are then considered different species.
> 
> How Do New Species Evolve?
> 
> 
> 
> *Prometheus Bound*
> 
> What species has been evolving from us?  _Homo sapiens _implies that only High IQs are human.  They invented everything that prevented the rest from living like wild animals, so that's what the rest really are.  But the ungrateful and insulting subhumans credit everything good to their King Apes; that's why our simian rulers try to humiliate High IQs from childhood on, to keep them from manning up.  Any smart person who acts like a gutless conformist nerd weakling is a traitor to his species.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is so true.  If a kid shows superior intelligence in church the preacher or nun will shut that shit down lickity split.  Sure the occasional person like me escapes the brainwashing after 30 years but by then is it too late?  And if one smart person tells 3 dummies they are dumb, will they believe him?
> 
> I watch religious shows for kids.  Those kids are being brainwashed and the group is not having an honest discussion.  Kids aren't free or comfortable to speak their minds and ultimately even if the kid does ask enough questions the preacher is going to tell him he/she just has to have faith in the ridiculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When the smallest living thing on the planet is complex in it's design (INTELLIGENT DESIGN)....oh it just happened this way MAGICALLY....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If life is ever found on another planet the foundations of Christianity will be rocked. But some Christian experts have anticipated that by declaring UFOs vehicles of the Devil. Others point to Ezekiel's  "Wheel in the middle of a wheel
> 
> *Ezekiel 1:16 Context*
> 
> was like burning coals of fire, _and_ like the appearance of lamps: it went up and down among the living creatures; and the fire was bright, and out of the fire went forth lightning.As for the likeness of the living creatures, their appearance _was_ like burning coals of fire, _and_ like the appearance of lamps: it went up and down among the living creatures; and the fire was bright, and out of the fire went forth lightning. 14And the living creatures ran and returned as the appearance of a flash of lightning. 15Now as I beheld the living creatures, behold one wheel upon the earth by the living creatures, with his four faces. was like unto the colour of a beryl: and they four had one likeness: and their appearance and their work _was_ as it were a wheel in the middle of a wheel." *The appearance of the wheels and their work was like unto the colour of a beryl: and they four had one likeness: and their appearance and their work was as it were a wheel in the middle of a wheel.* and they turned not when they went.When they went, they went upon their four sides: _and_ they turned not when they went. were full of eyes round about them four.As for their rings, they were so high that they were dreadful; and their rings _were_ full of eyes round about them four. 19And when the living creatures went, the wheels went by them: and when the living creatures were lifted up from the earth, the wheels were lifted up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually I know lots of Christians who don't think we are alone. So I think Christianity will just easily overcome that by moving the goalpost.
> 
> Besides, I read the Bible. Where does it say we are the only life in the universe?
> 
> Christians easily blow off the old testament as if god made all those mistakes then hit the new testament reset button
Click to expand...

Agreed! What Christian knows the true nature of Heaven? Jesus was, after all, an extraterrestrial. But it seems the only way they can get here is through a woman's vagina. Leaving is far easier... all  you have to do is die!


----------



## Old Rocks

*We are straying rather far from the OP. 

Simply put, we have DNA studies that now show our relationships with the rest of life on earth. We also have a very extensive fossil record, clear back to almost 4 billion years ago.*






*3.77-billion-year-old fossils stake new claim to oldest evidence of life*

By Carolyn GramlingMar. 1, 2017 , 1:00 PM

Life on Earth may have originated in the sunless depths of the ocean rather than shallow seas. In a new study, scientists studying 3.77-billion-year-old rocks have found tubelike fossils similar to structures found at hydrothermal vents, which host thriving biological communities. That would make them more than 300 million years older than the most ancient signs of life on Earth—fossilized microbial mats called stromatolites that grew in shallow seas. Other scientists are skeptical about the new claims.

“The authors offer a convincing set of observations that could signify life,” says Kurt Konhauser, a geomicrobiologist at the University of Alberta in Edmonton, Canada, who was not involved in the study. But “at present, I do not see a way in which we will definitively prove ancient life at 3.8 billion years ago.”

When life first emerged on Earth has been an enduring and frustrating mystery. The planet is 4.55 billion years old, but thanks to plate tectonics and the constant recycling of Earth’s crust, only a handful of rock outcrops remain that are older than 3 billion years, including 3.7-billion-year-old formations in Greenland’s Isua Greenstone Belt. And these rocks tend to be twisted up and chemically altered by heat and pressure, making it devilishly difficult to detect unequivocal signs of life.

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017...-fossils-stake-new-claim-oldest-evidence-life


----------



## sealybobo

Old Rocks said:


> *We are straying rather far from the OP.
> 
> Simply put, we have DNA studies that now show our relationships with the rest of life on earth. We also have a very extensive fossil record, clear back to almost 4 billion years ago.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *3.77-billion-year-old fossils stake new claim to oldest evidence of life*
> 
> By Carolyn GramlingMar. 1, 2017 , 1:00 PM
> 
> Life on Earth may have originated in the sunless depths of the ocean rather than shallow seas. In a new study, scientists studying 3.77-billion-year-old rocks have found tubelike fossils similar to structures found at hydrothermal vents, which host thriving biological communities. That would make them more than 300 million years older than the most ancient signs of life on Earth—fossilized microbial mats called stromatolites that grew in shallow seas. Other scientists are skeptical about the new claims.
> 
> “The authors offer a convincing set of observations that could signify life,” says Kurt Konhauser, a geomicrobiologist at the University of Alberta in Edmonton, Canada, who was not involved in the study. But “at present, I do not see a way in which we will definitively prove ancient life at 3.8 billion years ago.”
> 
> When life first emerged on Earth has been an enduring and frustrating mystery. The planet is 4.55 billion years old, but thanks to plate tectonics and the constant recycling of Earth’s crust, only a handful of rock outcrops remain that are older than 3 billion years, including 3.7-billion-year-old formations in Greenland’s Isua Greenstone Belt. And these rocks tend to be twisted up and chemically altered by heat and pressure, making it devilishly difficult to detect unequivocal signs of life.
> 
> http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017...-fossils-stake-new-claim-oldest-evidence-life


I just heard on jeopardy tonight a new bacteria was found at the bottom of the Dead Sea. I wonder if we released it and gave it several million years what would happen.  Or a couple billion years. 

Evolution deniers don't seem to realize how long the process takes. 

I ask religious people and they can never answer logically 

1. Why trilobites and then dinosaurs before humans? Weren't we his original intent? Did he just add us to the fish bowl later?

2. How did all the full grown land animals get here if not for evolution

Before evolution everyone thought god poofed us here. It's ridiculous. But really that's what evolution deniers are suggesting. Even I admit science is mind blowing and unfortunately science reduces god to a hypothesis. Not even a theory. Not a scientific one.

Humans need to throw out all the superstitious crap if we're going to evolve. We should already be on Mars.


----------



## sealybobo

gipper said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ima Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know there are similarities but I think they are coincidental, like cats and seals both have whiskers.  But cats didn't come from seals or vice a versa.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does anyone believe that?
> 
> It seems that christians believe men sprang from nothing and women sprang from a man's rib.
> 
> Pretty silly, I know but what is it you believe? And why did you write the post?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is pretty silly is to think all creation....just happened.  That somehow the enormous universe just came about without any involvement from anyone or anything.  That man somehow evolved into a thinking species capable of creating amazing things, but all other species did not and this just...happened with no outside force making it happen.
> 
> Seems illogical to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> gipper
> 
> Exactly. Even if I were able to believe in an invisible, all knowing, all seeing, petulant, vicious, creature who creates and destroys on a whim, there's just no way that I could believe "he' created the earth, the planets, the stars, plant and animal (including the human animal) life  and then rested on Sunday.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Religious people have an answer for everything.  The earth is 14 trillion years old.  7 days, right?  So they say to god 1 day is 2 trillion years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who posted anything about God or religion?  Not me.
> 
> That's the thing about you lefties, you automatically think anyone who disputes your kooky evolution THEORY, must think everything in the Bible is true.  STFU!
> 
> To think it all magically happened, is to not think.
> 
> At any rate, evolution can co-exist with a superior being.
Click to expand...

I'm still waiting for your alternate theory without using god


----------



## Unkotare

sealybobo said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> *We are straying rather far from the OP.
> 
> Simply put, we have DNA studies that now show our relationships with the rest of life on earth. We also have a very extensive fossil record, clear back to almost 4 billion years ago.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *3.77-billion-year-old fossils stake new claim to oldest evidence of life*
> 
> By Carolyn GramlingMar. 1, 2017 , 1:00 PM
> 
> Life on Earth may have originated in the sunless depths of the ocean rather than shallow seas. In a new study, scientists studying 3.77-billion-year-old rocks have found tubelike fossils similar to structures found at hydrothermal vents, which host thriving biological communities. That would make them more than 300 million years older than the most ancient signs of life on Earth—fossilized microbial mats called stromatolites that grew in shallow seas. Other scientists are skeptical about the new claims.
> 
> “The authors offer a convincing set of observations that could signify life,” says Kurt Konhauser, a geomicrobiologist at the University of Alberta in Edmonton, Canada, who was not involved in the study. But “at present, I do not see a way in which we will definitively prove ancient life at 3.8 billion years ago.”
> 
> When life first emerged on Earth has been an enduring and frustrating mystery. The planet is 4.55 billion years old, but thanks to plate tectonics and the constant recycling of Earth’s crust, only a handful of rock outcrops remain that are older than 3 billion years, including 3.7-billion-year-old formations in Greenland’s Isua Greenstone Belt. And these rocks tend to be twisted up and chemically altered by heat and pressure, making it devilishly difficult to detect unequivocal signs of life.
> 
> http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017...-fossils-stake-new-claim-oldest-evidence-life
> 
> 
> 
> I just heard on jeopardy tonight a new bacteria was found at the bottom of the Dead Sea. I wonder if we released it and gave it several million years what would happen.  Or a couple billion years.
> 
> Evolution deniers don't seem to realize how long the process takes.
> 
> I ask religious people and they can never answer logically
> 
> 1. Why trilobites and then dinosaurs before humans? Weren't we his original intent? Did he just add us to the fish bowl later?
> 
> 2. How did all the full grown land animals get here if not for evolution
> 
> Before evolution everyone thought god poofed us here. It's ridiculous. But really that's what evolution deniers are suggesting. Even I admit science is mind blowing and unfortunately science reduces god to a hypothesis. Not even a theory. Not a scientific one.
> 
> Humans need to throw out all the superstitious crap if we're going to evolve. We should already be on Mars.
Click to expand...






Well, YOU should anyway. You could be the stupidest thing on yet another planet.


----------



## gipper

sealybobo said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does anyone believe that?
> 
> It seems that christians believe men sprang from nothing and women sprang from a man's rib.
> 
> Pretty silly, I know but what is it you believe? And why did you write the post?
> 
> 
> 
> What is pretty silly is to think all creation....just happened.  That somehow the enormous universe just came about without any involvement from anyone or anything.  That man somehow evolved into a thinking species capable of creating amazing things, but all other species did not and this just...happened with no outside force making it happen.
> 
> Seems illogical to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> gipper
> 
> Exactly. Even if I were able to believe in an invisible, all knowing, all seeing, petulant, vicious, creature who creates and destroys on a whim, there's just no way that I could believe "he' created the earth, the planets, the stars, plant and animal (including the human animal) life  and then rested on Sunday.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Religious people have an answer for everything.  The earth is 14 trillion years old.  7 days, right?  So they say to god 1 day is 2 trillion years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who posted anything about God or religion?  Not me.
> 
> That's the thing about you lefties, you automatically think anyone who disputes your kooky evolution THEORY, must think everything in the Bible is true.  STFU!
> 
> To think it all magically happened, is to not think.
> 
> At any rate, evolution can co-exist with a superior being.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm still waiting for your alternate theory without using god
Click to expand...

One has to be able to think logically, so I am guessing that is not possible for you.

You condemn those who believe in God as akin to believing in fairy tales, while you believe the huge and complex universe just happened magically.  Do you fail to see how illogical your position is?


----------



## sealybobo

gipper said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is pretty silly is to think all creation....just happened.  That somehow the enormous universe just came about without any involvement from anyone or anything.  That man somehow evolved into a thinking species capable of creating amazing things, but all other species did not and this just...happened with no outside force making it happen.
> 
> Seems illogical to me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper
> 
> Exactly. Even if I were able to believe in an invisible, all knowing, all seeing, petulant, vicious, creature who creates and destroys on a whim, there's just no way that I could believe "he' created the earth, the planets, the stars, plant and animal (including the human animal) life  and then rested on Sunday.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Religious people have an answer for everything.  The earth is 14 trillion years old.  7 days, right?  So they say to god 1 day is 2 trillion years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who posted anything about God or religion?  Not me.
> 
> That's the thing about you lefties, you automatically think anyone who disputes your kooky evolution THEORY, must think everything in the Bible is true.  STFU!
> 
> To think it all magically happened, is to not think.
> 
> At any rate, evolution can co-exist with a superior being.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm still waiting for your alternate theory without using god
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One has to be able to think logically, so I am guessing that is not possible for you.
> 
> You condemn those who believe in God as akin to believing in fairy tales, while you believe the huge and complex universe just happened magically.  Do you fail to see how illogical your position is?
Click to expand...

Ha ha!

A. I already told you magic isn't real fool.

B. You said before "who said anything about god". Well now I knew that was your theory. God did it. Thanks for finally admitting it. You think the two choices are either god or magic. Do you see why this notion is holding us back? Of course you don't.


----------



## sealybobo

How dumb are theists? They think either a god created the universe or it was magic. God forbid it was a natural event that happens in nature. In other words the real world


----------



## gipper

sealybobo said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> gipper
> 
> Exactly. Even if I were able to believe in an invisible, all knowing, all seeing, petulant, vicious, creature who creates and destroys on a whim, there's just no way that I could believe "he' created the earth, the planets, the stars, plant and animal (including the human animal) life  and then rested on Sunday.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Religious people have an answer for everything.  The earth is 14 trillion years old.  7 days, right?  So they say to god 1 day is 2 trillion years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who posted anything about God or religion?  Not me.
> 
> That's the thing about you lefties, you automatically think anyone who disputes your kooky evolution THEORY, must think everything in the Bible is true.  STFU!
> 
> To think it all magically happened, is to not think.
> 
> At any rate, evolution can co-exist with a superior being.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm still waiting for your alternate theory without using god
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One has to be able to think logically, so I am guessing that is not possible for you.
> 
> You condemn those who believe in God as akin to believing in fairy tales, while you believe the huge and complex universe just happened magically.  Do you fail to see how illogical your position is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ha ha!
> 
> A. I already told you magic isn't real fool.
> 
> B. You said before "who said anything about god". Well now I knew that was your theory. God did it. Thanks for finally admitting it. You think the two choices are either god or magic. Do you see why this notion is holding us back? Of course you don't.
Click to expand...

Yet you believe in magic.


----------



## longknife

Luddly Neddite said:


> longknife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ima Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know there are similarities but I think they are coincidental, like cats and seals both have whiskers.  But cats didn't come from seals or vice a versa.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All one has to do is watch the regressive Snowflakes. They're showing exactly where we came from!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> longknife
> 
> No need to pollute the thread with a nasty attack on RWNJs. Let's just stick to the topic, shall we?
Click to expand...


You consider THAT to be a nasty attack? It certainly wasn't aimed at Right Wingers - if you'd bothered to read what I posted.

I am wasting my time with you, aren't I?


----------



## Iceweasel

I think goddidit but like everything else life was a process via the laws of nature.




sealybobo said:


> How dumb are theists? They think either a god created the universe or it was magic. God forbid it was a natural event that happens in nature. In other words the real world


That takes more faith than I can muster. You are seriously devout.


----------



## abu afak

LTCArmyRet said:


> *Not a fact, it is a theory, big difference. And if we descended from an ape, why are there still apes?*





Hossfly said:


> *I've asked the same question a number of times and never got an answer.*


This question has been asked AND answered scores of times, including on page one of this string.
Or My OP:
15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
You're Willfully Blinded by your religious indoctrination/conviction.
But let's do it AGAIN.

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
John Rennie, Editor in Chief
Scientific American - June 2002
15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense

*1. 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.
[......]

*6. If humans descended from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?
*
This surprisingly common argument reflects several levels of Ignorance about evolution. The first mistake is that evolution does Not teach that humans descended from monkeys; it states that both have a common ancestor.

The deeper error is that this objection is tantamount to asking, _"If children descended from adults, why are there still adults?"_ New species evolve by splintering off from established ones, when populations of organisms become isolated from the main branch of their family and acquire sufficient differences to remain forever distinct. The parent species may survive indefinitely thereafter, or it may become extinct.
[.....]​You've seen the answers HUNDREDS of times you knot heads.
No matter, you'll try the same Brain Dead questions/denial next week.
You're members of a religious Cult.
`


----------



## Hossfly

abu afak said:


> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Not a fact, it is a theory, big difference. And if we descended from an ape, why are there still apes?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I've asked the same question a number of times and never got an answer.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This question has been asked AND answered scores of times, including on page one of this string.
> Or My OP:
> 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
> You're Willfully Blinded by your religious indoctrination/conviction.
> But let's do it AGAIN.
> 
> 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
> John Rennie, Editor in Chief
> Scientific American - June 2002
> 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
> 
> *1. 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.
> [......]
> 
> *6. If humans descended from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?
> *
> This surprisingly common argument reflects several levels of Ignorance about evolution. The first mistake is that evolution does Not teach that humans descended from monkeys; it states that both have a common ancestor.
> 
> The deeper error is that this objection is tantamount to asking, _"If children descended from adults, why are there still adults?"_ New species evolve by splintering off from established ones, when populations of organisms become isolated from the main branch of their family and acquire sufficient differences to remain forever distinct. The parent species may survive indefinitely thereafter, or it may become extinct.
> [.....]​You've seen the answers HUNDREDS of times you knot heads.
> No matter, you'll try the same Brain Dead questions/denial next week.
> You're members of a religious Cult.
> `
Click to expand...

I believe we came from a Creator and I am not religious. We didn't come from apes and we didn't arrive with a Big Bang.


----------



## abu afak

Hossfly said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Not a fact, it is a theory, big difference. And if we descended from an ape, why are there still apes?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I've asked the same question a number of times and never got an answer.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This question has been asked AND answered scores of times, including on page one of this string.
> Or My OP:
> 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
> You're Willfully Blinded by your religious indoctrination/conviction.
> But let's do it AGAIN.
> 
> 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
> John Rennie, Editor in Chief
> Scientific American - June 2002
> 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
> 
> *1. 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.
> [......]
> 
> *6. If humans descended from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?
> *
> This surprisingly common argument reflects several levels of Ignorance about evolution. The first mistake is that evolution does Not teach that humans descended from monkeys; it states that both have a common ancestor.
> 
> The deeper error is that this objection is tantamount to asking, _"If children descended from adults, why are there still adults?"_ New species evolve by splintering off from established ones, when populations of organisms become isolated from the main branch of their family and acquire sufficient differences to remain forever distinct. The parent species may survive indefinitely thereafter, or it may become extinct.
> [.....]​You've seen the answers HUNDREDS of times you knot heads.
> No matter, you'll try the same Brain Dead questions/denial next week.
> You're members of a religious Cult.
> `
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I believe we came from a Creator and I am not religious. We didn't come from apes and we didn't arrive with a Big Bang.
Click to expand...

So let's be clear.
You and the other Clown were 100% ANSWERED as to [your abuse of] 'Theory', and 'why are there still monkeys?'
PERIOD.

You can choose to believe any BS you want.
So the F*** what?
Science/Evolution has Evidence, you have NONE.
Bye clowns.
`


----------



## sealybobo

Iceweasel said:


> I think goddidit but like everything else life was a process via the laws of nature.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> How dumb are theists? They think either a god created the universe or it was magic. God forbid it was a natural event that happens in nature. In other words the real world
> 
> 
> 
> That takes more faith than I can muster. You are seriously devout.
Click to expand...

We know so little. We've learned a lot in the last 100 years that it's only a matter of time that every modern religion disappears or evolves.

Notice most modern theists don't take the Bible literally anymore


----------



## Iceweasel

sealybobo said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think goddidit but like everything else life was a process via the laws of nature.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> How dumb are theists? They think either a god created the universe or it was magic. God forbid it was a natural event that happens in nature. In other words the real world
> 
> 
> 
> That takes more faith than I can muster. You are seriously devout.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We know so little. We've learned a lot in the last 100 years that it's only a matter of time that every modern religion disappears or evolves.
> 
> Notice most modern theists don't take the Bible literally anymore
Click to expand...

What the fuck are you babbling about? Toked up already?


----------



## Iceweasel

abu afak said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Not a fact, it is a theory, big difference. And if we descended from an ape, why are there still apes?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I've asked the same question a number of times and never got an answer.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This question has been asked AND answered scores of times, including on page one of this string.
> Or My OP:
> 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
> You're Willfully Blinded by your religious indoctrination/conviction.
> But let's do it AGAIN.
> 
> 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
> John Rennie, Editor in Chief
> Scientific American - June 2002
> 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
> 
> *1. 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.
> [......]
> 
> *6. If humans descended from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?
> *
> This surprisingly common argument reflects several levels of Ignorance about evolution. The first mistake is that evolution does Not teach that humans descended from monkeys; it states that both have a common ancestor.
> 
> The deeper error is that this objection is tantamount to asking, _"If children descended from adults, why are there still adults?"_ New species evolve by splintering off from established ones, when populations of organisms become isolated from the main branch of their family and acquire sufficient differences to remain forever distinct. The parent species may survive indefinitely thereafter, or it may become extinct.
> [.....]​You've seen the answers HUNDREDS of times you knot heads.
> No matter, you'll try the same Brain Dead questions/denial next week.
> You're members of a religious Cult.
> `
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I believe we came from a Creator and I am not religious. We didn't come from apes and we didn't arrive with a Big Bang.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So let's be clear.
> You and the other Clown were 100% ANSWERED as to [your abuse of] 'Theory', and 'why are there still monkeys?'
> PERIOD.
> 
> You can choose to believe any BS you want.
> So the F*** what?
> Science/Evolution has Evidence, you have NONE.
> Bye clowns.
> `
Click to expand...

Ladies and gentlemen. Elvis has left the building.


----------



## Hossfly

abu afak said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Not a fact, it is a theory, big difference. And if we descended from an ape, why are there still apes?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I've asked the same question a number of times and never got an answer.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This question has been asked AND answered scores of times, including on page one of this string.
> Or My OP:
> 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
> You're Willfully Blinded by your religious indoctrination/conviction.
> But let's do it AGAIN.
> 
> 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
> John Rennie, Editor in Chief
> Scientific American - June 2002
> 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
> 
> *1. 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.
> [......]
> 
> *6. If humans descended from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?
> *
> This surprisingly common argument reflects several levels of Ignorance about evolution. The first mistake is that evolution does Not teach that humans descended from monkeys; it states that both have a common ancestor.
> 
> The deeper error is that this objection is tantamount to asking, _"If children descended from adults, why are there still adults?"_ New species evolve by splintering off from established ones, when populations of organisms become isolated from the main branch of their family and acquire sufficient differences to remain forever distinct. The parent species may survive indefinitely thereafter, or it may become extinct.
> [.....]​You've seen the answers HUNDREDS of times you knot heads.
> No matter, you'll try the same Brain Dead questions/denial next week.
> You're members of a religious Cult.
> `
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I believe we came from a Creator and I am not religious. We didn't come from apes and we didn't arrive with a Big Bang.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So let's be clear.
> You and the other Clown were 100% ANSWERED as to [your abuse of] 'Theory', and 'why are there still monkeys?'
> PERIOD.
> 
> You can choose to believe any BS you want.
> So the F*** what?
> Science/Evolution has Evidence, you have NONE.
> Bye clowns.
> `
Click to expand...

Theories are like assholes. Everybody has at least one. I just got my DNA results back and I had my fingers crossed there wouldn't be monkey DNA in there. I was relieved. No monkey DNA. Plenty of Irish alcohol though.


----------



## abu afak

Hossfly said:


> Theories are like assholes. Everybody has at least one. I just got my DNA results back and I had my fingers crossed there wouldn't be monkey DNA in there. I was relieved. No monkey DNA. Plenty of Irish alcohol though.


You Dishonest 12 IQ Dope.
I just explained that for the 100th Time.
Scientific theories are NOT like the colloquial usage of 'theory', they are NOT just guesses.
You are Too Stupid to debate.

and BTW, your DNA is 98.6% the same as a Chimps, as only evolution would predict.
In your case, probably 99.9%.
Perhaps your future ancestors will even walk upright.
`


----------



## Hossfly

abu afak said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Theories are like assholes. Everybody has at least one. I just got my DNA results back and I had my fingers crossed there wouldn't be monkey DNA in there. I was relieved. No monkey DNA. Plenty of Irish alcohol though.
> 
> 
> 
> You Dishonest 12 IQ Dope.
> I just explained that for the 100th Time.
> Scientific theories are NOT like the colloquial usage of 'theory', they are NOT just guesses.
> You are Too Stupid to debate.
> 
> and BTW, your DNA is 98.6% the same as a Chimps, as only evolution would predict.
> In your case, probably 99.9%.
> Perhaps your future ancestors will even walk upright.
> `
Click to expand...

OK, but what is the world shaking big deal? And just where did we come from?


----------



## abu afak

Hossfly said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Theories are like assholes. Everybody has at least one. I just got my DNA results back and I had my fingers crossed there wouldn't be monkey DNA in there. I was relieved. No monkey DNA. Plenty of Irish alcohol though.
> 
> 
> 
> You Dishonest 12 IQ Dope.
> I just explained that for the 100th Time.
> Scientific theories are NOT like the colloquial usage of 'theory', they are NOT just guesses.
> You are Too Stupid to debate.
> 
> and BTW, your DNA is 98.6% the same as a Chimps, as only evolution would predict.
> In your case, probably 99.9%.
> Perhaps your future ancestors will even walk upright.
> `
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK, but what is the world shaking big deal? And just where did we come from?
Click to expand...

"We" evolved from a common primate ancestor, as Chimps and Gorillas. It, in turn, from simpler mammals, and so back to one-celled animals.
When/how did any life first appear? .. we don't know YET.

BUT that is NO reason to invoke a god/dog...
The Same FAILED reasoning that we had Ten Thousand other FAILED 'gods': Fire, Lightning, Fertility, etc.
_"OK, so where does Fire/Babies come from?"_
They didn't know [YET], so they created a 'god'. Hasn't Ever worked.

That Fallacious thinking is called...
God of the gaps - RationalWiki

*God of the gaps* (or a *divine fallacy*) is logical fallacy that occurs when Goddidit (or a variant) is invoked to explain some natural phenomena that science cannot (at the time of the argument). This concept is similar to what systems theorists refer to as an "explanatory principle." "God of the gaps" is a bad argument not only on logical grounds, but on empirical grounds: there is a long history of "gaps" being filled and the gap for God thus getting smaller and smaller, suggesting "we don't know _yet_" as an alternative that works better in practice; naturalistic explanations for still-mysterious phenomena are always possible, especially in the future where more information may be uncovered.[1]

The God of the Gaps is a didit fallacy and an _ad hoc_ fallacy, as well as an argument from incredulity or an argument from ignorance, and is thus an informal fallacy."..."
`​


----------



## Hossfly

abu afak said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Theories are like assholes. Everybody has at least one. I just got my DNA results back and I had my fingers crossed there wouldn't be monkey DNA in there. I was relieved. No monkey DNA. Plenty of Irish alcohol though.
> 
> 
> 
> You Dishonest 12 IQ Dope.
> I just explained that for the 100th Time.
> Scientific theories are NOT like the colloquial usage of 'theory', they are NOT just guesses.
> You are Too Stupid to debate.
> 
> and BTW, your DNA is 98.6% the same as a Chimps, as only evolution would predict.
> In your case, probably 99.9%.
> Perhaps your future ancestors will even walk upright.
> `
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK, but what is the world shaking big deal? And just where did we come from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "We" evolved from a common primate ancestor, as Chimps and Gorillas. It, in turn, from simpler mammals, and so back to one-celled animals.
> When/how did any life first appear? .. we don't know YET.
> 
> BUT that is NO reason to invoke a god/dog...
> The Same FAILED reasoning that we had Ten Thousand other FAILED 'gods': Fire, Lightning, Fertility, etc.
> "OK, so where does Fire/Babies come from?"
> They didn't know [YET], so they created a 'god'. Hasn't Ever worked.
> 
> That Stupid/Fallacious thinking is called...
> http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps
> 
> *God of the gaps* (or a *divine fallacy*) is logical fallacy that occurs when Goddidit (or a variant) is invoked to explain some natural phenomena that science cannot (at the time of the argument). This concept is similar to what systems theorists refer to as an "explanatory principle." "God of the gaps" is a bad argument not only on logical grounds, but on empirical grounds: there is a long history of "gaps" being filled and the gap for God thus getting smaller and smaller, suggesting "we don't know _yet_" as an alternative that works better in practice; naturalistic explanations for still-mysterious phenomena are always possible, especially in the future where more information may be uncovered.[1]
> 
> The God of the Gaps is a didit fallacy and an _ad hoc_ fallacy, as well as an argument from incredulity or an argument from ignorance, and is thus an informal fallacy."..."
> `​
Click to expand...

Didn't all that shit have a Creator? Or did it appear in a turd blossom?


----------



## abu afak

Hossfly said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Theories are like assholes. Everybody has at least one. I just got my DNA results back and I had my fingers crossed there wouldn't be monkey DNA in there. I was relieved. No monkey DNA. Plenty of Irish alcohol though.
> 
> 
> 
> You Dishonest 12 IQ Dope.
> I just explained that for the 100th Time.
> Scientific theories are NOT like the colloquial usage of 'theory', they are NOT just guesses.
> You are Too Stupid to debate.
> 
> and BTW, your DNA is 98.6% the same as a Chimps, as only evolution would predict.
> In your case, probably 99.9%.
> Perhaps your future ancestors will even walk upright.
> `
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK, but what is the world shaking big deal? And just where did we come from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "We" evolved from a common primate ancestor, as Chimps and Gorillas. It, in turn, from simpler mammals, and so back to one-celled animals.
> When/how did any life first appear? .. we don't know YET.
> 
> BUT that is NO reason to invoke a god/dog...
> The Same FAILED reasoning that we had Ten Thousand other FAILED 'gods': Fire, Lightning, Fertility, etc.
> "OK, so where does Fire/Babies come from?"
> They didn't know [YET], so they created a 'god'. Hasn't Ever worked.
> 
> That Stupid/Fallacious thinking is called...
> http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps
> 
> *God of the gaps* (or a *divine fallacy*) is logical fallacy that occurs when Goddidit (or a variant) is invoked to explain some natural phenomena that science cannot (at the time of the argument). This concept is similar to what systems theorists refer to as an "explanatory principle." "God of the gaps" is a bad argument not only on logical grounds, but on empirical grounds: there is a long history of "gaps" being filled and the gap for God thus getting smaller and smaller, suggesting "we don't know _yet_" as an alternative that works better in practice; naturalistic explanations for still-mysterious phenomena are always possible, especially in the future where more information may be uncovered.[1]
> 
> The God of the Gaps is a didit fallacy and an _ad hoc_ fallacy, as well as an argument from incredulity or an argument from ignorance, and is thus an informal fallacy."..."
> `​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Didn't all that shit have a Creator? Or did it appear in a turd blossom?*
Click to expand...

That Wrong-headed thinking is Precisely why I explained "God of the Gaps".
'So instead of understanding.. you "God of the Gaps" again!
We clearly have an IQ/Common-sense issue that makes further discussion impossible.
ooof
`


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Matthew said:


> We're primates that developed from a common ancestor 5-7 million years ago that yes was an ape.
> 
> That is a fact....The evidence is very strong.


And yet absolutely NO evidence other then this made up story that a mammal has EVER evolved into 2 distinct species before or after.,


----------



## Hossfly

abu afak said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Theories are like assholes. Everybody has at least one. I just got my DNA results back and I had my fingers crossed there wouldn't be monkey DNA in there. I was relieved. No monkey DNA. Plenty of Irish alcohol though.
> 
> 
> 
> You Dishonest 12 IQ Dope.
> I just explained that for the 100th Time.
> Scientific theories are NOT like the colloquial usage of 'theory', they are NOT just guesses.
> You are Too Stupid to debate.
> 
> and BTW, your DNA is 98.6% the same as a Chimps, as only evolution would predict.
> In your case, probably 99.9%.
> Perhaps your future ancestors will even walk upright.
> `
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK, but what is the world shaking big deal? And just where did we come from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "We" evolved from a common primate ancestor, as Chimps and Gorillas. It, in turn, from simpler mammals, and so back to one-celled animals.
> When/how did any life first appear? .. we don't know YET.
> 
> BUT that is NO reason to invoke a god/dog...
> The Same FAILED reasoning that we had Ten Thousand other FAILED 'gods': Fire, Lightning, Fertility, etc.
> "OK, so where does Fire/Babies come from?"
> They didn't know [YET], so they created a 'god'. Hasn't Ever worked.
> 
> That Stupid/Fallacious thinking is called...
> http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps
> 
> *God of the gaps* (or a *divine fallacy*) is logical fallacy that occurs when Goddidit (or a variant) is invoked to explain some natural phenomena that science cannot (at the time of the argument). This concept is similar to what systems theorists refer to as an "explanatory principle." "God of the gaps" is a bad argument not only on logical grounds, but on empirical grounds: there is a long history of "gaps" being filled and the gap for God thus getting smaller and smaller, suggesting "we don't know _yet_" as an alternative that works better in practice; naturalistic explanations for still-mysterious phenomena are always possible, especially in the future where more information may be uncovered.[1]
> 
> The God of the Gaps is a didit fallacy and an _ad hoc_ fallacy, as well as an argument from incredulity or an argument from ignorance, and is thus an informal fallacy."..."
> `​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Didn't all that shit have a Creator? Or did it appear in a turd blossom?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That Wrong-headed thinking is Precisely why I explained "God of the Gaps".
> 'So instead of understanding.. you "God of the Gaps" again!
> We clearly have an IQ/Common-sense issue that makes further discussion impossible.
> ooof
> `
Click to expand...

The common sense issue is that I believe in God/Creator and I don't question it.


----------



## abu afak

RetiredGySgt said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're primates that developed from a common ancestor 5-7 million years ago that yes was an ape.
> 
> That is a fact....The evidence is very strong.
> 
> 
> 
> *And yet absolutely NO evidence other then this made up story that a mammal has EVER evolved into 2 distinct species before or after.*
Click to expand...

That's laughably False.
We obviously don't have videotape, but we have extensive fossil and DNA Evidence.
We have One fused Chromosome as all that separates us from Great Apes, and our, and most animal species having Useless anatomical vestiges of our evolutionary ancestors. Not 'Immaculate' nor even ID, but Messy work.

yes, from ANOTHER String I already posted here
WTF!
More Strong Evidence for Evolution: Anatomical Vestiges

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 2
Douglas Theobald, Ph.D.
Prediction 2.1: *Anatomical vestiges*

Some of the most renowned *Evidence for evolution* are the various nonfunctional or rudimentary vestigial characters, Both Anatomical and Molecular, that are found throughout biology. A vestige is defined, independently of evolutionary theory, as a reduced and rudimentary structure compared to the same complex structure in other organisms. Vestigial characters, if functional, perform relatively simple, minor, or inessential functions using structures that were clearly designed for other complex purposes. Though many vestigial organs have no function, complete non-functionality is not a requirement for vestigiality...
[.......]
Geoffroy was at a loss for *why exactly nature "always leaves vestiges of an organ",* yet he could not deny his empirical observations. Ten years later, Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1744-1829) identified several vestigial structures in his Zoological Philosophy
[.......]...these "Hypocritical" structures profess something that they do Not do—they clearly appear designed for a certain function which they do Not perform. *However, Common Descent provides a scientific explanation for these peculiar structures. *Existing species have different structures and perform different functions. If all living organisms descended from a common ancestor, then both functions and structures necessarily have been gained and lost in each lineage during macroevolutionary history. Therefore, from Common Descent and the constraint of gradualism, we predict that many organisms should retain vestigial structures as structural remnants of lost functions. Note that the exact evolutionary mechanism which created a vestigial structure is irrelevant as long as the mechanism is a gradual one.

*Confirmation:*
There are Many examples of rudimentary and Nonfunctional vestigial characters carried by organisms, and these can very often *be explained in terms of evolutionary histories. *For example, from independent phylogenetic evidence,* snakes are known to be the descendants of four-legged reptiles.* Most Pythons (which are legless snakes) carry Vestigial Pelvises hidden beneath their skin.. *The Vestigial pelvis in Pythons is Not attached to vertebrae* (as is the normal case in most vertebrates), *and it simply floats in the abdominal cavity.* Some lizards carry rudimentary, Vestigial Legs underneath their skin, undetectable from the outside...
Many cave dwelling animals, such as the fish Astyanax mexicanus (the Mexican tetra) and the salamander species Typhlotriton spelaeus and Proteus anguinus, are blind yet *have rudimentary, Vestigial eyes*....
[.......]
The ancestors of Humans are known to have been herbivorous, and molar teeth are required for chewing and grinding plant material. *Over 90% of all adult humans develop third molars (otherwise known as Wisdom Teeth)*.
Usually these teeth never erupt from the gums, and *in one Third of all individuals they are Malformed and Impacted* [*]. *These Useless teeth can cause significant pain, increased risk for injury, and may result in illness and even death* [*]
*
Another Vestige of our herbivorous ancestry is the vermiform appendix. *While this intestinal structure may retain a function of some sort, perhaps in the development of the immune system, it is a rudimentary version of the much larger caecum that is essential for digestion of plants in other mammals..."
*
Yet another human Vestigial structure is the coccyx,* the four fused caudal vertebrae found at the *base of the spine, exactly where most mammals and many other primates have external Tails protruding from the back.* Humans and other apes are some of the only vertebrates that lack an external tail as an adult. *The coccyx is a developmental Remnant of the embryonic tail that forms in humans and then is degraded and eaten by our immune system* ... Our internal tail is UNnecessary for sitting, walking, and elimination (all of which are functions attributed to the coccyx by many anti-evolutionists). The caudal vertebrae of the coccyx can cause extreme and unnecessary chronic pain in some unfortunate people, a condition called coccydynia. The entire coccyx can be surgically removed without any ill effects (besides surgical complications)...""
[.......]​
How many Millions of _H sapiens_ and immediate predecessors, suffered and died from Wisdom Teeth impaction/infection?.
Were it not for Modern dentistry in the last 100 years (yes, even after Jesus), humans who had these impacted/infected Wisdom teeth (most) would have slowly died out and the specie would have been gradually purged/adapted/Evolved eventually as in all traits of all animals.
Everything that ever lived was, and is, 'intermediate' and constantly Evolving.
`


----------



## RetiredGySgt

abu afak said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're primates that developed from a common ancestor 5-7 million years ago that yes was an ape.
> 
> That is a fact....The evidence is very strong.
> 
> 
> 
> *And yet absolutely NO evidence other then this made up story that a mammal has EVER evolved into 2 distinct species before or after.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's laughably False.
> We obviously don't have videotape, but we have extensive fossil and DNA Evidence.
> We have One fused Chromosome as all that separates us from Great Apes, and our, and most animal species having Useless anatomical vestiges of our evolutionary ancestors. Not ID, but Messy work.
> 
> yes, from ANOTHER String already posted here
> WTF!
> More Strong Evidence for Evolution: Anatomical Vestiges
> 
> 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 2
> Douglas Theobald, Ph.D.
> Prediction 2.1: *Anatomical vestiges*
> 
> Some of the most renowned *Evidence for evolution* are the various nonfunctional or rudimentary vestigial characters, Both Anatomical and Molecular, that are found throughout biology. A vestige is defined, independently of evolutionary theory, as a reduced and rudimentary structure compared to the same complex structure in other organisms. Vestigial characters, if functional, perform relatively simple, minor, or inessential functions using structures that were clearly designed for other complex purposes. Though many vestigial organs have no function, complete non-functionality is not a requirement for vestigiality...
> [.......]
> Geoffroy was at a loss for *why exactly nature "always leaves vestiges of an organ",* yet he could not deny his empirical observations. Ten years later, Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1744-1829) identified several vestigial structures in his Zoological Philosophy
> [.......]...these "Hypocritical" structures profess something that they do Not do—they clearly appear designed for a certain function which they do Not perform. *However, Common Descent provides a scientific explanation for these peculiar structures. *Existing species have different structures and perform different functions. If all living organisms descended from a common ancestor, then both functions and structures necessarily have been gained and lost in each lineage during macroevolutionary history. Therefore, from Common Descent and the constraint of gradualism, we predict that many organisms should retain vestigial structures as structural remnants of lost functions. Note that the exact evolutionary mechanism which created a vestigial structure is irrelevant as long as the mechanism is a gradual one.
> 
> *Confirmation:*
> There are Many examples of rudimentary and Nonfunctional vestigial characters carried by organisms, and these can very often *be explained in terms of evolutionary histories. *For example, from independent phylogenetic evidence,* snakes are known to be the descendants of four-legged reptiles.* Most Pythons (which are legless snakes) carry Vestigial Pelvises hidden beneath their skin.. *The Vestigial pelvis in Pythons is Not attached to vertebrae* (as is the normal case in most vertebrates), *and it simply floats in the abdominal cavity.* Some lizards carry rudimentary, Vestigial Legs underneath their skin, undetectable from the outside...
> Many cave dwelling animals, such as the fish Astyanax mexicanus (the Mexican tetra) and the salamander species Typhlotriton spelaeus and Proteus anguinus, are blind yet *have rudimentary, Vestigial eyes*....
> [.......]
> The ancestors of Humans are known to have been herbivorous, and molar teeth are required for chewing and grinding plant material. *Over 90% of all adult humans develop third molars (otherwise known as Wisdom Teeth)*.
> Usually these teeth never erupt from the gums, and *in one Third of all individuals they are Malformed and Impacted* [*]. *These Useless teeth can cause significant pain, increased risk for injury, and may result in illness and even death* [*]
> *
> Another Vestige of our herbivorous ancestry is the vermiform appendix. *While this intestinal structure may retain a function of some sort, perhaps in the development of the immune system, it is a rudimentary version of the much larger caecum that is essential for digestion of plants in other mammals..."
> *
> Yet another human Vestigial structure is the coccyx,* the four fused caudal vertebrae found at the *base of the spine, exactly where most mammals and many other primates have external Tails protruding from the back.* Humans and other apes are some of the only vertebrates that lack an external tail as an adult. *The coccyx is a developmental Remnant of the embryonic tail that forms in humans and then is degraded and eaten by our immune system* ... Our internal tail is UNnecessary for sitting, walking, and elimination (all of which are functions attributed to the coccyx by many anti-evolutionists). The caudal vertebrae of the coccyx can cause extreme and unnecessary chronic pain in some unfortunate people, a condition called coccydynia. The entire coccyx can be surgically removed without any ill effects (besides surgical complications)...""
> [.......]​
> How many Millions of _H sapiens_ and immediate predecessors, suffered and died from Wisdom Teeth impaction/infection?.
> Were it not for Modern dentistry in the last 100 years (yes, even after Jesus), humans who had these impacted/infected Wisdom teeth (most) would have slowly died out and the specie would have been gradually purged/adapted/Evolved eventually as in all traits of all animals.
> Everything that ever lived was, and is, 'intermediate' and constantly Evolving.
> `
Click to expand...

we share over 90 percent of our DNA with pigs does that mean we are descended from Pigs too? There are NO fossil records to support the theory that is a bald faced lie. And DNA wise we are similar to numerous other animals. Once again name a single other supposed Mammal that evolved into 2 separate distinct species other then this supposed ape man thing.


----------



## abu afak

RetiredGySgt said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're primates that developed from a common ancestor 5-7 million years ago that yes was an ape.
> 
> That is a fact....The evidence is very strong.
> 
> 
> 
> *And yet absolutely NO evidence other then this made up story that a mammal has EVER evolved into 2 distinct species before or after.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's laughably False.
> We obviously don't have videotape, but we have extensive fossil and DNA Evidence.
> We have One fused Chromosome as all that separates us from Great Apes, and our, and most animal species having Useless anatomical vestiges of our evolutionary ancestors. Not ID, but Messy work.
> 
> yes, from ANOTHER String already posted here
> WTF!
> More Strong Evidence for Evolution: Anatomical Vestiges
> 
> 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 2
> Douglas Theobald, Ph.D.
> Prediction 2.1: *Anatomical vestiges*
> 
> Some of the most renowned *Evidence for evolution* are the various nonfunctional or rudimentary vestigial characters, Both Anatomical and Molecular, that are found throughout biology. A vestige is defined, independently of evolutionary theory, as a reduced and rudimentary structure compared to the same complex structure in other organisms. Vestigial characters, if functional, perform relatively simple, minor, or inessential functions using structures that were clearly designed for other complex purposes. Though many vestigial organs have no function, complete non-functionality is not a requirement for vestigiality...
> [.......]
> Geoffroy was at a loss for *why exactly nature "always leaves vestiges of an organ",* yet he could not deny his empirical observations. Ten years later, Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1744-1829) identified several vestigial structures in his Zoological Philosophy
> [.......]...these "Hypocritical" structures profess something that they do Not do—they clearly appear designed for a certain function which they do Not perform. *However, Common Descent provides a scientific explanation for these peculiar structures. *Existing species have different structures and perform different functions. If all living organisms descended from a common ancestor, then both functions and structures necessarily have been gained and lost in each lineage during macroevolutionary history. Therefore, from Common Descent and the constraint of gradualism, we predict that many organisms should retain vestigial structures as structural remnants of lost functions. Note that the exact evolutionary mechanism which created a vestigial structure is irrelevant as long as the mechanism is a gradual one.
> 
> *Confirmation:*
> There are Many examples of rudimentary and Nonfunctional vestigial characters carried by organisms, and these can very often *be explained in terms of evolutionary histories. *For example, from independent phylogenetic evidence,* snakes are known to be the descendants of four-legged reptiles.* Most Pythons (which are legless snakes) carry Vestigial Pelvises hidden beneath their skin.. *The Vestigial pelvis in Pythons is Not attached to vertebrae* (as is the normal case in most vertebrates), *and it simply floats in the abdominal cavity.* Some lizards carry rudimentary, Vestigial Legs underneath their skin, undetectable from the outside...
> Many cave dwelling animals, such as the fish Astyanax mexicanus (the Mexican tetra) and the salamander species Typhlotriton spelaeus and Proteus anguinus, are blind yet *have rudimentary, Vestigial eyes*....
> [.......]
> The ancestors of Humans are known to have been herbivorous, and molar teeth are required for chewing and grinding plant material. *Over 90% of all adult humans develop third molars (otherwise known as Wisdom Teeth)*.
> Usually these teeth never erupt from the gums, and *in one Third of all individuals they are Malformed and Impacted* [*]. *These Useless teeth can cause significant pain, increased risk for injury, and may result in illness and even death* [*]
> *
> Another Vestige of our herbivorous ancestry is the vermiform appendix. *While this intestinal structure may retain a function of some sort, perhaps in the development of the immune system, it is a rudimentary version of the much larger caecum that is essential for digestion of plants in other mammals..."
> *
> Yet another human Vestigial structure is the coccyx,* the four fused caudal vertebrae found at the *base of the spine, exactly where most mammals and many other primates have external Tails protruding from the back.* Humans and other apes are some of the only vertebrates that lack an external tail as an adult. *The coccyx is a developmental Remnant of the embryonic tail that forms in humans and then is degraded and eaten by our immune system* ... Our internal tail is UNnecessary for sitting, walking, and elimination (all of which are functions attributed to the coccyx by many anti-evolutionists). The caudal vertebrae of the coccyx can cause extreme and unnecessary chronic pain in some unfortunate people, a condition called coccydynia. The entire coccyx can be surgically removed without any ill effects (besides surgical complications)...""
> [.......]​
> How many Millions of _H sapiens_ and immediate predecessors, suffered and died from Wisdom Teeth impaction/infection?.
> Were it not for Modern dentistry in the last 100 years (yes, even after Jesus), humans who had these impacted/infected Wisdom teeth (most) would have slowly died out and the specie would have been gradually purged/adapted/Evolved eventually as in all traits of all animals.
> Everything that ever lived was, and is, 'intermediate' and constantly Evolving.
> `
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we share over 90 percent of our DNA with pigs does that mean we are descended from Pigs too? There are NO fossil records to support the theory that is a bald faced lie. And DNA wise we are similar to numerous other animals. Once again name a single other supposed Mammal that evolved into 2 separate distinct species other then this supposed ape man thing.
Click to expand...

Totally goofy and Dishonest reply that ignores everything I posted/already explained.

AGAIN: We share a Primate ancestor with all other Primates... we didn't come from monkeys, we share an ancestor.
And that Primate ancestor had a non-Primate, but Mammalian ancestor that all mammals, Including pigs share..
and so on and so forth

*Second, you had NO answer to Extensive EVIDENCE in Anatomical vestiges I bothered to post/repost.
(you said didn't exist)*
UseLess organs and remnants, not exactly 'immaculate/ID,' and obviously not a god's/dog's work, but messy Mutation.

Disingenuous non-response.
You've been indoctrinated in a Religion and you're Blinded...
and your posts willfully non-responsive.
`


----------



## sealybobo

Hossfly said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Not a fact, it is a theory, big difference. And if we descended from an ape, why are there still apes?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I've asked the same question a number of times and never got an answer.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This question has been asked AND answered scores of times, including on page one of this string.
> Or My OP:
> 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
> You're Willfully Blinded by your religious indoctrination/conviction.
> But let's do it AGAIN.
> 
> 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
> John Rennie, Editor in Chief
> Scientific American - June 2002
> 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
> 
> *1. 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.
> [......]
> 
> *6. If humans descended from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?
> *
> This surprisingly common argument reflects several levels of Ignorance about evolution. The first mistake is that evolution does Not teach that humans descended from monkeys; it states that both have a common ancestor.
> 
> The deeper error is that this objection is tantamount to asking, _"If children descended from adults, why are there still adults?"_ New species evolve by splintering off from established ones, when populations of organisms become isolated from the main branch of their family and acquire sufficient differences to remain forever distinct. The parent species may survive indefinitely thereafter, or it may become extinct.
> [.....]​You've seen the answers HUNDREDS of times you knot heads.
> No matter, you'll try the same Brain Dead questions/denial next week.
> You're members of a religious Cult.
> `
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I believe we came from a Creator and I am not religious. We didn't come from apes and we didn't arrive with a Big Bang.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So let's be clear.
> You and the other Clown were 100% ANSWERED as to [your abuse of] 'Theory', and 'why are there still monkeys?'
> PERIOD.
> 
> You can choose to believe any BS you want.
> So the F*** what?
> Science/Evolution has Evidence, you have NONE.
> Bye clowns.
> `
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Theories are like assholes. Everybody has at least one. I just got my DNA results back and I had my fingers crossed there wouldn't be monkey DNA in there. I was relieved. No monkey DNA. Plenty of Irish alcohol though.
Click to expand...


Why do you trust DNA evidence for whatever you were being tested for but you don't trust that same evidence that says you are basically a monkey?  Why do theists trust DNA in court evidence but not when it's used to prove all living creatures are related?

Cherry pickers.  Cognitive Dissonance.


----------



## sealybobo

RetiredGySgt said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're primates that developed from a common ancestor 5-7 million years ago that yes was an ape.
> 
> That is a fact....The evidence is very strong.
> 
> 
> 
> And yet absolutely NO evidence other then this made up story that a mammal has EVER evolved into 2 distinct species before or after.,
Click to expand...


You need to watch this


----------



## sealybobo

abu afak said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Theories are like assholes. Everybody has at least one. I just got my DNA results back and I had my fingers crossed there wouldn't be monkey DNA in there. I was relieved. No monkey DNA. Plenty of Irish alcohol though.
> 
> 
> 
> You Dishonest 12 IQ Dope.
> I just explained that for the 100th Time.
> Scientific theories are NOT like the colloquial usage of 'theory', they are NOT just guesses.
> You are Too Stupid to debate.
> 
> and BTW, your DNA is 98.6% the same as a Chimps, as only evolution would predict.
> In your case, probably 99.9%.
> Perhaps your future ancestors will even walk upright.
> `
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK, but what is the world shaking big deal? And just where did we come from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "We" evolved from a common primate ancestor, as Chimps and Gorillas. It, in turn, from simpler mammals, and so back to one-celled animals.
> When/how did any life first appear? .. we don't know YET.
> 
> BUT that is NO reason to invoke a god/dog...
> The Same FAILED reasoning that we had Ten Thousand other FAILED 'gods': Fire, Lightning, Fertility, etc.
> "OK, so where does Fire/Babies come from?"
> They didn't know [YET], so they created a 'god'. Hasn't Ever worked.
> 
> That Stupid/Fallacious thinking is called...
> http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps
> 
> *God of the gaps* (or a *divine fallacy*) is logical fallacy that occurs when Goddidit (or a variant) is invoked to explain some natural phenomena that science cannot (at the time of the argument). This concept is similar to what systems theorists refer to as an "explanatory principle." "God of the gaps" is a bad argument not only on logical grounds, but on empirical grounds: there is a long history of "gaps" being filled and the gap for God thus getting smaller and smaller, suggesting "we don't know _yet_" as an alternative that works better in practice; naturalistic explanations for still-mysterious phenomena are always possible, especially in the future where more information may be uncovered.[1]
> 
> The God of the Gaps is a didit fallacy and an _ad hoc_ fallacy, as well as an argument from incredulity or an argument from ignorance, and is thus an informal fallacy."..."
> `​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Didn't all that shit have a Creator? Or did it appear in a turd blossom?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That Wrong-headed thinking is Precisely why I explained "God of the Gaps".
> 'So instead of understanding.. you "God of the Gaps" again!
> We clearly have an IQ/Common-sense issue that makes further discussion impossible.
> ooof
> `
Click to expand...


You just figuring that out?  They are impossibly ignorant.  Then they ask, "why do you hate religion?".  It is their stupidity that makes me mad.  

So when I say religion has held us back thousands of years, it is the theists here denying evolution that are my best evidence that is true.  

Last night a nut was telling me basically you either believe in God or Magic.  So science is now magic.  Did you know?


----------



## sealybobo

RetiredGySgt said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're primates that developed from a common ancestor 5-7 million years ago that yes was an ape.
> 
> That is a fact....The evidence is very strong.
> 
> 
> 
> *And yet absolutely NO evidence other then this made up story that a mammal has EVER evolved into 2 distinct species before or after.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's laughably False.
> We obviously don't have videotape, but we have extensive fossil and DNA Evidence.
> We have One fused Chromosome as all that separates us from Great Apes, and our, and most animal species having Useless anatomical vestiges of our evolutionary ancestors. Not ID, but Messy work.
> 
> yes, from ANOTHER String already posted here
> WTF!
> More Strong Evidence for Evolution: Anatomical Vestiges
> 
> 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 2
> Douglas Theobald, Ph.D.
> Prediction 2.1: *Anatomical vestiges*
> 
> Some of the most renowned *Evidence for evolution* are the various nonfunctional or rudimentary vestigial characters, Both Anatomical and Molecular, that are found throughout biology. A vestige is defined, independently of evolutionary theory, as a reduced and rudimentary structure compared to the same complex structure in other organisms. Vestigial characters, if functional, perform relatively simple, minor, or inessential functions using structures that were clearly designed for other complex purposes. Though many vestigial organs have no function, complete non-functionality is not a requirement for vestigiality...
> [.......]
> Geoffroy was at a loss for *why exactly nature "always leaves vestiges of an organ",* yet he could not deny his empirical observations. Ten years later, Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1744-1829) identified several vestigial structures in his Zoological Philosophy
> [.......]...these "Hypocritical" structures profess something that they do Not do—they clearly appear designed for a certain function which they do Not perform. *However, Common Descent provides a scientific explanation for these peculiar structures. *Existing species have different structures and perform different functions. If all living organisms descended from a common ancestor, then both functions and structures necessarily have been gained and lost in each lineage during macroevolutionary history. Therefore, from Common Descent and the constraint of gradualism, we predict that many organisms should retain vestigial structures as structural remnants of lost functions. Note that the exact evolutionary mechanism which created a vestigial structure is irrelevant as long as the mechanism is a gradual one.
> 
> *Confirmation:*
> There are Many examples of rudimentary and Nonfunctional vestigial characters carried by organisms, and these can very often *be explained in terms of evolutionary histories. *For example, from independent phylogenetic evidence,* snakes are known to be the descendants of four-legged reptiles.* Most Pythons (which are legless snakes) carry Vestigial Pelvises hidden beneath their skin.. *The Vestigial pelvis in Pythons is Not attached to vertebrae* (as is the normal case in most vertebrates), *and it simply floats in the abdominal cavity.* Some lizards carry rudimentary, Vestigial Legs underneath their skin, undetectable from the outside...
> Many cave dwelling animals, such as the fish Astyanax mexicanus (the Mexican tetra) and the salamander species Typhlotriton spelaeus and Proteus anguinus, are blind yet *have rudimentary, Vestigial eyes*....
> [.......]
> The ancestors of Humans are known to have been herbivorous, and molar teeth are required for chewing and grinding plant material. *Over 90% of all adult humans develop third molars (otherwise known as Wisdom Teeth)*.
> Usually these teeth never erupt from the gums, and *in one Third of all individuals they are Malformed and Impacted* [*]. *These Useless teeth can cause significant pain, increased risk for injury, and may result in illness and even death* [*]
> *
> Another Vestige of our herbivorous ancestry is the vermiform appendix. *While this intestinal structure may retain a function of some sort, perhaps in the development of the immune system, it is a rudimentary version of the much larger caecum that is essential for digestion of plants in other mammals..."
> *
> Yet another human Vestigial structure is the coccyx,* the four fused caudal vertebrae found at the *base of the spine, exactly where most mammals and many other primates have external Tails protruding from the back.* Humans and other apes are some of the only vertebrates that lack an external tail as an adult. *The coccyx is a developmental Remnant of the embryonic tail that forms in humans and then is degraded and eaten by our immune system* ... Our internal tail is UNnecessary for sitting, walking, and elimination (all of which are functions attributed to the coccyx by many anti-evolutionists). The caudal vertebrae of the coccyx can cause extreme and unnecessary chronic pain in some unfortunate people, a condition called coccydynia. The entire coccyx can be surgically removed without any ill effects (besides surgical complications)...""
> [.......]​
> How many Millions of _H sapiens_ and immediate predecessors, suffered and died from Wisdom Teeth impaction/infection?.
> Were it not for Modern dentistry in the last 100 years (yes, even after Jesus), humans who had these impacted/infected Wisdom teeth (most) would have slowly died out and the specie would have been gradually purged/adapted/Evolved eventually as in all traits of all animals.
> Everything that ever lived was, and is, 'intermediate' and constantly Evolving.
> `
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we share over 90 percent of our DNA with pigs does that mean we are descended from Pigs too? There are NO fossil records to support the theory that is a bald faced lie. And DNA wise we are similar to numerous other animals. Once again name a single other supposed Mammal that evolved into 2 separate distinct species other then this supposed ape man thing.
Click to expand...


We share a common ancestor with pigs and even fish.  When that living thing crawled out of the water for the first time there were not land creatures already here.  There were not already giraffe and goats and snakes.  That fish that crawled out of the water ended up becoming all the diverse life you see on the planet today.

Now I do keep an open mind that maybe just maybe reptiles came from a different fish that crawled out of the water and we came from a different fish that crawled out of another spot at another time, and so on.  I am open to that but science says we are all related.  

But no theist can tell us how giraffe got here.  Were they always giraffe?  Who came first the parents or the baby giraffe?  And how do you explain that?  

What is your favorite alternative to evolution?

10 Alternatives to Evolution - Listverse


----------



## ChesBayJJ

sealybobo said:


> We share a common ancestor with pigs and even fish.  When that living thing crawled out of the water for the first time there were not land creatures already here.  There were not already giraffe and goats and snakes.  That fish that crawled out of the water ended up becoming all the diverse life you see on the planet today.
> 
> Now I do keep an open mind that maybe just maybe reptiles came from a different fish that crawled out of the water and we came from a different fish that crawled out of another spot at another time, and so on.  I am open to that but science says we are all related.
> 
> But no theist can tell us how giraffe got here.  Were they always giraffe?  Who came first the parents or the baby giraffe?  And how do you explain that?
> 
> What is your favorite alternative to evolution?
> 
> 10 Alternatives to Evolution - Listverse



Great post.


----------



## Old Rocks

gipper said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is pretty silly is to think all creation....just happened.  That somehow the enormous universe just came about without any involvement from anyone or anything.  That man somehow evolved into a thinking species capable of creating amazing things, but all other species did not and this just...happened with no outside force making it happen.
> 
> Seems illogical to me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper
> 
> Exactly. Even if I were able to believe in an invisible, all knowing, all seeing, petulant, vicious, creature who creates and destroys on a whim, there's just no way that I could believe "he' created the earth, the planets, the stars, plant and animal (including the human animal) life  and then rested on Sunday.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Religious people have an answer for everything.  The earth is 14 trillion years old.  7 days, right?  So they say to god 1 day is 2 trillion years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who posted anything about God or religion?  Not me.
> 
> That's the thing about you lefties, you automatically think anyone who disputes your kooky evolution THEORY, must think everything in the Bible is true.  STFU!
> 
> To think it all magically happened, is to not think.
> 
> At any rate, evolution can co-exist with a superior being.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm still waiting for your alternate theory without using god
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One has to be able to think logically, so I am guessing that is not possible for you.
> 
> You condemn those who believe in God as akin to believing in fairy tales, while you believe the huge and complex universe just happened magically.  Do you fail to see how illogical your position is?
Click to expand...

What created your deity?


----------



## Old Rocks

Hossfly said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Not a fact, it is a theory, big difference. And if we descended from an ape, why are there still apes?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I've asked the same question a number of times and never got an answer.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This question has been asked AND answered scores of times, including on page one of this string.
> Or My OP:
> 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
> You're Willfully Blinded by your religious indoctrination/conviction.
> But let's do it AGAIN.
> 
> 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
> John Rennie, Editor in Chief
> Scientific American - June 2002
> 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
> 
> *1. 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.
> [......]
> 
> *6. If humans descended from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?
> *
> This surprisingly common argument reflects several levels of Ignorance about evolution. The first mistake is that evolution does Not teach that humans descended from monkeys; it states that both have a common ancestor.
> 
> The deeper error is that this objection is tantamount to asking, _"If children descended from adults, why are there still adults?"_ New species evolve by splintering off from established ones, when populations of organisms become isolated from the main branch of their family and acquire sufficient differences to remain forever distinct. The parent species may survive indefinitely thereafter, or it may become extinct.
> [.....]​You've seen the answers HUNDREDS of times you knot heads.
> No matter, you'll try the same Brain Dead questions/denial next week.
> You're members of a religious Cult.
> `
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I believe we came from a Creator and I am not religious. We didn't come from apes and we didn't arrive with a Big Bang.
Click to expand...

And the evidence for your beliefs are?


----------



## Old Rocks

Hossfly said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Not a fact, it is a theory, big difference. And if we descended from an ape, why are there still apes?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I've asked the same question a number of times and never got an answer.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This question has been asked AND answered scores of times, including on page one of this string.
> Or My OP:
> 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
> You're Willfully Blinded by your religious indoctrination/conviction.
> But let's do it AGAIN.
> 
> 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
> John Rennie, Editor in Chief
> Scientific American - June 2002
> 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
> 
> *1. 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.
> [......]
> 
> *6. If humans descended from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?
> *
> This surprisingly common argument reflects several levels of Ignorance about evolution. The first mistake is that evolution does Not teach that humans descended from monkeys; it states that both have a common ancestor.
> 
> The deeper error is that this objection is tantamount to asking, _"If children descended from adults, why are there still adults?"_ New species evolve by splintering off from established ones, when populations of organisms become isolated from the main branch of their family and acquire sufficient differences to remain forever distinct. The parent species may survive indefinitely thereafter, or it may become extinct.
> [.....]​You've seen the answers HUNDREDS of times you knot heads.
> No matter, you'll try the same Brain Dead questions/denial next week.
> You're members of a religious Cult.
> `
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I believe we came from a Creator and I am not religious. We didn't come from apes and we didn't arrive with a Big Bang.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So let's be clear.
> You and the other Clown were 100% ANSWERED as to [your abuse of] 'Theory', and 'why are there still monkeys?'
> PERIOD.
> 
> You can choose to believe any BS you want.
> So the F*** what?
> Science/Evolution has Evidence, you have NONE.
> Bye clowns.
> `
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Theories are like assholes. Everybody has at least one. I just got my DNA results back and I had my fingers crossed there wouldn't be monkey DNA in there. I was relieved. No monkey DNA. Plenty of Irish alcohol though.
Click to expand...

How much Neanderthal? 4% here. Now there is partial proof of evolution.


----------



## ChesBayJJ

Old Rocks said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> gipper
> 
> Exactly. Even if I were able to believe in an invisible, all knowing, all seeing, petulant, vicious, creature who creates and destroys on a whim, there's just no way that I could believe "he' created the earth, the planets, the stars, plant and animal (including the human animal) life  and then rested on Sunday.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Religious people have an answer for everything.  The earth is 14 trillion years old.  7 days, right?  So they say to god 1 day is 2 trillion years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who posted anything about God or religion?  Not me.
> 
> That's the thing about you lefties, you automatically think anyone who disputes your kooky evolution THEORY, must think everything in the Bible is true.  STFU!
> 
> To think it all magically happened, is to not think.
> 
> At any rate, evolution can co-exist with a superior being.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm still waiting for your alternate theory without using god
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One has to be able to think logically, so I am guessing that is not possible for you.
> 
> You condemn those who believe in God as akin to believing in fairy tales, while you believe the huge and complex universe just happened magically.  Do you fail to see how illogical your position is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What created your deity?
Click to expand...


The mind of man


----------



## sealybobo

Old Rocks said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> gipper
> 
> Exactly. Even if I were able to believe in an invisible, all knowing, all seeing, petulant, vicious, creature who creates and destroys on a whim, there's just no way that I could believe "he' created the earth, the planets, the stars, plant and animal (including the human animal) life  and then rested on Sunday.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Religious people have an answer for everything.  The earth is 14 trillion years old.  7 days, right?  So they say to god 1 day is 2 trillion years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who posted anything about God or religion?  Not me.
> 
> That's the thing about you lefties, you automatically think anyone who disputes your kooky evolution THEORY, must think everything in the Bible is true.  STFU!
> 
> To think it all magically happened, is to not think.
> 
> At any rate, evolution can co-exist with a superior being.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm still waiting for your alternate theory without using god
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One has to be able to think logically, so I am guessing that is not possible for you.
> 
> You condemn those who believe in God as akin to believing in fairy tales, while you believe the huge and complex universe just happened magically.  Do you fail to see how illogical your position is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What created your deity?
Click to expand...


Peter Paul & Mary


----------



## Old Rocks

Hossfly said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> You Dishonest 12 IQ Dope.
> I just explained that for the 100th Time.
> Scientific theories are NOT like the colloquial usage of 'theory', they are NOT just guesses.
> You are Too Stupid to debate.
> 
> and BTW, your DNA is 98.6% the same as a Chimps, as only evolution would predict.
> In your case, probably 99.9%.
> Perhaps your future ancestors will even walk upright.
> `
> 
> 
> 
> OK, but what is the world shaking big deal? And just where did we come from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "We" evolved from a common primate ancestor, as Chimps and Gorillas. It, in turn, from simpler mammals, and so back to one-celled animals.
> When/how did any life first appear? .. we don't know YET.
> 
> BUT that is NO reason to invoke a god/dog...
> The Same FAILED reasoning that we had Ten Thousand other FAILED 'gods': Fire, Lightning, Fertility, etc.
> "OK, so where does Fire/Babies come from?"
> They didn't know [YET], so they created a 'god'. Hasn't Ever worked.
> 
> That Stupid/Fallacious thinking is called...
> http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps
> 
> *God of the gaps* (or a *divine fallacy*) is logical fallacy that occurs when Goddidit (or a variant) is invoked to explain some natural phenomena that science cannot (at the time of the argument). This concept is similar to what systems theorists refer to as an "explanatory principle." "God of the gaps" is a bad argument not only on logical grounds, but on empirical grounds: there is a long history of "gaps" being filled and the gap for God thus getting smaller and smaller, suggesting "we don't know _yet_" as an alternative that works better in practice; naturalistic explanations for still-mysterious phenomena are always possible, especially in the future where more information may be uncovered.[1]
> 
> The God of the Gaps is a didit fallacy and an _ad hoc_ fallacy, as well as an argument from incredulity or an argument from ignorance, and is thus an informal fallacy."..."
> `​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Didn't all that shit have a Creator? Or did it appear in a turd blossom?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That Wrong-headed thinking is Precisely why I explained "God of the Gaps".
> 'So instead of understanding.. you "God of the Gaps" again!
> We clearly have an IQ/Common-sense issue that makes further discussion impossible.
> ooof
> `
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The common sense issue is that I believe in God/Creator and I don't question it.
Click to expand...

That is fine. For you. For me, I question everything. I see no reason for there being a Deity, but I really don't have enough knowledge to state that there is not one. As for evolution, I will go with the fossils and DNA evidenc. And, by the way, Hoss, you have over 95% of the same DNA as a chimpanzee.

*Chimps, Humans 96 Percent the Same, Gene Study Finds*

*Chimps, Humans 96 Percent the Same, Gene Study Finds*
Stefan Lovgren
for National Geographic News
August 31, 2005
Scientists have sequenced the genome of the chimpanzee and found that humans are 96 percent similar to the great ape species.


----------



## ChesBayJJ

sealybobo said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Religious people have an answer for everything.  The earth is 14 trillion years old.  7 days, right?  So they say to god 1 day is 2 trillion years.
> 
> 
> 
> Who posted anything about God or religion?  Not me.
> 
> That's the thing about you lefties, you automatically think anyone who disputes your kooky evolution THEORY, must think everything in the Bible is true.  STFU!
> 
> To think it all magically happened, is to not think.
> 
> At any rate, evolution can co-exist with a superior being.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm still waiting for your alternate theory without using god
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One has to be able to think logically, so I am guessing that is not possible for you.
> 
> You condemn those who believe in God as akin to believing in fairy tales, while you believe the huge and complex universe just happened magically.  Do you fail to see how illogical your position is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What created your deity?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Peter Paul & Mary
Click to expand...


Saw them at the U of F about 50 years ago. It was great.


----------



## Old Rocks

RetiredGySgt said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're primates that developed from a common ancestor 5-7 million years ago that yes was an ape.
> 
> That is a fact....The evidence is very strong.
> 
> 
> 
> *And yet absolutely NO evidence other then this made up story that a mammal has EVER evolved into 2 distinct species before or after.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's laughably False.
> We obviously don't have videotape, but we have extensive fossil and DNA Evidence.
> We have One fused Chromosome as all that separates us from Great Apes, and our, and most animal species having Useless anatomical vestiges of our evolutionary ancestors. Not ID, but Messy work.
> 
> yes, from ANOTHER String already posted here
> WTF!
> More Strong Evidence for Evolution: Anatomical Vestiges
> 
> 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 2
> Douglas Theobald, Ph.D.
> Prediction 2.1: *Anatomical vestiges*
> 
> Some of the most renowned *Evidence for evolution* are the various nonfunctional or rudimentary vestigial characters, Both Anatomical and Molecular, that are found throughout biology. A vestige is defined, independently of evolutionary theory, as a reduced and rudimentary structure compared to the same complex structure in other organisms. Vestigial characters, if functional, perform relatively simple, minor, or inessential functions using structures that were clearly designed for other complex purposes. Though many vestigial organs have no function, complete non-functionality is not a requirement for vestigiality...
> [.......]
> Geoffroy was at a loss for *why exactly nature "always leaves vestiges of an organ",* yet he could not deny his empirical observations. Ten years later, Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1744-1829) identified several vestigial structures in his Zoological Philosophy
> [.......]...these "Hypocritical" structures profess something that they do Not do—they clearly appear designed for a certain function which they do Not perform. *However, Common Descent provides a scientific explanation for these peculiar structures. *Existing species have different structures and perform different functions. If all living organisms descended from a common ancestor, then both functions and structures necessarily have been gained and lost in each lineage during macroevolutionary history. Therefore, from Common Descent and the constraint of gradualism, we predict that many organisms should retain vestigial structures as structural remnants of lost functions. Note that the exact evolutionary mechanism which created a vestigial structure is irrelevant as long as the mechanism is a gradual one.
> 
> *Confirmation:*
> There are Many examples of rudimentary and Nonfunctional vestigial characters carried by organisms, and these can very often *be explained in terms of evolutionary histories. *For example, from independent phylogenetic evidence,* snakes are known to be the descendants of four-legged reptiles.* Most Pythons (which are legless snakes) carry Vestigial Pelvises hidden beneath their skin.. *The Vestigial pelvis in Pythons is Not attached to vertebrae* (as is the normal case in most vertebrates), *and it simply floats in the abdominal cavity.* Some lizards carry rudimentary, Vestigial Legs underneath their skin, undetectable from the outside...
> Many cave dwelling animals, such as the fish Astyanax mexicanus (the Mexican tetra) and the salamander species Typhlotriton spelaeus and Proteus anguinus, are blind yet *have rudimentary, Vestigial eyes*....
> [.......]
> The ancestors of Humans are known to have been herbivorous, and molar teeth are required for chewing and grinding plant material. *Over 90% of all adult humans develop third molars (otherwise known as Wisdom Teeth)*.
> Usually these teeth never erupt from the gums, and *in one Third of all individuals they are Malformed and Impacted* [*]. *These Useless teeth can cause significant pain, increased risk for injury, and may result in illness and even death* [*]
> *
> Another Vestige of our herbivorous ancestry is the vermiform appendix. *While this intestinal structure may retain a function of some sort, perhaps in the development of the immune system, it is a rudimentary version of the much larger caecum that is essential for digestion of plants in other mammals..."
> *
> Yet another human Vestigial structure is the coccyx,* the four fused caudal vertebrae found at the *base of the spine, exactly where most mammals and many other primates have external Tails protruding from the back.* Humans and other apes are some of the only vertebrates that lack an external tail as an adult. *The coccyx is a developmental Remnant of the embryonic tail that forms in humans and then is degraded and eaten by our immune system* ... Our internal tail is UNnecessary for sitting, walking, and elimination (all of which are functions attributed to the coccyx by many anti-evolutionists). The caudal vertebrae of the coccyx can cause extreme and unnecessary chronic pain in some unfortunate people, a condition called coccydynia. The entire coccyx can be surgically removed without any ill effects (besides surgical complications)...""
> [.......]​
> How many Millions of _H sapiens_ and immediate predecessors, suffered and died from Wisdom Teeth impaction/infection?.
> Were it not for Modern dentistry in the last 100 years (yes, even after Jesus), humans who had these impacted/infected Wisdom teeth (most) would have slowly died out and the specie would have been gradually purged/adapted/Evolved eventually as in all traits of all animals.
> Everything that ever lived was, and is, 'intermediate' and constantly Evolving.
> `
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we share over 90 percent of our DNA with pigs does that mean we are descended from Pigs too? There are NO fossil records to support the theory that is a bald faced lie. And DNA wise we are similar to numerous other animals. Once again name a single other supposed Mammal that evolved into 2 separate distinct species other then this supposed ape man thing.
Click to expand...


OK, silly ass, just post us a link that says that. You cannot because it is simply not true. We share DNA with all mammals, but the one with which we share the most DNA is the Chimpanzee. Don't know why you 'Conservatives' are forever pulling nonsense out of your ass.


----------



## sealybobo

Old Rocks said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Not a fact, it is a theory, big difference. And if we descended from an ape, why are there still apes?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I've asked the same question a number of times and never got an answer.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This question has been asked AND answered scores of times, including on page one of this string.
> Or My OP:
> 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
> You're Willfully Blinded by your religious indoctrination/conviction.
> But let's do it AGAIN.
> 
> 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
> John Rennie, Editor in Chief
> Scientific American - June 2002
> 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
> 
> *1. 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.
> [......]
> 
> *6. If humans descended from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?
> *
> This surprisingly common argument reflects several levels of Ignorance about evolution. The first mistake is that evolution does Not teach that humans descended from monkeys; it states that both have a common ancestor.
> 
> The deeper error is that this objection is tantamount to asking, _"If children descended from adults, why are there still adults?"_ New species evolve by splintering off from established ones, when populations of organisms become isolated from the main branch of their family and acquire sufficient differences to remain forever distinct. The parent species may survive indefinitely thereafter, or it may become extinct.
> [.....]​You've seen the answers HUNDREDS of times you knot heads.
> No matter, you'll try the same Brain Dead questions/denial next week.
> You're members of a religious Cult.
> `
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I believe we came from a Creator and I am not religious. We didn't come from apes and we didn't arrive with a Big Bang.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And the evidence for your beliefs are?
Click to expand...


He's like my dad.  Says he doesn't believe any of the religions are real but still believes there must be a creator.  How else can all this have happened?  Too perfect to be made by itself.  Says that over and over whenever I try to lay some science on him.  

When he hears things like Serena Williams won Wimbleton while having a 2 month old baby in her but that the baby at 2 months is only the size of a cranberry, he says that is all the evidence he needs to know there must be an intelligent creator and if science disagrees then science is stupid.  And he heard there are millions of sperm in one load and that too proves there must be a creator.  

So he is basing his assumption on the fact that he can't imagine any other way.  He is close minded to scientific information.  No matter what I tell him before I've even made the point he's already shaking his head.  And the funny thing is he doesn't even take the bible literally but still he feels threatened by science.  I don't know why because if you are arguing for a generic creator no science can disprove a generic god.  Science only disproves organized religions as being unauthentic and man made up.


----------



## sealybobo

Old Rocks said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're primates that developed from a common ancestor 5-7 million years ago that yes was an ape.
> 
> That is a fact....The evidence is very strong.
> 
> 
> 
> *And yet absolutely NO evidence other then this made up story that a mammal has EVER evolved into 2 distinct species before or after.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's laughably False.
> We obviously don't have videotape, but we have extensive fossil and DNA Evidence.
> We have One fused Chromosome as all that separates us from Great Apes, and our, and most animal species having Useless anatomical vestiges of our evolutionary ancestors. Not ID, but Messy work.
> 
> yes, from ANOTHER String already posted here
> WTF!
> More Strong Evidence for Evolution: Anatomical Vestiges
> 
> 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 2
> Douglas Theobald, Ph.D.
> Prediction 2.1: *Anatomical vestiges*
> 
> Some of the most renowned *Evidence for evolution* are the various nonfunctional or rudimentary vestigial characters, Both Anatomical and Molecular, that are found throughout biology. A vestige is defined, independently of evolutionary theory, as a reduced and rudimentary structure compared to the same complex structure in other organisms. Vestigial characters, if functional, perform relatively simple, minor, or inessential functions using structures that were clearly designed for other complex purposes. Though many vestigial organs have no function, complete non-functionality is not a requirement for vestigiality...
> [.......]
> Geoffroy was at a loss for *why exactly nature "always leaves vestiges of an organ",* yet he could not deny his empirical observations. Ten years later, Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1744-1829) identified several vestigial structures in his Zoological Philosophy
> [.......]...these "Hypocritical" structures profess something that they do Not do—they clearly appear designed for a certain function which they do Not perform. *However, Common Descent provides a scientific explanation for these peculiar structures. *Existing species have different structures and perform different functions. If all living organisms descended from a common ancestor, then both functions and structures necessarily have been gained and lost in each lineage during macroevolutionary history. Therefore, from Common Descent and the constraint of gradualism, we predict that many organisms should retain vestigial structures as structural remnants of lost functions. Note that the exact evolutionary mechanism which created a vestigial structure is irrelevant as long as the mechanism is a gradual one.
> 
> *Confirmation:*
> There are Many examples of rudimentary and Nonfunctional vestigial characters carried by organisms, and these can very often *be explained in terms of evolutionary histories. *For example, from independent phylogenetic evidence,* snakes are known to be the descendants of four-legged reptiles.* Most Pythons (which are legless snakes) carry Vestigial Pelvises hidden beneath their skin.. *The Vestigial pelvis in Pythons is Not attached to vertebrae* (as is the normal case in most vertebrates), *and it simply floats in the abdominal cavity.* Some lizards carry rudimentary, Vestigial Legs underneath their skin, undetectable from the outside...
> Many cave dwelling animals, such as the fish Astyanax mexicanus (the Mexican tetra) and the salamander species Typhlotriton spelaeus and Proteus anguinus, are blind yet *have rudimentary, Vestigial eyes*....
> [.......]
> The ancestors of Humans are known to have been herbivorous, and molar teeth are required for chewing and grinding plant material. *Over 90% of all adult humans develop third molars (otherwise known as Wisdom Teeth)*.
> Usually these teeth never erupt from the gums, and *in one Third of all individuals they are Malformed and Impacted* [*]. *These Useless teeth can cause significant pain, increased risk for injury, and may result in illness and even death* [*]
> *
> Another Vestige of our herbivorous ancestry is the vermiform appendix. *While this intestinal structure may retain a function of some sort, perhaps in the development of the immune system, it is a rudimentary version of the much larger caecum that is essential for digestion of plants in other mammals..."
> *
> Yet another human Vestigial structure is the coccyx,* the four fused caudal vertebrae found at the *base of the spine, exactly where most mammals and many other primates have external Tails protruding from the back.* Humans and other apes are some of the only vertebrates that lack an external tail as an adult. *The coccyx is a developmental Remnant of the embryonic tail that forms in humans and then is degraded and eaten by our immune system* ... Our internal tail is UNnecessary for sitting, walking, and elimination (all of which are functions attributed to the coccyx by many anti-evolutionists). The caudal vertebrae of the coccyx can cause extreme and unnecessary chronic pain in some unfortunate people, a condition called coccydynia. The entire coccyx can be surgically removed without any ill effects (besides surgical complications)...""
> [.......]​
> How many Millions of _H sapiens_ and immediate predecessors, suffered and died from Wisdom Teeth impaction/infection?.
> Were it not for Modern dentistry in the last 100 years (yes, even after Jesus), humans who had these impacted/infected Wisdom teeth (most) would have slowly died out and the specie would have been gradually purged/adapted/Evolved eventually as in all traits of all animals.
> Everything that ever lived was, and is, 'intermediate' and constantly Evolving.
> `
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we share over 90 percent of our DNA with pigs does that mean we are descended from Pigs too? There are NO fossil records to support the theory that is a bald faced lie. And DNA wise we are similar to numerous other animals. Once again name a single other supposed Mammal that evolved into 2 separate distinct species other then this supposed ape man thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK, silly ass, just post us a link that says that. You cannot because it is simply not true. We share DNA with all mammals, but the one with which we share the most DNA is the Chimpanzee. Don't know why you 'Conservatives' are forever pulling nonsense out of your ass.
Click to expand...


Notice the similarities:

Conservatives deny global warming because it gets in the way of their masters profits.  "the oil companies" 

And the more science you know the less likely you are to go to church or believe the nonsense they say.  I bet you religion is a bigger business than oil if you add up all the churches.  

Religion is big business. Just how big? A new study, published this week by a father-daughter researcher team, says religion is bigger than Facebook, Google and Apple – combined.

That's big.

Religion is big business, study shows - Portland Press Herald


----------



## sealybobo

Old Rocks said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're primates that developed from a common ancestor 5-7 million years ago that yes was an ape.
> 
> That is a fact....The evidence is very strong.
> 
> 
> 
> *And yet absolutely NO evidence other then this made up story that a mammal has EVER evolved into 2 distinct species before or after.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's laughably False.
> We obviously don't have videotape, but we have extensive fossil and DNA Evidence.
> We have One fused Chromosome as all that separates us from Great Apes, and our, and most animal species having Useless anatomical vestiges of our evolutionary ancestors. Not ID, but Messy work.
> 
> yes, from ANOTHER String already posted here
> WTF!
> More Strong Evidence for Evolution: Anatomical Vestiges
> 
> 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 2
> Douglas Theobald, Ph.D.
> Prediction 2.1: *Anatomical vestiges*
> 
> Some of the most renowned *Evidence for evolution* are the various nonfunctional or rudimentary vestigial characters, Both Anatomical and Molecular, that are found throughout biology. A vestige is defined, independently of evolutionary theory, as a reduced and rudimentary structure compared to the same complex structure in other organisms. Vestigial characters, if functional, perform relatively simple, minor, or inessential functions using structures that were clearly designed for other complex purposes. Though many vestigial organs have no function, complete non-functionality is not a requirement for vestigiality...
> [.......]
> Geoffroy was at a loss for *why exactly nature "always leaves vestiges of an organ",* yet he could not deny his empirical observations. Ten years later, Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1744-1829) identified several vestigial structures in his Zoological Philosophy
> [.......]...these "Hypocritical" structures profess something that they do Not do—they clearly appear designed for a certain function which they do Not perform. *However, Common Descent provides a scientific explanation for these peculiar structures. *Existing species have different structures and perform different functions. If all living organisms descended from a common ancestor, then both functions and structures necessarily have been gained and lost in each lineage during macroevolutionary history. Therefore, from Common Descent and the constraint of gradualism, we predict that many organisms should retain vestigial structures as structural remnants of lost functions. Note that the exact evolutionary mechanism which created a vestigial structure is irrelevant as long as the mechanism is a gradual one.
> 
> *Confirmation:*
> There are Many examples of rudimentary and Nonfunctional vestigial characters carried by organisms, and these can very often *be explained in terms of evolutionary histories. *For example, from independent phylogenetic evidence,* snakes are known to be the descendants of four-legged reptiles.* Most Pythons (which are legless snakes) carry Vestigial Pelvises hidden beneath their skin.. *The Vestigial pelvis in Pythons is Not attached to vertebrae* (as is the normal case in most vertebrates), *and it simply floats in the abdominal cavity.* Some lizards carry rudimentary, Vestigial Legs underneath their skin, undetectable from the outside...
> Many cave dwelling animals, such as the fish Astyanax mexicanus (the Mexican tetra) and the salamander species Typhlotriton spelaeus and Proteus anguinus, are blind yet *have rudimentary, Vestigial eyes*....
> [.......]
> The ancestors of Humans are known to have been herbivorous, and molar teeth are required for chewing and grinding plant material. *Over 90% of all adult humans develop third molars (otherwise known as Wisdom Teeth)*.
> Usually these teeth never erupt from the gums, and *in one Third of all individuals they are Malformed and Impacted* [*]. *These Useless teeth can cause significant pain, increased risk for injury, and may result in illness and even death* [*]
> *
> Another Vestige of our herbivorous ancestry is the vermiform appendix. *While this intestinal structure may retain a function of some sort, perhaps in the development of the immune system, it is a rudimentary version of the much larger caecum that is essential for digestion of plants in other mammals..."
> *
> Yet another human Vestigial structure is the coccyx,* the four fused caudal vertebrae found at the *base of the spine, exactly where most mammals and many other primates have external Tails protruding from the back.* Humans and other apes are some of the only vertebrates that lack an external tail as an adult. *The coccyx is a developmental Remnant of the embryonic tail that forms in humans and then is degraded and eaten by our immune system* ... Our internal tail is UNnecessary for sitting, walking, and elimination (all of which are functions attributed to the coccyx by many anti-evolutionists). The caudal vertebrae of the coccyx can cause extreme and unnecessary chronic pain in some unfortunate people, a condition called coccydynia. The entire coccyx can be surgically removed without any ill effects (besides surgical complications)...""
> [.......]​
> How many Millions of _H sapiens_ and immediate predecessors, suffered and died from Wisdom Teeth impaction/infection?.
> Were it not for Modern dentistry in the last 100 years (yes, even after Jesus), humans who had these impacted/infected Wisdom teeth (most) would have slowly died out and the specie would have been gradually purged/adapted/Evolved eventually as in all traits of all animals.
> Everything that ever lived was, and is, 'intermediate' and constantly Evolving.
> `
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we share over 90 percent of our DNA with pigs does that mean we are descended from Pigs too? There are NO fossil records to support the theory that is a bald faced lie. And DNA wise we are similar to numerous other animals. Once again name a single other supposed Mammal that evolved into 2 separate distinct species other then this supposed ape man thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK, silly ass, just post us a link that says that. You cannot because it is simply not true. We share DNA with all mammals, but the one with which we share the most DNA is the Chimpanzee. Don't know why you 'Conservatives' are forever pulling nonsense out of your ass.
Click to expand...


Our current understanding of Neanderthals, the species with which we used to share the genus _homo_, is that they were very intelligent. This understanding comes from fossilized evidence that they had larger brains than modern _Homo sapiens_. There is also archeological evidence that _Homo neanderthalensis_ taught early humans how to use tools. So, a small-brained human can be forgiven for wondering, why did Neanderthals go extinct while their weird little evolutionary cousins survived? Scientists don’t have a definitive answer to this riddle yet, but the newest theories are fascinating.

For starters, Neanderthals were loners.

Another possibility is that Neanderthals didn’t go extinct. Instead, they were absorbed into the human lineage.  between 1.5 to 2.1 percent of the DNA in humans outside of Africa comes from Neanderthals, but recent revisions to the human/Neanderthal mating timeline suggest this interbreeding was going on a lot longer than previously thought. Rather than being eliminated, we may have just merged.

There are other, non-mainstream ideas worth considering, too. Maybe the Neanderthals were too smart, for example, and unable to contend with the challenges of having such a powerful brain. Neanderthal DNA is linked to a risk of depression in modern humans, as well as a susceptibility to nicotine addiction, a well-known indicator of schizophrenia (though this is wild speculation

I would rather wildly speculate on multiple possibilities than to settle on MUST BE GOD because I'm uncomfortable not knowing.  Human's hate not knowing


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Once again we all evolved from pigs if your theory is true. As for vestiges they prove nothing\. I repeat show me ANY mammal that has proven to evolve into 2 or more distinct mammals ever. All you have is bull shit it is not evidence, there is no fossil record to speak of that proves any such event.


----------



## sealybobo

ChesBayJJ said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Religious people have an answer for everything.  The earth is 14 trillion years old.  7 days, right?  So they say to god 1 day is 2 trillion years.
> 
> 
> 
> Who posted anything about God or religion?  Not me.
> 
> That's the thing about you lefties, you automatically think anyone who disputes your kooky evolution THEORY, must think everything in the Bible is true.  STFU!
> 
> To think it all magically happened, is to not think.
> 
> At any rate, evolution can co-exist with a superior being.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm still waiting for your alternate theory without using god
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One has to be able to think logically, so I am guessing that is not possible for you.
> 
> You condemn those who believe in God as akin to believing in fairy tales, while you believe the huge and complex universe just happened magically.  Do you fail to see how illogical your position is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What created your deity?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The mind of man
Click to expand...


Who created the Jesus god?


----------



## sealybobo

RetiredGySgt said:


> Once again we all evolved from pigs if your theory is true. As for vestiges they prove nothing\. I repeat show me ANY mammal that has proven to evolve into 2 or more distinct mammals ever. All you have is bull shit it is not evidence, there is no fossil record to speak of that proves any such event.



We all evolved from rodent that lived in China 160m years ago | Daily Mail Online

You need to educate yourself.

Found: Humanity's Great-Grand-Rat

Actually, no you don't.  You'll be dead soon and your grandkids will be smarter than you ever were.

But don't worry.  They won't become a completely different mammal. That takes millions of years.


----------



## sealybobo

Most of us think we know exactly what we mean when we use the word “mammal”—and most of us are wrong. Typically, we think only of the sub-group of mammals like us, the so-called placental mammals. There are two other kinds, however:  the egg-laying monotremes, which include the duck-billed platypus; and the marsupials, which count kangaroos, opossums and wombats among their ranks. But unless you live in Australia and a few other spots, the vast majority of mammals you run into, even at the zoo, are placentals, a group that encompasses everything from rats to rhinos, gerbils to giraffes, chipmunks to chimps, and, of course humans as well.


----------



## gipper

Old Rocks said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> gipper
> 
> Exactly. Even if I were able to believe in an invisible, all knowing, all seeing, petulant, vicious, creature who creates and destroys on a whim, there's just no way that I could believe "he' created the earth, the planets, the stars, plant and animal (including the human animal) life  and then rested on Sunday.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Religious people have an answer for everything.  The earth is 14 trillion years old.  7 days, right?  So they say to god 1 day is 2 trillion years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who posted anything about God or religion?  Not me.
> 
> That's the thing about you lefties, you automatically think anyone who disputes your kooky evolution THEORY, must think everything in the Bible is true.  STFU!
> 
> To think it all magically happened, is to not think.
> 
> At any rate, evolution can co-exist with a superior being.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm still waiting for your alternate theory without using god
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One has to be able to think logically, so I am guessing that is not possible for you.
> 
> You condemn those who believe in God as akin to believing in fairy tales, while you believe the huge and complex universe just happened magically.  Do you fail to see how illogical your position is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What created your deity?
Click to expand...

What created the universe?


----------



## ScienceRocks

Old Rocks said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're primates that developed from a common ancestor 5-7 million years ago that yes was an ape.
> 
> That is a fact....The evidence is very strong.
> 
> 
> 
> *And yet absolutely NO evidence other then this made up story that a mammal has EVER evolved into 2 distinct species before or after.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's laughably False.
> We obviously don't have videotape, but we have extensive fossil and DNA Evidence.
> We have One fused Chromosome as all that separates us from Great Apes, and our, and most animal species having Useless anatomical vestiges of our evolutionary ancestors. Not ID, but Messy work.
> 
> yes, from ANOTHER String already posted here
> WTF!
> More Strong Evidence for Evolution: Anatomical Vestiges
> 
> 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 2
> Douglas Theobald, Ph.D.
> Prediction 2.1: *Anatomical vestiges*
> 
> Some of the most renowned *Evidence for evolution* are the various nonfunctional or rudimentary vestigial characters, Both Anatomical and Molecular, that are found throughout biology. A vestige is defined, independently of evolutionary theory, as a reduced and rudimentary structure compared to the same complex structure in other organisms. Vestigial characters, if functional, perform relatively simple, minor, or inessential functions using structures that were clearly designed for other complex purposes. Though many vestigial organs have no function, complete non-functionality is not a requirement for vestigiality...
> [.......]
> Geoffroy was at a loss for *why exactly nature "always leaves vestiges of an organ",* yet he could not deny his empirical observations. Ten years later, Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1744-1829) identified several vestigial structures in his Zoological Philosophy
> [.......]...these "Hypocritical" structures profess something that they do Not do—they clearly appear designed for a certain function which they do Not perform. *However, Common Descent provides a scientific explanation for these peculiar structures. *Existing species have different structures and perform different functions. If all living organisms descended from a common ancestor, then both functions and structures necessarily have been gained and lost in each lineage during macroevolutionary history. Therefore, from Common Descent and the constraint of gradualism, we predict that many organisms should retain vestigial structures as structural remnants of lost functions. Note that the exact evolutionary mechanism which created a vestigial structure is irrelevant as long as the mechanism is a gradual one.
> 
> *Confirmation:*
> There are Many examples of rudimentary and Nonfunctional vestigial characters carried by organisms, and these can very often *be explained in terms of evolutionary histories. *For example, from independent phylogenetic evidence,* snakes are known to be the descendants of four-legged reptiles.* Most Pythons (which are legless snakes) carry Vestigial Pelvises hidden beneath their skin.. *The Vestigial pelvis in Pythons is Not attached to vertebrae* (as is the normal case in most vertebrates), *and it simply floats in the abdominal cavity.* Some lizards carry rudimentary, Vestigial Legs underneath their skin, undetectable from the outside...
> Many cave dwelling animals, such as the fish Astyanax mexicanus (the Mexican tetra) and the salamander species Typhlotriton spelaeus and Proteus anguinus, are blind yet *have rudimentary, Vestigial eyes*....
> [.......]
> The ancestors of Humans are known to have been herbivorous, and molar teeth are required for chewing and grinding plant material. *Over 90% of all adult humans develop third molars (otherwise known as Wisdom Teeth)*.
> Usually these teeth never erupt from the gums, and *in one Third of all individuals they are Malformed and Impacted* [*]. *These Useless teeth can cause significant pain, increased risk for injury, and may result in illness and even death* [*]
> *
> Another Vestige of our herbivorous ancestry is the vermiform appendix. *While this intestinal structure may retain a function of some sort, perhaps in the development of the immune system, it is a rudimentary version of the much larger caecum that is essential for digestion of plants in other mammals..."
> *
> Yet another human Vestigial structure is the coccyx,* the four fused caudal vertebrae found at the *base of the spine, exactly where most mammals and many other primates have external Tails protruding from the back.* Humans and other apes are some of the only vertebrates that lack an external tail as an adult. *The coccyx is a developmental Remnant of the embryonic tail that forms in humans and then is degraded and eaten by our immune system* ... Our internal tail is UNnecessary for sitting, walking, and elimination (all of which are functions attributed to the coccyx by many anti-evolutionists). The caudal vertebrae of the coccyx can cause extreme and unnecessary chronic pain in some unfortunate people, a condition called coccydynia. The entire coccyx can be surgically removed without any ill effects (besides surgical complications)...""
> [.......]​
> How many Millions of _H sapiens_ and immediate predecessors, suffered and died from Wisdom Teeth impaction/infection?.
> Were it not for Modern dentistry in the last 100 years (yes, even after Jesus), humans who had these impacted/infected Wisdom teeth (most) would have slowly died out and the specie would have been gradually purged/adapted/Evolved eventually as in all traits of all animals.
> Everything that ever lived was, and is, 'intermediate' and constantly Evolving.
> `
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we share over 90 percent of our DNA with pigs does that mean we are descended from Pigs too? There are NO fossil records to support the theory that is a bald faced lie. And DNA wise we are similar to numerous other animals. Once again name a single other supposed Mammal that evolved into 2 separate distinct species other then this supposed ape man thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK, silly ass, just post us a link that says that. You cannot because it is simply not true. We share DNA with all mammals, but the one with which we share the most DNA is the Chimpanzee. Don't know why you 'Conservatives' are forever pulling nonsense out of your ass.
Click to expand...



Same thing with all knowledge and economics...Very dangerous as these people have the mindset of the isis.


----------



## Hossfly

Old Rocks said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Not a fact, it is a theory, big difference. And if we descended from an ape, why are there still apes?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I've asked the same question a number of times and never got an answer.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This question has been asked AND answered scores of times, including on page one of this string.
> Or My OP:
> 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
> You're Willfully Blinded by your religious indoctrination/conviction.
> But let's do it AGAIN.
> 
> 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
> John Rennie, Editor in Chief
> Scientific American - June 2002
> 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
> 
> *1. 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.
> [......]
> 
> *6. If humans descended from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?
> *
> This surprisingly common argument reflects several levels of Ignorance about evolution. The first mistake is that evolution does Not teach that humans descended from monkeys; it states that both have a common ancestor.
> 
> The deeper error is that this objection is tantamount to asking, _"If children descended from adults, why are there still adults?"_ New species evolve by splintering off from established ones, when populations of organisms become isolated from the main branch of their family and acquire sufficient differences to remain forever distinct. The parent species may survive indefinitely thereafter, or it may become extinct.
> [.....]​You've seen the answers HUNDREDS of times you knot heads.
> No matter, you'll try the same Brain Dead questions/denial next week.
> You're members of a religious Cult.
> `
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I believe we came from a Creator and I am not religious. We didn't come from apes and we didn't arrive with a Big Bang.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And the evidence for your beliefs are?
Click to expand...

Faith.


----------



## bodecea

Ima Cat said:


> I know there are similarities but I think they are coincidental, like cats and seals both have whiskers.  But cats didn't come from seals or vice a versa.


You're not familiar with Evolution, are you?


----------



## bodecea

gipper said:


> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're primates that developed from a common ancestor 5-7 million years ago that yes was an ape.
> 
> That is a fact....The evidence is very strong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not a fact, it is a theory, big difference.   And if we descended from an ape, why are there still apes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Humans, Orangs, Gorillas, Chimps, we've all been evolving in parallel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When you think orangutans, gorillas, and chimps will land on the moon, master fire, make electronics, create the written word, master flight, make beautiful music, make vaccines, create the internet or nuclear weapons, etc?
Click to expand...

when you think humans can climb a tree in a twinkling, are super strong etc.    All species have their skill sets.   Our skill set is the frontal lobe....and long term memory.


----------



## Hossfly

gipper said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Religious people have an answer for everything.  The earth is 14 trillion years old.  7 days, right?  So they say to god 1 day is 2 trillion years.
> 
> 
> 
> Who posted anything about God or religion?  Not me.
> 
> That's the thing about you lefties, you automatically think anyone who disputes your kooky evolution THEORY, must think everything in the Bible is true.  STFU!
> 
> To think it all magically happened, is to not think.
> 
> At any rate, evolution can co-exist with a superior being.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm still waiting for your alternate theory without using god
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One has to be able to think logically, so I am guessing that is not possible for you.
> 
> You condemn those who believe in God as akin to believing in fairy tales, while you believe the huge and complex universe just happened magically.  Do you fail to see how illogical your position is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What created your deity?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What created the universe?
Click to expand...

Some would have us believe that a big ol' bunch of inanimate objects collided in the vacuum of absolute zero space, had a huge BANG and the result was out of nothing came monkeys, water, rose petals and marijuana. They went on ahead and evolved and the Earth was full of Democrats forever and ever.


----------



## Syriusly

Ima Cat said:


> I know there are similarities but I think they are coincidental, like cats and seals both have whiskers.  But cats didn't come from seals or vice a versa.



Why would anyone believe we came from Monkeys?

We evolved from a common ancestor.

That essentially is just like asking whether you believe you came from your cousin.


----------



## Syriusly

Desperado said:


> No chance.  Evolution may account for the differences within a species, but it does not account for new species.


Where did species come from?


----------



## Hossfly

bodecea said:


> Ima Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know there are similarities but I think they are coincidental, like cats and seals both have whiskers.  But cats didn't come from seals or vice a versa.
> 
> 
> 
> You're not familiar with Evolution, are you?
Click to expand...

If you mean did monkeys appear on Earth already evolved completely and man sprung from the monkey, then........hell no.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Once again there is NO fossil record to support the claim man came from an ape like creature. None nada.


----------



## ScienceRocks

Yep, lets throw out all the evidence because WE believe something in our hearts. lol


----------



## Old Rocks

RetiredGySgt said:


> Once again there is NO fossil record to support the claim man came from an ape like creature. None nada.


Once again, you have not the slightest idea of what you are talking about.

*The evolution of human and ape hand proportions*

Sergio Almécija
, Jeroen B. Smaers
& William L. Jungers

*Abstract*
Human hands are distinguished from apes by possessing longer thumbs relative to fingers. However, this simple ape-human dichotomy fails to provide an adequate framework for testing competing hypotheses of human evolution and for reconstructing the morphology of the last common ancestor (LCA) of humans and chimpanzees. We inspect human and ape hand-length proportions using phylogenetically informed morphometric analyses and test alternative models of evolution along the anthropoid tree of life, including fossils like the plesiomorphic ape _Proconsul heseloni_ and the hominins _Ardipithecus ramidus_ and _Australopithecus sediba_. Our results reveal high levels of hand disparity among modern hominoids, which are explained by different evolutionary processes: autapomorphic evolution in hylobatids (extreme digital and thumb elongation), convergent adaptation between chimpanzees and orangutans (digital elongation) and comparatively little change in gorillas and hominins. The human (and australopith) high thumb-to-digits ratio required little change since the LCA, and was acquired convergently with other highly dexterous anthropoids.

The evolution of human and ape hand proportions : Nature Communications


----------



## Old Rocks

Hossfly said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Not a fact, it is a theory, big difference. And if we descended from an ape, why are there still apes?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I've asked the same question a number of times and never got an answer.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This question has been asked AND answered scores of times, including on page one of this string.
> Or My OP:
> 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
> You're Willfully Blinded by your religious indoctrination/conviction.
> But let's do it AGAIN.
> 
> 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
> John Rennie, Editor in Chief
> Scientific American - June 2002
> 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
> 
> *1. 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.
> [......]
> 
> *6. If humans descended from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?
> *
> This surprisingly common argument reflects several levels of Ignorance about evolution. The first mistake is that evolution does Not teach that humans descended from monkeys; it states that both have a common ancestor.
> 
> The deeper error is that this objection is tantamount to asking, _"If children descended from adults, why are there still adults?"_ New species evolve by splintering off from established ones, when populations of organisms become isolated from the main branch of their family and acquire sufficient differences to remain forever distinct. The parent species may survive indefinitely thereafter, or it may become extinct.
> [.....]​You've seen the answers HUNDREDS of times you knot heads.
> No matter, you'll try the same Brain Dead questions/denial next week.
> You're members of a religious Cult.
> `
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I believe we came from a Creator and I am not religious. We didn't come from apes and we didn't arrive with a Big Bang.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And the evidence for your beliefs are?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Faith.
Click to expand...

Worthless.


----------



## Hossfly

Old Rocks said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Not a fact, it is a theory, big difference. And if we descended from an ape, why are there still apes?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I've asked the same question a number of times and never got an answer.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This question has been asked AND answered scores of times, including on page one of this string.
> Or My OP:
> 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
> You're Willfully Blinded by your religious indoctrination/conviction.
> But let's do it AGAIN.
> 
> 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
> John Rennie, Editor in Chief
> Scientific American - June 2002
> 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
> 
> *1. 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.
> [......]
> 
> *6. If humans descended from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?
> *
> This surprisingly common argument reflects several levels of Ignorance about evolution. The first mistake is that evolution does Not teach that humans descended from monkeys; it states that both have a common ancestor.
> 
> The deeper error is that this objection is tantamount to asking, _"If children descended from adults, why are there still adults?"_ New species evolve by splintering off from established ones, when populations of organisms become isolated from the main branch of their family and acquire sufficient differences to remain forever distinct. The parent species may survive indefinitely thereafter, or it may become extinct.
> [.....]​You've seen the answers HUNDREDS of times you knot heads.
> No matter, you'll try the same Brain Dead questions/denial next week.
> You're members of a religious Cult.
> `
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I believe we came from a Creator and I am not religious. We didn't come from apes and we didn't arrive with a Big Bang.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And the evidence for your beliefs are?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Worthless.
Click to expand...

I still don't get an explanation about where the apes came from. Any idea?


----------



## Hossfly

Matthew said:


> Yep, lets throw out all the evidence because WE believe something in our hearts. lol











​


----------



## Old Rocks

Hossfly said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> This question has been asked AND answered scores of times, including on page one of this string.
> Or My OP:
> 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
> You're Willfully Blinded by your religious indoctrination/conviction.
> But let's do it AGAIN.
> 
> 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
> John Rennie, Editor in Chief
> Scientific American - June 2002
> 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
> 
> *1. 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.
> [......]
> 
> *6. If humans descended from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?
> *
> This surprisingly common argument reflects several levels of Ignorance about evolution. The first mistake is that evolution does Not teach that humans descended from monkeys; it states that both have a common ancestor.
> 
> The deeper error is that this objection is tantamount to asking, _"If children descended from adults, why are there still adults?"_ New species evolve by splintering off from established ones, when populations of organisms become isolated from the main branch of their family and acquire sufficient differences to remain forever distinct. The parent species may survive indefinitely thereafter, or it may become extinct.
> [.....]​You've seen the answers HUNDREDS of times you knot heads.
> No matter, you'll try the same Brain Dead questions/denial next week.
> You're members of a religious Cult.
> `
> 
> 
> 
> I believe we came from a Creator and I am not religious. We didn't come from apes and we didn't arrive with a Big Bang.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And the evidence for your beliefs are?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Worthless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I still don't get an explanation about where the apes came from. Any idea?
Click to expand...





Archonta 


Scandentia (mid-Eocene)
(tree shrews)

Primatomorpha

Plesiadapiformes *X*

Primates (early Paleocene)
(tarsiers, lemurs, monkeys, apes including humans)

Dermoptera (late Eocene)
(colugos)

Chiroptera (late Paleocene)
(bats)

You can see the relationships here;
Evolution of mammals - Wikipedia

Not that I expect you even to look. You guys just spout off, and never follow up with any research.


----------



## Old Rocks

Hossfly said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, lets throw out all the evidence because WE believe something in our hearts. lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ​
Click to expand...

LOL  See you there. LOL


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Old Rocks said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again there is NO fossil record to support the claim man came from an ape like creature. None nada.
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, you have not the slightest idea of what you are talking about.
> 
> *The evolution of human and ape hand proportions*
> 
> Sergio Almécija
> , Jeroen B. Smaers
> & William L. Jungers
> 
> *Abstract*
> Human hands are distinguished from apes by possessing longer thumbs relative to fingers. However, this simple ape-human dichotomy fails to provide an adequate framework for testing competing hypotheses of human evolution and for reconstructing the morphology of the last common ancestor (LCA) of humans and chimpanzees. We inspect human and ape hand-length proportions using phylogenetically informed morphometric analyses and test alternative models of evolution along the anthropoid tree of life, including fossils like the plesiomorphic ape _Proconsul heseloni_ and the hominins _Ardipithecus ramidus_ and _Australopithecus sediba_. Our results reveal high levels of hand disparity among modern hominoids, which are explained by different evolutionary processes: autapomorphic evolution in hylobatids (extreme digital and thumb elongation), convergent adaptation between chimpanzees and orangutans (digital elongation) and comparatively little change in gorillas and hominins. The human (and australopith) high thumb-to-digits ratio required little change since the LCA, and was acquired convergently with other highly dexterous anthropoids.
> 
> The evolution of human and ape hand proportions : Nature Communications
Click to expand...

That does not prove anything at all and is in no way evidence that man evolved from an ape like creature. Once again NO fossil record exists to support the claim. That is why it is still JUST a theory.


----------



## sealybobo

bodecea said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're primates that developed from a common ancestor 5-7 million years ago that yes was an ape.
> 
> That is a fact....The evidence is very strong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not a fact, it is a theory, big difference.   And if we descended from an ape, why are there still apes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Humans, Orangs, Gorillas, Chimps, we've all been evolving in parallel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When you think orangutans, gorillas, and chimps will land on the moon, master fire, make electronics, create the written word, master flight, make beautiful music, make vaccines, create the internet or nuclear weapons, etc?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> when you think humans can climb a tree in a twinkling, are super strong etc.    All species have their skill sets.   Our skill set is the frontal lobe....and long term memory.
Click to expand...

As a collective we save knowledge so the next generation can build on that knowledge. 

How smart is the average person? If put on a deserted island with your parents would you guys be able to do anything other than rub two sticks together? You wouldn't know how to make steal, oil, electricity, perform a surgery, build an engine, smart phone.

Most of us aren't that much smarter than people were 1000 years ago.

We rule because we work well in groups and invented writing


----------



## Hossfly

RetiredGySgt said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again there is NO fossil record to support the claim man came from an ape like creature. None nada.
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, you have not the slightest idea of what you are talking about.
> 
> *The evolution of human and ape hand proportions*
> 
> Sergio Almécija
> , Jeroen B. Smaers
> & William L. Jungers
> 
> *Abstract*
> Human hands are distinguished from apes by possessing longer thumbs relative to fingers. However, this simple ape-human dichotomy fails to provide an adequate framework for testing competing hypotheses of human evolution and for reconstructing the morphology of the last common ancestor (LCA) of humans and chimpanzees. We inspect human and ape hand-length proportions using phylogenetically informed morphometric analyses and test alternative models of evolution along the anthropoid tree of life, including fossils like the plesiomorphic ape _Proconsul heseloni_ and the hominins _Ardipithecus ramidus_ and _Australopithecus sediba_. Our results reveal high levels of hand disparity among modern hominoids, which are explained by different evolutionary processes: autapomorphic evolution in hylobatids (extreme digital and thumb elongation), convergent adaptation between chimpanzees and orangutans (digital elongation) and comparatively little change in gorillas and hominins. The human (and australopith) high thumb-to-digits ratio required little change since the LCA, and was acquired convergently with other highly dexterous anthropoids.
> 
> The evolution of human and ape hand proportions : Nature Communications
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That does not prove anything at all and is in no way evidence that man evolved from an ape like creature. Once again NO fossil record exists to support the claim. That is why it is still JUST a theory.
Click to expand...

All these turkeys dispute creationism and talk about ape thumbs and squirrel nuts but they can't explain where those animals came from to begin with.


----------



## ScienceRocks

sealybobo said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're primates that developed from a common ancestor 5-7 million years ago that yes was an ape.
> 
> That is a fact....The evidence is very strong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not a fact, it is a theory, big difference.   And if we descended from an ape, why are there still apes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Humans, Orangs, Gorillas, Chimps, we've all been evolving in parallel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When you think orangutans, gorillas, and chimps will land on the moon, master fire, make electronics, create the written word, master flight, make beautiful music, make vaccines, create the internet or nuclear weapons, etc?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> when you think humans can climb a tree in a twinkling, are super strong etc.    All species have their skill sets.   Our skill set is the frontal lobe....and long term memory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As a collective we save knowledge so the next generation can build on that knowledge.
> 
> How smart is the average person? If put on a deserted island with your parents would you guys be able to do anything other than rub two sticks together? You wouldn't know how to make steal, oil, electricity, perform a surgery, build an engine, smart phone.
> 
> Most of us aren't that much smarter than people were 1000 years ago.
> 
> We rule because we work well in groups and invented writing
Click to expand...



And this is why liberterianism is such a bad idea....It is the opposite of everything that made us strong.


----------



## sealybobo

RetiredGySgt said:


> Once again there is NO fossil record to support the claim man came from an ape like creature. None nada.


They look at all living things when they are first conceived and all creatures start off looking almost exactly the same. The they grow to be whatever they are. Watch the Cosmos. Eye opening


----------



## Hossfly

sealybobo said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again there is NO fossil record to support the claim man came from an ape like creature. None nada.
> 
> 
> 
> They look at all living things when they are first conceived and all creatures start off looking almost exactly the same. The they grow to be whatever they are. Watch the Cosmos. Eye opening
Click to expand...

In that case, if you scrape a pecker track off the back seat of an '81 Dodge and put it in a glass of water, it might grow up to be an ape or a Liberal Democrat. Got it. Everything is clear now. Thanks.


----------



## abu afak

Hossfly said:


> ..
> I still don't get an explanation about where the apes came from. Any idea?


Duh Yeah!
If you were really curious instead of Blindingly: Stupid, incurious, and brainwashed.. it's quite easy to find out.
It's so easy these days, you male Bimbo:
* evolution of apes - Google Search *​
Can't you even google you driveling fool?
*
Edit to below: 
Even giving it to hore-fly on a silver platter.. he whiffs.*
`


----------



## Hossfly

abu afak said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..
> I still don't get an explanation about where the apes came from. Any idea?
> 
> 
> 
> Duh Yeah!
> If you were really curious instead of Blindingly: Stupid, incurious, and brainwashed.. it's quite easy to find out.
> It's so easy these days, you male Bimbo:
> * evolution of apes - Google Search *​
> Can't you even google you driveling fool?
> `
Click to expand...

Checked it out but couldn't find out where apes came from. Or water, 4 leaf clover and fish.


----------



## Old Rocks

RetiredGySgt said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again there is NO fossil record to support the claim man came from an ape like creature. None nada.
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, you have not the slightest idea of what you are talking about.
> 
> *The evolution of human and ape hand proportions*
> 
> Sergio Almécija
> , Jeroen B. Smaers
> & William L. Jungers
> 
> *Abstract*
> Human hands are distinguished from apes by possessing longer thumbs relative to fingers. However, this simple ape-human dichotomy fails to provide an adequate framework for testing competing hypotheses of human evolution and for reconstructing the morphology of the last common ancestor (LCA) of humans and chimpanzees. We inspect human and ape hand-length proportions using phylogenetically informed morphometric analyses and test alternative models of evolution along the anthropoid tree of life, including fossils like the plesiomorphic ape _Proconsul heseloni_ and the hominins _Ardipithecus ramidus_ and _Australopithecus sediba_. Our results reveal high levels of hand disparity among modern hominoids, which are explained by different evolutionary processes: autapomorphic evolution in hylobatids (extreme digital and thumb elongation), convergent adaptation between chimpanzees and orangutans (digital elongation) and comparatively little change in gorillas and hominins. The human (and australopith) high thumb-to-digits ratio required little change since the LCA, and was acquired convergently with other highly dexterous anthropoids.
> 
> The evolution of human and ape hand proportions : Nature Communications
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That does not prove anything at all and is in no way evidence that man evolved from an ape like creature. Once again NO fossil record exists to support the claim. That is why it is still JUST a theory.
Click to expand...























And a lot more


----------



## Old Rocks

Hossfly said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..
> I still don't get an explanation about where the apes came from. Any idea?
> 
> 
> 
> Duh Yeah!
> If you were really curious instead of Blindingly: Stupid, incurious, and brainwashed.. it's quite easy to find out.
> It's so easy these days, you male Bimbo:
> * evolution of apes - Google Search *​
> Can't you even google you driveling fool?
> `
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Checked it out but couldn't find out where apes came from. Or water, 4 leaf clover and fish.
Click to expand...

I gave you a link to see where the apes came from. That you are terminally stupid is not our fault.


----------



## Hossfly

Old Rocks said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..
> I still don't get an explanation about where the apes came from. Any idea?
> 
> 
> 
> Duh Yeah!
> If you were really curious instead of Blindingly: Stupid, incurious, and brainwashed.. it's quite easy to find out.
> It's so easy these days, you male Bimbo:
> * evolution of apes - Google Search *​
> Can't you even google you driveling fool?
> `
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Checked it out but couldn't find out where apes came from. Or water, 4 leaf clover and fish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I gave you a link to see where the apes came from. That you are terminally stupid is not our fault.
Click to expand...

Spell it out then.I want your explanation.People are trying to convince me that a groundhog is a water buffalo, if it missed being a wombat..


----------



## sealybobo

Hossfly said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again there is NO fossil record to support the claim man came from an ape like creature. None nada.
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, you have not the slightest idea of what you are talking about.
> 
> *The evolution of human and ape hand proportions*
> 
> Sergio Almécija
> , Jeroen B. Smaers
> & William L. Jungers
> 
> *Abstract*
> Human hands are distinguished from apes by possessing longer thumbs relative to fingers. However, this simple ape-human dichotomy fails to provide an adequate framework for testing competing hypotheses of human evolution and for reconstructing the morphology of the last common ancestor (LCA) of humans and chimpanzees. We inspect human and ape hand-length proportions using phylogenetically informed morphometric analyses and test alternative models of evolution along the anthropoid tree of life, including fossils like the plesiomorphic ape _Proconsul heseloni_ and the hominins _Ardipithecus ramidus_ and _Australopithecus sediba_. Our results reveal high levels of hand disparity among modern hominoids, which are explained by different evolutionary processes: autapomorphic evolution in hylobatids (extreme digital and thumb elongation), convergent adaptation between chimpanzees and orangutans (digital elongation) and comparatively little change in gorillas and hominins. The human (and australopith) high thumb-to-digits ratio required little change since the LCA, and was acquired convergently with other highly dexterous anthropoids.
> 
> The evolution of human and ape hand proportions : Nature Communications
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That does not prove anything at all and is in no way evidence that man evolved from an ape like creature. Once again NO fossil record exists to support the claim. That is why it is still JUST a theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All these turkeys dispute creationism and talk about ape thumbs and squirrel nuts but they can't explain where those animals came from to begin with.
Click to expand...

They found a new bacteria at the bottom of the Dead Sea.

No we can not tell you for sure where all those animals came from but what we know or think because of all the things we know that a bacteria turned into single cell the multiple then so on till all the diversity we have today.

What happened to trilobites and dinosaurs? Why did they come and go long before us?

Anyways, we know so much that evolution is a scientific theory, which is basically a fact.

Where does life come from? Originally inside stars. How did life start on earth? We don't know. We have theories.

Our theories beat ancient holy stories


----------



## jillian

Ima Cat said:


> I know there are similarities but I think they are coincidental, like cats and seals both have whiskers.  But cats didn't come from seals or vice a versa.



what you "think" is pretty irrelevant.

science exists whether you believe it or not. but thanks


----------



## jillian

Hossfly said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..
> I still don't get an explanation about where the apes came from. Any idea?
> 
> 
> 
> Duh Yeah!
> If you were really curious instead of Blindingly: Stupid, incurious, and brainwashed.. it's quite easy to find out.
> It's so easy these days, you male Bimbo:
> * evolution of apes - Google Search *​
> Can't you even google you driveling fool?
> `
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Checked it out but couldn't find out where apes came from. Or water, 4 leaf clover and fish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I gave you a link to see where the apes came from. That you are terminally stupid is not our fault.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Spell it out then.I want your explanation.People are trying to convince me that a groundhog is a water buffalo, if it missed being a wombat..
Click to expand...


creationist too?


----------



## sealybobo

Hossfly said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..
> I still don't get an explanation about where the apes came from. Any idea?
> 
> 
> 
> Duh Yeah!
> If you were really curious instead of Blindingly: Stupid, incurious, and brainwashed.. it's quite easy to find out.
> It's so easy these days, you male Bimbo:
> * evolution of apes - Google Search *​
> Can't you even google you driveling fool?
> `
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Checked it out but couldn't find out where apes came from. Or water, 4 leaf clover and fish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I gave you a link to see where the apes came from. That you are terminally stupid is not our fault.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Spell it out then.I want your explanation.People are trying to convince me that a groundhog is a water buffalo, if it missed being a wombat..
Click to expand...

The atmosphere was different on young earth. Humans probably couldn't survive. Trilobites ruled for millions of years before dinosaurs. Dinosaurs millions of years before man. We've only been around for 200000 years. Sometime after the dinosaurs we evolved into tree dwelling apes from hole dwelling rodents. Eventually we stood up. 

Our ancient ancestors made up the god story because they couldn't figure out how we got here. Much easier to make up a 7 day creation story.


----------



## Syriusly

RetiredGySgt said:


> Once again there is NO fossil record to support the claim man came from an ape like creature. None nada.


But then again there is a consistent fossil record to support the claim that man and apes evolved from a common ancestor.

And absolutely no evidence to support the fairy tale that Man was poofed into existence 6,000 years ago.


----------



## Syriusly

Hossfly said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again there is NO fossil record to support the claim man came from an ape like creature. None nada.
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, you have not the slightest idea of what you are talking about.
> 
> *The evolution of human and ape hand proportions*
> 
> Sergio Almécija
> , Jeroen B. Smaers
> & William L. Jungers
> 
> *Abstract*
> Human hands are distinguished from apes by possessing longer thumbs relative to fingers. However, this simple ape-human dichotomy fails to provide an adequate framework for testing competing hypotheses of human evolution and for reconstructing the morphology of the last common ancestor (LCA) of humans and chimpanzees. We inspect human and ape hand-length proportions using phylogenetically informed morphometric analyses and test alternative models of evolution along the anthropoid tree of life, including fossils like the plesiomorphic ape _Proconsul heseloni_ and the hominins _Ardipithecus ramidus_ and _Australopithecus sediba_. Our results reveal high levels of hand disparity among modern hominoids, which are explained by different evolutionary processes: autapomorphic evolution in hylobatids (extreme digital and thumb elongation), convergent adaptation between chimpanzees and orangutans (digital elongation) and comparatively little change in gorillas and hominins. The human (and australopith) high thumb-to-digits ratio required little change since the LCA, and was acquired convergently with other highly dexterous anthropoids.
> 
> The evolution of human and ape hand proportions : Nature Communications
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That does not prove anything at all and is in no way evidence that man evolved from an ape like creature. Once again NO fossil record exists to support the claim. That is why it is still JUST a theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All these turkeys dispute creationism
Click to expand...


I 'dispute' creationism the way I 'dispute' that the earth is flat.

There is fossil evidence to support the theory of evolution.

Creationist can't even agree on what their theory is- but it certainly isn't supported by any fossil- or genetic- or geologic evidence.


----------



## Syriusly

sealybobo said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again there is NO fossil record to support the claim man came from an ape like creature. None nada.
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, you have not the slightest idea of what you are talking about.
> 
> *The evolution of human and ape hand proportions*
> 
> Sergio Almécija
> , Jeroen B. Smaers
> & William L. Jungers
> 
> *Abstract*
> Human hands are distinguished from apes by possessing longer thumbs relative to fingers. However, this simple ape-human dichotomy fails to provide an adequate framework for testing competing hypotheses of human evolution and for reconstructing the morphology of the last common ancestor (LCA) of humans and chimpanzees. We inspect human and ape hand-length proportions using phylogenetically informed morphometric analyses and test alternative models of evolution along the anthropoid tree of life, including fossils like the plesiomorphic ape _Proconsul heseloni_ and the hominins _Ardipithecus ramidus_ and _Australopithecus sediba_. Our results reveal high levels of hand disparity among modern hominoids, which are explained by different evolutionary processes: autapomorphic evolution in hylobatids (extreme digital and thumb elongation), convergent adaptation between chimpanzees and orangutans (digital elongation) and comparatively little change in gorillas and hominins. The human (and australopith) high thumb-to-digits ratio required little change since the LCA, and was acquired convergently with other highly dexterous anthropoids.
> 
> The evolution of human and ape hand proportions : Nature Communications
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That does not prove anything at all and is in no way evidence that man evolved from an ape like creature. Once again NO fossil record exists to support the claim. That is why it is still JUST a theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All these turkeys dispute creationism and talk about ape thumbs and squirrel nuts but they can't explain where those animals came from to begin with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They found a new bacteria at the bottom of the Dead Sea.
> 
> No we can not tell you for sure where all those animals came from but what we know or think because of all the things we know that a bacteria turned into single cell the multiple then so on till all the diversity we have today.
> 
> What happened to trilobites and dinosaurs? Why did they come and go long before us?
> 
> Anyways, we know so much that evolution is a scientific theory, which is basically a fact.
> 
> Where does life come from? Originally inside stars. How did life start on earth? We don't know. We have theories.
> 
> Our theories beat ancient holy stories
Click to expand...


I don't need to know where a river started to know it flowed from a source upstream. 

I don't need to 'know' where the first life came from to recognize that the theory of evolution is the model that best fits the evidence we have.


----------



## Syriusly

Hossfly said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again there is NO fossil record to support the claim man came from an ape like creature. None nada.
> 
> 
> 
> They look at all living things when they are first conceived and all creatures start off looking almost exactly the same. The they grow to be whatever they are. Watch the Cosmos. Eye opening
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In that case, if you scrape a pecker track off the back seat of an '81 Dodge and put it in a glass of water, it might grow up to be an ape or a Liberal Democrat. Got it. Everything is clear now. Thanks.
Click to expand...


And that is how Creationist think.

And why they believe the world is only 6,000 years old.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Syriusly said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again there is NO fossil record to support the claim man came from an ape like creature. None nada.
> 
> 
> 
> They look at all living things when they are first conceived and all creatures start off looking almost exactly the same. The they grow to be whatever they are. Watch the Cosmos. Eye opening
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In that case, if you scrape a pecker track off the back seat of an '81 Dodge and put it in a glass of water, it might grow up to be an ape or a Liberal Democrat. Got it. Everything is clear now. Thanks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that is how Creationist think.
> 
> And why they believe the world is only 6,000 years old.
Click to expand...

Once again for the slow and stupid VERY few people believe man appeared 6000 years ago. VERY few.


----------



## ChrisL

Holy smokes.  Obviously some people never learned about evolution in school.


----------



## Coloradomtnman

LTCArmyRet said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're primates that developed from a common ancestor 5-7 million years ago that yes was an ape.
> 
> That is a fact....The evidence is very strong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not a fact, it is a theory, big difference.   And if we descended from an ape, why are there still apes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now that is a question worthy of a second grade student, one slightly retarded. And you obviously do not understand the meaning of 'Theory' in science.
> 
> *scientific theory*
> 
> Examples
> noun
> 1.
> a coherent group of *propositions* formulated to explain a group of factsor phenomena in the natural world and repeatedly confirmed throughexperiment or observation:
> the scientific theory of evolution.
> 
> the definition of scientific theory
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> still not a FACT, do you understand that?  or does your second grade education not allow for that?  Many scientific theories have been proven untrue.
Click to expand...


Scientific theories explain facts.  They are essentially tools to understand reality and to make predictions.  Facts are contextualized within theories.

And, no scientific theory has ever been proved to be True.  Not Relativity, not Germ Theory, not Atomic Theory, not Plate Tectonics, not one theory ever.  In science absolute truth is un-knowable.  The closest any theory gets to Truth is being a scientific theory.


----------



## sealybobo

RetiredGySgt said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again there is NO fossil record to support the claim man came from an ape like creature. None nada.
> 
> 
> 
> They look at all living things when they are first conceived and all creatures start off looking almost exactly the same. The they grow to be whatever they are. Watch the Cosmos. Eye opening
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In that case, if you scrape a pecker track off the back seat of an '81 Dodge and put it in a glass of water, it might grow up to be an ape or a Liberal Democrat. Got it. Everything is clear now. Thanks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that is how Creationist think.
> 
> And why they believe the world is only 6,000 years old.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once again for the slow and stupid VERY few people believe man appeared 6000 years ago. VERY few.
Click to expand...

When did we appear then? And what's your theory on how we got here?


----------



## sealybobo

Syriusly said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again there is NO fossil record to support the claim man came from an ape like creature. None nada.
> 
> 
> 
> But then again there is a consistent fossil record to support the claim that man and apes evolved from a common ancestor.
> 
> And absolutely no evidence to support the fairy tale that Man was poofed into existence 6,000 years ago.
Click to expand...

The people here who deny evolution won't even say what they believe out loud because it's embarrassing. They'll argue against evolution but not for creation. At least not in detail because it's really silly, and magical.


----------



## Wyatt earp

SYTFE said:


> We didn't.  We evolved from a common ancestor.




We all know you came from a monkey..
But not me


----------



## dani67

we didnt came from monkey. we and monkey came from .........
monkey are our cousin. they arent our grandfather


----------



## dani67

bear513 said:


> dani67 said:
> 
> 
> 
> we didnt came from monkey. we and monkey came from .........
> monkey are our cousin. they arent our grandfather
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again you came from a monkey but I sure didn't..
Click to expand...

im human now but i think you still are monkey .evolution didnt work for you


----------



## dani67

bear513 said:


> dani67 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dani67 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dani67 said:
> 
> 
> 
> im human now but i think you still are monkey .evolution didnt work for you
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have a link ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> check mirror if you want prove.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just checked, I am to sexy for my shirt
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> really?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes that's why I can get the girls..
Click to expand...


 no because many girls have wierd fetish fantasy


----------



## Ima Cat

Ima Cat said:


> I know there are similarities but I think they are coincidental, like cats and seals both have whiskers.  But cats didn't come from seals or vice a versa.





Ima Cat said:


> I know there are similarities but I think they are coincidental, like cats and seals both have whiskers.  But cats didn't come from seals or vice a versa.



We're not monkeys.  We are superior beings, masters of the Universe!


----------



## dblack

Ima Cat said:


> I know there are similarities but I think they are coincidental, like cats and seals both have whiskers.  But cats didn't come from seals or vice a versa.



If you're getting your information about evolution from a book that rhymes, it's probably not the best resource.


----------



## Skull Pilot

I believe some of us are still monkeys


----------



## Iceweasel

Old Rocks said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> gipper
> 
> Exactly. Even if I were able to believe in an invisible, all knowing, all seeing, petulant, vicious, creature who creates and destroys on a whim, there's just no way that I could believe "he' created the earth, the planets, the stars, plant and animal (including the human animal) life  and then rested on Sunday.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Religious people have an answer for everything.  The earth is 14 trillion years old.  7 days, right?  So they say to god 1 day is 2 trillion years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who posted anything about God or religion?  Not me.
> 
> That's the thing about you lefties, you automatically think anyone who disputes your kooky evolution THEORY, must think everything in the Bible is true.  STFU!
> 
> To think it all magically happened, is to not think.
> 
> At any rate, evolution can co-exist with a superior being.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm still waiting for your alternate theory without using god
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One has to be able to think logically, so I am guessing that is not possible for you.
> 
> You condemn those who believe in God as akin to believing in fairy tales, while you believe the huge and complex universe just happened magically.  Do you fail to see how illogical your position is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What created your deity?
Click to expand...

What created the potential for the universe? Why is it OK to believe the potential could have always been there but god couldn't? Ah, the hypocrisy of the secularist.


----------



## Iceweasel

Coloradomtnman said:


> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're primates that developed from a common ancestor 5-7 million years ago that yes was an ape.
> 
> That is a fact....The evidence is very strong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not a fact, it is a theory, big difference.   And if we descended from an ape, why are there still apes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now that is a question worthy of a second grade student, one slightly retarded. And you obviously do not understand the meaning of 'Theory' in science.
> 
> *scientific theory*
> 
> Examples
> noun
> 1.
> a coherent group of *propositions* formulated to explain a group of factsor phenomena in the natural world and repeatedly confirmed throughexperiment or observation:
> the scientific theory of evolution.
> 
> the definition of scientific theory
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> still not a FACT, do you understand that?  or does your second grade education not allow for that?  Many scientific theories have been proven untrue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Scientific theories explain facts.  They are essentially tools to understand reality and to make predictions.  Facts are contextualized within theories.
> 
> And, no scientific theory has ever been proved to be True.  Not Relativity, not Germ Theory, not Atomic Theory, not Plate Tectonics, not one theory ever.  In science absolute truth is un-knowable.  The closest any theory gets to Truth is being a scientific theory.
Click to expand...

You contradicted yourself. You claimed theories explain facts then admitted they can't. They are a best case at current understanding. There's a reason we use the word theory and many of them have been proven wrong. Germ theory, atom theory? Never heard of those. I believe they are pretty well understood. Plate tectonics is still a theory? So your argument makes no sense.


----------



## ThunderKiss1965

Ima Cat said:


> I know there are similarities but I think they are coincidental, like cats and seals both have whiskers.  But cats didn't come from seals or vice a versa.


I believe we have a common ancestor.


----------



## sealybobo

bear513 said:


> SYTFE said:
> 
> 
> 
> We didn't.  We evolved from a common ancestor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We all know you came from a monkey..
> But not me
Click to expand...


----------



## sealybobo

Iceweasel said:


> Coloradomtnman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're primates that developed from a common ancestor 5-7 million years ago that yes was an ape.
> 
> That is a fact....The evidence is very strong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not a fact, it is a theory, big difference.   And if we descended from an ape, why are there still apes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now that is a question worthy of a second grade student, one slightly retarded. And you obviously do not understand the meaning of 'Theory' in science.
> 
> *scientific theory*
> 
> Examples
> noun
> 1.
> a coherent group of *propositions* formulated to explain a group of factsor phenomena in the natural world and repeatedly confirmed throughexperiment or observation:
> the scientific theory of evolution.
> 
> the definition of scientific theory
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> still not a FACT, do you understand that?  or does your second grade education not allow for that?  Many scientific theories have been proven untrue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Scientific theories explain facts.  They are essentially tools to understand reality and to make predictions.  Facts are contextualized within theories.
> 
> And, no scientific theory has ever been proved to be True.  Not Relativity, not Germ Theory, not Atomic Theory, not Plate Tectonics, not one theory ever.  In science absolute truth is un-knowable.  The closest any theory gets to Truth is being a scientific theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You contradicted yourself. You claimed theories explain facts then admitted they can't. They are a best case at current understanding. There's a reason we use the word theory and many of them have been proven wrong. Germ theory, atom theory? Never heard of those. I believe they are pretty well understood. Plate tectonics is still a theory? So your argument makes no sense.
Click to expand...

Scientific understanding requires both *facts* and theories that can explain those *facts* in a coherent manner. *Evolution*, in this context, is both a *fact* and a theory. It is an incontrovertible *fact* that organisms have changed, or evolved, during the history of life on Earth.


----------



## sealybobo

SYTFE said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SYTFE said:
> 
> 
> 
> We didn't.  We evolved from a common ancestor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We all know you came from a monkey..
> But not me
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What a surprise, bear513 is a creationist.
> 
> Anyone ever notice that the people who don't believe in evolution look the _most_ like apes?  It's God's way of amusing us.
Click to expand...

Ever notice the people who don't believe in evolution tend to also not believe global warming is real?

Can ExxonMobil Be Found Liable for Misleading Public on Climate Change?

Exxon knew uniquely that climate change had catastrophic consequences for the planet and used this knowledge both to improve its processes and to plan its - for instance, floating platforms and stuff like that, but that it also fought climate change regulation and fought action in Washington by funding activist groups, by funding groups that would spread doubt about whether climate change is real or not to emphasize the controversy.


----------



## sealybobo

SYTFE said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SYTFE said:
> 
> 
> 
> We didn't.  We evolved from a common ancestor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We all know you came from a monkey..
> But not me
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What a surprise, bear513 is a creationist.
> 
> Anyone ever notice that the people who don't believe in evolution look the _most_ like apes?  It's God's way of amusing us.
Click to expand...


This is sad

Roughly six-in-ten U.S. adults (62%) say humans have evolved over time, 

While 98% of scientists connected to the American Association for the Advancement of Science say they believe humans evolved over time,* only two-thirds (66%) of Americans overall **perceive that scientists generally agree**about evolution*
*
A series of court decisions have prohibited the teaching of creationism or intelligent design in public schools. In spite of efforts in many American states and localities to ban the teaching of evolution in public schools or to teach alternatives to evolution, courts in recent decades have consistently rejected public school curricula that veer away from evolutionary theory. In Edwards v. Aguillard (1987), for instance, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a Louisiana law requiring public school students to learn both evolution and “creation science” violated the Constitution’s prohibition on the establishment of religion.

That's because creation science is nutty science from one particular religion.

Of all the major religious groups in the U.S., evangelical Protestants are among the most likely to reject evolution. 

More broadly, most Americans (59%) say that science and religion are often in conflict, but those who are more religiously observant are less likely than others to see this clash between faith and science

Compared with the U.S., even larger percentages of people in many other countries reject evolution. For example, in Latin America, roughly four-in-ten or more residents of several countries – including Ecuador, Nicaragua and the Dominican Republic – say humans and other living things have always existed in their present form. This is true even though the official teachings of Catholicism, which is the majority religion in the region, do not reject evolution. Meanwhile, Muslims in many nations are divided on the topic, although majorities of Muslims in countries such as Afghanistan, Indonesia and Iraq reject evolution.*


----------



## RetiredGySgt

sealybobo said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coloradomtnman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not a fact, it is a theory, big difference.   And if we descended from an ape, why are there still apes?
> 
> 
> 
> Now that is a question worthy of a second grade student, one slightly retarded. And you obviously do not understand the meaning of 'Theory' in science.
> 
> *scientific theory*
> 
> Examples
> noun
> 1.
> a coherent group of *propositions* formulated to explain a group of factsor phenomena in the natural world and repeatedly confirmed throughexperiment or observation:
> the scientific theory of evolution.
> 
> the definition of scientific theory
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> still not a FACT, do you understand that?  or does your second grade education not allow for that?  Many scientific theories have been proven untrue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Scientific theories explain facts.  They are essentially tools to understand reality and to make predictions.  Facts are contextualized within theories.
> 
> And, no scientific theory has ever been proved to be True.  Not Relativity, not Germ Theory, not Atomic Theory, not Plate Tectonics, not one theory ever.  In science absolute truth is un-knowable.  The closest any theory gets to Truth is being a scientific theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You contradicted yourself. You claimed theories explain facts then admitted they can't. They are a best case at current understanding. There's a reason we use the word theory and many of them have been proven wrong. Germ theory, atom theory? Never heard of those. I believe they are pretty well understood. Plate tectonics is still a theory? So your argument makes no sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Scientific understanding requires both *facts* and theories that can explain those *facts* in a coherent manner. *Evolution*, in this context, is both a *fact* and a theory. It is an incontrovertible *fact* that organisms have changed, or evolved, during the history of life on Earth.
Click to expand...

and yet no actual evidence one species has ever evolved into 2 or more different species.


----------



## Marion Morrison

ChesBayJJ said:


> Desperado said:
> 
> 
> 
> No chance.  Evolution may account for the differences within a species, but it does not account for new species.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure it does. Eventually, species will evolve and become so different they no longer interbreed and they are then considered different species.
> 
> How Do New Species Evolve?
Click to expand...


So you have an example of that?


----------



## Syriusly

RetiredGySgt said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coloradomtnman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now that is a question worthy of a second grade student, one slightly retarded. And you obviously do not understand the meaning of 'Theory' in science.
> 
> *scientific theory*
> 
> Examples
> noun
> 1.
> a coherent group of *propositions* formulated to explain a group of factsor phenomena in the natural world and repeatedly confirmed throughexperiment or observation:
> the scientific theory of evolution.
> 
> the definition of scientific theory
> 
> 
> 
> 
> still not a FACT, do you understand that?  or does your second grade education not allow for that?  Many scientific theories have been proven untrue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Scientific theories explain facts.  They are essentially tools to understand reality and to make predictions.  Facts are contextualized within theories.
> 
> And, no scientific theory has ever been proved to be True.  Not Relativity, not Germ Theory, not Atomic Theory, not Plate Tectonics, not one theory ever.  In science absolute truth is un-knowable.  The closest any theory gets to Truth is being a scientific theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You contradicted yourself. You claimed theories explain facts then admitted they can't. They are a best case at current understanding. There's a reason we use the word theory and many of them have been proven wrong. Germ theory, atom theory? Never heard of those. I believe they are pretty well understood. Plate tectonics is still a theory? So your argument makes no sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Scientific understanding requires both *facts* and theories that can explain those *facts* in a coherent manner. *Evolution*, in this context, is both a *fact* and a theory. It is an incontrovertible *fact* that organisms have changed, or evolved, during the history of life on Earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and yet no actual evidence one species has ever evolved into 2 or more different species.
Click to expand...


And that is the hat that fairytalists keep dragging out. I find it amusing that you fairytalists have no actual evidence to support any of your fairy tales- yet you believe in them entirely.

And then turn around and reject the only theory that fits the evidence we actually have. 

Arguing with fairytalists about evolution is like trying to convince them that their faith in fairy tales is wrong- you just have faith that evolution cannot exist, so you reject all evidence to the contrary.

The evidence is out there for those who can accept it.

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 2


----------



## LTCArmyRet

sealybobo said:


> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> But then, if we came from monkeys, why aren't monkeys still turning into people?
> 
> 
> 
> They are. Not only are gorillas evolving fast so are dogs living along side us. Some dogs can understand 200 commands.
Click to expand...


So is learning those commands making them grow a thumb?


----------



## sealybobo

RetiredGySgt said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coloradomtnman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now that is a question worthy of a second grade student, one slightly retarded. And you obviously do not understand the meaning of 'Theory' in science.
> 
> *scientific theory*
> 
> Examples
> noun
> 1.
> a coherent group of *propositions* formulated to explain a group of factsor phenomena in the natural world and repeatedly confirmed throughexperiment or observation:
> the scientific theory of evolution.
> 
> the definition of scientific theory
> 
> 
> 
> 
> still not a FACT, do you understand that?  or does your second grade education not allow for that?  Many scientific theories have been proven untrue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Scientific theories explain facts.  They are essentially tools to understand reality and to make predictions.  Facts are contextualized within theories.
> 
> And, no scientific theory has ever been proved to be True.  Not Relativity, not Germ Theory, not Atomic Theory, not Plate Tectonics, not one theory ever.  In science absolute truth is un-knowable.  The closest any theory gets to Truth is being a scientific theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You contradicted yourself. You claimed theories explain facts then admitted they can't. They are a best case at current understanding. There's a reason we use the word theory and many of them have been proven wrong. Germ theory, atom theory? Never heard of those. I believe they are pretty well understood. Plate tectonics is still a theory? So your argument makes no sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Scientific understanding requires both *facts* and theories that can explain those *facts* in a coherent manner. *Evolution*, in this context, is both a *fact* and a theory. It is an incontrovertible *fact* that organisms have changed, or evolved, during the history of life on Earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and yet no actual evidence one species has ever evolved into 2 or more different species.
Click to expand...

Duck billed platipus


----------



## sealybobo

LTCArmyRet said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> But then, if we came from monkeys, why aren't monkeys still turning into people?
> 
> 
> 
> They are. Not only are gorillas evolving fast so are dogs living along side us. Some dogs can understand 200 commands.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So is learning those commands making them grow a thumb?
Click to expand...

Maybe if we see a breed of dog that has a mutation that is favorable we can breed thumbs into dogs.

We would never know if left up to folks like you.

How come none of you are proud to tell us your theory? Bunch of judas


----------



## RetiredGySgt

sealybobo said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coloradomtnman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> 
> still not a FACT, do you understand that?  or does your second grade education not allow for that?  Many scientific theories have been proven untrue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scientific theories explain facts.  They are essentially tools to understand reality and to make predictions.  Facts are contextualized within theories.
> 
> And, no scientific theory has ever been proved to be True.  Not Relativity, not Germ Theory, not Atomic Theory, not Plate Tectonics, not one theory ever.  In science absolute truth is un-knowable.  The closest any theory gets to Truth is being a scientific theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You contradicted yourself. You claimed theories explain facts then admitted they can't. They are a best case at current understanding. There's a reason we use the word theory and many of them have been proven wrong. Germ theory, atom theory? Never heard of those. I believe they are pretty well understood. Plate tectonics is still a theory? So your argument makes no sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Scientific understanding requires both *facts* and theories that can explain those *facts* in a coherent manner. *Evolution*, in this context, is both a *fact* and a theory. It is an incontrovertible *fact* that organisms have changed, or evolved, during the history of life on Earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and yet no actual evidence one species has ever evolved into 2 or more different species.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Duck billed platipus
Click to expand...

That is one species dumb ass.


----------



## ScienceRocks

Another good one from lennon describing how much better the world would be without religion.


----------



## Iceweasel

sealybobo said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coloradomtnman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not a fact, it is a theory, big difference.   And if we descended from an ape, why are there still apes?
> 
> 
> 
> Now that is a question worthy of a second grade student, one slightly retarded. And you obviously do not understand the meaning of 'Theory' in science.
> 
> *scientific theory*
> 
> Examples
> noun
> 1.
> a coherent group of *propositions* formulated to explain a group of factsor phenomena in the natural world and repeatedly confirmed throughexperiment or observation:
> the scientific theory of evolution.
> 
> the definition of scientific theory
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> still not a FACT, do you understand that?  or does your second grade education not allow for that?  Many scientific theories have been proven untrue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Scientific theories explain facts.  They are essentially tools to understand reality and to make predictions.  Facts are contextualized within theories.
> 
> And, no scientific theory has ever been proved to be True.  Not Relativity, not Germ Theory, not Atomic Theory, not Plate Tectonics, not one theory ever.  In science absolute truth is un-knowable.  The closest any theory gets to Truth is being a scientific theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You contradicted yourself. You claimed theories explain facts then admitted they can't. They are a best case at current understanding. There's a reason we use the word theory and many of them have been proven wrong. Germ theory, atom theory? Never heard of those. I believe they are pretty well understood. Plate tectonics is still a theory? So your argument makes no sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Scientific understanding requires both *facts* and theories that can explain those *facts* in a coherent manner. *Evolution*, in this context, is both a *fact* and a theory. It is an incontrovertible *fact* that organisms have changed, or evolved, during the history of life on Earth.
Click to expand...

So? I didn't argue the point, you're too stoned to follow the conversation.


----------



## sealybobo

Desperado said:


> No chance.  Evolution may account for the differences within a species, but it does not account for new species.


Maybe back when life started the atmosphere caused


RetiredGySgt said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coloradomtnman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Scientific theories explain facts.  They are essentially tools to understand reality and to make predictions.  Facts are contextualized within theories.
> 
> And, no scientific theory has ever been proved to be True.  Not Relativity, not Germ Theory, not Atomic Theory, not Plate Tectonics, not one theory ever.  In science absolute truth is un-knowable.  The closest any theory gets to Truth is being a scientific theory.
> 
> 
> 
> You contradicted yourself. You claimed theories explain facts then admitted they can't. They are a best case at current understanding. There's a reason we use the word theory and many of them have been proven wrong. Germ theory, atom theory? Never heard of those. I believe they are pretty well understood. Plate tectonics is still a theory? So your argument makes no sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Scientific understanding requires both *facts* and theories that can explain those *facts* in a coherent manner. *Evolution*, in this context, is both a *fact* and a theory. It is an incontrovertible *fact* that organisms have changed, or evolved, during the history of life on Earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and yet no actual evidence one species has ever evolved into 2 or more different species.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Duck billed platipus
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is one species dumb ass.
Click to expand...

Maybe the diversity happened already and what we have now is it. Birds, amphibians, mammals, reptiles and fish. Do you require a 6th?


----------



## sealybobo

Iceweasel said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coloradomtnman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now that is a question worthy of a second grade student, one slightly retarded. And you obviously do not understand the meaning of 'Theory' in science.
> 
> *scientific theory*
> 
> Examples
> noun
> 1.
> a coherent group of *propositions* formulated to explain a group of factsor phenomena in the natural world and repeatedly confirmed throughexperiment or observation:
> the scientific theory of evolution.
> 
> the definition of scientific theory
> 
> 
> 
> 
> still not a FACT, do you understand that?  or does your second grade education not allow for that?  Many scientific theories have been proven untrue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Scientific theories explain facts.  They are essentially tools to understand reality and to make predictions.  Facts are contextualized within theories.
> 
> And, no scientific theory has ever been proved to be True.  Not Relativity, not Germ Theory, not Atomic Theory, not Plate Tectonics, not one theory ever.  In science absolute truth is un-knowable.  The closest any theory gets to Truth is being a scientific theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You contradicted yourself. You claimed theories explain facts then admitted they can't. They are a best case at current understanding. There's a reason we use the word theory and many of them have been proven wrong. Germ theory, atom theory? Never heard of those. I believe they are pretty well understood. Plate tectonics is still a theory? So your argument makes no sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Scientific understanding requires both *facts* and theories that can explain those *facts* in a coherent manner. *Evolution*, in this context, is both a *fact* and a theory. It is an incontrovertible *fact* that organisms have changed, or evolved, during the history of life on Earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So? I didn't argue the point, you're too stoned to follow the conversation.
Click to expand...

Do you think anyone knows what you're trying to say? What are you trying to say?


----------



## Iceweasel

sealybobo said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coloradomtnman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> 
> still not a FACT, do you understand that?  or does your second grade education not allow for that?  Many scientific theories have been proven untrue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scientific theories explain facts.  They are essentially tools to understand reality and to make predictions.  Facts are contextualized within theories.
> 
> And, no scientific theory has ever been proved to be True.  Not Relativity, not Germ Theory, not Atomic Theory, not Plate Tectonics, not one theory ever.  In science absolute truth is un-knowable.  The closest any theory gets to Truth is being a scientific theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You contradicted yourself. You claimed theories explain facts then admitted they can't. They are a best case at current understanding. There's a reason we use the word theory and many of them have been proven wrong. Germ theory, atom theory? Never heard of those. I believe they are pretty well understood. Plate tectonics is still a theory? So your argument makes no sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Scientific understanding requires both *facts* and theories that can explain those *facts* in a coherent manner. *Evolution*, in this context, is both a *fact* and a theory. It is an incontrovertible *fact* that organisms have changed, or evolved, during the history of life on Earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So? I didn't argue the point, you're too stoned to follow the conversation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you think anyone knows what you're trying to say? What are you trying to say?
Click to expand...

Anyone that hasn't turned their brains into oatmeal, like you.


----------



## sealybobo

Iceweasel said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coloradomtnman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Scientific theories explain facts.  They are essentially tools to understand reality and to make predictions.  Facts are contextualized within theories.
> 
> And, no scientific theory has ever been proved to be True.  Not Relativity, not Germ Theory, not Atomic Theory, not Plate Tectonics, not one theory ever.  In science absolute truth is un-knowable.  The closest any theory gets to Truth is being a scientific theory.
> 
> 
> 
> You contradicted yourself. You claimed theories explain facts then admitted they can't. They are a best case at current understanding. There's a reason we use the word theory and many of them have been proven wrong. Germ theory, atom theory? Never heard of those. I believe they are pretty well understood. Plate tectonics is still a theory? So your argument makes no sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Scientific understanding requires both *facts* and theories that can explain those *facts* in a coherent manner. *Evolution*, in this context, is both a *fact* and a theory. It is an incontrovertible *fact* that organisms have changed, or evolved, during the history of life on Earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So? I didn't argue the point, you're too stoned to follow the conversation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you think anyone knows what you're trying to say? What are you trying to say?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anyone that hasn't turned their brains into oatmeal, like you.
Click to expand...

You argue against evolution but can't or won't put forth your alternate theory. I'm high but can at least proudly explain my position you judas


----------



## Iceweasel

sealybobo said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> You contradicted yourself. You claimed theories explain facts then admitted they can't. They are a best case at current understanding. There's a reason we use the word theory and many of them have been proven wrong. Germ theory, atom theory? Never heard of those. I believe they are pretty well understood. Plate tectonics is still a theory? So your argument makes no sense.
> 
> 
> 
> Scientific understanding requires both *facts* and theories that can explain those *facts* in a coherent manner. *Evolution*, in this context, is both a *fact* and a theory. It is an incontrovertible *fact* that organisms have changed, or evolved, during the history of life on Earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So? I didn't argue the point, you're too stoned to follow the conversation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you think anyone knows what you're trying to say? What are you trying to say?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anyone that hasn't turned their brains into oatmeal, like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You argue against evolution but can't or won't put forth your alternate theory. I'm high but can at least proudly explain my position you judas
Click to expand...

I said I believed in evolution and I also said you're a moron that can't follow a conversation.


----------



## abu afak

Iceweasel said:


> .You contradicted yourself. You claimed theories explain facts then admitted they can't. They are a best case at current understanding. *There's a reason we use the word theory and many of them have been proven wrong. Germ theory, atom theory? Never heard of those.* I believe they are pretty well understood. Plate tectonics is still a theory? So your argument makes no sense.


Atomic and Germ Theories are stil perfectly intact.
As are Gravity and Evolution.
For the 100th Time on the Abuse of the word by ignorant creationist clowns.

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
John Rennie, Editor in Chief
Scientific American - June 2002
15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense

*1. 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.​[......]


----------



## Iceweasel

abu afak said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> .You contradicted yourself. You claimed theories explain facts then admitted they can't. They are a best case at current understanding. *There's a reason we use the word theory and many of them have been proven wrong. Germ theory, atom theory? Never heard of those.* I believe they are pretty well understood. Plate tectonics is still a theory? So your argument makes no sense.
> 
> 
> 
> Atomic and Germ Theories are stil perfectly intact.
> As are Gravity and Evolution.
> For the 100th Time on the Abuse of the word by ignorant creationist clowns.
> 
> 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
> John Rennie, Editor in Chief
> Scientific American - June 2002
> 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
> 
> *1. 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.​[......]
Click to expand...

You call other people ignorant when you respond to arguments that weren't made? You are what you hate, a religious zealot. I'm not religious and said I believe in evolution. I depart from the atheist since I can't muster their level of faith that the universe farted itself into existence.


----------



## abu afak

Iceweasel said:


> You call other people ignorant when you respond to arguments that weren't made? You are what you hate, a religious zealot. I'm not religious and said I believe in evolution. I depart from the atheist since I can't muster their level of faith that the universe farted itself into existence.


I called you Ignorant because despite Page after page/many enumerations, you continue to abuse/mangle the word 'theory', and I again explained why.
You remain an idiot.

*iceweasel: "There's a reason we use the word theory and many of them have been proven wrong."*​*
This is FALSE. Science [continues] to use the word 'Theory' despite a premise being shown as FACT, because in science, there aren't "Proofs".
Proofs are for math.
It, AGAIN, does Not have to do with 'doubt', tho new theories may be much less sure.

Evolution, like Gravity, is way over the top FACT as well as theory.
The words are NOT mutually exclusive.
See Sciam def above/WTF!

Got it yet?
`*


----------



## Iceweasel

abu afak said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> You call other people ignorant when you respond to arguments that weren't made? You are what you hate, a religious zealot. I'm not religious and said I believe in evolution. I depart from the atheist since I can't muster their level of faith that the universe farted itself into existence.
> 
> 
> 
> I called you Ignorant because despite Page after page/many enumerations, you continue to abuse/mangle the word 'theory', and I again explained why.
> You remain an idiot.
Click to expand...

Liar. I use the term as intended and your little intolerant hate filled juvenile ass couldn't understand what I was talking about when I said theories have been dissproven in time. Theories are not facts, different words with different meanings. Then you tried to apply your textbook anti-Christian bile against me to fluff up your hollow ego.


----------



## abu afak

Iceweasel said:


> Liar. I use the term as intended and your little intolerant hate filled juvenile ass couldn't understand what I was talking about when I said theories have been dissproven in time. Theories are not facts, different words with different meanings. Then you tried to apply your textbook anti-Christian bile against me to fluff up your hollow ego.


No YOU are the LIAR. Now em-bare-assed as well.
YOU Said:
*iceweasel: "There's a reason we use the word theory and many of them have been proven wrong."*

Which is FALSE. It ["ONLY a theory"] because of Doubt, is precisely what I/Sciam debunked.
"The reason Evo called a theory" (like Gravity) is NOT because of doubt, it's because despite Evo being a FACT as well, science doesn't have proofs.

You Lose 12 IQ god-guy.
`


----------



## Iceweasel

abu afak said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liar. I use the term as intended and your little intolerant hate filled juvenile ass couldn't understand what I was talking about when I said theories have been dissproven in time. Theories are not facts, different words with different meanings. Then you tried to apply your textbook anti-Christian bile against me to fluff up your hollow ego.
> 
> 
> 
> No YOU are the LIAR. Now em-bare-assed as well.
> YOU Said:
> *iceweasel: "There's a reason we use the word theory and many of them have been proven wrong."*
> 
> Which is FALSE. It ["ONLY a theory"] because of Doubt, is precisely what I/Sciam debunked.
> "The reason Evo called a theory" (like Gravity) is NOT because of doubt, it's because despite Evo being a FACT as well, science doesn't have proofs.
> 
> You Lose 12 IQ god-guy.
> `
Click to expand...

You just restated what I said and called me a loser. Prancing around in victory makes you all the more special.


----------



## abu afak

*


Iceweasel said:



			Liar. I use the term as intended and your little intolerant hate filled juvenile ass couldn't understand what I was talking about when I said theories have been dissproven in time. Theories are not facts, different words with different meanings. Then you tried to apply your textbook anti-Christian bile against me to fluff up your hollow ego.
		
Click to expand...



Evolution as Fact and Theory*
by Stephen Jay Gould
*StephenJayGould.org*
Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory" 1994
[.....]
*Well, evolution is a Theory. It is Also a Fact.* And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered.

Moreover, "fact" does not mean "absolute certainty." The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

Evolutionists have been clear about this distinction between fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: *establishing the fact of evolution*, and proposing a theory to explain the mechanism of evolution. He wrote in The Descent of Man: "I had two distinct objects in view; firstly, to show that species had not been separately created, and secondly, that natural selection had been the chief agent of change. . . . Hence if I have erred in . . . having exaggerated its [natural selection's] power . . . I have at least, as I hope, done good service in aiding to overthrow the dogma of separate creations."
[.......]
*Yet amidst all this turmoil No biologist has been lead to doubt the Fact that evolution occurred; we are debating How it happened. *We are all trying to explain the same thing: the tree of evolutionary descent linking all organisms by ties of genealogy.
*Creationists pervert and caricature this debate by conveniently neglecting the common conviction that underlies it, and by Falsely suggesting that evolutionists now doubt the very phenomenon we are struggling to understand.*
[......]
The entire creationist program includes little more than a rhetorical attempt to falsify evolution by presenting Supposed Contradictions among its supporters.
[......]​


----------



## Iceweasel

abu afak said:


> *
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liar. I use the term as intended and your little intolerant hate filled juvenile ass couldn't understand what I was talking about when I said theories have been dissproven in time. Theories are not facts, different words with different meanings. Then you tried to apply your textbook anti-Christian bile against me to fluff up your hollow ego.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution as Fact and Theory*
> by Stephen Jay Gould
> *StephenJayGould.org*
> Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory" 1994
> [.....]
> *Well, evolution is a Theory. It is Also a Fact.* And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered.
> 
> Moreover, "fact" does not mean "absolute certainty." The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.
> 
> Evolutionists have been clear about this distinction between fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: *establishing the fact of evolution*, and proposing a theory to explain the mechanism of evolution. He wrote in The Descent of Man: "I had two distinct objects in view; firstly, to show that species had not been separately created, and secondly, that natural selection had been the chief agent of change. . . . Hence if I have erred in . . . having exaggerated its [natural selection's] power . . . I have at least, as I hope, done good service in aiding to overthrow the dogma of separate creations."
> [.......]
> *Yet amidst all this turmoil No biologist has been lead to doubt the Fact that evolution occurred; we are debating How it happened. *We are all trying to explain the same thing: the tree of evolutionary descent linking all organisms by ties of genealogy.
> *Creationists pervert and caricature this debate by conveniently neglecting the common conviction that underlies it, and by Falsely suggesting that evolutionists now doubt the very phenomenon we are struggling to understand.*
> [......]
> The entire creationist program includes little more than a rhetorical attempt to falsify evolution by presenting Supposed Contradictions among its supporters.
> [......]​


Yep, that's what I said, junior. I said theories are the best explanation at the time. And sometimes proven incorrect. So they are not facts. You're  a religious zealot. LOL.


----------



## Michelle420

No, don't believe we are monkeys.


----------



## sealybobo

Iceweasel said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> .You contradicted yourself. You claimed theories explain facts then admitted they can't. They are a best case at current understanding. *There's a reason we use the word theory and many of them have been proven wrong. Germ theory, atom theory? Never heard of those.* I believe they are pretty well understood. Plate tectonics is still a theory? So your argument makes no sense.
> 
> 
> 
> Atomic and Germ Theories are stil perfectly intact.
> As are Gravity and Evolution.
> For the 100th Time on the Abuse of the word by ignorant creationist clowns.
> 
> 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
> John Rennie, Editor in Chief
> Scientific American - June 2002
> 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
> 
> *1. 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.​[......]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You call other people ignorant when you respond to arguments that weren't made? You are what you hate, a religious zealot. I'm not religious and said I believe in evolution. I depart from the atheist since I can't muster their level of faith that the universe farted itself into existence.
Click to expand...


What's your theory?  And why are you arguing with us?  Sure sound like a religious zealot to me.  Anti science.  Let me guess, you're a Republican.  That would explain it.  Science doesn't just disprove your religion of Christianity it also exposes the lies from your first religion which is capitalism.  You worship corporations and CEO's not priests.  The stock market is heaven and Trump is your god.  You're a Ayn Rand type.  I get it.


----------



## sealybobo

Iceweasel said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liar. I use the term as intended and your little intolerant hate filled juvenile ass couldn't understand what I was talking about when I said theories have been dissproven in time. Theories are not facts, different words with different meanings. Then you tried to apply your textbook anti-Christian bile against me to fluff up your hollow ego.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution as Fact and Theory*
> by Stephen Jay Gould
> *StephenJayGould.org*
> Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory" 1994
> [.....]
> *Well, evolution is a Theory. It is Also a Fact.* And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered.
> 
> Moreover, "fact" does not mean "absolute certainty." The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.
> 
> Evolutionists have been clear about this distinction between fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: *establishing the fact of evolution*, and proposing a theory to explain the mechanism of evolution. He wrote in The Descent of Man: "I had two distinct objects in view; firstly, to show that species had not been separately created, and secondly, that natural selection had been the chief agent of change. . . . Hence if I have erred in . . . having exaggerated its [natural selection's] power . . . I have at least, as I hope, done good service in aiding to overthrow the dogma of separate creations."
> [.......]
> *Yet amidst all this turmoil No biologist has been lead to doubt the Fact that evolution occurred; we are debating How it happened. *We are all trying to explain the same thing: the tree of evolutionary descent linking all organisms by ties of genealogy.
> *Creationists pervert and caricature this debate by conveniently neglecting the common conviction that underlies it, and by Falsely suggesting that evolutionists now doubt the very phenomenon we are struggling to understand.*
> [......]
> The entire creationist program includes little more than a rhetorical attempt to falsify evolution by presenting Supposed Contradictions among its supporters.
> [......]​
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, that's what I said, junior. I said theories are the best explanation at the time. And sometimes proven incorrect. So they are not facts. You're  a religious zealot. LOL.
Click to expand...

Abu don't mind Ice he's a conservative zealot.


----------



## Iceweasel

sealybobo said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> .You contradicted yourself. You claimed theories explain facts then admitted they can't. They are a best case at current understanding. *There's a reason we use the word theory and many of them have been proven wrong. Germ theory, atom theory? Never heard of those.* I believe they are pretty well understood. Plate tectonics is still a theory? So your argument makes no sense.
> 
> 
> 
> Atomic and Germ Theories are stil perfectly intact.
> As are Gravity and Evolution.
> For the 100th Time on the Abuse of the word by ignorant creationist clowns.
> 
> 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
> John Rennie, Editor in Chief
> Scientific American - June 2002
> 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
> 
> *1. 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.​[......]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You call other people ignorant when you respond to arguments that weren't made? You are what you hate, a religious zealot. I'm not religious and said I believe in evolution. I depart from the atheist since I can't muster their level of faith that the universe farted itself into existence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's your theory?  And why are you arguing with us?  Sure sound like a religious zealot to me.  Anti science.  Let me guess, you're a Republican.  That would explain it.  Science doesn't just disprove your religion of Christianity it also exposes the lies from your first religion which is capitalism.  You worship corporations and CEO's not priests.  The stock market is heaven and Trump is your god.  You're a Ayn Rand type.  I get it.
Click to expand...

I explained myself pretty well. Your damaged brain isn't my problem, Bongboy.


----------



## sealybobo

Iceweasel said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liar. I use the term as intended and your little intolerant hate filled juvenile ass couldn't understand what I was talking about when I said theories have been dissproven in time. Theories are not facts, different words with different meanings. Then you tried to apply your textbook anti-Christian bile against me to fluff up your hollow ego.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution as Fact and Theory*
> by Stephen Jay Gould
> *StephenJayGould.org*
> Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory" 1994
> [.....]
> *Well, evolution is a Theory. It is Also a Fact.* And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered.
> 
> Moreover, "fact" does not mean "absolute certainty." The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.
> 
> Evolutionists have been clear about this distinction between fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: *establishing the fact of evolution*, and proposing a theory to explain the mechanism of evolution. He wrote in The Descent of Man: "I had two distinct objects in view; firstly, to show that species had not been separately created, and secondly, that natural selection had been the chief agent of change. . . . Hence if I have erred in . . . having exaggerated its [natural selection's] power . . . I have at least, as I hope, done good service in aiding to overthrow the dogma of separate creations."
> [.......]
> *Yet amidst all this turmoil No biologist has been lead to doubt the Fact that evolution occurred; we are debating How it happened. *We are all trying to explain the same thing: the tree of evolutionary descent linking all organisms by ties of genealogy.
> *Creationists pervert and caricature this debate by conveniently neglecting the common conviction that underlies it, and by Falsely suggesting that evolutionists now doubt the very phenomenon we are struggling to understand.*
> [......]
> The entire creationist program includes little more than a rhetorical attempt to falsify evolution by presenting Supposed Contradictions among its supporters.
> [......]​
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, that's what I said, junior. I said theories are the best explanation at the time. And sometimes proven incorrect. So they are not facts. You're  a religious zealot. LOL.
Click to expand...


Will you let us know when the theory of evolution is proven incorrect?  Just because some theories have been proven incorrect that doesn't mean all theories will eventually be proven incorrect.  Evolution is one of those theories. 

And please tell us your theory.  I want to laugh at you.


----------



## sealybobo

Iceweasel said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> .You contradicted yourself. You claimed theories explain facts then admitted they can't. They are a best case at current understanding. *There's a reason we use the word theory and many of them have been proven wrong. Germ theory, atom theory? Never heard of those.* I believe they are pretty well understood. Plate tectonics is still a theory? So your argument makes no sense.
> 
> 
> 
> Atomic and Germ Theories are stil perfectly intact.
> As are Gravity and Evolution.
> For the 100th Time on the Abuse of the word by ignorant creationist clowns.
> 
> 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
> John Rennie, Editor in Chief
> Scientific American - June 2002
> 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
> 
> *1. 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.​[......]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You call other people ignorant when you respond to arguments that weren't made? You are what you hate, a religious zealot. I'm not religious and said I believe in evolution. I depart from the atheist since I can't muster their level of faith that the universe farted itself into existence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's your theory?  And why are you arguing with us?  Sure sound like a religious zealot to me.  Anti science.  Let me guess, you're a Republican.  That would explain it.  Science doesn't just disprove your religion of Christianity it also exposes the lies from your first religion which is capitalism.  You worship corporations and CEO's not priests.  The stock market is heaven and Trump is your god.  You're a Ayn Rand type.  I get it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I explained myself pretty well. Your damaged brain isn't my problem, Bongboy.
Click to expand...

You did?  Where?  What is your theory that is better than evolution.  I'm dying to hear it.  Judas.


----------



## Iceweasel

sealybobo said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liar. I use the term as intended and your little intolerant hate filled juvenile ass couldn't understand what I was talking about when I said theories have been dissproven in time. Theories are not facts, different words with different meanings. Then you tried to apply your textbook anti-Christian bile against me to fluff up your hollow ego.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution as Fact and Theory*
> by Stephen Jay Gould
> *StephenJayGould.org*
> Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory" 1994
> [.....]
> *Well, evolution is a Theory. It is Also a Fact.* And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered.
> 
> Moreover, "fact" does not mean "absolute certainty." The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.
> 
> Evolutionists have been clear about this distinction between fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: *establishing the fact of evolution*, and proposing a theory to explain the mechanism of evolution. He wrote in The Descent of Man: "I had two distinct objects in view; firstly, to show that species had not been separately created, and secondly, that natural selection had been the chief agent of change. . . . Hence if I have erred in . . . having exaggerated its [natural selection's] power . . . I have at least, as I hope, done good service in aiding to overthrow the dogma of separate creations."
> [.......]
> *Yet amidst all this turmoil No biologist has been lead to doubt the Fact that evolution occurred; we are debating How it happened. *We are all trying to explain the same thing: the tree of evolutionary descent linking all organisms by ties of genealogy.
> *Creationists pervert and caricature this debate by conveniently neglecting the common conviction that underlies it, and by Falsely suggesting that evolutionists now doubt the very phenomenon we are struggling to understand.*
> [......]
> The entire creationist program includes little more than a rhetorical attempt to falsify evolution by presenting Supposed Contradictions among its supporters.
> [......]​
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, that's what I said, junior. I said theories are the best explanation at the time. And sometimes proven incorrect. So they are not facts. You're  a religious zealot. LOL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Will you let us know when the theory of evolution is proven incorrect?  Just because some theories have been proven incorrect that doesn't mean all theories will eventually be proven incorrect.  Evolution is one of those theories.
> 
> And please tell us your theory.  I want to laugh at you.
Click to expand...

I said your brain is gone, continuing to prove it is pointless. But of course you couldn't know. You cannot follow simple conversations, maybe never could.


----------



## sealybobo

Iceweasel said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liar. I use the term as intended and your little intolerant hate filled juvenile ass couldn't understand what I was talking about when I said theories have been dissproven in time. Theories are not facts, different words with different meanings. Then you tried to apply your textbook anti-Christian bile against me to fluff up your hollow ego.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution as Fact and Theory*
> by Stephen Jay Gould
> *StephenJayGould.org*
> Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory" 1994
> [.....]
> *Well, evolution is a Theory. It is Also a Fact.* And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered.
> 
> Moreover, "fact" does not mean "absolute certainty." The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.
> 
> Evolutionists have been clear about this distinction between fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: *establishing the fact of evolution*, and proposing a theory to explain the mechanism of evolution. He wrote in The Descent of Man: "I had two distinct objects in view; firstly, to show that species had not been separately created, and secondly, that natural selection had been the chief agent of change. . . . Hence if I have erred in . . . having exaggerated its [natural selection's] power . . . I have at least, as I hope, done good service in aiding to overthrow the dogma of separate creations."
> [.......]
> *Yet amidst all this turmoil No biologist has been lead to doubt the Fact that evolution occurred; we are debating How it happened. *We are all trying to explain the same thing: the tree of evolutionary descent linking all organisms by ties of genealogy.
> *Creationists pervert and caricature this debate by conveniently neglecting the common conviction that underlies it, and by Falsely suggesting that evolutionists now doubt the very phenomenon we are struggling to understand.*
> [......]
> The entire creationist program includes little more than a rhetorical attempt to falsify evolution by presenting Supposed Contradictions among its supporters.
> [......]​
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, that's what I said, junior. I said theories are the best explanation at the time. And sometimes proven incorrect. So they are not facts. You're  a religious zealot. LOL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Will you let us know when the theory of evolution is proven incorrect?  Just because some theories have been proven incorrect that doesn't mean all theories will eventually be proven incorrect.  Evolution is one of those theories.
> 
> And please tell us your theory.  I want to laugh at you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I said your brain is gone, continuing to prove it is pointless. But of course you couldn't know. You cannot follow simple conversations, maybe never could.
Click to expand...


How come it's always ONLY right wing retards who say this to me?  It's never moderates Republicans, independents or liberals.  So any insult from you is a compliment.  It tells me you aren't hearing a word I say which would be typical of a rwnj pussy.


----------



## Ima Cat

If we didn't come from monkeys how come people like bananas so much, especially our women folk?


----------



## sealybobo

Iceweasel said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> .You contradicted yourself. You claimed theories explain facts then admitted they can't. They are a best case at current understanding. *There's a reason we use the word theory and many of them have been proven wrong. Germ theory, atom theory? Never heard of those.* I believe they are pretty well understood. Plate tectonics is still a theory? So your argument makes no sense.
> 
> 
> 
> Atomic and Germ Theories are stil perfectly intact.
> As are Gravity and Evolution.
> For the 100th Time on the Abuse of the word by ignorant creationist clowns.
> 
> 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
> John Rennie, Editor in Chief
> Scientific American - June 2002
> 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
> 
> *1. 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.​[......]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You call other people ignorant when you respond to arguments that weren't made? You are what you hate, a religious zealot. I'm not religious and said I believe in evolution. I depart from the atheist since I can't muster their level of faith that the universe farted itself into existence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's your theory?  And why are you arguing with us?  Sure sound like a religious zealot to me.  Anti science.  Let me guess, you're a Republican.  That would explain it.  Science doesn't just disprove your religion of Christianity it also exposes the lies from your first religion which is capitalism.  You worship corporations and CEO's not priests.  The stock market is heaven and Trump is your god.  You're a Ayn Rand type.  I get it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I explained myself pretty well. Your damaged brain isn't my problem, Bongboy.
Click to expand...


I get it now.  Conservatives hate science for 2 reasons.

1.  It debunks any religious stories you tell of a god visiting your ancient ancestors.
2. Science challenges the corporations when they pollute.

Republicans/Conservatives hate educated people.  And instead of answering my question you attack me for being stoned.  Thanks for admitting you have no theory.


----------



## Aries

Matthew said:


> We're primates that developed from a common ancestor 5-7 million years ago that yes was an ape.
> 
> That is a fact....The evidence is very strong.





Ima Cat said:


> I know there are similarities but I think they are coincidental, like cats and seals both have whiskers.  But cats didn't come from seals or vice a versa.


----------



## Iceweasel

sealybobo said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> .You contradicted yourself. You claimed theories explain facts then admitted they can't. They are a best case at current understanding. *There's a reason we use the word theory and many of them have been proven wrong. Germ theory, atom theory? Never heard of those.* I believe they are pretty well understood. Plate tectonics is still a theory? So your argument makes no sense.
> 
> 
> 
> Atomic and Germ Theories are stil perfectly intact.
> As are Gravity and Evolution.
> For the 100th Time on the Abuse of the word by ignorant creationist clowns.
> 
> 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
> John Rennie, Editor in Chief
> Scientific American - June 2002
> 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
> 
> *1. 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.​[......]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You call other people ignorant when you respond to arguments that weren't made? You are what you hate, a religious zealot. I'm not religious and said I believe in evolution. I depart from the atheist since I can't muster their level of faith that the universe farted itself into existence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's your theory?  And why are you arguing with us?  Sure sound like a religious zealot to me.  Anti science.  Let me guess, you're a Republican.  That would explain it.  Science doesn't just disprove your religion of Christianity it also exposes the lies from your first religion which is capitalism.  You worship corporations and CEO's not priests.  The stock market is heaven and Trump is your god.  You're a Ayn Rand type.  I get it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I explained myself pretty well. Your damaged brain isn't my problem, Bongboy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I get it now.  Conservatives hate science for 2 reasons.
Click to expand...

Find a bong buddy to rattle on with.


----------



## sealybobo

Iceweasel said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atomic and Germ Theories are stil perfectly intact.
> As are Gravity and Evolution.
> For the 100th Time on the Abuse of the word by ignorant creationist clowns.
> 
> 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
> John Rennie, Editor in Chief
> Scientific American - June 2002
> 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
> 
> *1. 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.​[......]
> 
> 
> 
> You call other people ignorant when you respond to arguments that weren't made? You are what you hate, a religious zealot. I'm not religious and said I believe in evolution. I depart from the atheist since I can't muster their level of faith that the universe farted itself into existence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's your theory?  And why are you arguing with us?  Sure sound like a religious zealot to me.  Anti science.  Let me guess, you're a Republican.  That would explain it.  Science doesn't just disprove your religion of Christianity it also exposes the lies from your first religion which is capitalism.  You worship corporations and CEO's not priests.  The stock market is heaven and Trump is your god.  You're a Ayn Rand type.  I get it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I explained myself pretty well. Your damaged brain isn't my problem, Bongboy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I get it now.  Conservatives hate science for 2 reasons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Find a bong buddy to rattle on with.
Click to expand...

 I know you better than you know yourself


----------



## dblack

drifter said:


> No, don't believe we are monkeys.



Did you read the thread???


----------



## Michelle420

dblack said:


> drifter said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, don't believe we are monkeys.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you read the thread???
Click to expand...


I answered the question in the title of the thread, with my opinion.


----------



## sealybobo

drifter said:


> No, don't believe we are monkeys.



Can you tell us how the first humans got on this planet?  Or how about giraffe.  Were the first giraffe born and raised by parents?  But then how are they the first if they had parents?


----------



## Michelle420

sealybobo said:


> drifter said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, don't believe we are monkeys.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you tell us how the first humans got on this planet?  Or how about giraffe.  Were the first giraffe born and raised by parents?  But then how are they the first if they had parents?
Click to expand...



No. 

But the thread title didn't ask that.


----------



## sealybobo

drifter said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drifter said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, don't believe we are monkeys.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you tell us how the first humans got on this planet?  Or how about giraffe.  Were the first giraffe born and raised by parents?  But then how are they the first if they had parents?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> But the thread title didn't ask that.
Click to expand...

Thanks for admitting you don't have a logical alternative to evolution. And that you don't understand evolution.

And why don't you believe are ancestors were once apes? All we are is the smartest ape. We are just animals. Why do you think you are more than just one animal on one planet?


----------



## Michelle420

sealybobo said:


> drifter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drifter said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, don't believe we are monkeys.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you tell us how the first humans got on this planet?  Or how about giraffe.  Were the first giraffe born and raised by parents?  But then how are they the first if they had parents?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> But the thread title didn't ask that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks for admitting you don't have a logical alternative to evolution. And that you don't understand evolution.
> 
> And why don't you believe are ancestors were ones apes? All we are is the smartest ape. We are just animals. Why do you think you are more than just one animal on one planet?
Click to expand...


You are welcome all I answered is No I don't think we came from monkeys. I didn't give any more information than that. 

I don't need to.


----------



## sealybobo

drifter said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drifter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drifter said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, don't believe we are monkeys.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you tell us how the first humans got on this planet?  Or how about giraffe.  Were the first giraffe born and raised by parents?  But then how are they the first if they had parents?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> But the thread title didn't ask that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks for admitting you don't have a logical alternative to evolution. And that you don't understand evolution.
> 
> And why don't you believe are ancestors were ones apes? All we are is the smartest ape. We are just animals. Why do you think you are more than just one animal on one planet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are welcome all I answered is No I don't think we came from monkeys. I didn't give any more information than that.
> 
> I don't need to.
Click to expand...

Well then you're stupid.

And that's all I got to say about that since you ain't saying shit I can just infer you're a brainwashed dummy. OK?


----------



## Michelle420

sealybobo said:


> drifter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drifter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drifter said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, don't believe we are monkeys.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you tell us how the first humans got on this planet?  Or how about giraffe.  Were the first giraffe born and raised by parents?  But then how are they the first if they had parents?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> But the thread title didn't ask that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks for admitting you don't have a logical alternative to evolution. And that you don't understand evolution.
> 
> And why don't you believe are ancestors were ones apes? All we are is the smartest ape. We are just animals. Why do you think you are more than just one animal on one planet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are welcome all I answered is No I don't think we came from monkeys. I didn't give any more information than that.
> 
> I don't need to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well then you're stupid.
> 
> And that's all I got to say about that since you ain't saying shit I can just infer you're a brainwashed dummy. OK?
Click to expand...


----------



## sealybobo

drifter said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drifter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drifter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you tell us how the first humans got on this planet?  Or how about giraffe.  Were the first giraffe born and raised by parents?  But then how are they the first if they had parents?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> But the thread title didn't ask that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks for admitting you don't have a logical alternative to evolution. And that you don't understand evolution.
> 
> And why don't you believe are ancestors were ones apes? All we are is the smartest ape. We are just animals. Why do you think you are more than just one animal on one planet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are welcome all I answered is No I don't think we came from monkeys. I didn't give any more information than that.
> 
> I don't need to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well then you're stupid.
> 
> And that's all I got to say about that since you ain't saying shit I can just infer you're a brainwashed dummy. OK?
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

See this is what's wrong with humans. You say you don't believe the science because it truly is mind blowing but then the same person has no problem believing an ancient holy books stories about how this god character sent his only begotten son.

I believe you are experiencing cognitive dissonance.


----------



## G.T.

sealybobo said:


> drifter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drifter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drifter said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> But the thread title didn't ask that.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for admitting you don't have a logical alternative to evolution. And that you don't understand evolution.
> 
> And why don't you believe are ancestors were ones apes? All we are is the smartest ape. We are just animals. Why do you think you are more than just one animal on one planet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are welcome all I answered is No I don't think we came from monkeys. I didn't give any more information than that.
> 
> I don't need to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well then you're stupid.
> 
> And that's all I got to say about that since you ain't saying shit I can just infer you're a brainwashed dummy. OK?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See this is what's wrong with humans. You say you don't believe the science because it truly is mind blowing but then the same person has no problem believing an ancient holy books stories about how this god character sent his only begotten son.
> 
> I believe you are experiencing cognitive dissonance.
Click to expand...

I believe youre putting words in her mouth that she didnt even say, n'or imply, and then mocking them and shes clever enough to just let you keep chasing your tail.


----------



## sealybobo

G.T. said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drifter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drifter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for admitting you don't have a logical alternative to evolution. And that you don't understand evolution.
> 
> And why don't you believe are ancestors were ones apes? All we are is the smartest ape. We are just animals. Why do you think you are more than just one animal on one planet?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are welcome all I answered is No I don't think we came from monkeys. I didn't give any more information than that.
> 
> I don't need to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well then you're stupid.
> 
> And that's all I got to say about that since you ain't saying shit I can just infer you're a brainwashed dummy. OK?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See this is what's wrong with humans. You say you don't believe the science because it truly is mind blowing but then the same person has no problem believing an ancient holy books stories about how this god character sent his only begotten son.
> 
> I believe you are experiencing cognitive dissonance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I believe youre putting words in her mouth that she didnt even say, n'or imply, and then mocking them and shes clever enough to just let you keep chasing your tail.
Click to expand...

She and you can't defend your own hypothesis, or you don't have one. If you don't have one you should leave this thread.

What is your theory? Were the first giraffes adults or babies?


----------



## G.T.

sealybobo said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drifter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drifter said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are welcome all I answered is No I don't think we came from monkeys. I didn't give any more information than that.
> 
> I don't need to.
> 
> 
> 
> Well then you're stupid.
> 
> And that's all I got to say about that since you ain't saying shit I can just infer you're a brainwashed dummy. OK?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See this is what's wrong with humans. You say you don't believe the science because it truly is mind blowing but then the same person has no problem believing an ancient holy books stories about how this god character sent his only begotten son.
> 
> I believe you are experiencing cognitive dissonance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I believe youre putting words in her mouth that she didnt even say, n'or imply, and then mocking them and shes clever enough to just let you keep chasing your tail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She and you can't defend your own hypothesis, or you don't have one. If you don't have one you should leave this thread.
> 
> What is your theory? Were the first giraffes adults or babies?
Click to expand...

She didnt give her hypothesis, thats the point. She said she doesnt believe we descended from monkeys...

Uhh, evolution says the same. We have a common ancestor. Do you know what that means?

Then you literally ranted at her because you didnt grasp that what she said is CORRECT, according the theory of evolution. 

Im sorry i had to break that down for you like that, but its childish as fuck what you did there. And daft, too, lets not forget daft.


----------



## sealybobo

G.T. said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drifter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well then you're stupid.
> 
> And that's all I got to say about that since you ain't saying shit I can just infer you're a brainwashed dummy. OK?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See this is what's wrong with humans. You say you don't believe the science because it truly is mind blowing but then the same person has no problem believing an ancient holy books stories about how this god character sent his only begotten son.
> 
> I believe you are experiencing cognitive dissonance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I believe youre putting words in her mouth that she didnt even say, n'or imply, and then mocking them and shes clever enough to just let you keep chasing your tail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She and you can't defend your own hypothesis, or you don't have one. If you don't have one you should leave this thread.
> 
> What is your theory? Were the first giraffes adults or babies?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She didnt give her hypothesis, thats the point. She said she doesnt believe we descended from monkeys...
> 
> Uhh, evolution says the same. We have a common ancestor. Do you know what that means?
> 
> Then you literally ranted at her because you didnt grasp that what she said is CORRECT, according the theory of evolution.
> 
> Im sorry i had to break that down for you like that, but its childish as fuck what you did there. And daft, too, lets not forget daft.
Click to expand...

She didn't mean it that way. 

And we were once monkeys. Before that furry rodent type mammals and before that we were fish.

If not then who was the first humans? Were they babies first? Do you see the point?

I think you think a god poofed fully grown animals into the planet. Is that right?


----------



## G.T.

sealybobo said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drifter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See this is what's wrong with humans. You say you don't believe the science because it truly is mind blowing but then the same person has no problem believing an ancient holy books stories about how this god character sent his only begotten son.
> 
> I believe you are experiencing cognitive dissonance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I believe youre putting words in her mouth that she didnt even say, n'or imply, and then mocking them and shes clever enough to just let you keep chasing your tail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She and you can't defend your own hypothesis, or you don't have one. If you don't have one you should leave this thread.
> 
> What is your theory? Were the first giraffes adults or babies?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She didnt give her hypothesis, thats the point. She said she doesnt believe we descended from monkeys...
> 
> Uhh, evolution says the same. We have a common ancestor. Do you know what that means?
> 
> Then you literally ranted at her because you didnt grasp that what she said is CORRECT, according the theory of evolution.
> 
> Im sorry i had to break that down for you like that, but its childish as fuck what you did there. And daft, too, lets not forget daft.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She didn't mean it that way.
> 
> And we were once monkeys. Before that furry rodent type mammals and before that we were fish.
> 
> If not then who was the first humans? Were they babies first? Do you see the point?
> 
> I think you think a god poofed fully grown animals into the planet. Is that right?
Click to expand...

You inferred god all by yourself. Neither I, nor D did. 

And uh, no we werent monkeys. We descended from a common primemate as monkeys.


----------



## sealybobo

G.T. said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> See this is what's wrong with humans. You say you don't believe the science because it truly is mind blowing but then the same person has no problem believing an ancient holy books stories about how this god character sent his only begotten son.
> 
> I believe you are experiencing cognitive dissonance.
> 
> 
> 
> I believe youre putting words in her mouth that she didnt even say, n'or imply, and then mocking them and shes clever enough to just let you keep chasing your tail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She and you can't defend your own hypothesis, or you don't have one. If you don't have one you should leave this thread.
> 
> What is your theory? Were the first giraffes adults or babies?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She didnt give her hypothesis, thats the point. She said she doesnt believe we descended from monkeys...
> 
> Uhh, evolution says the same. We have a common ancestor. Do you know what that means?
> 
> Then you literally ranted at her because you didnt grasp that what she said is CORRECT, according the theory of evolution.
> 
> Im sorry i had to break that down for you like that, but its childish as fuck what you did there. And daft, too, lets not forget daft.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She didn't mean it that way.
> 
> And we were once monkeys. Before that furry rodent type mammals and before that we were fish.
> 
> If not then who was the first humans? Were they babies first? Do you see the point?
> 
> I think you think a god poofed fully grown animals into the planet. Is that right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You inferred god all by yourself. Neither I, nor D did.
> 
> And uh, no we werent monkeys. We descended from a common primemate as monkeys.
Click to expand...

What would you call that common ancestor? If monkeys and us came from it id say it was a monkey. We are just the most evolved monkey.


----------



## sealybobo

G.T. said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> See this is what's wrong with humans. You say you don't believe the science because it truly is mind blowing but then the same person has no problem believing an ancient holy books stories about how this god character sent his only begotten son.
> 
> I believe you are experiencing cognitive dissonance.
> 
> 
> 
> I believe youre putting words in her mouth that she didnt even say, n'or imply, and then mocking them and shes clever enough to just let you keep chasing your tail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She and you can't defend your own hypothesis, or you don't have one. If you don't have one you should leave this thread.
> 
> What is your theory? Were the first giraffes adults or babies?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She didnt give her hypothesis, thats the point. She said she doesnt believe we descended from monkeys...
> 
> Uhh, evolution says the same. We have a common ancestor. Do you know what that means?
> 
> Then you literally ranted at her because you didnt grasp that what she said is CORRECT, according the theory of evolution.
> 
> Im sorry i had to break that down for you like that, but its childish as fuck what you did there. And daft, too, lets not forget daft.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She didn't mean it that way.
> 
> And we were once monkeys. Before that furry rodent type mammals and before that we were fish.
> 
> If not then who was the first humans? Were they babies first? Do you see the point?
> 
> I think you think a god poofed fully grown animals into the planet. Is that right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You inferred god all by yourself. Neither I, nor D did.
> 
> And uh, no we werent monkeys. We descended from a common primemate as monkeys.
Click to expand...

Anyways, it sounds like you believe in evolution you just don't fully grasp it. Do you know what we were before we were apes? Small furry rodent type mammals


----------



## sealybobo

drifter said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drifter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drifter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you tell us how the first humans got on this planet?  Or how about giraffe.  Were the first giraffe born and raised by parents?  But then how are they the first if they had parents?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> But the thread title didn't ask that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks for admitting you don't have a logical alternative to evolution. And that you don't understand evolution.
> 
> And why don't you believe are ancestors were ones apes? All we are is the smartest ape. We are just animals. Why do you think you are more than just one animal on one planet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are welcome all I answered is No I don't think we came from monkeys. I didn't give any more information than that.
> 
> I don't need to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well then you're stupid.
> 
> And that's all I got to say about that since you ain't saying shit I can just infer you're a brainwashed dummy. OK?
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

I wonder why I got two agrees for calling you a dummy. They must know something about you I don't.


----------



## Michelle420

sealybobo said:


> drifter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drifter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drifter said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> But the thread title didn't ask that.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for admitting you don't have a logical alternative to evolution. And that you don't understand evolution.
> 
> And why don't you believe are ancestors were ones apes? All we are is the smartest ape. We are just animals. Why do you think you are more than just one animal on one planet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are welcome all I answered is No I don't think we came from monkeys. I didn't give any more information than that.
> 
> I don't need to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well then you're stupid.
> 
> And that's all I got to say about that since you ain't saying shit I can just infer you're a brainwashed dummy. OK?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I wonder why
Click to expand...


If you wonder ask them if they don't answer in depth they might be too high at the time or just not interested


----------



## G.T.

sealybobo said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe youre putting words in her mouth that she didnt even say, n'or imply, and then mocking them and shes clever enough to just let you keep chasing your tail.
> 
> 
> 
> She and you can't defend your own hypothesis, or you don't have one. If you don't have one you should leave this thread.
> 
> What is your theory? Were the first giraffes adults or babies?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She didnt give her hypothesis, thats the point. She said she doesnt believe we descended from monkeys...
> 
> Uhh, evolution says the same. We have a common ancestor. Do you know what that means?
> 
> Then you literally ranted at her because you didnt grasp that what she said is CORRECT, according the theory of evolution.
> 
> Im sorry i had to break that down for you like that, but its childish as fuck what you did there. And daft, too, lets not forget daft.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She didn't mean it that way.
> 
> And we were once monkeys. Before that furry rodent type mammals and before that we were fish.
> 
> If not then who was the first humans? Were they babies first? Do you see the point?
> 
> I think you think a god poofed fully grown animals into the planet. Is that right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You inferred god all by yourself. Neither I, nor D did.
> 
> And uh, no we werent monkeys. We descended from a common primemate as monkeys.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anyways, it sounds like you believe in evolution you just don't fully grasp it. Do you know what we were before we were apes? Small furry rodent type mammals
Click to expand...

Dont tell me i dont grasp it, when this post alone showed you didnt know that monkeys and apes are two DIFFERENT primates. Wtf


----------



## anotherlife

drifter said:


> No, don't believe we are monkeys.



Baboon?


----------



## anotherlife

There is plenty of evidence that humans come from apes and monkeys.  The template of humans are separate of course and unrelated to apes in time, but the physical evolution is obvious.  Even sex is mandated in America baboon style.


----------



## sealybobo

G.T. said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> She and you can't defend your own hypothesis, or you don't have one. If you don't have one you should leave this thread.
> 
> What is your theory? Were the first giraffes adults or babies?
> 
> 
> 
> She didnt give her hypothesis, thats the point. She said she doesnt believe we descended from monkeys...
> 
> Uhh, evolution says the same. We have a common ancestor. Do you know what that means?
> 
> Then you literally ranted at her because you didnt grasp that what she said is CORRECT, according the theory of evolution.
> 
> Im sorry i had to break that down for you like that, but its childish as fuck what you did there. And daft, too, lets not forget daft.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She didn't mean it that way.
> 
> And we were once monkeys. Before that furry rodent type mammals and before that we were fish.
> 
> If not then who was the first humans? Were they babies first? Do you see the point?
> 
> I think you think a god poofed fully grown animals into the planet. Is that right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You inferred god all by yourself. Neither I, nor D did.
> 
> And uh, no we werent monkeys. We descended from a common primemate as monkeys.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anyways, it sounds like you believe in evolution you just don't fully grasp it. Do you know what we were before we were apes? Small furry rodent type mammals
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dont tell me i dont grasp it, when this post alone showed you didnt know that monkeys and apes are two DIFFERENT primates. Wtf
Click to expand...

I know the difference you arangatang.


----------



## sealybobo

G.T. said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> She and you can't defend your own hypothesis, or you don't have one. If you don't have one you should leave this thread.
> 
> What is your theory? Were the first giraffes adults or babies?
> 
> 
> 
> She didnt give her hypothesis, thats the point. She said she doesnt believe we descended from monkeys...
> 
> Uhh, evolution says the same. We have a common ancestor. Do you know what that means?
> 
> Then you literally ranted at her because you didnt grasp that what she said is CORRECT, according the theory of evolution.
> 
> Im sorry i had to break that down for you like that, but its childish as fuck what you did there. And daft, too, lets not forget daft.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She didn't mean it that way.
> 
> And we were once monkeys. Before that furry rodent type mammals and before that we were fish.
> 
> If not then who was the first humans? Were they babies first? Do you see the point?
> 
> I think you think a god poofed fully grown animals into the planet. Is that right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You inferred god all by yourself. Neither I, nor D did.
> 
> And uh, no we werent monkeys. We descended from a common primemate as monkeys.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anyways, it sounds like you believe in evolution you just don't fully grasp it. Do you know what we were before we were apes? Small furry rodent type mammals
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dont tell me i dont grasp it, when this post alone showed you didnt know that monkeys and apes are two DIFFERENT primates. Wtf
Click to expand...

But they too have a common ancestor. You do realize that right?


----------



## G.T.

sealybobo said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> She didnt give her hypothesis, thats the point. She said she doesnt believe we descended from monkeys...
> 
> Uhh, evolution says the same. We have a common ancestor. Do you know what that means?
> 
> Then you literally ranted at her because you didnt grasp that what she said is CORRECT, according the theory of evolution.
> 
> Im sorry i had to break that down for you like that, but its childish as fuck what you did there. And daft, too, lets not forget daft.
> 
> 
> 
> She didn't mean it that way.
> 
> And we were once monkeys. Before that furry rodent type mammals and before that we were fish.
> 
> If not then who was the first humans? Were they babies first? Do you see the point?
> 
> I think you think a god poofed fully grown animals into the planet. Is that right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You inferred god all by yourself. Neither I, nor D did.
> 
> And uh, no we werent monkeys. We descended from a common primemate as monkeys.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anyways, it sounds like you believe in evolution you just don't fully grasp it. Do you know what we were before we were apes? Small furry rodent type mammals
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dont tell me i dont grasp it, when this post alone showed you didnt know that monkeys and apes are two DIFFERENT primates. Wtf
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But they too have a common ancestor. You do realize that right?
Click to expand...

Yeah, read back you weirdo


----------



## sealybobo

G.T. said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drifter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drifter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for admitting you don't have a logical alternative to evolution. And that you don't understand evolution.
> 
> And why don't you believe are ancestors were ones apes? All we are is the smartest ape. We are just animals. Why do you think you are more than just one animal on one planet?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are welcome all I answered is No I don't think we came from monkeys. I didn't give any more information than that.
> 
> I don't need to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well then you're stupid.
> 
> And that's all I got to say about that since you ain't saying shit I can just infer you're a brainwashed dummy. OK?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See this is what's wrong with humans. You say you don't believe the science because it truly is mind blowing but then the same person has no problem believing an ancient holy books stories about how this god character sent his only begotten son.
> 
> I believe you are experiencing cognitive dissonance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I believe youre putting words in her mouth that she didnt even say, n'or imply, and then mocking them and shes clever enough to just let you keep chasing your tail.
Click to expand...

It's funny how the evolution deniers refuse to have an honest conversation. And actually they can't even win if they do because they honestly believe a god created all the living creatures we see on land and sea today. They believe that all living things started out as adults. They believe the first animals were not born they were created by a creator. I never realized growing up how important the question was, "what came first the chicken or the egg", and I don't think theists can answer this question.


----------



## thekeeper

Ima Cat said:


> I know there are similarities but I think they are coincidental, like cats and seals both have whiskers.  But cats didn't come from seals or vice a versa.



  Came from monkeys?  We ARE monkeys!  (Apes to be exact)  And some humans species are more monkey than others.


----------



## dblack

thekeeper said:


> Ima Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know there are similarities but I think they are coincidental, like cats and seals both have whiskers.  But cats didn't come from seals or vice a versa.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Came from monkeys?  We ARE monkeys!  (Apes to be exact)  And some humans species are more monkey than others.
Click to expand...


A million monkeys with keyboards. And I still haven't seen any Shakespeare.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

LTCArmyRet said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> But then, if we came from monkeys, why aren't monkeys still turning into people?
> 
> 
> 
> They are. Not only are gorillas evolving fast so are dogs living along side us. Some dogs can understand 200 commands.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So is learning those commands making them grow a thumb?
Click to expand...



Why is there still so much ignorance about thumbs? 

=======
Anyway ... maybe this will help evolution make sense.


----------



## GHook93

I think evolution is a spud theory if that is what you are asking


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com


----------



## Sbiker

Adam was husband of Eve, but mankind came from monkey... So, Eve didn't lose time, when Adam tried to make adultery with Lilith...


----------



## sealybobo

GHook93 said:


> I think evolution is a spud theory if that is what you are asking
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com


And your alternate theory is?


----------



## xotoxi

Old Rocks said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're primates that developed from a common ancestor 5-7 million years ago that yes was an ape.
> 
> That is a fact....The evidence is very strong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not a fact, it is a theory, big difference.   And if we descended from an ape, why are there still apes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *And if we descended from an ape, why are there still apes?*
> 
> The apes we descended from are no more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The apes never existed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And every time they think they've found *evidence* that we are *evolved* from some non-human creature, it is debunked.
> 
> Flores Man ‘hobbits’ found in Indonesia were NOT our human relatives, scientists confirm
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL  Silly ass, the hobbit is related to us, through our ancestor, Homo Erectus. We are distant cousins.
Click to expand...


Homo Erectus sounds like gay porn.


----------



## sealybobo

Sbiker said:


> Adam was husband of Eve, but mankind came from monkey... So, Eve didn't lose time, when Adam tried to make adultery with Lilith...


Who were Adams parents?


----------



## regent

Has anyone mentioned vestigial organs yet?


----------



## Sbiker

xotoxi said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not a fact, it is a theory, big difference.   And if we descended from an ape, why are there still apes?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *And if we descended from an ape, why are there still apes?*
> 
> The apes we descended from are no more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The apes never existed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And every time they think they've found *evidence* that we are *evolved* from some non-human creature, it is debunked.
> 
> Flores Man ‘hobbits’ found in Indonesia were NOT our human relatives, scientists confirm
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL  Silly ass, the hobbit is related to us, through our ancestor, Homo Erectus. We are distant cousins.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Homo Erectus sounds like gay porn.
Click to expand...


Yes, "harmless" gays are a sect of thiefs... They've stealed "homo erectus" from science, blues from music, rainbow from children, and, it seems, beard from men... Even word "gay" is stealed, as I know...


----------



## Sbiker

sealybobo said:


> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> Adam was husband of Eve, but mankind came from monkey... So, Eve didn't lose time, when Adam tried to make adultery with Lilith...
> 
> 
> 
> Who were Adams parents?
Click to expand...


The Sun is its father, the moon its mother, the wind hath carried it in its belly, the earth is its nurse.


----------



## xotoxi

Sbiker said:


> xotoxi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *And if we descended from an ape, why are there still apes?*
> 
> The apes we descended from are no more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The apes never existed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And every time they think they've found *evidence* that we are *evolved* from some non-human creature, it is debunked.
> 
> Flores Man ‘hobbits’ found in Indonesia were NOT our human relatives, scientists confirm
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL  Silly ass, the hobbit is related to us, through our ancestor, Homo Erectus. We are distant cousins.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Homo Erectus sounds like gay porn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, "harmless" gays are a sect of thiefs... They've stealed "homo erectus" from science, blues from music, rainbow from children, and, it seems, beard from men... Even word "gay" is stealed, as I know...
Click to expand...


Interesting.  But at least those words weren't _stolen_.


----------



## xotoxi

The great apes (gorillae, oranguans, chimpanzees) and humans evolved from a predecessor ape at some point in the distant past.  That predecessor ape is extinct.

I always think of the concept of evolution of animals as similar to the evolution of languages.  Spanish, Italian, French, and Portuguese all originally came from a predecessor language: Latin.  Latin is extinct.  The other descendant languages are similar in many ways, but distinctly different.


----------



## ChrisL

sealybobo said:


> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> Adam was husband of Eve, but mankind came from monkey... So, Eve didn't lose time, when Adam tried to make adultery with Lilith...
> 
> 
> 
> Who were Adams parents?
Click to expand...


How did they populate the world when they had two SONS, Cain and Abel?  Where did the other women come from?


----------



## ChrisL

How anyone can believe in the creationist theory, I don't know, because it makes no sense to me!


----------



## xotoxi

ChrisL said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> Adam was husband of Eve, but mankind came from monkey... So, Eve didn't lose time, when Adam tried to make adultery with Lilith...
> 
> 
> 
> Who were Adams parents?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How did they populate the world when they had two SONS, Cain and Abel?  Where did the other women come from?
Click to expand...


Cain and Abel were motherfuckers.


----------



## ChrisL

xotoxi said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> Adam was husband of Eve, but mankind came from monkey... So, Eve didn't lose time, when Adam tried to make adultery with Lilith...
> 
> 
> 
> Who were Adams parents?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How did they populate the world when they had two SONS, Cain and Abel?  Where did the other women come from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cain and Abel were motherfuckers.
Click to expand...


Even if they had a sister, still messed up.  Lol.  Wacky.


----------



## koshergrl

xotoxi said:


> The great apes (gorillae, oranguans, chimpanzees) and humans evolved from a predecessor ape at some point in the distant past.  That predecessor ape is extinct.
> 
> I always think of the concept of evolution of animals as similar to the evolution of languages.  Spanish, Italian, French, and Portuguese all originally came from a predecessor language: Latin.  Latin is extinct.  The other descendant languages are similar in many ways, but distinctly different.


cute theory.
unproven, however.


----------



## xotoxi

ChrisL said:


> xotoxi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> Adam was husband of Eve, but mankind came from monkey... So, Eve didn't lose time, when Adam tried to make adultery with Lilith...
> 
> 
> 
> Who were Adams parents?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How did they populate the world when they had two SONS, Cain and Abel?  Where did the other women come from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cain and Abel were motherfuckers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even if they had a sister, still messed up.  Lol.  Wacky.
Click to expand...


From Wikipedia:

"According to the Book of Jubilees (which is usually not considered canonical), Cain married his sister Awan, a daughter of Adam and Eve."

Apparently, Adam was 930 when he died...which is completely believable.


----------



## xotoxi

koshergrl said:


> xotoxi said:
> 
> 
> 
> The great apes (gorillae, oranguans, chimpanzees) and humans evolved from a predecessor ape at some point in the distant past.  That predecessor ape is extinct.
> 
> I always think of the concept of evolution of animals as similar to the evolution of languages.  Spanish, Italian, French, and Portuguese all originally came from a predecessor language: Latin.  Latin is extinct.  The other descendant languages are similar in many ways, but distinctly different.
> 
> 
> 
> cute theory.
> unproven, however.
Click to expand...


What is _your _proven theory?


----------



## sealybobo

ChrisL said:


> How anyone can believe in the creationist theory, I don't know, because it makes no sense to me!


Here is their thinking.

Those were just stories, allegories, parables. Whatever. The fact is who was Adams mother? Christians thing god waved his hand and next thing you know all the land living animals appeared.

So the first animals didn't have parents. God made them.

If I'm wrong one of them will correct me


----------



## sealybobo

xotoxi said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> xotoxi said:
> 
> 
> 
> The great apes (gorillae, oranguans, chimpanzees) and humans evolved from a predecessor ape at some point in the distant past.  That predecessor ape is extinct.
> 
> I always think of the concept of evolution of animals as similar to the evolution of languages.  Spanish, Italian, French, and Portuguese all originally came from a predecessor language: Latin.  Latin is extinct.  The other descendant languages are similar in many ways, but distinctly different.
> 
> 
> 
> cute theory.
> unproven, however.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is _your _proven theory?
Click to expand...

I have been asking this but never get a reply back.  That's because they believe god poofed fully grown humans into existence and they know they will lose all credibility.  That's why I'm not letting it go.  They need to say their stupidity out loud and proud.  If they believe it why can't they say it?


----------



## sealybobo

koshergrl said:


> xotoxi said:
> 
> 
> 
> The great apes (gorillae, oranguans, chimpanzees) and humans evolved from a predecessor ape at some point in the distant past.  That predecessor ape is extinct.
> 
> I always think of the concept of evolution of animals as similar to the evolution of languages.  Spanish, Italian, French, and Portuguese all originally came from a predecessor language: Latin.  Latin is extinct.  The other descendant languages are similar in many ways, but distinctly different.
> 
> 
> 
> cute theory.
> unproven, however.
Click to expand...


So is the idea that god waved his hand and fully grown animals appeared.  Do you see why we have a problem with this?  The idea that the first giraffe and elephant and zebra were fully grown adults is ridiculous but that's what you believe isn't it?  





Lets say these were the first animals on the planet.  Are you suggesting that they were never born from a mother and they were never babies?


----------



## koshergrl

xotoxi said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> xotoxi said:
> 
> 
> 
> The great apes (gorillae, oranguans, chimpanzees) and humans evolved from a predecessor ape at some point in the distant past.  That predecessor ape is extinct.
> 
> I always think of the concept of evolution of animals as similar to the evolution of languages.  Spanish, Italian, French, and Portuguese all originally came from a predecessor language: Latin.  Latin is extinct.  The other descendant languages are similar in many ways, but distinctly different.
> 
> 
> 
> cute theory.
> unproven, however.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is _your _proven theory?
Click to expand...

I don't have a proven one. Neither do you. That's my point. 

Faith is a good thing.


----------



## koshergrl

sealybobo said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> How anyone can believe in the creationist theory, I don't know, because it makes no sense to me!
> 
> 
> 
> Here is their thinking.
> 
> Those were just stories, allegories, parables. Whatever. The fact is who was Adams mother? Christians thing god waved his hand and next thing you know all the land living animals appeared.
> 
> So the first animals didn't have parents. God made them.
> 
> If I'm wrong one of them will correct me
Click to expand...


You think it's impossible to create humans outside the womb?

How anti science of you.


----------



## LTCArmyRet

ChrisL said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> Adam was husband of Eve, but mankind came from monkey... So, Eve didn't lose time, when Adam tried to make adultery with Lilith...
> 
> 
> 
> Who were Adams parents?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How did they populate the world when they had two SONS, Cain and Abel?  Where did the other women come from?
Click to expand...


Adam and Eve were first, never said only.


----------



## LTCArmyRet

sealybobo said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> How anyone can believe in the creationist theory, I don't know, because it makes no sense to me!
> 
> 
> 
> Here is their thinking.
> 
> Those were just stories, allegories, parables. Whatever. The fact is who was Adams mother? Christians thing god waved his hand and next thing you know all the land living animals appeared.
> 
> So the first animals didn't have parents. God made them.
> 
> If I'm wrong one of them will correct me
Click to expand...


Yes , wrong.    Yes, God made them, God makes everything you dope, even your sorry ass.


----------



## sealybobo

koshergrl said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> How anyone can believe in the creationist theory, I don't know, because it makes no sense to me!
> 
> 
> 
> Here is their thinking.
> 
> Those were just stories, allegories, parables. Whatever. The fact is who was Adams mother? Christians thing god waved his hand and next thing you know all the land living animals appeared.
> 
> So the first animals didn't have parents. God made them.
> 
> If I'm wrong one of them will correct me
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You think it's impossible to create humans outside the womb?
> 
> How anti science of you.
Click to expand...


So you think there's a scientifically provable explanation?  

What you believe is what our primitive ancient ancestors believed 2000 years ago.  I don't blame them because they didn't know what we know today.  It's people like you who have the internet at your fingertips and all the knowledge we have now and even still you deny evolution and choose to believe a god that wrote the bible waved his hand and made it all so.   This is why we say religious people can't possibly be scientific unless they are cherry picking and using cognitive dissonance along the way.

Until we understand something we “do not know”. Positing a ‘god’ in place of admitting personal ignorance is an unfounded leap which demonstrates a fundamental lack of humility.


----------



## sealybobo

koshergrl said:


> xotoxi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> xotoxi said:
> 
> 
> 
> The great apes (gorillae, oranguans, chimpanzees) and humans evolved from a predecessor ape at some point in the distant past.  That predecessor ape is extinct.
> 
> I always think of the concept of evolution of animals as similar to the evolution of languages.  Spanish, Italian, French, and Portuguese all originally came from a predecessor language: Latin.  Latin is extinct.  The other descendant languages are similar in many ways, but distinctly different.
> 
> 
> 
> cute theory.
> unproven, however.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is _your _proven theory?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't have a proven one. Neither do you. That's my point.
> 
> Faith is a good thing.
Click to expand...

Faith isn’t a virtue; it is the glorification of voluntary ignorance.


----------



## LTCArmyRet

sealybobo said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> How anyone can believe in the creationist theory, I don't know, because it makes no sense to me!
> 
> 
> 
> Here is their thinking.
> 
> Those were just stories, allegories, parables. Whatever. The fact is who was Adams mother? Christians thing god waved his hand and next thing you know all the land living animals appeared.
> 
> So the first animals didn't have parents. God made them.
> 
> If I'm wrong one of them will correct me
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You think it's impossible to create humans outside the womb?
> 
> How anti science of you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you think there's a scientifically provable explanation?
> 
> What you believe is what our primitive ancient ancestors believed 2000 years ago.  I don't blame them because they didn't know what we know today.  It's people like you who have the internet at your fingertips and all the knowledge we have now and even still you deny evolution and choose to believe a god that wrote the bible waved his hand and made it all so.   This is why we say religious people can't possibly be scientific unless they are cherry picking and using cognitive dissonance along the way.
> 
> Until we understand something we “do not know”. Positing a ‘god’ in place of admitting personal ignorance is an unfounded leap which demonstrates a fundamental lack of humility.
Click to expand...


And acting as though everything is known today is arrogance and ignorant.


----------



## sealybobo

LTCArmyRet said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> How anyone can believe in the creationist theory, I don't know, because it makes no sense to me!
> 
> 
> 
> Here is their thinking.
> 
> Those were just stories, allegories, parables. Whatever. The fact is who was Adams mother? Christians thing god waved his hand and next thing you know all the land living animals appeared.
> 
> So the first animals didn't have parents. God made them.
> 
> If I'm wrong one of them will correct me
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes , wrong.    Yes, God made them, God makes everything you dope, even your sorry ass.
Click to expand...


What's wrong?  You don't just get to say wrong without explaining how I'm wrong.  That only tells me I'm actually right but me putting it the way I did embarrassed your stupid little ass.  

Are you telling me the first pigs had parents?  Then they weren't the first.  How did pigs get on this planet?  

See friend I'm trying to help you walk it through in your brain.  Maybe you haven't logically thought it through.  This is why evolution is the truth.  No god had to come and wave his hand and magically all the diverse animals were here.  

Is Earth Undergoing a 6th Mass Extinction? --"99.9% of all Past Species Extinct"

This means 99% of the animals god made are extinct today.


----------



## LTCArmyRet

sealybobo said:


> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> How anyone can believe in the creationist theory, I don't know, because it makes no sense to me!
> 
> 
> 
> Here is their thinking.
> 
> Those were just stories, allegories, parables. Whatever. The fact is who was Adams mother? Christians thing god waved his hand and next thing you know all the land living animals appeared.
> 
> So the first animals didn't have parents. God made them.
> 
> If I'm wrong one of them will correct me
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes , wrong.    Yes, God made them, God makes everything you dope, even your sorry ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's wrong?  You don't just get to say wrong without explaining how I'm wrong.  That only tells me I'm actually right but me putting it the way I did embarrassed your stupid little ass.
> 
> Are you telling me the first pigs had parents?  Then they weren't the first.  How did pigs get on this planet?
> 
> See friend I'm trying to help you walk it through in your brain.  Maybe you haven't logically thought it through.  This is why evolution is the truth.  No god had to come and wave his hand and magically all the diverse animals were here.
> 
> Is Earth Undergoing a 6th Mass Extinction? --"99.9% of all Past Species Extinct"
> 
> This means 99% of the animals god made are extinct today.
Click to expand...


Yes, wrong.  I can say your wrong without explaining, see?


----------



## sealybobo

LTCArmyRet said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> How anyone can believe in the creationist theory, I don't know, because it makes no sense to me!
> 
> 
> 
> Here is their thinking.
> 
> Those were just stories, allegories, parables. Whatever. The fact is who was Adams mother? Christians thing god waved his hand and next thing you know all the land living animals appeared.
> 
> So the first animals didn't have parents. God made them.
> 
> If I'm wrong one of them will correct me
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You think it's impossible to create humans outside the womb?
> 
> How anti science of you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you think there's a scientifically provable explanation?
> 
> What you believe is what our primitive ancient ancestors believed 2000 years ago.  I don't blame them because they didn't know what we know today.  It's people like you who have the internet at your fingertips and all the knowledge we have now and even still you deny evolution and choose to believe a god that wrote the bible waved his hand and made it all so.   This is why we say religious people can't possibly be scientific unless they are cherry picking and using cognitive dissonance along the way.
> 
> Until we understand something we “do not know”. Positing a ‘god’ in place of admitting personal ignorance is an unfounded leap which demonstrates a fundamental lack of humility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And acting as though everything is known today is arrogance and ignorant.
Click to expand...


I don't think everything is known.  What I'm doing is using what is known.  I'm not ignoring what is known because it conflicts with my ancient holy books. 

Believing in god because not everything is known is ignorant.  God of the gaps.

Until we understand something we “do not know”. Positing a ‘god’ in place of admitting personal ignorance is an unfounded leap which demonstrates a fundamental lack of humility.

The existence and non-existence of a god are not equally probable outcomes. The majority of things we can possibly imagine do not exist. Thus, belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.

See also: Critical thinking (a must watch), Richard Feynman on Doubt and Uncertainty (a must watch).

_“It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.” _– Carl Sagan

_“God is an ever-receding pocket of ignorance that’s getting smaller and smaller as time goes on.”_– Neil deGrasse Tyson


----------



## sealybobo

LTCArmyRet said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> How anyone can believe in the creationist theory, I don't know, because it makes no sense to me!
> 
> 
> 
> Here is their thinking.
> 
> Those were just stories, allegories, parables. Whatever. The fact is who was Adams mother? Christians thing god waved his hand and next thing you know all the land living animals appeared.
> 
> So the first animals didn't have parents. God made them.
> 
> If I'm wrong one of them will correct me
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes , wrong.    Yes, God made them, God makes everything you dope, even your sorry ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's wrong?  You don't just get to say wrong without explaining how I'm wrong.  That only tells me I'm actually right but me putting it the way I did embarrassed your stupid little ass.
> 
> Are you telling me the first pigs had parents?  Then they weren't the first.  How did pigs get on this planet?
> 
> See friend I'm trying to help you walk it through in your brain.  Maybe you haven't logically thought it through.  This is why evolution is the truth.  No god had to come and wave his hand and magically all the diverse animals were here.
> 
> Is Earth Undergoing a 6th Mass Extinction? --"99.9% of all Past Species Extinct"
> 
> This means 99% of the animals god made are extinct today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, wrong.  I can say your wrong without explaining, see?
Click to expand...

I'm not going to start over from square one with some newby joining the discussion.  But at least you are the first in days to proudly admit that you believe a god waved his hand and produced all the animals on earth.  Most people don't have the courage to proclaim such ignorance.  

But you know what?  How can I argue with that.  If you are willing to throw out all logic and science and believe such nonsense really what can I say?  Nothing.  God bless.


----------



## LTCArmyRet

sealybobo said:


> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> How anyone can believe in the creationist theory, I don't know, because it makes no sense to me!
> 
> 
> 
> Here is their thinking.
> 
> Those were just stories, allegories, parables. Whatever. The fact is who was Adams mother? Christians thing god waved his hand and next thing you know all the land living animals appeared.
> 
> So the first animals didn't have parents. God made them.
> 
> If I'm wrong one of them will correct me
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You think it's impossible to create humans outside the womb?
> 
> How anti science of you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you think there's a scientifically provable explanation?
> 
> What you believe is what our primitive ancient ancestors believed 2000 years ago.  I don't blame them because they didn't know what we know today.  It's people like you who have the internet at your fingertips and all the knowledge we have now and even still you deny evolution and choose to believe a god that wrote the bible waved his hand and made it all so.   This is why we say religious people can't possibly be scientific unless they are cherry picking and using cognitive dissonance along the way.
> 
> Until we understand something we “do not know”. Positing a ‘god’ in place of admitting personal ignorance is an unfounded leap which demonstrates a fundamental lack of humility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And acting as though everything is known today is arrogance and ignorant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think everything is known.  What I'm doing is using what is known.  I'm not ignoring what is known because it conflicts with my ancient holy books.
> 
> Believing in god because not everything is known is ignorant.  God of the gaps.
> 
> Until we understand something we “do not know”. Positing a ‘god’ in place of admitting personal ignorance is an unfounded leap which demonstrates a fundamental lack of humility.
> 
> The existence and non-existence of a god are not equally probable outcomes. The majority of things we can possibly imagine do not exist. Thus, belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.
> 
> See also: Critical thinking (a must watch), Richard Feynman on Doubt and Uncertainty (a must watch).
> 
> _“It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.” _– Carl Sagan
> 
> _“God is an ever-receding pocket of ignorance that’s getting smaller and smaller as time goes on.”_– Neil deGrasse Tyson
Click to expand...


I'm not denying all that is known, just the conclusion you are jumping to from what is known.  You think this proves that God doesn't or can't exist, I say it only proves his existence.


----------



## koshergrl

sealybobo said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> xotoxi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> xotoxi said:
> 
> 
> 
> The great apes (gorillae, oranguans, chimpanzees) and humans evolved from a predecessor ape at some point in the distant past.  That predecessor ape is extinct.
> 
> I always think of the concept of evolution of animals as similar to the evolution of languages.  Spanish, Italian, French, and Portuguese all originally came from a predecessor language: Latin.  Latin is extinct.  The other descendant languages are similar in many ways, but distinctly different.
> 
> 
> 
> cute theory.
> unproven, however.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is _your _proven theory?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't have a proven one. Neither do you. That's my point.
> 
> Faith is a good thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Faith isn’t a virtue; it is the glorification of voluntary ignorance.
Click to expand...


You have faith in junk science. I'd say that's a better example of "voluntary ignorance" than faith in God, since you deny your version is "faith" but instead tout it as "science".


----------



## sealybobo

LTCArmyRet said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> How anyone can believe in the creationist theory, I don't know, because it makes no sense to me!
> 
> 
> 
> Here is their thinking.
> 
> Those were just stories, allegories, parables. Whatever. The fact is who was Adams mother? Christians thing god waved his hand and next thing you know all the land living animals appeared.
> 
> So the first animals didn't have parents. God made them.
> 
> If I'm wrong one of them will correct me
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You think it's impossible to create humans outside the womb?
> 
> How anti science of you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you think there's a scientifically provable explanation?
> 
> What you believe is what our primitive ancient ancestors believed 2000 years ago.  I don't blame them because they didn't know what we know today.  It's people like you who have the internet at your fingertips and all the knowledge we have now and even still you deny evolution and choose to believe a god that wrote the bible waved his hand and made it all so.   This is why we say religious people can't possibly be scientific unless they are cherry picking and using cognitive dissonance along the way.
> 
> Until we understand something we “do not know”. Positing a ‘god’ in place of admitting personal ignorance is an unfounded leap which demonstrates a fundamental lack of humility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And acting as though everything is known today is arrogance and ignorant.
Click to expand...


Do you believe in ghosts and magic too?  

You know what?  I believe life exists on other planets and I don't know for sure if there are.  But based on the all the information I have it seems logical that there is life on other planets.  But you believe there is a god because a man made holy book, your parents and  preacher told you so.  Even though it doesn't make sense.  That's not belief that's wishful thinking.  And you've been scared into thinking if you question it you'll go to hell.  

I don't believe you really believe.  You can't be that dumb.


----------



## LTCArmyRet

sealybobo said:


> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> How anyone can believe in the creationist theory, I don't know, because it makes no sense to me!
> 
> 
> 
> Here is their thinking.
> 
> Those were just stories, allegories, parables. Whatever. The fact is who was Adams mother? Christians thing god waved his hand and next thing you know all the land living animals appeared.
> 
> So the first animals didn't have parents. God made them.
> 
> If I'm wrong one of them will correct me
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes , wrong.    Yes, God made them, God makes everything you dope, even your sorry ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's wrong?  You don't just get to say wrong without explaining how I'm wrong.  That only tells me I'm actually right but me putting it the way I did embarrassed your stupid little ass.
> 
> Are you telling me the first pigs had parents?  Then they weren't the first.  How did pigs get on this planet?
> 
> See friend I'm trying to help you walk it through in your brain.  Maybe you haven't logically thought it through.  This is why evolution is the truth.  No god had to come and wave his hand and magically all the diverse animals were here.
> 
> Is Earth Undergoing a 6th Mass Extinction? --"99.9% of all Past Species Extinct"
> 
> This means 99% of the animals god made are extinct today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, wrong.  I can say your wrong without explaining, see?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not going to start over from square one with some newby joining the discussion.  But at least you are the first in days to proudly admit that you believe a god waved his hand and produced all the animals on earth.  Most people don't have the courage to proclaim such ignorance.
> 
> But you know what?  How can I argue with that.  If you are willing to throw out all logic and science and believe such nonsense really what can I say?  Nothing.  God bless.
Click to expand...


Ignorance in your eyes only, I believe I did ask a question much earlier in this thread which no one has even attempted to reply to.....................Evolution and God can exist together, do you know how long a day is to GOD?


----------



## LTCArmyRet

sealybobo said:


> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> How anyone can believe in the creationist theory, I don't know, because it makes no sense to me!
> 
> 
> 
> Here is their thinking.
> 
> Those were just stories, allegories, parables. Whatever. The fact is who was Adams mother? Christians thing god waved his hand and next thing you know all the land living animals appeared.
> 
> So the first animals didn't have parents. God made them.
> 
> If I'm wrong one of them will correct me
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You think it's impossible to create humans outside the womb?
> 
> How anti science of you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you think there's a scientifically provable explanation?
> 
> What you believe is what our primitive ancient ancestors believed 2000 years ago.  I don't blame them because they didn't know what we know today.  It's people like you who have the internet at your fingertips and all the knowledge we have now and even still you deny evolution and choose to believe a god that wrote the bible waved his hand and made it all so.   This is why we say religious people can't possibly be scientific unless they are cherry picking and using cognitive dissonance along the way.
> 
> Until we understand something we “do not know”. Positing a ‘god’ in place of admitting personal ignorance is an unfounded leap which demonstrates a fundamental lack of humility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And acting as though everything is known today is arrogance and ignorant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you believe in ghosts and magic too?
> 
> You know what?  I believe life exists on other planets and I don't know for sure if there are.  But based on the all the information I have it seems logical that there is life on other planets.  But you believe there is a god because a man made holy book, your parents and  preacher told you so.  Even though it doesn't make sense.  That's not belief that's wishful thinking.  And you've been scared into thinking if you question it you'll go to hell.
> 
> I don't believe you really believe.  You can't be that dumb.
Click to expand...


Just because it escapes your logic, does not make it so.


----------



## xotoxi

koshergrl said:


> xotoxi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> xotoxi said:
> 
> 
> 
> The great apes (gorillae, oranguans, chimpanzees) and humans evolved from a predecessor ape at some point in the distant past.  That predecessor ape is extinct.
> 
> I always think of the concept of evolution of animals as similar to the evolution of languages.  Spanish, Italian, French, and Portuguese all originally came from a predecessor language: Latin.  Latin is extinct.  The other descendant languages are similar in many ways, but distinctly different.
> 
> 
> 
> cute theory.
> unproven, however.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is _your _proven theory?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't have a proven one. Neither do you. That's my point.
> 
> Faith is a good thing.
Click to expand...


Therefore, there is just as much chance that I am correct than that you are correct...even though my unproven theory does have some evidence to lend it credibility.


----------



## LTCArmyRet

xotoxi said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> xotoxi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> xotoxi said:
> 
> 
> 
> The great apes (gorillae, oranguans, chimpanzees) and humans evolved from a predecessor ape at some point in the distant past.  That predecessor ape is extinct.
> 
> I always think of the concept of evolution of animals as similar to the evolution of languages.  Spanish, Italian, French, and Portuguese all originally came from a predecessor language: Latin.  Latin is extinct.  The other descendant languages are similar in many ways, but distinctly different.
> 
> 
> 
> cute theory.
> unproven, however.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is _your _proven theory?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't have a proven one. Neither do you. That's my point.
> 
> Faith is a good thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Therefore, there is just as much chance that I am correct than that you are correct...even though my unproven theory does have some evidence to lend it credibility.
Click to expand...


as does mine.


----------



## xotoxi

koshergrl said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> How anyone can believe in the creationist theory, I don't know, because it makes no sense to me!
> 
> 
> 
> Here is their thinking.
> 
> Those were just stories, allegories, parables. Whatever. The fact is who was Adams mother? Christians thing god waved his hand and next thing you know all the land living animals appeared.
> 
> So the first animals didn't have parents. God made them.
> 
> If I'm wrong one of them will correct me
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You think it's impossible to create humans outside the womb?
Click to expand...


It is possible to create humans outside of the womb.

It is not possible to create a human without having another human's DNA to work with (i.e. an egg and a sperm, an egg and the DNA from a sperm, an empty egg with full set of human DNA (such as cloning))


----------



## koshergrl

xotoxi said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> xotoxi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> xotoxi said:
> 
> 
> 
> The great apes (gorillae, oranguans, chimpanzees) and humans evolved from a predecessor ape at some point in the distant past.  That predecessor ape is extinct.
> 
> I always think of the concept of evolution of animals as similar to the evolution of languages.  Spanish, Italian, French, and Portuguese all originally came from a predecessor language: Latin.  Latin is extinct.  The other descendant languages are similar in many ways, but distinctly different.
> 
> 
> 
> cute theory.
> unproven, however.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is _your _proven theory?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't have a proven one. Neither do you. That's my point.
> 
> Faith is a good thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Therefore, there is just as much chance that I am correct than that you are correct...even though my unproven theory does have some evidence to lend it credibility.
Click to expand...


The difference is that I don't present my theory as anything but theory, and my belief.


----------



## sealybobo

LTCArmyRet said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is their thinking.
> 
> Those were just stories, allegories, parables. Whatever. The fact is who was Adams mother? Christians thing god waved his hand and next thing you know all the land living animals appeared.
> 
> So the first animals didn't have parents. God made them.
> 
> If I'm wrong one of them will correct me
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You think it's impossible to create humans outside the womb?
> 
> How anti science of you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you think there's a scientifically provable explanation?
> 
> What you believe is what our primitive ancient ancestors believed 2000 years ago.  I don't blame them because they didn't know what we know today.  It's people like you who have the internet at your fingertips and all the knowledge we have now and even still you deny evolution and choose to believe a god that wrote the bible waved his hand and made it all so.   This is why we say religious people can't possibly be scientific unless they are cherry picking and using cognitive dissonance along the way.
> 
> Until we understand something we “do not know”. Positing a ‘god’ in place of admitting personal ignorance is an unfounded leap which demonstrates a fundamental lack of humility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And acting as though everything is known today is arrogance and ignorant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think everything is known.  What I'm doing is using what is known.  I'm not ignoring what is known because it conflicts with my ancient holy books.
> 
> Believing in god because not everything is known is ignorant.  God of the gaps.
> 
> Until we understand something we “do not know”. Positing a ‘god’ in place of admitting personal ignorance is an unfounded leap which demonstrates a fundamental lack of humility.
> 
> The existence and non-existence of a god are not equally probable outcomes. The majority of things we can possibly imagine do not exist. Thus, belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.
> 
> See also: Critical thinking (a must watch), Richard Feynman on Doubt and Uncertainty (a must watch).
> 
> _“It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.” _– Carl Sagan
> 
> _“God is an ever-receding pocket of ignorance that’s getting smaller and smaller as time goes on.”_– Neil deGrasse Tyson
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not denying all that is known, just the conclusion you are jumping to from what is known.  You think this proves that God doesn't or can't exist, I say it only proves his existence.
Click to expand...


I didn't say anything proves god doesn't exist.  Nothing can prove that.  You'd have to be a god yourself to disprove a god exists because you'd have to be all knowing and have the ability to look behind every rock in the universe all at the exact same time.

I'm saying god has never visited and every religion is man made up.  Evolution disproves the creation story.  

So if you want to continue arguing that a generic creator exists, that's fine.  Maybe one does.  But he never visited and our ancient holy books are man made.


----------



## koshergrl

xotoxi said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> How anyone can believe in the creationist theory, I don't know, because it makes no sense to me!
> 
> 
> 
> Here is their thinking.
> 
> Those were just stories, allegories, parables. Whatever. The fact is who was Adams mother? Christians thing god waved his hand and next thing you know all the land living animals appeared.
> 
> So the first animals didn't have parents. God made them.
> 
> If I'm wrong one of them will correct me
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You think it's impossible to create humans outside the womb?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is possible to create humans outside of the womb.
> 
> It is not possible to create a human without having another human's DNA to work with (i.e. an egg and a sperm, an egg and the DNA from a sperm, an empty egg with full set of human DNA (such as cloning))
Click to expand...


So in theory it's perfectly possible that someone created dna and then created humanity. 

Thank you. I agree.


----------



## sealybobo

LTCArmyRet said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is their thinking.
> 
> Those were just stories, allegories, parables. Whatever. The fact is who was Adams mother? Christians thing god waved his hand and next thing you know all the land living animals appeared.
> 
> So the first animals didn't have parents. God made them.
> 
> If I'm wrong one of them will correct me
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes , wrong.    Yes, God made them, God makes everything you dope, even your sorry ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's wrong?  You don't just get to say wrong without explaining how I'm wrong.  That only tells me I'm actually right but me putting it the way I did embarrassed your stupid little ass.
> 
> Are you telling me the first pigs had parents?  Then they weren't the first.  How did pigs get on this planet?
> 
> See friend I'm trying to help you walk it through in your brain.  Maybe you haven't logically thought it through.  This is why evolution is the truth.  No god had to come and wave his hand and magically all the diverse animals were here.
> 
> Is Earth Undergoing a 6th Mass Extinction? --"99.9% of all Past Species Extinct"
> 
> This means 99% of the animals god made are extinct today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, wrong.  I can say your wrong without explaining, see?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not going to start over from square one with some newby joining the discussion.  But at least you are the first in days to proudly admit that you believe a god waved his hand and produced all the animals on earth.  Most people don't have the courage to proclaim such ignorance.
> 
> But you know what?  How can I argue with that.  If you are willing to throw out all logic and science and believe such nonsense really what can I say?  Nothing.  God bless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ignorance in your eyes only, I believe I did ask a question much earlier in this thread which no one has even attempted to reply to.....................Evolution and God can exist together, do you know how long a day is to GOD?
Click to expand...


That's right.  A god could have planted the life seed and then evolution took place.  That is true.  So why do organized religions deny evolution?  Ask yourself that.


----------



## xotoxi

LTCArmyRet said:


> xotoxi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> xotoxi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> xotoxi said:
> 
> 
> 
> The great apes (gorillae, oranguans, chimpanzees) and humans evolved from a predecessor ape at some point in the distant past.  That predecessor ape is extinct.
> 
> I always think of the concept of evolution of animals as similar to the evolution of languages.  Spanish, Italian, French, and Portuguese all originally came from a predecessor language: Latin.  Latin is extinct.  The other descendant languages are similar in many ways, but distinctly different.
> 
> 
> 
> cute theory.
> unproven, however.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is _your _proven theory?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't have a proven one. Neither do you. That's my point.
> 
> Faith is a good thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Therefore, there is just as much chance that I am correct than that you are correct...even though my unproven theory does have some evidence to lend it credibility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> as does mine.
Click to expand...


I'm sorry tou think that.


----------



## sealybobo

xotoxi said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> xotoxi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> xotoxi said:
> 
> 
> 
> The great apes (gorillae, oranguans, chimpanzees) and humans evolved from a predecessor ape at some point in the distant past.  That predecessor ape is extinct.
> 
> I always think of the concept of evolution of animals as similar to the evolution of languages.  Spanish, Italian, French, and Portuguese all originally came from a predecessor language: Latin.  Latin is extinct.  The other descendant languages are similar in many ways, but distinctly different.
> 
> 
> 
> cute theory.
> unproven, however.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is _your _proven theory?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't have a proven one. Neither do you. That's my point.
> 
> Faith is a good thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Therefore, there is just as much chance that I am correct than that you are correct...even though my unproven theory does have some evidence to lend it credibility.
Click to expand...


The existence and non-existence of a god are not equally probable outcomes. The majority of things we can possibly imagine do not exist. Thus, belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.


----------



## LTCArmyRet

sealybobo said:


> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> You think it's impossible to create humans outside the womb?
> 
> How anti science of you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you think there's a scientifically provable explanation?
> 
> What you believe is what our primitive ancient ancestors believed 2000 years ago.  I don't blame them because they didn't know what we know today.  It's people like you who have the internet at your fingertips and all the knowledge we have now and even still you deny evolution and choose to believe a god that wrote the bible waved his hand and made it all so.   This is why we say religious people can't possibly be scientific unless they are cherry picking and using cognitive dissonance along the way.
> 
> Until we understand something we “do not know”. Positing a ‘god’ in place of admitting personal ignorance is an unfounded leap which demonstrates a fundamental lack of humility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And acting as though everything is known today is arrogance and ignorant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think everything is known.  What I'm doing is using what is known.  I'm not ignoring what is known because it conflicts with my ancient holy books.
> 
> Believing in god because not everything is known is ignorant.  God of the gaps.
> 
> Until we understand something we “do not know”. Positing a ‘god’ in place of admitting personal ignorance is an unfounded leap which demonstrates a fundamental lack of humility.
> 
> The existence and non-existence of a god are not equally probable outcomes. The majority of things we can possibly imagine do not exist. Thus, belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.
> 
> See also: Critical thinking (a must watch), Richard Feynman on Doubt and Uncertainty (a must watch).
> 
> _“It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.” _– Carl Sagan
> 
> _“God is an ever-receding pocket of ignorance that’s getting smaller and smaller as time goes on.”_– Neil deGrasse Tyson
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not denying all that is known, just the conclusion you are jumping to from what is known.  You think this proves that God doesn't or can't exist, I say it only proves his existence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say anything proves god doesn't exist.  Nothing can prove that.  You'd have to be a god yourself to disprove a god exists because you'd have to be all knowing and have the ability to look behind every rock in the universe all at the exact same time.
> 
> I'm saying god has never visited and every religion is man made up.  *Evolution disproves the creation story.*
> 
> So if you want to continue arguing that a generic creator exists, that's fine.  Maybe one does.  But he never visited and our ancient holy books are man made.
Click to expand...


AND........this is where we disagree, evolution DOES NOT disprove the creation theory.  You just don't understand the creation story.  Sorry, can't help you with that.


----------



## sealybobo

koshergrl said:


> xotoxi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> How anyone can believe in the creationist theory, I don't know, because it makes no sense to me!
> 
> 
> 
> Here is their thinking.
> 
> Those were just stories, allegories, parables. Whatever. The fact is who was Adams mother? Christians thing god waved his hand and next thing you know all the land living animals appeared.
> 
> So the first animals didn't have parents. God made them.
> 
> If I'm wrong one of them will correct me
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You think it's impossible to create humans outside the womb?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is possible to create humans outside of the womb.
> 
> It is not possible to create a human without having another human's DNA to work with (i.e. an egg and a sperm, an egg and the DNA from a sperm, an empty egg with full set of human DNA (such as cloning))
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So in theory it's perfectly possible that someone created dna and then created humanity.
> 
> Thank you. I agree.
Click to expand...


Sure it's possible.  So why do Christians have such a problem with evolution?  

We know that even if evolution is proven as a fact you will still deny it and just move the goal post.   This is called god of the gaps.

7 Things That Show That Evolution Is An Actual Fact


----------



## LTCArmyRet

sealybobo said:


> xotoxi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> xotoxi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> xotoxi said:
> 
> 
> 
> The great apes (gorillae, oranguans, chimpanzees) and humans evolved from a predecessor ape at some point in the distant past.  That predecessor ape is extinct.
> 
> I always think of the concept of evolution of animals as similar to the evolution of languages.  Spanish, Italian, French, and Portuguese all originally came from a predecessor language: Latin.  Latin is extinct.  The other descendant languages are similar in many ways, but distinctly different.
> 
> 
> 
> cute theory.
> unproven, however.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is _your _proven theory?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't have a proven one. Neither do you. That's my point.
> 
> Faith is a good thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Therefore, there is just as much chance that I am correct than that you are correct...even though my unproven theory does have some evidence to lend it credibility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The existence and non-existence of a god are not equally probable outcomes. The majority of things we can possibly imagine do not exist. Thus, belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.
Click to expand...


Oh ye of small minds.


----------



## xotoxi

koshergrl said:


> xotoxi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> xotoxi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> xotoxi said:
> 
> 
> 
> The great apes (gorillae, oranguans, chimpanzees) and humans evolved from a predecessor ape at some point in the distant past.  That predecessor ape is extinct.
> 
> I always think of the concept of evolution of animals as similar to the evolution of languages.  Spanish, Italian, French, and Portuguese all originally came from a predecessor language: Latin.  Latin is extinct.  The other descendant languages are similar in many ways, but distinctly different.
> 
> 
> 
> cute theory.
> unproven, however.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is _your _proven theory?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't have a proven one. Neither do you. That's my point.
> 
> Faith is a good thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Therefore, there is just as much chance that I am correct than that you are correct...even though my unproven theory does have some evidence to lend it credibility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The difference is that I don't present my theory as anything but theory, and my belief.
Click to expand...


And yet there are other people who hold the same theory and belief as you, who presents it as TRUTH and FACT.  

I hope you take the time to call them out.


----------



## sealybobo

Normally we think of evolution as something that happens over thousands or millions of years, and it often is. But there are plenty of examples of it happening in human timescales.

The most famous example is the peppered moth, which lives in forests in Britain and is camouflaged against tree bark. Up until the 19th century they were all white, but when the Industrial Revolution blackened the trees in British forests, the white colouring became much more visible. In 1811 a first dark specimen was recorded, a mutant. Against the dark trees they were much harder for predators to spot. By the end of the century it outnumbered the white ones. But as the heavily polluting industries in Britain fell away in the 20th century, and the forests became cleaner again, the white moth became more common.


----------



## LTCArmyRet

sealybobo said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> xotoxi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> How anyone can believe in the creationist theory, I don't know, because it makes no sense to me!
> 
> 
> 
> Here is their thinking.
> 
> Those were just stories, allegories, parables. Whatever. The fact is who was Adams mother? Christians thing god waved his hand and next thing you know all the land living animals appeared.
> 
> So the first animals didn't have parents. God made them.
> 
> If I'm wrong one of them will correct me
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You think it's impossible to create humans outside the womb?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is possible to create humans outside of the womb.
> 
> It is not possible to create a human without having another human's DNA to work with (i.e. an egg and a sperm, an egg and the DNA from a sperm, an empty egg with full set of human DNA (such as cloning))
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So in theory it's perfectly possible that someone created dna and then created humanity.
> 
> Thank you. I agree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure it's possible.  So why do Christians have such a problem with evolution?
> 
> We know that even if evolution is proven as a fact you will still deny it and just move the goal post.   This is called god of the gaps.
> 
> 7 Things That Show That Evolution Is An Actual Fact
Click to expand...


They don't......you are just selling it as the WHOLE story, when it is a very small part of the story.


----------



## sealybobo

LTCArmyRet said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> xotoxi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> xotoxi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> cute theory.
> unproven, however.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is _your _proven theory?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't have a proven one. Neither do you. That's my point.
> 
> Faith is a good thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Therefore, there is just as much chance that I am correct than that you are correct...even though my unproven theory does have some evidence to lend it credibility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The existence and non-existence of a god are not equally probable outcomes. The majority of things we can possibly imagine do not exist. Thus, belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh ye of small minds.
Click to expand...

Using the ye tells me you've been brainwashed by an organized religion.

Oh ye with a brainwashed mind.  I go to church and hear them making you guys repeat the nonsense over and over again for years and years.  Sorry I am not a member of your cult.  I am ye of little faith that your religion is authentic.


----------



## LTCArmyRet

sealybobo said:


> Normally we think of evolution as something that happens over thousands or millions of years, and it often is. But there are plenty of examples of it happening in human timescales.
> 
> The most famous example is the peppered moth, which lives in forests in Britain and is camouflaged against tree bark. Up until the 19th century they were all white, but when the Industrial Revolution blackened the trees in British forests, the white colouring became much more visible. In 1811 a first dark specimen was recorded, a mutant. Against the dark trees they were much harder for predators to spot. By the end of the century it outnumbered the white ones. But as the heavily polluting industries in Britain fell away in the 20th century, and the forests became cleaner again, the white moth became more common.



That's adaptation to ones environment.  Or maybe the moths  were being turned darker from the same environment that turned the trees darker.


----------



## sealybobo

LTCArmyRet said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> xotoxi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is their thinking.
> 
> Those were just stories, allegories, parables. Whatever. The fact is who was Adams mother? Christians thing god waved his hand and next thing you know all the land living animals appeared.
> 
> So the first animals didn't have parents. God made them.
> 
> If I'm wrong one of them will correct me
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You think it's impossible to create humans outside the womb?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is possible to create humans outside of the womb.
> 
> It is not possible to create a human without having another human's DNA to work with (i.e. an egg and a sperm, an egg and the DNA from a sperm, an empty egg with full set of human DNA (such as cloning))
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So in theory it's perfectly possible that someone created dna and then created humanity.
> 
> Thank you. I agree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure it's possible.  So why do Christians have such a problem with evolution?
> 
> We know that even if evolution is proven as a fact you will still deny it and just move the goal post.   This is called god of the gaps.
> 
> 7 Things That Show That Evolution Is An Actual Fact
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They don't......you are just selling it as the WHOLE story, when it is a very small part of the story.
Click to expand...

BS

Throughout much of the 20th century, opponents of evolution (many of them theologically conservative Christians) either tried to eliminate the teaching of Darwin’s theory from public school science curricula or urged science instructors also to teach a version of the creation story found in the biblical book of Genesis. The famous 1925 _Scopes_ “monkey” trial, for instance, involved a Tennessee law prohibiting the teaching of evolution in the state’s schools. (See The Social and Legal Dimensions of the Evolution Debate in the U.S.)

But beginning in the 1960s, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a number of decisions that imposed severe restrictions on those state governments that opposed the teaching of evolution. As a result of these rulings, school boards, legislatures and government bodies are now barred from prohibiting the teaching of evolution. Teaching creation science, either along with evolutionary theory or in place of it, is also banned.

Partly in response to these court decisions, opposition to teaching evolution has itself evolved, with opponents changing their goals and tactics. In the last decade, some local and state school boards in Kansas, Pennsylvania and elsewhere have considered teaching what they contend are scientific alternatives to evolution – notably the concept of intelligent design, which posits that life is too complex to have developed without the intervention of an outside, possibly divine force. Other education officials have tried to require schools to teach critiques of evolution or to mandate that students listen to or read evolution disclaimers, such as one proposed a number of years ago in Cobb County, Ga. It read, in part, that evolution is “a theory, not a fact [and] … should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered.” The Cobb County disclaimer and a number of other efforts have been withdrawn following successful court challenges by proponents of teaching evolution.(See Fighting Over Darwin, State by State.)

These debates are just as prevalent in the court of public opinion as they are in the courtroom. A spring 2013 Pew Research Center survey finds that six-in-ten Americans say humans and other living things evolved over time, including 32% who say that life evolved through natural processes like natural selection and 24% who say a supreme being guided the evolution of living things for the purpose of creating humans and other life in the form it exists today. A third of Americans (33%) say that humans and other living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time.


----------



## sealybobo

LTCArmyRet said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Normally we think of evolution as something that happens over thousands or millions of years, and it often is. But there are plenty of examples of it happening in human timescales.
> 
> The most famous example is the peppered moth, which lives in forests in Britain and is camouflaged against tree bark. Up until the 19th century they were all white, but when the Industrial Revolution blackened the trees in British forests, the white colouring became much more visible. In 1811 a first dark specimen was recorded, a mutant. Against the dark trees they were much harder for predators to spot. By the end of the century it outnumbered the white ones. But as the heavily polluting industries in Britain fell away in the 20th century, and the forests became cleaner again, the white moth became more common.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's adaptation to ones environment.  Or maybe the moths  were being turned darker from the same environment that turned the trees darker.
Click to expand...

Science says they evolved.  See, you don't believe the science.  Don't tell me you don't have a problem with science and evolution and then turn around and argue the science of it all.


----------



## sealybobo

xotoxi said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> How anyone can believe in the creationist theory, I don't know, because it makes no sense to me!
> 
> 
> 
> Here is their thinking.
> 
> Those were just stories, allegories, parables. Whatever. The fact is who was Adams mother? Christians thing god waved his hand and next thing you know all the land living animals appeared.
> 
> So the first animals didn't have parents. God made them.
> 
> If I'm wrong one of them will correct me
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You think it's impossible to create humans outside the womb?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is possible to create humans outside of the womb.
> 
> It is not possible to create a human without having another human's DNA to work with (i.e. an egg and a sperm, an egg and the DNA from a sperm, an empty egg with full set of human DNA (such as cloning))
Click to expand...


They don't believe something can be created from nothing but then believe god made humans out of mud.

In fact, something can come from nothing and we are able to observe it in the form of virtual particles and quantum vacuum fluctuations. They explain why the early universe lacked uniformity and provided the seeds for the emergence of structure [2][3]. These quantum phenomena are also causeless in the sense that they are objectively and irreducibly random, a fact confirmed by tests of non-local realism and Bell’s Theorem.

Note 1: Theists often state “God is outside of time”. This claim does not actually make their speculation correct. Instead, it brings with it a whole host of problems and may be immediately dismissed as being without basis and a type fallacy known as special pleading.


----------



## Old Rocks

LTCArmyRet said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> How anyone can believe in the creationist theory, I don't know, because it makes no sense to me!
> 
> 
> 
> Here is their thinking.
> 
> Those were just stories, allegories, parables. Whatever. The fact is who was Adams mother? Christians thing god waved his hand and next thing you know all the land living animals appeared.
> 
> So the first animals didn't have parents. God made them.
> 
> If I'm wrong one of them will correct me
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You think it's impossible to create humans outside the womb?
> 
> How anti science of you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you think there's a scientifically provable explanation?
> 
> What you believe is what our primitive ancient ancestors believed 2000 years ago.  I don't blame them because they didn't know what we know today.  It's people like you who have the internet at your fingertips and all the knowledge we have now and even still you deny evolution and choose to believe a god that wrote the bible waved his hand and made it all so.   This is why we say religious people can't possibly be scientific unless they are cherry picking and using cognitive dissonance along the way.
> 
> Until we understand something we “do not know”. Positing a ‘god’ in place of admitting personal ignorance is an unfounded leap which demonstrates a fundamental lack of humility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And acting as though everything is known today is arrogance and ignorant.
Click to expand...

God, what a damned stupid thing to say. Science is constantly seeking new knowledge. It is people like you that simply look at something, and say "God did it", and leave it at that. Your ignorance is willful, and is the worst crime you can commit against the future generations.


----------



## Old Rocks

LTCArmyRet said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is their thinking.
> 
> Those were just stories, allegories, parables. Whatever. The fact is who was Adams mother? Christians thing god waved his hand and next thing you know all the land living animals appeared.
> 
> So the first animals didn't have parents. God made them.
> 
> If I'm wrong one of them will correct me
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You think it's impossible to create humans outside the womb?
> 
> How anti science of you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you think there's a scientifically provable explanation?
> 
> What you believe is what our primitive ancient ancestors believed 2000 years ago.  I don't blame them because they didn't know what we know today.  It's people like you who have the internet at your fingertips and all the knowledge we have now and even still you deny evolution and choose to believe a god that wrote the bible waved his hand and made it all so.   This is why we say religious people can't possibly be scientific unless they are cherry picking and using cognitive dissonance along the way.
> 
> Until we understand something we “do not know”. Positing a ‘god’ in place of admitting personal ignorance is an unfounded leap which demonstrates a fundamental lack of humility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And acting as though everything is known today is arrogance and ignorant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think everything is known.  What I'm doing is using what is known.  I'm not ignoring what is known because it conflicts with my ancient holy books.
> 
> Believing in god because not everything is known is ignorant.  God of the gaps.
> 
> Until we understand something we “do not know”. Positing a ‘god’ in place of admitting personal ignorance is an unfounded leap which demonstrates a fundamental lack of humility.
> 
> The existence and non-existence of a god are not equally probable outcomes. The majority of things we can possibly imagine do not exist. Thus, belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.
> 
> See also: Critical thinking (a must watch), Richard Feynman on Doubt and Uncertainty (a must watch).
> 
> _“It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.” _– Carl Sagan
> 
> _“God is an ever-receding pocket of ignorance that’s getting smaller and smaller as time goes on.”_– Neil deGrasse Tyson
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not denying all that is known, just the conclusion you are jumping to from what is known.  You think this proves that God doesn't or can't exist, I say it only proves his existence.
Click to expand...

The existence of a diety cannot be proven or disproved, it is accepted or rejected on faith. What can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt is that life evolved on this planet, is still evolving, and will continue to evolve as long as there is life here.


----------



## Old Rocks

koshergrl said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> xotoxi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> xotoxi said:
> 
> 
> 
> The great apes (gorillae, oranguans, chimpanzees) and humans evolved from a predecessor ape at some point in the distant past.  That predecessor ape is extinct.
> 
> I always think of the concept of evolution of animals as similar to the evolution of languages.  Spanish, Italian, French, and Portuguese all originally came from a predecessor language: Latin.  Latin is extinct.  The other descendant languages are similar in many ways, but distinctly different.
> 
> 
> 
> cute theory.
> unproven, however.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is _your _proven theory?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't have a proven one. Neither do you. That's my point.
> 
> Faith is a good thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Faith isn’t a virtue; it is the glorification of voluntary ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have faith in junk science. I'd say that's a better example of "voluntary ignorance" than faith in God, since you deny your version is "faith" but instead tout it as "science".
Click to expand...

What a silly little ass you are. We are engineering, quite successfully with that 'junk science'. The fossil record attests to the accuracy of that 'Junk science' as does the DNA in every cell of your body. Your own body attests to the stupidity of your views.


----------



## Sbiker

ChrisL said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> Adam was husband of Eve, but mankind came from monkey... So, Eve didn't lose time, when Adam tried to make adultery with Lilith...
> 
> 
> 
> Who were Adams parents?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How did they populate the world when they had two SONS, Cain and Abel?  Where did the other women come from?
Click to expand...


Women sight... and, offcourse - monkeys and monkeys


----------



## Old Rocks

LTCArmyRet said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is their thinking.
> 
> Those were just stories, allegories, parables. Whatever. The fact is who was Adams mother? Christians thing god waved his hand and next thing you know all the land living animals appeared.
> 
> So the first animals didn't have parents. God made them.
> 
> If I'm wrong one of them will correct me
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes , wrong.    Yes, God made them, God makes everything you dope, even your sorry ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's wrong?  You don't just get to say wrong without explaining how I'm wrong.  That only tells me I'm actually right but me putting it the way I did embarrassed your stupid little ass.
> 
> Are you telling me the first pigs had parents?  Then they weren't the first.  How did pigs get on this planet?
> 
> See friend I'm trying to help you walk it through in your brain.  Maybe you haven't logically thought it through.  This is why evolution is the truth.  No god had to come and wave his hand and magically all the diverse animals were here.
> 
> Is Earth Undergoing a 6th Mass Extinction? --"99.9% of all Past Species Extinct"
> 
> This means 99% of the animals god made are extinct today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, wrong.  I can say your wrong without explaining, see?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not going to start over from square one with some newby joining the discussion.  But at least you are the first in days to proudly admit that you believe a god waved his hand and produced all the animals on earth.  Most people don't have the courage to proclaim such ignorance.
> 
> But you know what?  How can I argue with that.  If you are willing to throw out all logic and science and believe such nonsense really what can I say?  Nothing.  God bless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ignorance in your eyes only, I believe I did ask a question much earlier in this thread which no one has even attempted to reply to.....................Evolution and God can exist together, do you know how long a day is to GOD?
Click to expand...

I have no problem with that. In that case, one must accept that the Bible is not the literal truth.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Ima Cat said:


> I know there are similarities but I think they are coincidental, like cats and seals both have whiskers.  But cats didn't come from seals or vice a versa.


----------



## Sbiker

ChrisL said:


> How anyone can believe in the creationist theory, I don't know, because it makes no sense to me!



Why not? Windows, you used, evolutioning since 80x years and have many versions... But do it really grow without any creators from Microsoft?


----------



## Old Rocks

koshergrl said:


> xotoxi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> xotoxi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> xotoxi said:
> 
> 
> 
> The great apes (gorillae, oranguans, chimpanzees) and humans evolved from a predecessor ape at some point in the distant past.  That predecessor ape is extinct.
> 
> I always think of the concept of evolution of animals as similar to the evolution of languages.  Spanish, Italian, French, and Portuguese all originally came from a predecessor language: Latin.  Latin is extinct.  The other descendant languages are similar in many ways, but distinctly different.
> 
> 
> 
> cute theory.
> unproven, however.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is _your _proven theory?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't have a proven one. Neither do you. That's my point.
> 
> Faith is a good thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Therefore, there is just as much chance that I am correct than that you are correct...even though my unproven theory does have some evidence to lend it credibility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The difference is that I don't present my theory as anything but theory, and my belief.
Click to expand...

Now Kosher, I know that it is impossible for you to accept the idea, but 'Theory' in science means something far different than the way you are using it.


----------



## Sbiker

sealybobo said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> How anyone can believe in the creationist theory, I don't know, because it makes no sense to me!
> 
> 
> 
> Here is their thinking.
> 
> Those were just stories, allegories, parables. Whatever. The fact is who was Adams mother? Christians thing god waved his hand and next thing you know all the land living animals appeared.
> 
> So the first animals didn't have parents. God made them.
> 
> If I'm wrong one of them will correct me
Click to expand...


Who was first - egg or chicken?


----------



## Old Rocks

A feathered dinosaur.


----------



## Sbiker

Old Rocks said:


> A feathered dinosaur.



Or, maybe, hydra?


----------



## koshergrl

xotoxi said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> xotoxi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> xotoxi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> cute theory.
> unproven, however.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is _your _proven theory?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't have a proven one. Neither do you. That's my point.
> 
> Faith is a good thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Therefore, there is just as much chance that I am correct than that you are correct...even though my unproven theory does have some evidence to lend it credibility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The difference is that I don't present my theory as anything but theory, and my belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet there are other people who hold the same theory and belief as you, who presents it as TRUTH and FACT.
> 
> I hope you take the time to call them out.
Click to expand...


Truth and fact are not the same as "proven". Do you not understand these terms, xo?

Things can be true, and factual, before they are actually PROVEN. For example, it is true and factual that gravity exists. It was true and factual before it was proven. It is true and factual that the earth is, indeed, a sphere as stated in the bible. It was true and factual even when the *scientists* were insisting that the earth was flat, and before it was *proven* that the earth is round.

It is true and factual that God created man and is responsible for every thing in the world..including science. It is not proven. See, it doesn't have to be proven for it to be true.


----------



## xotoxi

koshergrl said:


> xotoxi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> xotoxi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> xotoxi said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is _your _proven theory?
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have a proven one. Neither do you. That's my point.
> 
> Faith is a good thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Therefore, there is just as much chance that I am correct than that you are correct...even though my unproven theory does have some evidence to lend it credibility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The difference is that I don't present my theory as anything but theory, and my belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet there are other people who hold the same theory and belief as you, who presents it as TRUTH and FACT.
> 
> I hope you take the time to call them out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Truth and fact are not the same as "proven". Do you not understand these terms, xo?
> 
> Things can be true, and factual, before they are actually PROVEN. For example, it is true and factual that gravity exists. It was true and factual before it was proven. It is true and factual that the earth is, indeed, a sphere as stated in the bible. It was true and factual even when the *scientists* were insisting that the earth was flat, and before it was *proven* that the earth is round.
> 
> *It is true and factual that God created man and is responsible for every thing in the world*..including science. It is not proven. See, it doesn't have to be proven for it to be true.
Click to expand...


Yes.  It is true that God created the world is a theory.  And it is a fact that God created the world is a theory.


----------



## xotoxi

Sbiker said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> How anyone can believe in the creationist theory, I don't know, because it makes no sense to me!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why not? Windows, you used, evolutioning since 80x years and have many versions... But do it really grow without any creators from Microsoft?
Click to expand...


That's an excellent analogy!  

Now, why don't you keep working on it until you come up with an analogy that actually fits into this discussion.


----------



## sealybobo

LTCArmyRet said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is their thinking.
> 
> Those were just stories, allegories, parables. Whatever. The fact is who was Adams mother? Christians thing god waved his hand and next thing you know all the land living animals appeared.
> 
> So the first animals didn't have parents. God made them.
> 
> If I'm wrong one of them will correct me
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes , wrong.    Yes, God made them, God makes everything you dope, even your sorry ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's wrong?  You don't just get to say wrong without explaining how I'm wrong.  That only tells me I'm actually right but me putting it the way I did embarrassed your stupid little ass.
> 
> Are you telling me the first pigs had parents?  Then they weren't the first.  How did pigs get on this planet?
> 
> See friend I'm trying to help you walk it through in your brain.  Maybe you haven't logically thought it through.  This is why evolution is the truth.  No god had to come and wave his hand and magically all the diverse animals were here.
> 
> Is Earth Undergoing a 6th Mass Extinction? --"99.9% of all Past Species Extinct"
> 
> This means 99% of the animals god made are extinct today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, wrong.  I can say your wrong without explaining, see?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not going to start over from square one with some newby joining the discussion.  But at least you are the first in days to proudly admit that you believe a god waved his hand and produced all the animals on earth.  Most people don't have the courage to proclaim such ignorance.
> 
> But you know what?  How can I argue with that.  If you are willing to throw out all logic and science and believe such nonsense really what can I say?  Nothing.  God bless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ignorance in your eyes only, I believe I did ask a question much earlier in this thread which no one has even attempted to reply to.....................Evolution and God can exist together, do you know how long a day is to GOD?
Click to expand...

Since the universe is 14 billion years old and they say god created everything in 7 days I'd say 1 day to god is 2 billion years.  

If evolution is accepted in Christianity will you please tell Christians because they don't seem to know this.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

koshergrl said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> How anyone can believe in the creationist theory, I don't know, because it makes no sense to me!
> 
> 
> 
> Here is their thinking.
> 
> Those were just stories, allegories, parables. Whatever. The fact is who was Adams mother? Christians thing god waved his hand and next thing you know all the land living animals appeared.
> 
> So the first animals didn't have parents. God made them.
> 
> If I'm wrong one of them will correct me
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You think it's impossible to create humans outside the womb?
> 
> How anti science of you.
Click to expand...


Now I've seen it all - easily the most ignorant poster here just said that god used science to create Adam and Eve. 

Hey koshergrl Please post the bible passage that describes the scientific process!

BTW, does it matter that god started with Adam and Eve? Didn't he come back later and, in a temper tantrum, drown every human being on the planet? Then, didn't he leave it some drunk and his very suspicious family relationships to repopulate?


----------



## sealybobo

koshergrl said:


> xotoxi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> xotoxi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> xotoxi said:
> 
> 
> 
> The great apes (gorillae, oranguans, chimpanzees) and humans evolved from a predecessor ape at some point in the distant past.  That predecessor ape is extinct.
> 
> I always think of the concept of evolution of animals as similar to the evolution of languages.  Spanish, Italian, French, and Portuguese all originally came from a predecessor language: Latin.  Latin is extinct.  The other descendant languages are similar in many ways, but distinctly different.
> 
> 
> 
> cute theory.
> unproven, however.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is _your _proven theory?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't have a proven one. Neither do you. That's my point.
> 
> Faith is a good thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Therefore, there is just as much chance that I am correct than that you are correct...even though my unproven theory does have some evidence to lend it credibility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The difference is that I don't present my theory as anything but theory, and my belief.
Click to expand...


That's because yours isn't a theory.  At least not a scientific one.


----------



## Sbiker

xotoxi said:


> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> How anyone can believe in the creationist theory, I don't know, because it makes no sense to me!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why not? Windows, you used, evolutioning since 80x years and have many versions... But do it really grow without any creators from Microsoft?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's an excellent analogy!
> 
> Now, why don't you keep working on it until you come up with an analogy that actually fits into this discussion.
Click to expand...


There are no any proves of human creation by God, or any proves against it. There are no profit for science tasks to think both. So, it's a problem of beliefs.

People, who reject the evolution theory - in fact, heretics. They're trying to force to God, HOW it could make human. Why God couldn't do it through evolution? They impose to God their beliefs, what I can say else? One, who tried to impose his point of view to God - someone, named Lucifer, already got a result...


----------



## koshergrl

xotoxi said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> xotoxi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> xotoxi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have a proven one. Neither do you. That's my point.
> 
> Faith is a good thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Therefore, there is just as much chance that I am correct than that you are correct...even though my unproven theory does have some evidence to lend it credibility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The difference is that I don't present my theory as anything but theory, and my belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet there are other people who hold the same theory and belief as you, who presents it as TRUTH and FACT.
> 
> I hope you take the time to call them out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Truth and fact are not the same as "proven". Do you not understand these terms, xo?
> 
> Things can be true, and factual, before they are actually PROVEN. For example, it is true and factual that gravity exists. It was true and factual before it was proven. It is true and factual that the earth is, indeed, a sphere as stated in the bible. It was true and factual even when the *scientists* were insisting that the earth was flat, and before it was *proven* that the earth is round.
> 
> *It is true and factual that God created man and is responsible for every thing in the world*..including science. It is not proven. See, it doesn't have to be proven for it to be true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.  It is true that God created the world is a theory.  And it is a fact that God created the world is a theory.
Click to expand...


It's also a fact that God created the world.

Unproven, of course. But just because it's unproven doesn't make it untrue.

It's unproven that you are a butt picking finger sniffer, for example. But everybody knows it's true.


----------



## sealybobo

Luddly Neddite said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> How anyone can believe in the creationist theory, I don't know, because it makes no sense to me!
> 
> 
> 
> Here is their thinking.
> 
> Those were just stories, allegories, parables. Whatever. The fact is who was Adams mother? Christians thing god waved his hand and next thing you know all the land living animals appeared.
> 
> So the first animals didn't have parents. God made them.
> 
> If I'm wrong one of them will correct me
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You think it's impossible to create humans outside the womb?
> 
> How anti science of you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now I've seen it all - easily the most ignorant poster here just said that god used science to create Adam and Eve.
> 
> Hey koshergrl Please post the bible passage that describes the scientific process!
> 
> BTW, does it matter that god started with Adam and Eve? Didn't he come back later and, in a temper tantrum, drown every human being on the planet? Then, didn't he leave it some drunk and his very suspicious family relationships to repopulate?
Click to expand...


This isn't science?

*Question: "Why did God use Adam's rib to create Eve?"

Answer: *Genesis 2:18–24 tells the well-known account of how God created the first woman by removing a “rib” from Adam’s body and fashioning it into the woman. The creation account clearly indicates that God used Adam’s rib to create Eve instead of making her from the dust of the ground as He had done for Adam. 

God apparently had formed male and female animals separately, but the female human was originally part of man—Adam said, “She shall be called ‘woman,’ for she was taken out of man” (Genesis 2:23).


----------



## sealybobo

koshergrl said:


> xotoxi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> xotoxi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> xotoxi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Therefore, there is just as much chance that I am correct than that you are correct...even though my unproven theory does have some evidence to lend it credibility.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The difference is that I don't present my theory as anything but theory, and my belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet there are other people who hold the same theory and belief as you, who presents it as TRUTH and FACT.
> 
> I hope you take the time to call them out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Truth and fact are not the same as "proven". Do you not understand these terms, xo?
> 
> Things can be true, and factual, before they are actually PROVEN. For example, it is true and factual that gravity exists. It was true and factual before it was proven. It is true and factual that the earth is, indeed, a sphere as stated in the bible. It was true and factual even when the *scientists* were insisting that the earth was flat, and before it was *proven* that the earth is round.
> 
> *It is true and factual that God created man and is responsible for every thing in the world*..including science. It is not proven. See, it doesn't have to be proven for it to be true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.  It is true that God created the world is a theory.  And it is a fact that God created the world is a theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's also a fact that God created the world.
> 
> Unproven, of course. But just because it's unproven doesn't make it untrue.
> 
> It's unproven that you are a butt picking finger sniffer, for example. But everybody knows it's true.
Click to expand...


It's not a fact that a god created the universe.  That's what religions want you to believe so you put money in the hat as they pass it around.


----------



## xotoxi

Sbiker said:


> xotoxi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sbiker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> How anyone can believe in the creationist theory, I don't know, because it makes no sense to me!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why not? Windows, you used, evolutioning since 80x years and have many versions... But do it really grow without any creators from Microsoft?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's an excellent analogy!
> 
> Now, why don't you keep working on it until you come up with an analogy that actually fits into this discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are no any proves of human creation by God, or any proves against it. There are no profit for science tasks to think both. So, it's a problem of beliefs.
> 
> People, who reject the evolution theory - in fact, heretics. They're trying to force to God, HOW it could make human. Why God couldn't do it through evolution? They impose to God their beliefs, what I can say else? One, who tried to impose his point of view to God - someone, named Lucifer, already got a result...
Click to expand...


Yeah...


----------



## xotoxi

koshergrl said:


> xotoxi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> xotoxi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> xotoxi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Therefore, there is just as much chance that I am correct than that you are correct...even though my unproven theory does have some evidence to lend it credibility.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The difference is that I don't present my theory as anything but theory, and my belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet there are other people who hold the same theory and belief as you, who presents it as TRUTH and FACT.
> 
> I hope you take the time to call them out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Truth and fact are not the same as "proven". Do you not understand these terms, xo?
> 
> Things can be true, and factual, before they are actually PROVEN. For example, it is true and factual that gravity exists. It was true and factual before it was proven. It is true and factual that the earth is, indeed, a sphere as stated in the bible. It was true and factual even when the *scientists* were insisting that the earth was flat, and before it was *proven* that the earth is round.
> 
> *It is true and factual that God created man and is responsible for every thing in the world*..including science. It is not proven. See, it doesn't have to be proven for it to be true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.  It is true that God created the world is a theory.  And it is a fact that God created the world is a theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's also a fact that God created the world.
> 
> Unproven, of course. But just because it's unproven doesn't make it untrue.
> 
> It's unproven that you are a butt picking finger sniffer, for example. But everybody knows it's true.
Click to expand...


It's also a fact that you want my cock.  And if you say, no, you are only proving that you are a liar.


----------



## xotoxi

sealybobo said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> How anyone can believe in the creationist theory, I don't know, because it makes no sense to me!
> 
> 
> 
> Here is their thinking.
> 
> Those were just stories, allegories, parables. Whatever. The fact is who was Adams mother? Christians thing god waved his hand and next thing you know all the land living animals appeared.
> 
> So the first animals didn't have parents. God made them.
> 
> If I'm wrong one of them will correct me
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You think it's impossible to create humans outside the womb?
> 
> How anti science of you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now I've seen it all - easily the most ignorant poster here just said that god used science to create Adam and Eve.
> 
> Hey koshergrl Please post the bible passage that describes the scientific process!
> 
> BTW, does it matter that god started with Adam and Eve? Didn't he come back later and, in a temper tantrum, drown every human being on the planet? Then, didn't he leave it some drunk and his very suspicious family relationships to repopulate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This isn't science?
> 
> *Question: "Why did God use Adam's rib to create Eve?"
> 
> Answer: *Genesis 2:18–24 tells the well-known account of how God created the first woman by removing a “rib” from Adam’s body and fashioning it into the woman. The creation account clearly indicates that God used Adam’s rib to create Eve instead of making her from the dust of the ground as He had done for Adam.
> 
> God apparently had formed male and female animals separately, but the female human was originally part of man—Adam said, “She shall be called ‘woman,’ for she was taken out of man” (Genesis 2:23).
Click to expand...


Apparently, men had 13 ribs on one side and 12 on the other.  God saw that he fucked up, so he ripped the extra rib out of the man and built a woman around it using various meat scraps and bone fragments from the corner of the cave.

Cool story, bro.


----------



## Sbiker

sealybobo said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> xotoxi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> xotoxi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> The difference is that I don't present my theory as anything but theory, and my belief.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yet there are other people who hold the same theory and belief as you, who presents it as TRUTH and FACT.
> 
> I hope you take the time to call them out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Truth and fact are not the same as "proven". Do you not understand these terms, xo?
> 
> Things can be true, and factual, before they are actually PROVEN. For example, it is true and factual that gravity exists. It was true and factual before it was proven. It is true and factual that the earth is, indeed, a sphere as stated in the bible. It was true and factual even when the *scientists* were insisting that the earth was flat, and before it was *proven* that the earth is round.
> 
> *It is true and factual that God created man and is responsible for every thing in the world*..including science. It is not proven. See, it doesn't have to be proven for it to be true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.  It is true that God created the world is a theory.  And it is a fact that God created the world is a theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's also a fact that God created the world.
> 
> Unproven, of course. But just because it's unproven doesn't make it untrue.
> 
> It's unproven that you are a butt picking finger sniffer, for example. But everybody knows it's true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not a fact that a god created the universe.  That's what religions want you to believe so you put money in the hat as they pass it around.
Click to expand...


The biggest mistake, I see last times everywhere - to consider science, as source of indisputable knowledges.
Most of current PhD in world - do they still remember phylosophic substantination of modern science? Do they still know, modern science is speculative as fact. There are no "true" and "false" concepts in theory, only "useful" and "useless". The main function of theory - to predict facts. The main prove of theories - practice and life. 

"Does the God created humankind" - a question, doesn't have any meaning for science. "How the humankind were created" - more scientific question. Science reject God in current model only by Okkam principle, because it's no significant for practice.


----------



## sealybobo

xotoxi said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> How anyone can believe in the creationist theory, I don't know, because it makes no sense to me!
> 
> 
> 
> Here is their thinking.
> 
> Those were just stories, allegories, parables. Whatever. The fact is who was Adams mother? Christians thing god waved his hand and next thing you know all the land living animals appeared.
> 
> So the first animals didn't have parents. God made them.
> 
> If I'm wrong one of them will correct me
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You think it's impossible to create humans outside the womb?
> 
> How anti science of you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now I've seen it all - easily the most ignorant poster here just said that god used science to create Adam and Eve.
> 
> Hey koshergrl Please post the bible passage that describes the scientific process!
> 
> BTW, does it matter that god started with Adam and Eve? Didn't he come back later and, in a temper tantrum, drown every human being on the planet? Then, didn't he leave it some drunk and his very suspicious family relationships to repopulate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This isn't science?
> 
> *Question: "Why did God use Adam's rib to create Eve?"
> 
> Answer: *Genesis 2:18–24 tells the well-known account of how God created the first woman by removing a “rib” from Adam’s body and fashioning it into the woman. The creation account clearly indicates that God used Adam’s rib to create Eve instead of making her from the dust of the ground as He had done for Adam.
> 
> God apparently had formed male and female animals separately, but the female human was originally part of man—Adam said, “She shall be called ‘woman,’ for she was taken out of man” (Genesis 2:23).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apparently, men had 13 ribs on one side and 12 on the other.  God saw that he fucked up, so he ripped the extra rib out of the man and built a woman around it using various meat scraps and bone fragments from the corner of the cave.
> 
> Cool story, bro.
Click to expand...

What I love is when half ass theists who believe in evolution (finally) never argue with the irrational ones who de y evolution. They don't try and educate them because deep down they know everyone has their own personal definition of what god is.

I like it that very few are creation nuts


----------



## koshergrl

xotoxi said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> xotoxi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> xotoxi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> The difference is that I don't present my theory as anything but theory, and my belief.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yet there are other people who hold the same theory and belief as you, who presents it as TRUTH and FACT.
> 
> I hope you take the time to call them out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Truth and fact are not the same as "proven". Do you not understand these terms, xo?
> 
> Things can be true, and factual, before they are actually PROVEN. For example, it is true and factual that gravity exists. It was true and factual before it was proven. It is true and factual that the earth is, indeed, a sphere as stated in the bible. It was true and factual even when the *scientists* were insisting that the earth was flat, and before it was *proven* that the earth is round.
> 
> *It is true and factual that God created man and is responsible for every thing in the world*..including science. It is not proven. See, it doesn't have to be proven for it to be true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.  It is true that God created the world is a theory.  And it is a fact that God created the world is a theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's also a fact that God created the world.
> 
> Unproven, of course. But just because it's unproven doesn't make it untrue.
> 
> It's unproven that you are a butt picking finger sniffer, for example. But everybody knows it's true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's also a fact that you want my cock.  And if you say, no, you are only proving that you are a liar.
Click to expand...

See you DON'T know what "proven" means. I knew it!
And that IS a PROVEN FACT.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

xotoxi said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> How anyone can believe in the creationist theory, I don't know, because it makes no sense to me!
> 
> 
> 
> Here is their thinking.
> 
> Those were just stories, allegories, parables. Whatever. The fact is who was Adams mother? Christians thing god waved his hand and next thing you know all the land living animals appeared.
> 
> So the first animals didn't have parents. God made them.
> 
> If I'm wrong one of them will correct me
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You think it's impossible to create humans outside the womb?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is possible to create humans outside of the womb.
> 
> It is not possible to create a human without having another human's DNA to work with (i.e. an egg and a sperm, an egg and the DNA from a sperm, an empty egg with full set of human DNA (such as cloning))
Click to expand...


So-called "virgin birth" (parthenogenesis) does take place in nature but can result ONLY in a female offspring.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

xotoxi said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> How anyone can believe in the creationist theory, I don't know, because it makes no sense to me!
> 
> 
> 
> Here is their thinking.
> 
> Those were just stories, allegories, parables. Whatever. The fact is who was Adams mother? Christians thing god waved his hand and next thing you know all the land living animals appeared.
> 
> So the first animals didn't have parents. God made them.
> 
> If I'm wrong one of them will correct me
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You think it's impossible to create humans outside the womb?
> 
> How anti science of you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now I've seen it all - easily the most ignorant poster here just said that god used science to create Adam and Eve.
> 
> Hey koshergrl Please post the bible passage that describes the scientific process!
> 
> BTW, does it matter that god started with Adam and Eve? Didn't he come back later and, in a temper tantrum, drown every human being on the planet? Then, didn't he leave it some drunk and his very suspicious family relationships to repopulate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This isn't science?
> 
> *Question: "Why did God use Adam's rib to create Eve?"
> 
> Answer: *Genesis 2:18–24 tells the well-known account of how God created the first woman by removing a “rib” from Adam’s body and fashioning it into the woman. The creation account clearly indicates that God used Adam’s rib to create Eve instead of making her from the dust of the ground as He had done for Adam.
> 
> God apparently had formed male and female animals separately, but the female human was originally part of man—Adam said, “She shall be called ‘woman,’ for she was taken out of man” (Genesis 2:23).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apparently, men had 13 ribs on one side and 12 on the other.  God saw that he fucked up, so he ripped the extra rib out of the man and built a woman around it using various meat scraps and bone fragments from the corner of the cave.
> 
> Cool story, bro.
Click to expand...



Why didn't he fix the mistake he made with penises? That way, people wouldn't have be chopping away at little baby boys.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

sealybobo said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> How anyone can believe in the creationist theory, I don't know, because it makes no sense to me!
> 
> 
> 
> Here is their thinking.
> 
> Those were just stories, allegories, parables. Whatever. The fact is who was Adams mother? Christians thing god waved his hand and next thing you know all the land living animals appeared.
> 
> So the first animals didn't have parents. God made them.
> 
> If I'm wrong one of them will correct me
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You think it's impossible to create humans outside the womb?
> 
> How anti science of you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now I've seen it all - easily the most ignorant poster here just said that god used science to create Adam and Eve.
> 
> Hey koshergrl Please post the bible passage that describes the scientific process!
> 
> BTW, does it matter that god started with Adam and Eve? Didn't he come back later and, in a temper tantrum, drown every human being on the planet? Then, didn't he leave it some drunk and his very suspicious family relationships to repopulate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This isn't science?
> 
> *Question: "Why did God use Adam's rib to create Eve?"
> 
> Answer: *Genesis 2:18–24 tells the well-known account of how God created the first woman by removing a “rib” from Adam’s body and fashioning it into the woman. The creation account clearly indicates that God used Adam’s rib to create Eve instead of making her from the dust of the ground as He had done for Adam.
> 
> God apparently had formed male and female animals separately, but the female human was originally part of man—Adam said, “She shall be called ‘woman,’ for she was taken out of man” (Genesis 2:23).
Click to expand...



According to the fake Jewess, it is.

However, she's wrong and she knows it. That's why she hasn't answered me. 

koshergrl - You're an idiot to believe myths and superstitions but you're more than welcome to. Just don't pretend its "science".


----------



## Old Rocks

koshergrl said:


> xotoxi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> xotoxi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> xotoxi said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is _your _proven theory?
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have a proven one. Neither do you. That's my point.
> 
> Faith is a good thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Therefore, there is just as much chance that I am correct than that you are correct...even though my unproven theory does have some evidence to lend it credibility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The difference is that I don't present my theory as anything but theory, and my belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet there are other people who hold the same theory and belief as you, who presents it as TRUTH and FACT.
> 
> I hope you take the time to call them out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Truth and fact are not the same as "proven". Do you not understand these terms, xo?
> 
> Things can be true, and factual, before they are actually PROVEN. For example, it is true and factual that gravity exists. It was true and factual before it was proven. It is true and factual that the earth is, indeed, a sphere as stated in the bible. It was true and factual even when the *scientists* were insisting that the earth was flat, and before it was *proven* that the earth is round.
> 
> It is true and factual that God created man and is responsible for every thing in the world..including science. It is not proven. See, it doesn't have to be proven for it to be true.
Click to expand...

No, dumb ass, it was the church that insisted that the Earth was flat. The earliest natural philosophers proved the earth round, and measured its circumference in 240 BC.

Eratosthenes' Calculation of Earth's Circumference

The same dumb ass church that persecuted Galileo for pointing out the Earth orbited the sun.

As for your belief concerning a Deity and the creation of man, that is your belief. Obviously, from physical evidence, it is a false belief. If you were to say that you Deity created the universe in such a way that it would bring forth life, no one could fault you on that, for the birth of the universe, or the cause of the birth is presently a mystery even to science. Of course, if you say that, then you become a Dieist, like the founders of our nation.


----------



## ChrisL

sealybobo said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> How anyone can believe in the creationist theory, I don't know, because it makes no sense to me!
> 
> 
> 
> Here is their thinking.
> 
> Those were just stories, allegories, parables. Whatever. The fact is who was Adams mother? Christians thing god waved his hand and next thing you know all the land living animals appeared.
> 
> So the first animals didn't have parents. God made them.
> 
> If I'm wrong one of them will correct me
Click to expand...


I do certainly believe the stories in the Bible are parables.  I'm quite sure many of the events never really took place.


----------



## ChrisL

sealybobo said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> xotoxi said:
> 
> 
> 
> The great apes (gorillae, oranguans, chimpanzees) and humans evolved from a predecessor ape at some point in the distant past.  That predecessor ape is extinct.
> 
> I always think of the concept of evolution of animals as similar to the evolution of languages.  Spanish, Italian, French, and Portuguese all originally came from a predecessor language: Latin.  Latin is extinct.  The other descendant languages are similar in many ways, but distinctly different.
> 
> 
> 
> cute theory.
> unproven, however.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So is the idea that god waved his hand and fully grown animals appeared.  Do you see why we have a problem with this?  The idea that the first giraffe and elephant and zebra were fully grown adults is ridiculous but that's what you believe isn't it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lets say these were the first animals on the planet.  Are you suggesting that they were never born from a mother and they were never babies?
Click to expand...


I see a real problem with fitting two of every animal onto a boat!


----------



## LTCArmyRet

xotoxi said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> How anyone can believe in the creationist theory, I don't know, because it makes no sense to me!
> 
> 
> 
> Here is their thinking.
> 
> Those were just stories, allegories, parables. Whatever. The fact is who was Adams mother? Christians thing god waved his hand and next thing you know all the land living animals appeared.
> 
> So the first animals didn't have parents. God made them.
> 
> If I'm wrong one of them will correct me
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You think it's impossible to create humans outside the womb?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is possible to create humans outside of the womb.
> 
> *It is not possible to create a human without having another human's DNA *to work with (i.e. an egg and a sperm, an egg and the DNA from a sperm, an empty egg with full set of human DNA (such as cloning))
Click to expand...


For a man, yes, for God, no


----------



## LTCArmyRet

sealybobo said:


> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> xotoxi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> You think it's impossible to create humans outside the womb?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is possible to create humans outside of the womb.
> 
> It is not possible to create a human without having another human's DNA to work with (i.e. an egg and a sperm, an egg and the DNA from a sperm, an empty egg with full set of human DNA (such as cloning))
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So in theory it's perfectly possible that someone created dna and then created humanity.
> 
> Thank you. I agree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure it's possible.  So why do Christians have such a problem with evolution?
> 
> We know that even if evolution is proven as a fact you will still deny it and just move the goal post.   This is called god of the gaps.
> 
> 7 Things That Show That Evolution Is An Actual Fact
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They don't......you are just selling it as the WHOLE story, when it is a very small part of the story.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> BS
> 
> Throughout much of the 20th century, opponents of evolution (many of them theologically conservative Christians) either tried to eliminate the teaching of Darwin’s theory from public school science curricula or urged science instructors also to teach a version of the creation story found in the biblical book of Genesis. The famous 1925 _Scopes_ “monkey” trial, for instance, involved a Tennessee law prohibiting the teaching of evolution in the state’s schools. (See The Social and Legal Dimensions of the Evolution Debate in the U.S.)
> 
> But beginning in the 1960s, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a number of decisions that imposed severe restrictions on those state governments that opposed the teaching of evolution. As a result of these rulings, school boards, legislatures and government bodies are now barred from prohibiting the teaching of evolution. Teaching creation science, either along with evolutionary theory or in place of it, is also banned.
> 
> Partly in response to these court decisions, opposition to teaching evolution has itself evolved, with opponents changing their goals and tactics. In the last decade, some local and state school boards in Kansas, Pennsylvania and elsewhere have considered teaching what they contend are scientific alternatives to evolution – notably the concept of intelligent design, which posits that life is too complex to have developed without the intervention of an outside, possibly divine force. Other education officials have tried to require schools to teach critiques of evolution or to mandate that students listen to or read evolution disclaimers, such as one proposed a number of years ago in Cobb County, Ga. It read, in part, that evolution is “a theory, not a fact [and] … should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered.” The Cobb County disclaimer and a number of other efforts have been withdrawn following successful court challenges by proponents of teaching evolution.(See Fighting Over Darwin, State by State.)
> 
> These debates are just as prevalent in the court of public opinion as they are in the courtroom. A spring 2013 Pew Research Center survey finds that six-in-ten Americans say humans and other living things evolved over time, including 32% who say that life evolved through natural processes like natural selection and 24% who say a supreme being guided the evolution of living things for the purpose of creating humans and other life in the form it exists today. A third of Americans (33%) say that humans and other living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time.
Click to expand...


BS

You can quote all the "survey" data you want, doesn't mean anything.  A decision that dictates a certain curriculum doesn't mean the curriculum is correct, it is simply the chosen curriculum.

www.newsweek.com/pope-franciss-remarks-evolution...catholics-281115


----------



## LTCArmyRet

sealybobo said:


> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes , wrong.    Yes, God made them, God makes everything you dope, even your sorry ass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's wrong?  You don't just get to say wrong without explaining how I'm wrong.  That only tells me I'm actually right but me putting it the way I did embarrassed your stupid little ass.
> 
> Are you telling me the first pigs had parents?  Then they weren't the first.  How did pigs get on this planet?
> 
> See friend I'm trying to help you walk it through in your brain.  Maybe you haven't logically thought it through.  This is why evolution is the truth.  No god had to come and wave his hand and magically all the diverse animals were here.
> 
> Is Earth Undergoing a 6th Mass Extinction? --"99.9% of all Past Species Extinct"
> 
> This means 99% of the animals god made are extinct today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, wrong.  I can say your wrong without explaining, see?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not going to start over from square one with some newby joining the discussion.  But at least you are the first in days to proudly admit that you believe a god waved his hand and produced all the animals on earth.  Most people don't have the courage to proclaim such ignorance.
> 
> But you know what?  How can I argue with that.  If you are willing to throw out all logic and science and believe such nonsense really what can I say?  Nothing.  God bless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ignorance in your eyes only, I believe I did ask a question much earlier in this thread which no one has even attempted to reply to.....................Evolution and God can exist together, do you know how long a day is to GOD?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since the universe is 14 billion years old and they say god created everything in 7 days I'd say 1 day to god is 2 billion years.
> 
> If evolution is accepted in Christianity will you please tell Christians because they don't seem to know this.
Click to expand...


You know, there is a lot of assumptions made when generalizing a large group of anything, and you are assuming a lot about all Christians with your statement.  You know what happens when you assume?


----------



## koshergrl

Luddly Neddite said:


> xotoxi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is their thinking.
> 
> Those were just stories, allegories, parables. Whatever. The fact is who was Adams mother? Christians thing god waved his hand and next thing you know all the land living animals appeared.
> 
> So the first animals didn't have parents. God made them.
> 
> If I'm wrong one of them will correct me
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You think it's impossible to create humans outside the womb?
> 
> How anti science of you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now I've seen it all - easily the most ignorant poster here just said that god used science to create Adam and Eve.
> 
> Hey koshergrl Please post the bible passage that describes the scientific process!
> 
> BTW, does it matter that god started with Adam and Eve? Didn't he come back later and, in a temper tantrum, drown every human being on the planet? Then, didn't he leave it some drunk and his very suspicious family relationships to repopulate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This isn't science?
> 
> *Question: "Why did God use Adam's rib to create Eve?"
> 
> Answer: *Genesis 2:18–24 tells the well-known account of how God created the first woman by removing a “rib” from Adam’s body and fashioning it into the woman. The creation account clearly indicates that God used Adam’s rib to create Eve instead of making her from the dust of the ground as He had done for Adam.
> 
> God apparently had formed male and female animals separately, but the female human was originally part of man—Adam said, “She shall be called ‘woman,’ for she was taken out of man” (Genesis 2:23).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apparently, men had 13 ribs on one side and 12 on the other.  God saw that he fucked up, so he ripped the extra rib out of the man and built a woman around it using various meat scraps and bone fragments from the corner of the cave.
> 
> Cool story, bro.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why didn't he fix the mistake he made with penises? That way, people wouldn't have be chopping away at little baby boys.
Click to expand...

you obsess over that way too much. Get over it weirdo.


----------



## sealybobo

LTCArmyRet said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's wrong?  You don't just get to say wrong without explaining how I'm wrong.  That only tells me I'm actually right but me putting it the way I did embarrassed your stupid little ass.
> 
> Are you telling me the first pigs had parents?  Then they weren't the first.  How did pigs get on this planet?
> 
> See friend I'm trying to help you walk it through in your brain.  Maybe you haven't logically thought it through.  This is why evolution is the truth.  No god had to come and wave his hand and magically all the diverse animals were here.
> 
> Is Earth Undergoing a 6th Mass Extinction? --"99.9% of all Past Species Extinct"
> 
> This means 99% of the animals god made are extinct today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, wrong.  I can say your wrong without explaining, see?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not going to start over from square one with some newby joining the discussion.  But at least you are the first in days to proudly admit that you believe a god waved his hand and produced all the animals on earth.  Most people don't have the courage to proclaim such ignorance.
> 
> But you know what?  How can I argue with that.  If you are willing to throw out all logic and science and believe such nonsense really what can I say?  Nothing.  God bless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ignorance in your eyes only, I believe I did ask a question much earlier in this thread which no one has even attempted to reply to.....................Evolution and God can exist together, do you know how long a day is to GOD?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since the universe is 14 billion years old and they say god created everything in 7 days I'd say 1 day to god is 2 billion years.
> 
> If evolution is accepted in Christianity will you please tell Christians because they don't seem to know this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know, there is a lot of assumptions made when generalizing a large group of anything, and you are assuming a lot about all Christians with your statement.  You know what happens when you assume?
Click to expand...


Of course we assume.  For example, we assume all Christians believe only Christians go to heaven.  Some if not most of you think all non christians are going to hell.  Why wouldn't we assume this?  We hear it says it right in the bible.  Jesus said I'm the only way.  Only though me can you enter the kingdom of heaven.  Does the bible say anything about hell?  So then why do so many Christians tell us if we aren't saved we will burn for all eternity?

And really it doesn't matter what you personally believe.  We know all christians are cherry pickers.  Like snowflakes, no two are the same.  But go talk to your preacher and push him on it and he will tell you that Christianity says only christians go to heaven and/or non christians go to hell.  There is no mention of a 3rd option, is there?  So I guess my point is that if you don't believe what Christianity says, then why call yourself a Christian?


----------



## sealybobo

For example, Jesus warned that the wicked inhabitants of Capernaum (who had rejected his teaching) would go down into Hades (Mt. 11:23; Lk. 10:15). When the cold-hearted rich man died, his spirit was found in Hades, a place of torment and anguish (Lk. 16:23-24).


----------



## sealybobo

The apostle Peter wrote that:

“God spared not angels when they sinned, but cast them down to hell, and committed them to pits of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment . . .” (2 Pet. 2:4).


Matt. 5:22, "But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the *hell* of fire."
Matt. 5:29, "If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into *hell*."


----------



## LTCArmyRet

sealybobo said:


> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, wrong.  I can say your wrong without explaining, see?
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not going to start over from square one with some newby joining the discussion.  But at least you are the first in days to proudly admit that you believe a god waved his hand and produced all the animals on earth.  Most people don't have the courage to proclaim such ignorance.
> 
> But you know what?  How can I argue with that.  If you are willing to throw out all logic and science and believe such nonsense really what can I say?  Nothing.  God bless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ignorance in your eyes only, I believe I did ask a question much earlier in this thread which no one has even attempted to reply to.....................Evolution and God can exist together, do you know how long a day is to GOD?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since the universe is 14 billion years old and they say god created everything in 7 days I'd say 1 day to god is 2 billion years.
> 
> If evolution is accepted in Christianity will you please tell Christians because they don't seem to know this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know, there is a lot of assumptions made when generalizing a large group of anything, and you are assuming a lot about all Christians with your statement.  You know what happens when you assume?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course we assume.  For example, we assume all Christians believe only Christians go to heaven.  Some if not most of you think all non christians are going to hell.  Why wouldn't we assume this?  We hear it says it right in the bible.  Jesus said I'm the only way.  Only though me can you enter the kingdom of heaven.  Does the bible say anything about hell?  So then why do so many Christians tell us if we aren't saved we will burn for all eternity?
> 
> And really it doesn't matter what you personally believe.  We know all christians are cherry pickers.  Like snowflakes, no two are the same.  But go talk to your preacher and push him on it and he will tell you that Christianity says only christians go to heaven and/or non christians go to hell.  There is no mention of a 3rd option, is there?  So I guess my point is that if you don't believe what Christianity says, then why call yourself a Christian?
Click to expand...


Nice deflection, and your prejudice is showing.  All Christians don't believe that only Christians will go to heaven.


----------



## LTCArmyRet

sealybobo said:


> The apostle Peter wrote that:
> 
> “God spared not angels when they sinned, but cast them down to hell, and committed them to pits of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment . . .” (2 Pet. 2:4).
> 
> 
> Matt. 5:22, "But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the *hell* of fire."
> Matt. 5:29, "If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into *hell*."


Now who is being the cherry picker?


----------



## xotoxi

LTCArmyRet said:


> xotoxi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> How anyone can believe in the creationist theory, I don't know, because it makes no sense to me!
> 
> 
> 
> Here is their thinking.
> 
> Those were just stories, allegories, parables. Whatever. The fact is who was Adams mother? Christians thing god waved his hand and next thing you know all the land living animals appeared.
> 
> So the first animals didn't have parents. God made them.
> 
> If I'm wrong one of them will correct me
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You think it's impossible to create humans outside the womb?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is possible to create humans outside of the womb.
> 
> *It is not possible to create a human without having another human's DNA *to work with (i.e. an egg and a sperm, an egg and the DNA from a sperm, an empty egg with full set of human DNA (such as cloning))
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For a man, yes, for God, no
Click to expand...


More silly talk.


----------



## LTCArmyRet

xotoxi said:


> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> xotoxi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> How anyone can believe in the creationist theory, I don't know, because it makes no sense to me!
> 
> 
> 
> Here is their thinking.
> 
> Those were just stories, allegories, parables. Whatever. The fact is who was Adams mother? Christians thing god waved his hand and next thing you know all the land living animals appeared.
> 
> So the first animals didn't have parents. God made them.
> 
> If I'm wrong one of them will correct me
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You think it's impossible to create humans outside the womb?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is possible to create humans outside of the womb.
> 
> *It is not possible to create a human without having another human's DNA *to work with (i.e. an egg and a sperm, an egg and the DNA from a sperm, an empty egg with full set of human DNA (such as cloning))
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For a man, yes, for God, no
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More silly talk.
Click to expand...


Only in your mind.


----------



## Votto

Ima Cat said:


> I know there are similarities but I think they are coincidental, like cats and seals both have whiskers.  But cats didn't come from seals or vice a versa.



We came from monkeys?

Nope, monkeys are not as dictatorial and cruel and power hungry.

I demand an apology for all monkeys


----------



## Votto

Muhammed said:


>



Finish the damned chart!


----------



## xotoxi

LTCArmyRet said:


> xotoxi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> xotoxi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is their thinking.
> 
> Those were just stories, allegories, parables. Whatever. The fact is who was Adams mother? Christians thing god waved his hand and next thing you know all the land living animals appeared.
> 
> So the first animals didn't have parents. God made them.
> 
> If I'm wrong one of them will correct me
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You think it's impossible to create humans outside the womb?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is possible to create humans outside of the womb.
> 
> *It is not possible to create a human without having another human's DNA *to work with (i.e. an egg and a sperm, an egg and the DNA from a sperm, an empty egg with full set of human DNA (such as cloning))
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For a man, yes, for God, no
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More silly talk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only in your mind.
Click to expand...


...which is well grounded in reality.


----------



## sealybobo

LTCArmyRet said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not going to start over from square one with some newby joining the discussion.  But at least you are the first in days to proudly admit that you believe a god waved his hand and produced all the animals on earth.  Most people don't have the courage to proclaim such ignorance.
> 
> But you know what?  How can I argue with that.  If you are willing to throw out all logic and science and believe such nonsense really what can I say?  Nothing.  God bless.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ignorance in your eyes only, I believe I did ask a question much earlier in this thread which no one has even attempted to reply to.....................Evolution and God can exist together, do you know how long a day is to GOD?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since the universe is 14 billion years old and they say god created everything in 7 days I'd say 1 day to god is 2 billion years.
> 
> If evolution is accepted in Christianity will you please tell Christians because they don't seem to know this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know, there is a lot of assumptions made when generalizing a large group of anything, and you are assuming a lot about all Christians with your statement.  You know what happens when you assume?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course we assume.  For example, we assume all Christians believe only Christians go to heaven.  Some if not most of you think all non christians are going to hell.  Why wouldn't we assume this?  We hear it says it right in the bible.  Jesus said I'm the only way.  Only though me can you enter the kingdom of heaven.  Does the bible say anything about hell?  So then why do so many Christians tell us if we aren't saved we will burn for all eternity?
> 
> And really it doesn't matter what you personally believe.  We know all christians are cherry pickers.  Like snowflakes, no two are the same.  But go talk to your preacher and push him on it and he will tell you that Christianity says only christians go to heaven and/or non christians go to hell.  There is no mention of a 3rd option, is there?  So I guess my point is that if you don't believe what Christianity says, then why call yourself a Christian?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nice deflection, and your prejudice is showing.  All Christians don't believe that only Christians will go to heaven.
Click to expand...


Then you aren't really a christian then are you?  How can you call yourself a christian when you pick and choose what you believe?

Classical evangelical doctrine holds that salvation comes only through faith in Jesus Christ, and that those without such faith will be condemned to hell. A number of texts are typically cited in support of this position.

In John 14:6 Jesus declares, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No-one comes to the Father except through me."

In Acts 4:12 Peter proclaims, "Salvation is found in no–one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among mortals by which we must be saved."

For Paul, the faithful will enjoy eternal life, but those who don’t know Christ will "be punished with everlasting destruction" (2 Thessalonians 1:9).

See, like me you don't like what you are hearing.  The only difference between you and me is that I was smart and brave enough to realize if I don't believe then I shouldn't be calling myself a christian.

Similar to christians telling gays they are going to hell.  If I don't believe that then I'm not really a christian.

Within the last decade, the Christian opinion on homosexuality has gone through a drastic about face as many Christians have changed their minds regarding their beliefs about gender, marriage, and romantic love. Claiming that homosexuality is anything other than an acceptable lifestyle that’s approved by God is now seen by many to be unloving, judgmental, and hateful.

I'm sorry but your church doesn't get to change with the times.  If it's outdated and obsolete and wrong then it isn't authentic.  It's simply man made rules from a long time ago.


----------



## sealybobo

xotoxi said:


> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> xotoxi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> xotoxi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> You think it's impossible to create humans outside the womb?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is possible to create humans outside of the womb.
> 
> *It is not possible to create a human without having another human's DNA *to work with (i.e. an egg and a sperm, an egg and the DNA from a sperm, an empty egg with full set of human DNA (such as cloning))
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For a man, yes, for God, no
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More silly talk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only in your mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ...which is well grounded in reality.
Click to expand...


The motivation for belief in a divine, salvational Jesus breaks down when you accept evolution:


LTCArmyRet said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> xotoxi said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is possible to create humans outside of the womb.
> 
> It is not possible to create a human without having another human's DNA to work with (i.e. an egg and a sperm, an egg and the DNA from a sperm, an empty egg with full set of human DNA (such as cloning))
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So in theory it's perfectly possible that someone created dna and then created humanity.
> 
> Thank you. I agree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure it's possible.  So why do Christians have such a problem with evolution?
> 
> We know that even if evolution is proven as a fact you will still deny it and just move the goal post.   This is called god of the gaps.
> 
> 7 Things That Show That Evolution Is An Actual Fact
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They don't......you are just selling it as the WHOLE story, when it is a very small part of the story.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> BS
> 
> Throughout much of the 20th century, opponents of evolution (many of them theologically conservative Christians) either tried to eliminate the teaching of Darwin’s theory from public school science curricula or urged science instructors also to teach a version of the creation story found in the biblical book of Genesis. The famous 1925 _Scopes_ “monkey” trial, for instance, involved a Tennessee law prohibiting the teaching of evolution in the state’s schools. (See The Social and Legal Dimensions of the Evolution Debate in the U.S.)
> 
> But beginning in the 1960s, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a number of decisions that imposed severe restrictions on those state governments that opposed the teaching of evolution. As a result of these rulings, school boards, legislatures and government bodies are now barred from prohibiting the teaching of evolution. Teaching creation science, either along with evolutionary theory or in place of it, is also banned.
> 
> Partly in response to these court decisions, opposition to teaching evolution has itself evolved, with opponents changing their goals and tactics. In the last decade, some local and state school boards in Kansas, Pennsylvania and elsewhere have considered teaching what they contend are scientific alternatives to evolution – notably the concept of intelligent design, which posits that life is too complex to have developed without the intervention of an outside, possibly divine force. Other education officials have tried to require schools to teach critiques of evolution or to mandate that students listen to or read evolution disclaimers, such as one proposed a number of years ago in Cobb County, Ga. It read, in part, that evolution is “a theory, not a fact [and] … should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered.” The Cobb County disclaimer and a number of other efforts have been withdrawn following successful court challenges by proponents of teaching evolution.(See Fighting Over Darwin, State by State.)
> 
> These debates are just as prevalent in the court of public opinion as they are in the courtroom. A spring 2013 Pew Research Center survey finds that six-in-ten Americans say humans and other living things evolved over time, including 32% who say that life evolved through natural processes like natural selection and 24% who say a supreme being guided the evolution of living things for the purpose of creating humans and other life in the form it exists today. A third of Americans (33%) say that humans and other living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> BS
> 
> You can quote all the "survey" data you want, doesn't mean anything.  A decision that dictates a certain curriculum doesn't mean the curriculum is correct, it is simply the chosen curriculum.
> 
> www.newsweek.com/pope-franciss-remarks-evolution...catholics-281115
Click to expand...


The Tree of Life is a way to organize or "classify" all life. By placing living beings in different branches, we can understand how closely or distantly related they are.

The base of the tree of life is divided into three main domains: Archaea, Bacteria and Eukaryota 






Bacteria: unicellular organisms with no nucleus (prokaryotes). Previously, they were classified in the kingdom Monera. They are the oldest of organisms (3500 million years). There are bacteria that synthesize their own food from carbon dioxide, such as cyanobacteria, green sulfur bacteria and some purple bacteria. Others use nitrogen or sulfur. 

Archaea: unicellular organisms that, like bacteria, have no nucleus (prokaryotes, blue-green algae). Previously, they were included in the kingdom Monera, along with bacteria; however, recent studies show differences with bacteria and similarities with the eukaryota domain. They differ from bacteria in the composition of their cell wall and in some of their organelles and genetic processes. 

Eukaryota: organisms which have a cell nucleus. Includes protozoa, unicellular algae, fungi, plants and animals, originally composed of four different realms 
(Protista, Fungi, Plantae, and Animalia). 

Domains are divided into kingdoms, and thereafter into_ phyla_ (singular _phylum_), class, order, family, genus and species. In plants and fungi, the _phyla_ category has the name “division”. Examples of _phyla_ are: Molluscs (snails, clams, and octopuses), Echinoderms (starfish and urchins) and Arthropods (insects, spiders, and crabs). Examples of divisions are the: Bryophyta (mosses), pteridophyta (ferns), Magnoliophyta (flowering plants).

I could keep going but I won't.  The point is, we know evolution is real.  We know so much that yes, evolution is a scientific fact.  We are all related.  Go back far enough and you and a skunk have a common ancestor.  Does that make you uncomfortable?  

When you say evolution is a fact it tells me you don't have all the information to make an intelligent decision.  Because if you knew all the evidence for evolution and still denied it then you'd just be a fucking moron.  Chances are though you are a brainwashed theist who just doesn't realize how much overwhelming evidence there is for evolution.  And I'm not talking to just you.  I'm talking to all of you who think you are smart and at the same time do something so stupid as to deny a scientific fact because it offends your god story.


----------



## sealybobo

All living organisms are related, from the smallest bacteria to the largest whales. To reflect the relationship between groups of species, biological classifications have been developed. Currently, Taxonomy is the discipline that deals with biological classifications, using sequences of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) from each organism as the most reliable source of information regarding relationship. 

I totally get why for theists this is all too much mind blowing information.  I agree.  It is for me too.  But that doesn't mean I'm going to NOT believe it because it's all over my head and too much for me to wrap my brain around.  For me it's a lot easier to accept this stuff than it is to accept a virgin birth or a god who sent his only son.  One is fact and one is fiction.  Sorry Jesus.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

sealybobo said:


> All living organisms are related, from the smallest bacteria to the largest whales. To reflect the relationship between groups of species, biological classifications have been developed. Currently, Taxonomy is the discipline that deals with biological classifications, using sequences of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) from each organism as the most reliable source of information regarding relationship.
> 
> I totally get why for theists this is all too much mind blowing information.  I agree.  It is for me too.  But that doesn't mean I'm going to NOT believe it because it's all over my head and too much for me to wrap my brain around.  For me it's a lot easier to accept this stuff than it is to accept a virgin birth or a god who sent his only son.  One is fact and one is fiction.  Sorry Jesus.



Oh, don't worry about Jesus. It's likely he never existed but if he did, his daddy murdered him some 2000 years ago.

[emoji56]


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com


----------



## Syriusly

LTCArmyRet said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> How anyone can believe in the creationist theory, I don't know, because it makes no sense to me!
> 
> 
> 
> Here is their thinking.
> 
> Those were just stories, allegories, parables. Whatever. The fact is who was Adams mother? Christians thing god waved his hand and next thing you know all the land living animals appeared.
> 
> So the first animals didn't have parents. God made them.
> 
> If I'm wrong one of them will correct me
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You think it's impossible to create humans outside the womb?
> 
> How anti science of you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you think there's a scientifically provable explanation?
> 
> What you believe is what our primitive ancient ancestors believed 2000 years ago.  I don't blame them because they didn't know what we know today.  It's people like you who have the internet at your fingertips and all the knowledge we have now and even still you deny evolution and choose to believe a god that wrote the bible waved his hand and made it all so.   This is why we say religious people can't possibly be scientific unless they are cherry picking and using cognitive dissonance along the way.
> 
> Until we understand something we “do not know”. Positing a ‘god’ in place of admitting personal ignorance is an unfounded leap which demonstrates a fundamental lack of humility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And acting as though everything is known today is arrogance and ignorant.
Click to expand...


And ignoring the evidence known today is willful ignorance and faith based arrogance.


----------



## Syriusly

LTCArmyRet said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> xotoxi said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is possible to create humans outside of the womb.
> 
> It is not possible to create a human without having another human's DNA to work with (i.e. an egg and a sperm, an egg and the DNA from a sperm, an empty egg with full set of human DNA (such as cloning))
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So in theory it's perfectly possible that someone created dna and then created humanity.
> 
> Thank you. I agree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure it's possible.  So why do Christians have such a problem with evolution?
> 
> We know that even if evolution is proven as a fact you will still deny it and just move the goal post.   This is called god of the gaps.
> 
> 7 Things That Show That Evolution Is An Actual Fact
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They don't......you are just selling it as the WHOLE story, when it is a very small part of the story.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> BS
> 
> Throughout much of the 20th century, opponents of evolution (many of them theologically conservative Christians) either tried to eliminate the teaching of Darwin’s theory from public school science curricula or urged science instructors also to teach a version of the creation story found in the biblical book of Genesis. The famous 1925 _Scopes_ “monkey” trial, for instance, involved a Tennessee law prohibiting the teaching of evolution in the state’s schools. (See The Social and Legal Dimensions of the Evolution Debate in the U.S.)
> 
> But beginning in the 1960s, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a number of decisions that imposed severe restrictions on those state governments that opposed the teaching of evolution. As a result of these rulings, school boards, legislatures and government bodies are now barred from prohibiting the teaching of evolution. Teaching creation science, either along with evolutionary theory or in place of it, is also banned.
> 
> Partly in response to these court decisions, opposition to teaching evolution has itself evolved, with opponents changing their goals and tactics. In the last decade, some local and state school boards in Kansas, Pennsylvania and elsewhere have considered teaching what they contend are scientific alternatives to evolution – notably the concept of intelligent design, which posits that life is too complex to have developed without the intervention of an outside, possibly divine force. Other education officials have tried to require schools to teach critiques of evolution or to mandate that students listen to or read evolution disclaimers, such as one proposed a number of years ago in Cobb County, Ga. It read, in part, that evolution is “a theory, not a fact [and] … should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered.” The Cobb County disclaimer and a number of other efforts have been withdrawn following successful court challenges by proponents of teaching evolution.(See Fighting Over Darwin, State by State.)
> 
> These debates are just as prevalent in the court of public opinion as they are in the courtroom. A spring 2013 Pew Research Center survey finds that six-in-ten Americans say humans and other living things evolved over time, including 32% who say that life evolved through natural processes like natural selection and 24% who say a supreme being guided the evolution of living things for the purpose of creating humans and other life in the form it exists today. A third of Americans (33%) say that humans and other living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> BS
> 
> You can quote all the "survey" data you want, doesn't mean anything.  A decision that dictates a certain curriculum doesn't mean the curriculum is correct, it is simply the chosen curriculum.
> 
> www.newsweek.com/pope-franciss-remarks-evolution...catholics-281115
Click to expand...


That rather describes how Christians decided which was the 'correct Christian' curriculum- or theology.

First Council of Nicaea - Wikipedia


----------



## ChrisL

Votto said:


> Ima Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know there are similarities but I think they are coincidental, like cats and seals both have whiskers.  But cats didn't come from seals or vice a versa.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We came from monkeys?
> 
> Nope, monkeys are not as dictatorial and cruel and power hungry.
> 
> I demand an apology for all monkeys
Click to expand...


Monkey see, monkey do!


----------



## peaceful warrior

People act like a bunch of mad monkeys, they even elected the 70 year old orangutan as the president of the world. So , yes, people are and most likely will always be just dirty little monkeys with an inflated sense of self importance.


----------



## SixFoot




----------



## sealybobo

SixFoot said:


> View attachment 125688



How about life on other planets?  Do Christians believe we are alone in the universe?  This would be another reason to doubt religions.  No way we are all there is.

'Are We Alone?' Churchill Concludes It's Likely Life Circles Other Suns

"I am not sufficiently conceited to think that my sun is the only one with a family of planets," he wrote. "With hundreds of thousands of nebulae, each containing thousands of millions of suns, the odds are enormous that there must be immense numbers which possess planets whose circumstances would not render life impossible."

But in 1939 Winston Churchill wrote, "I, for one, am not so immensely impressed by the success we are making of our civilization here that I am prepared to think we are the only spot in this immense universe which contains living, thinking creatures, or that we are the highest type of mental and physical development which has ever appeared in the vast compass of space and time."

But this is another thing that religion will get over.  They'll say, "of course god made more life besides ours".


----------



## SixFoot

sealybobo said:


> SixFoot said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 125688
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about life on other planets?  Do Christians believe we are alone in the universe?  This would be another reason to doubt religions.  No way we are all there is.
> 
> 'Are We Alone?' Churchill Concludes It's Likely Life Circles Other Suns
> 
> "I am not sufficiently conceited to think that my sun is the only one with a family of planets," he wrote. "With hundreds of thousands of nebulae, each containing thousands of millions of suns, the odds are enormous that there must be immense numbers which possess planets whose circumstances would not render life impossible."
> 
> But in 1939 Winston Churchill wrote, "I, for one, am not so immensely impressed by the success we are making of our civilization here that I am prepared to think we are the only spot in this immense universe which contains living, thinking creatures, or that we are the highest type of mental and physical development which has ever appeared in the vast compass of space and time."
> 
> But this is another thing that religion will get over.  They'll say, "of course god made more life besides ours".
Click to expand...



Well, this Christian absolutely believes that not only is there life elsewhere, but that the Bible also speaks to the idea.

I'm also willing to bet there are other lifeforms (much more advanced than we) who also believe in a One God.


----------



## sealybobo

SixFoot said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SixFoot said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 125688
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about life on other planets?  Do Christians believe we are alone in the universe?  This would be another reason to doubt religions.  No way we are all there is.
> 
> 'Are We Alone?' Churchill Concludes It's Likely Life Circles Other Suns
> 
> "I am not sufficiently conceited to think that my sun is the only one with a family of planets," he wrote. "With hundreds of thousands of nebulae, each containing thousands of millions of suns, the odds are enormous that there must be immense numbers which possess planets whose circumstances would not render life impossible."
> 
> But in 1939 Winston Churchill wrote, "I, for one, am not so immensely impressed by the success we are making of our civilization here that I am prepared to think we are the only spot in this immense universe which contains living, thinking creatures, or that we are the highest type of mental and physical development which has ever appeared in the vast compass of space and time."
> 
> But this is another thing that religion will get over.  They'll say, "of course god made more life besides ours".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Well, this Christian absolutely believes that not only is there life elsewhere, but that the Bible also speaks to the idea.
> 
> I'm also willing to bet there are other lifeforms (much more advanced than we) who also believe in a One God.
Click to expand...


Then the bible speaks to everything.  It must be the greatest collections of ramblings if it actually covers this too.  LOL.  Where does it cover this?  And I love it how the bible covers both arguments for everything too.  Some Christians can show you where it says you shouldn't marry someone from another race, and I'm sure the book has a passage somewhere that says it's ok.  

I would like to see a Christian who believes like you do argue with Christians who believe we are all there is.

I believe that there are other lifeforms that believe in gods.  Why not?  If it's something we can imagine why not them?  And since it is an unknowable thing I bet those societies also have atheists.

Today I was listening to a woman on NPR talk about life elsewhere.  She said something I've been saying.  It is very unlikely we will look around us and see life.  There may have been life there a few billion years ago and there might be life there a few billion years after we are gone.  But the likelihood of life like us being close to us, is slim.  

The Bible does not speak of aliens who live on other planets, but it does speak of a Spirit Being who _“inhabits eternity”_(Isaiah 57:15).

Extraterrestrial Life: What Does the Bible Say?


----------



## sealybobo

SixFoot said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SixFoot said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 125688
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about life on other planets?  Do Christians believe we are alone in the universe?  This would be another reason to doubt religions.  No way we are all there is.
> 
> 'Are We Alone?' Churchill Concludes It's Likely Life Circles Other Suns
> 
> "I am not sufficiently conceited to think that my sun is the only one with a family of planets," he wrote. "With hundreds of thousands of nebulae, each containing thousands of millions of suns, the odds are enormous that there must be immense numbers which possess planets whose circumstances would not render life impossible."
> 
> But in 1939 Winston Churchill wrote, "I, for one, am not so immensely impressed by the success we are making of our civilization here that I am prepared to think we are the only spot in this immense universe which contains living, thinking creatures, or that we are the highest type of mental and physical development which has ever appeared in the vast compass of space and time."
> 
> But this is another thing that religion will get over.  They'll say, "of course god made more life besides ours".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Well, this Christian absolutely believes that not only is there life elsewhere, but that the Bible also speaks to the idea.
> 
> I'm also willing to bet there are other lifeforms (much more advanced than we) who also believe in a One God.
Click to expand...


Then why call yourself a christian if you don't believe?  Most Christians are cherry pickers who don't really believe the religion they belong to.

the big picture of the Bible/gospel message allows us to conclude clearly that the reason the Bible doesn’t mention extraterrestrials (ETs) is that there aren’t any

Did God create life on other planets? - creation.com


Jesus was called ‘the last Adam’ because there was a real first man, Adam (1 Corinthians 15:22,45)—not a first Vulcan, Klingon etc. This is so a sinless human Substitute takes on the punishment all humans deserve for sin (Isaiah 53:6,10; Matthew 20:28; 1 John 2:2, 4:10), with no need to atone for any (non-existent) sin of his own (Hebrews 7:27).


Since this would mean that any ETs would be lost for eternity when this present creation is destroyed in a fervent heat (2 Peter 3:10, 12), some have wondered whether Christ’s sacrifice might be repeated elsewhere for other beings. However, Christ died _once for all_ (Romans 6:10, 1 Peter 3:18) on the _earth_. He is not going to be crucified and resurrected again on other planets (Hebrews 9:26). This is confirmed by the fact that the redeemed (earthly) church is known as Christ’s bride (Ephesians 5:22–33; Revelation 19:7–9) in a marriage that will last for eternity.Hebrews 2:16).


----------



## sealybobo

SixFoot said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SixFoot said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 125688
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about life on other planets?  Do Christians believe we are alone in the universe?  This would be another reason to doubt religions.  No way we are all there is.
> 
> 'Are We Alone?' Churchill Concludes It's Likely Life Circles Other Suns
> 
> "I am not sufficiently conceited to think that my sun is the only one with a family of planets," he wrote. "With hundreds of thousands of nebulae, each containing thousands of millions of suns, the odds are enormous that there must be immense numbers which possess planets whose circumstances would not render life impossible."
> 
> But in 1939 Winston Churchill wrote, "I, for one, am not so immensely impressed by the success we are making of our civilization here that I am prepared to think we are the only spot in this immense universe which contains living, thinking creatures, or that we are the highest type of mental and physical development which has ever appeared in the vast compass of space and time."
> 
> But this is another thing that religion will get over.  They'll say, "of course god made more life besides ours".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Well, this Christian absolutely believes that not only is there life elsewhere, but that the Bible also speaks to the idea.
> 
> I'm also willing to bet there are other lifeforms (much more advanced than we) who also believe in a One God.
Click to expand...


OMG it just dawned on me that on other planets the Adam there didn't eat the apple so maybe they didn't have to go through the whole original sin thing.  No Noah's ark story, no soddom & gammora and no crucifiction.  They still live in paradise and live forever on their planet.

And if we find these creatures who never die then we will believe that a god exists.


----------



## sealybobo

SixFoot said:


> View attachment 125688


----------



## sealybobo




----------



## sealybobo




----------



## sealybobo

If humans are so important how come we only appeared on the last day of the cosmic calendar?  Not only the last day but the last hour of the last day.  Don't give me that crap about how 1 billion years is like a day to god.  That's a joke.  What were the trilobites and dinosaurs all about then?  Why did they disappear?  Did they sin?


----------



## SixFoot

sealybobo said:


> SixFoot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SixFoot said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 125688
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about life on other planets?  Do Christians believe we are alone in the universe?  This would be another reason to doubt religions.  No way we are all there is.
> 
> 'Are We Alone?' Churchill Concludes It's Likely Life Circles Other Suns
> 
> "I am not sufficiently conceited to think that my sun is the only one with a family of planets," he wrote. "With hundreds of thousands of nebulae, each containing thousands of millions of suns, the odds are enormous that there must be immense numbers which possess planets whose circumstances would not render life impossible."
> 
> But in 1939 Winston Churchill wrote, "I, for one, am not so immensely impressed by the success we are making of our civilization here that I am prepared to think we are the only spot in this immense universe which contains living, thinking creatures, or that we are the highest type of mental and physical development which has ever appeared in the vast compass of space and time."
> 
> But this is another thing that religion will get over.  They'll say, "of course god made more life besides ours".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Well, this Christian absolutely believes that not only is there life elsewhere, but that the Bible also speaks to the idea.
> 
> I'm also willing to bet there are other lifeforms (much more advanced than we) who also believe in a One God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then the bible speaks to everything.  It must be the greatest collections of ramblings if it actually covers this too.  LOL.  Where does it cover this?  And I love it how the bible covers both arguments for everything too.  Some Christians can show you where it says you shouldn't marry someone from another race, and I'm sure the book has a passage somewhere that says it's ok.
> 
> I would like to see a Christian who believes like you do argue with Christians who believe we are all there is.
> 
> I believe that there are other lifeforms that believe in gods.  Why not?  If it's something we can imagine why not them?  And since it is an unknowable thing I bet those societies also have atheists.
> 
> Today I was listening to a woman on NPR talk about life elsewhere.  She said something I've been saying.  It is very unlikely we will look around us and see life.  There may have been life there a few billion years ago and there might be life there a few billion years after we are gone.  But the likelihood of life like us being close to us, is slim.
> 
> The Bible does not speak of aliens who live on other planets, but it does speak of a Spirit Being who _“inhabits eternity”_(Isaiah 57:15).
> 
> Extraterrestrial Life: What Does the Bible Say?
Click to expand...


Here's a great scientific explanation for the global flood and fire catastrophe that all but annihilated humanity about 12,000-13,000 years ago, which is also what much of the most ancient writings found on most continents speak of.

*Ancient stone carvings confirm how comet struck Earth in 10,950BC, sparking the rise of civilisations*

This explains Noah's flood quite satisfactorily for me. It also vindicates my belief that Noah's was in fact, _not_ the only surviving family on Earth, but merely of their local region (I also don't believe that Adam and Eve were the _only_, just the _first_).

Genesis 6:4 (first book)

"The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of humans and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown."

Well, I don't believe in fairies either, so, this sounds more like a metaphor for someone else coming from somewhere else. Fine by me.

Revelation 21 (last book)

"Then I saw "a new heaven and a new earth," for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away"

A "new Earth" after another global catastrophe that all but wipes out humanity. I don't think any planets are just gonna meander on in at our convenience into a perfectly habitable orbit, so, sounds like a metaphor for colonizing another world to me. Sounds great, actually.


My mind is open and free. I am inclined to my faith in the All-Knowing, and perfectly comfortable with what ever age the Universe is, how we came to be here, or what the mechanics were in effecting the process. My heart and soul are not troubled but trifling and petty conflicts of opinions. The discovery is everything, and I'm just here to speak on it in my own way.


----------



## sealybobo

SixFoot said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SixFoot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SixFoot said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 125688
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about life on other planets?  Do Christians believe we are alone in the universe?  This would be another reason to doubt religions.  No way we are all there is.
> 
> 'Are We Alone?' Churchill Concludes It's Likely Life Circles Other Suns
> 
> "I am not sufficiently conceited to think that my sun is the only one with a family of planets," he wrote. "With hundreds of thousands of nebulae, each containing thousands of millions of suns, the odds are enormous that there must be immense numbers which possess planets whose circumstances would not render life impossible."
> 
> But in 1939 Winston Churchill wrote, "I, for one, am not so immensely impressed by the success we are making of our civilization here that I am prepared to think we are the only spot in this immense universe which contains living, thinking creatures, or that we are the highest type of mental and physical development which has ever appeared in the vast compass of space and time."
> 
> But this is another thing that religion will get over.  They'll say, "of course god made more life besides ours".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Well, this Christian absolutely believes that not only is there life elsewhere, but that the Bible also speaks to the idea.
> 
> I'm also willing to bet there are other lifeforms (much more advanced than we) who also believe in a One God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then the bible speaks to everything.  It must be the greatest collections of ramblings if it actually covers this too.  LOL.  Where does it cover this?  And I love it how the bible covers both arguments for everything too.  Some Christians can show you where it says you shouldn't marry someone from another race, and I'm sure the book has a passage somewhere that says it's ok.
> 
> I would like to see a Christian who believes like you do argue with Christians who believe we are all there is.
> 
> I believe that there are other lifeforms that believe in gods.  Why not?  If it's something we can imagine why not them?  And since it is an unknowable thing I bet those societies also have atheists.
> 
> Today I was listening to a woman on NPR talk about life elsewhere.  She said something I've been saying.  It is very unlikely we will look around us and see life.  There may have been life there a few billion years ago and there might be life there a few billion years after we are gone.  But the likelihood of life like us being close to us, is slim.
> 
> The Bible does not speak of aliens who live on other planets, but it does speak of a Spirit Being who _“inhabits eternity”_(Isaiah 57:15).
> 
> Extraterrestrial Life: What Does the Bible Say?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's a great scientific explanation for the global flood and fire catastrophe that all but annihilated humanity about 12,000-13,000 years ago, which is also what much of the most ancient writings found on most continents speak of.
> 
> *Ancient stone carvings confirm how comet struck Earth in 10,950BC, sparking the rise of civilisations*
> 
> This explains Noah's flood quite satisfactorily for me. It also vindicates my belief that Noah's was in fact, _not_ the only surviving family on Earth, but merely of their local region (I also don't believe that Adam and Eve were the _only_, just the _first_).
> 
> Genesis 6:4 (first book)
> 
> "The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of humans and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown."
> 
> Well, I don't believe in fairies either, so, this sounds more like a metaphor for someone else coming from somewhere else. Fine by me.
> 
> Revelation 21 (last book)
> 
> "Then I saw "a new heaven and a new earth," for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away"
> 
> A "new Earth" after another global catastrophe that all but wipes out humanity. I don't think any planets are just gonna meander on in at our convenience into a perfectly habitable orbit, so, sounds like a metaphor for colonizing another world to me. Sounds great, actually.
> 
> 
> My mind is open and free. I am inclined to my faith in the All-Knowing, and perfectly comfortable with what ever age the Universe is, how we came to be here, or what the mechanics were in effecting the process. My heart and soul are not troubled but trifling and petty conflicts of opinions. The discovery is everything, and I'm just here to speak on it in my own way.
Click to expand...


Noah was a fact?  God told him to build a boat and put 2 of every kind on it?  That's not just a story dude?

And I'm reading your link.  Pretty interesting.

Before the strike, vast areas of wild wheat and barley had allowed nomadic hunters in the Middle East to establish permanent base camps. But the difficult climate conditions following the impact forced communities to come together and work out new ways of maintaining the crops, through watering and selective breeding. Thus farming began, allowing the rise of the first towns. 

Edinburgh researchers said the carvings appear to have remained important to the people of Gobekli Tepe for millennia, suggesting that the event and cold climate that followed likely had a very serious impact.

What I'm reading is a story about how a comet hit, not about a great flood or how a god told one guy to make a boat and round up all the animals.  You believe the Noah story literally?


----------



## sealybobo

Gobekli Tepe, is thought to be the world's oldest temple site, which dates from around 9,000BC, predating Stonehenge by around 6,000 years.  

"If you consider that, according to astronomers, this giant comet probably arrived in the inner solar system some 20 to 30 thousand years ago, and it would have been a very visible and dominant feature of the night sky, it is hard to see how ancient people could have ignored this given the likely consequences."

So they had been seeing this comet coming for 20,000 years getting closer and closer and closer every year.


----------



## SixFoot

sealybobo said:


> SixFoot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SixFoot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SixFoot said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 125688
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about life on other planets?  Do Christians believe we are alone in the universe?  This would be another reason to doubt religions.  No way we are all there is.
> 
> 'Are We Alone?' Churchill Concludes It's Likely Life Circles Other Suns
> 
> "I am not sufficiently conceited to think that my sun is the only one with a family of planets," he wrote. "With hundreds of thousands of nebulae, each containing thousands of millions of suns, the odds are enormous that there must be immense numbers which possess planets whose circumstances would not render life impossible."
> 
> But in 1939 Winston Churchill wrote, "I, for one, am not so immensely impressed by the success we are making of our civilization here that I am prepared to think we are the only spot in this immense universe which contains living, thinking creatures, or that we are the highest type of mental and physical development which has ever appeared in the vast compass of space and time."
> 
> But this is another thing that religion will get over.  They'll say, "of course god made more life besides ours".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Well, this Christian absolutely believes that not only is there life elsewhere, but that the Bible also speaks to the idea.
> 
> I'm also willing to bet there are other lifeforms (much more advanced than we) who also believe in a One God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then the bible speaks to everything.  It must be the greatest collections of ramblings if it actually covers this too.  LOL.  Where does it cover this?  And I love it how the bible covers both arguments for everything too.  Some Christians can show you where it says you shouldn't marry someone from another race, and I'm sure the book has a passage somewhere that says it's ok.
> 
> I would like to see a Christian who believes like you do argue with Christians who believe we are all there is.
> 
> I believe that there are other lifeforms that believe in gods.  Why not?  If it's something we can imagine why not them?  And since it is an unknowable thing I bet those societies also have atheists.
> 
> Today I was listening to a woman on NPR talk about life elsewhere.  She said something I've been saying.  It is very unlikely we will look around us and see life.  There may have been life there a few billion years ago and there might be life there a few billion years after we are gone.  But the likelihood of life like us being close to us, is slim.
> 
> The Bible does not speak of aliens who live on other planets, but it does speak of a Spirit Being who _“inhabits eternity”_(Isaiah 57:15).
> 
> Extraterrestrial Life: What Does the Bible Say?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's a great scientific explanation for the global flood and fire catastrophe that all but annihilated humanity about 12,000-13,000 years ago, which is also what much of the most ancient writings found on most continents speak of.
> 
> *Ancient stone carvings confirm how comet struck Earth in 10,950BC, sparking the rise of civilisations*
> 
> This explains Noah's flood quite satisfactorily for me. It also vindicates my belief that Noah's was in fact, _not_ the only surviving family on Earth, but merely of their local region (I also don't believe that Adam and Eve were the _only_, just the _first_).
> 
> Genesis 6:4 (first book)
> 
> "The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of humans and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown."
> 
> Well, I don't believe in fairies either, so, this sounds more like a metaphor for someone else coming from somewhere else. Fine by me.
> 
> Revelation 21 (last book)
> 
> "Then I saw "a new heaven and a new earth," for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away"
> 
> A "new Earth" after another global catastrophe that all but wipes out humanity. I don't think any planets are just gonna meander on in at our convenience into a perfectly habitable orbit, so, sounds like a metaphor for colonizing another world to me. Sounds great, actually.
> 
> 
> My mind is open and free. I am inclined to my faith in the All-Knowing, and perfectly comfortable with what ever age the Universe is, how we came to be here, or what the mechanics were in effecting the process. My heart and soul are not troubled but trifling and petty conflicts of opinions. The discovery is everything, and I'm just here to speak on it in my own way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Noah was a fact?  God told him to build a boat and put 2 of every kind on it?  That's not just a story dude?
> 
> And I'm reading your link.  Pretty interesting.
> 
> Before the strike, vast areas of wild wheat and barley had allowed nomadic hunters in the Middle East to establish permanent base camps. But the difficult climate conditions following the impact forced communities to come together and work out new ways of maintaining the crops, through watering and selective breeding. Thus farming began, allowing the rise of the first towns.
> 
> Edinburgh researchers said the carvings appear to have remained important to the people of Gobekli Tepe for millennia, suggesting that the event and cold climate that followed likely had a very serious impact.
> 
> What I'm reading is a story about how a comet hit, not about a great flood or how a god told one guy to make a boat and round up all the animals.  You believe the Noah story literally?
Click to expand...


Not a "comet" strike, but many strikes due to its fragmentation upon contact with the atmosphere. The evidence for the event is found not only in all the ancient writings, but also all across North America, where many of (also according to the ancient Hopi Natives) the comet fragments rained down.

*Widespread platinum anomaly documented at the Younger Dryas onset in North American sedimentary sequences.*

The reason this is directly related to the flood is the fact that the comet fragments likely caused the end of the last ice age, melting the vast ice sheets, causing global sea levels to rise by dozens and dozens of feet within a very short geologic time, endangering everyone and everything.

Noah is but one example (the most well known in this case, in this group) of ancient writings found everywhere on Earth that allude to the exact same extinction event during the exact same time (if he took two of every animal, it was either two of each from his local region, or he had access to a DNA bank and cloned them all after he got off the ship. Again, I don't believe in fairies either.).

The flood absolutely happened if you ask me. Some Christians might not like the finer details that go in to the full spectrum of the event, but they likely believe the Earth is only 6,000 years old anyway, and I'm not in the least bit damaged by their personal beliefs.


----------



## danielpalos

LTCArmyRet said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're primates that developed from a common ancestor 5-7 million years ago that yes was an ape.
> 
> That is a fact....The evidence is very strong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not a fact, it is a theory, big difference.   And if we descended from an ape, why are there still apes?
Click to expand...

We are Apes; we merely need to be, Great.


----------



## SixFoot

danielpalos said:


> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're primates that developed from a common ancestor 5-7 million years ago that yes was an ape.
> 
> That is a fact....The evidence is very strong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not a fact, it is a theory, big difference.   And if we descended from an ape, why are there still apes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We are Apes; we merely need to be, Great.
Click to expand...


I'd rather be Grape.


----------



## ScienceRocks

SixFoot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're primates that developed from a common ancestor 5-7 million years ago that yes was an ape.
> 
> That is a fact....The evidence is very strong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not a fact, it is a theory, big difference.   And if we descended from an ape, why are there still apes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We are Apes; we merely need to be, Great.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd rather be Grape.
Click to expand...



That right there is about as far as an religious fascist ability to consider the evidence goes...Truly inferior human beings and why I support some form of intelligence based(Gene therapy) eugenics.


----------



## peaceful warrior

SixFoot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're primates that developed from a common ancestor 5-7 million years ago that yes was an ape.
> 
> That is a fact....The evidence is very strong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not a fact, it is a theory, big difference.   And if we descended from an ape, why are there still apes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We are Apes; we merely need to be, Great.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

I would take it even a step further. We come from the same common ancestor. And I mean all of us ( bees, snakes, extinct dinos, birds, your fluffy dog, tomatos, palm trees, ants...)
There's a scientific evidence that we have a lot of genes in common with all other living things on the planet, so it doesn't take a rocket scientist to put two and two together and come to the simple and yet astounding conclusion: we are basically one species who originated from the same common biological ancestor eons ago.

Just think about it, my fellow earthlings (plants, beasts and humans) we are all related by our genes.  Personally, the idea of  humans being realted to all living things roaming across our "pale blue dot" is mind-boggling, but it's true and it  greatly increases my appreciation for life.

What about you, Democrats and Republicans? In the great scheme of things your little games seem so insignificant (petty fights over nothing), dont they?

from Russia with love


----------



## SixFoot

peaceful warrior said:


> SixFoot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're primates that developed from a common ancestor 5-7 million years ago that yes was an ape.
> 
> That is a fact....The evidence is very strong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not a fact, it is a theory, big difference.   And if we descended from an ape, why are there still apes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We are Apes; we merely need to be, Great.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## peaceful warrior

SixFoot said:


> Here's a great scientific explanation for the global flood and fire catastrophe that all but annihilated humanity about 12,000-13,000 years ago, which is also what much of the most ancient writings found on most continents speak of.



Check this out, a truly fascinating story about our past:


----------



## SixFoot

peaceful warrior said:


> SixFoot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's a great scientific explanation for the global flood and fire catastrophe that all but annihilated humanity about 12,000-13,000 years ago, which is also what much of the most ancient writings found on most continents speak of.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Check this out, a truly fascinating story about our past:
Click to expand...



Well, I'm not watching 3 hours of Rogan, so.... lol just lemme know if this is the one where he says we all came from 'shroom-eating primates?


----------



## sealybobo

peaceful warrior said:


> SixFoot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're primates that developed from a common ancestor 5-7 million years ago that yes was an ape.
> 
> That is a fact....The evidence is very strong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not a fact, it is a theory, big difference.   And if we descended from an ape, why are there still apes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We are Apes; we merely need to be, Great.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I would take it even a step further. We come from the same common ancestor. And I mean all of us ( bees, snakes, extinct dinos, birds, your fluffy dog, tomatos, palm trees, ants...)
> There's a scientific evidence that we have a lot of genes in common with all other living things on the planet, so it doesn't take a rocket scientist to put two and two together and come to the simple and yet astounding conclusion: we are basically one species who originated from the same common biological ancestor eons ago.
> 
> Just think about it, my fellow earthlings (plants, beasts and humans) we are all related by our genes.  Personally, the idea of  humans being realted to all living things roaming across our "pale blue dot" is mind-boggling, but it's true and it  greatly increases my appreciation for life.
> 
> What about you, Democrats and Republicans? In the great scheme of things your little games seem so insignificant (petty fights over nothing), dont they?
> 
> from Russia with love
Click to expand...


This is how they keep us down.  They divide us with nonsense.  Us Democrats agree with you 100% and it's the Republicans who doubt that solid science because it doesn't jive with their religion.  They want to keep us dumb and proof is how their sheeple deny global warming and evolution.  

And our "games" are about quality of life.  The Republican way is every man for himself survival of the fittest and democrats understand we are all in this together and we understand the value in numbers, like with healthcare.  And the value in government.  A good government regulates healthcare giants from letting people who can't pay die.  

The game Republicans are playing is going to leave you penniless when you die.  Are you ready to play the game called cut your social security and medicare 30%?


----------



## SixFoot

sealybobo said:


> peaceful warrior said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SixFoot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're primates that developed from a common ancestor 5-7 million years ago that yes was an ape.
> 
> That is a fact....The evidence is very strong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not a fact, it is a theory, big difference.   And if we descended from an ape, why are there still apes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We are Apes; we merely need to be, Great.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I would take it even a step further. We come from the same common ancestor. And I mean all of us ( bees, snakes, extinct dinos, birds, your fluffy dog, tomatos, palm trees, ants...)
> There's a scientific evidence that we have a lot of genes in common with all other living things on the planet, so it doesn't take a rocket scientist to put two and two together and come to the simple and yet astounding conclusion: we are basically one species who originated from the same common biological ancestor eons ago.
> 
> Just think about it, my fellow earthlings (plants, beasts and humans) we are all related by our genes.  Personally, the idea of  humans being realted to all living things roaming across our "pale blue dot" is mind-boggling, but it's true and it  greatly increases my appreciation for life.
> 
> What about you, Democrats and Republicans? In the great scheme of things your little games seem so insignificant (petty fights over nothing), dont they?
> 
> from Russia with love
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is how they keep us down.  They divide us with nonsense.  Us Democrats agree with you 100% and it's the Republicans who doubt that solid science because it doesn't jive with their religion.  They want to keep us dumb and proof is how their sheeple deny global warming and evolution.
> 
> And our "games" are about quality of life.  The Republican way is every man for himself survival of the fittest and democrats understand we are all in this together and we understand the value in numbers, like with healthcare.  And the value in government.  A good government regulates healthcare giants from letting people who can't pay die.
> 
> The game Republicans are playing is going to leave you penniless when you die.  Are you ready to play the game called cut your social security and medicare 30%?
Click to expand...


----------



## sealybobo

Ima Cat said:


> I know there are similarities but I think they are coincidental, like cats and seals both have whiskers.  But cats didn't come from seals or vice a versa.



Scientists estimate that the hominid lineage diverged from the ape lineage 5 to 8 million years ago. _Homo sapiens_, the species to which we belong, has existed for about 100,000 years.


----------



## sealybobo

sealybobo said:


> Ima Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know there are similarities but I think they are coincidental, like cats and seals both have whiskers.  But cats didn't come from seals or vice a versa.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scientists estimate that the hominid lineage diverged from the ape lineage 5 to 8 million years ago. _Homo sapiens_, the species to which we belong, has existed for about 100,000 years.
Click to expand...


Dogs have whiskers too you know.

Seals and the rather incorrectly named “sea lions” are carnivores, very similar to land predators. These animals are not in any way closely related to whales, but they do have a surprisingly close link to modern bears, dogs, and weasels. Cats compose an entirely different sub-order of the carnivore group known as _Feliformes_, which are not represented in water.

When you see one of these flipper-equipped aquatic animals, you should remember you are basically looking at a very specifically evolved, fish-eating water canine. When examined, the flippers of some _pinnipeds_ will show remaining hind claws that rather resemble human nails. Maybe it’s time to start calling sea lions “sea bears” or “water dogs.”


----------



## there4eyeM

Humans did not come from monkeys, all life evolved together. Humans may have shared stages with current species of monkeys and apes, but of what animal is that not true? We're all just hangin' out on the tree (of life).


----------



## MikeK

Desperado said:


> No chance.  Evolution may account for the differences within a species, but it does not account for new species.


Humans are not a new species.  Humans are official, card-carrying members of the primate species.  Our closest lower-level primate relative is the chimpanzee.  

Humans are a highly advanced primate sub-species.


----------



## sealybobo

there4eyeM said:


> Humans did not come from monkeys, all life evolved together. Humans may have shared stages with current species of monkeys and apes, but of what animal is that not true? We're all just hangin' out on the tree (of life).



Scientists now believe between 5-8 million years ago, we were fucking monkeys.  Then something went horribly wrong or incredibly right depending on how you look at things. 

I think the planet would be better off had we stayed monkeys.  Every other animal would be happier except dogs and cats of course.


----------



## harmonica

if not evolution, then you must believe a fully formed human just ''appeared''....??


----------



## sealybobo

Desperado said:


> No chance.  Evolution may account for the differences within a species, but it does not account for new species.



Species count put at *8.7 million*. The natural world contains about *8.7 million species*, according to a new estimate described by scientists as the most accurate ever. But the vast majority have not been identified - and cataloguing them all could take more than *1,000* years.

More than *99* percent of all *species*, amounting to over five billion*species*, that ever lived on Earth are estimated to be *extinct*. Estimates on the number of Earth's current *species* range from 10 million to 14 million, of which about 1.2 million have been documented and over 86 percent have not yet been described.

You think god poofed 8.7 million species into existence?  Actually, x that by 99%.  So you think god poofed them all into being?


----------



## Indeependent

sealybobo said:


> Ima Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know there are similarities but I think they are coincidental, like cats and seals both have whiskers.  But cats didn't come from seals or vice a versa.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scientists estimate that the hominid lineage diverged from the ape lineage 5 to 8 million years ago. _Homo sapiens_, the species to which we belong, has existed for about 100,000 years.
Click to expand...

Like they estimate the weather?...every day 10 minutes?


----------



## MikeK

sealybobo said:


> Scientists now believe between 5-8 million years ago, we were fucking monkeys.  Then something went horribly wrong or incredibly right depending on how you look at things.
> 
> I think the planet would be better off had we stayed monkeys.  Every other animal would be happier except dogs and cats of course.


I will agree but with one exception -- that of eliminating the chimpanzee, which is the direct progenitor of humankind from whom we have inherited all of our most destructive, exploitative, homicidal characteristics.  The chimp is a mean, nasty, murderous monkey who is inclined to cannabilism -- for the hell of it, not by necessity.


----------



## Syriusly

Ima Cat said:


> I know there are similarities but I think they are coincidental, like cats and seals both have whiskers.  But cats didn't come from seals or vice a versa.



Why would anyone believe we came from monkeys? 

There is no science that supports that.

Maybe some whacko Creationist theory?


----------



## MikeK

Syriusly said:


> Why would anyone believe we came from monkeys?
> 
> There is no science that supports that.
> 
> Maybe some whacko Creationist theory?


You are free to believe or not believe anything you choose to.


----------



## Syriusly

MikeK said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would anyone believe we came from monkeys?
> 
> There is no science that supports that.
> 
> Maybe some whacko Creationist theory?
> 
> 
> 
> You are free to believe or not believe anything you choose to.
Click to expand...


Why thank you! 

I will believe the science that is supported by the known facts. 

Which ain't we came from monkeys or that some fairy in the sky poofed us into existence. 

You of course can believe or not believe anything you choose to. What do you believe in?


----------



## sealybobo

Syriusly said:


> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would anyone believe we came from monkeys?
> 
> There is no science that supports that.
> 
> Maybe some whacko Creationist theory?
> 
> 
> 
> You are free to believe or not believe anything you choose to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why thank you!
> 
> I will believe the science that is supported by the known facts.
> 
> Which ain't we came from monkeys or that some fairy in the sky poofed us into existence.
> 
> You of course can believe or not believe anything you choose to. What do you believe in?
Click to expand...

We are cousins with monkeys. We have a common ancestor. It split into arangatan, apes, baboons or bonobos and humans.


----------



## Syriusly

sealybobo said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would anyone believe we came from monkeys?
> 
> There is no science that supports that.
> 
> Maybe some whacko Creationist theory?
> 
> 
> 
> You are free to believe or not believe anything you choose to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why thank you!
> 
> I will believe the science that is supported by the known facts.
> 
> Which ain't we came from monkeys or that some fairy in the sky poofed us into existence.
> 
> You of course can believe or not believe anything you choose to. What do you believe in?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We are cousins with monkeys. We have a common ancestor. It split into arangatan, apes, baboons or bonobos and humans.
Click to expand...


----------



## MikeK

Syriusly said:


> You of course can believe or not believe anything you choose to. What do you believe in?


Darwinian evolution.  Its logic is irrefutable.


----------



## LTCArmyRet

sealybobo said:


> Desperado said:
> 
> 
> 
> No chance.  Evolution may account for the differences within a species, but it does not account for new species.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Species count put at *8.7 million*. The natural world contains about *8.7 million species*, according to a new estimate described by scientists as the most accurate ever. But the vast majority have not been identified - and cataloguing them all could take more than *1,000* years.
> 
> More than *99* percent of all *species*, amounting to over five billion*species*, that ever lived on Earth are estimated to be *extinct*. Estimates on the number of Earth's current *species* range from 10 million to 14 million, of which about 1.2 million have been documented and over 86 percent have not yet been described.
> 
> You think god poofed 8.7 million species into existence?  Actually, x that by 99%.  So you think god poofed them all into being?
Click to expand...

yes


----------



## sealybobo

MikeK said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Scientists now believe between 5-8 million years ago, we were fucking monkeys.  Then something went horribly wrong or incredibly right depending on how you look at things.
> 
> I think the planet would be better off had we stayed monkeys.  Every other animal would be happier except dogs and cats of course.
> 
> 
> 
> I will agree but with one exception -- that of eliminating the chimpanzee, which is the direct progenitor of humankind from whom we have inherited all of our most destructive, exploitative, homicidal characteristics.  The chimp is a mean, nasty, murderous monkey who is inclined to cannabilism -- for the hell of it, not by necessity.
Click to expand...

So are we. Their called serial killers. There’s only 1% separating us from them.

Imagine a species on another planet that’s 1% smarter than us. Their babies would do quantum physics for fun


----------



## IsaacNewton

LTCArmyRet said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're primates that developed from a common ancestor 5-7 million years ago that yes was an ape.
> 
> That is a fact....The evidence is very strong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not a fact, it is a theory, big difference.   And if we descended from an ape, why are there still apes?
Click to expand...


So your defense of your beliefs is your own ignorance of this?


----------



## RWS

Humans evolved from Howler Monkeys. It's a known fact.


----------



## Political Junky

No scientist has said we descended from apes.


----------



## MikeK

Political Junky said:


> No scientist has said we descended from apes.


Dr. Charles Darwin was a Naturalist, a Geologist, and a Biologist, and you say he was not a scientist?


----------



## Political Junky

MikeK said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> 
> No scientist has said we descended from apes.
> 
> 
> 
> Dr. Charles Darwin was a Naturalist, a Geologist, and a Biologist, and you say he was not a scientist?
Click to expand...

And Darwin didn't say we descended from apes.


----------



## MikeK

Political Junky said:


> And Darwin didn't say we descended from apes.


I'm sure your local library has a copy of Darwin's. _The Descent of Man._  You should read it.


----------



## Political Junky

MikeK said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> 
> And Darwin didn't say we descended from apes.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure your local library has a copy of Darwin's. _The Descent of Man._  You should read it.
Click to expand...

I'm quite sure you haven't read it.


----------



## RWS

Well, we are apes. We descended from a branch of the ape tree that led to homo-sapien-sapien. We're just another form of ape. Whether Darwin clearly stated that path or not, I'm not gonna argue. But later scientists have, and it is the accepted path of evolution.

We did not come from monkeys. They are not apes.


----------



## fncceo

Apes and humans have a common ancestor ...

... that lived over 15 million years ago and was decidedly not an ape.


----------



## RWS

Humans are apes.. Of course we have a common ancestor with other apes.


----------



## bripat9643

Ima Cat said:


> I know there are similarities but I think they are coincidental, like cats and seals both have whiskers.  But cats didn't come from seals or vice a versa.



They both came from a common ancestor.  The problem with creationists is that they don't even understand the theory of evolution.


----------



## there4eyeM

Bonobos evolved into bimbos?


----------



## fncceo

there4eyeM said:


> Bonobos evolved into bimbos?



Totally ...


----------



## RWS

with big boobs


----------



## james bond

Muhammed said:


>



People lied though.


----------



## RWS

They lied to you as well, maybe. 

Creationist theories and their corresponding religions are based on deception. 

They will make you believe anything they want you to believe, and you are forced to believe it because your parents did.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Ima Cat said:


> I know there are similarities but I think they are coincidental, like cats and seals both have whiskers.  But cats didn't come from seals or vice a versa.



Believe? No, I don't do believing. 

Dogs And Bears Are Closely Related To Seals - KnowledgeNuts

Dogs, bears and seals are closely related though.

But back to believing. Chimps, Humans 96 Percent the Same, Gene Study Finds

Scientists have done a study of human and monkey genomes and found we're 96% the same. 

Cats are 90% similar, cows 80% similar, mice 75%, fruit fly 60%, chickens 60%.

Monkeys are the closest to humans. But you keep believing whatever crap you found inside your head this morning.


----------



## james bond

RWS said:


> They lied to you as well, maybe.
> 
> Creationist theories and their corresponding religions are based on deception.
> 
> They will make you believe anything they want you to believe, and you are forced to believe it because your parents did.



(The entity that lied and connived is Satan.  He's got people believing in relativism and a whole slew of things.  I can't say he made up evolution, but look who's taken it up as their religion -- atheists.)

This is the science forum, so will stick with creation science.


----------



## Esmeralda

Ima Cat said:


> I know there are similarities but I think they are coincidental, like cats and seals both have whiskers.  But cats didn't come from seals or vice a versa.


Our DNA is 95-98% the same as chimps. So, yes, we are evolved from the primate family that apes also evolved from.  Why is that a problem for you, for anyone?  "...the ancestral population of apes that gave rise to humans, chimps, and bonobos was quite large and diverse genetically—numbering about 27,000 breeding individuals. Once the ancestors of humans split from the ancestor of bonobos and chimps *more than 4 million years ago..." *Four million years ago and you are concerned about this?  Ridiculous.
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2012/06/bonobos-join-chimps-closest-human-relatives


----------



## Esmeralda

LTCArmyRet said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're primates that developed from a common ancestor 5-7 million years ago that yes was an ape.
> 
> That is a fact....The evidence is very strong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not a fact, it is a theory, big difference.   And if we descended from an ape, why are there still apes?
Click to expand...

OMG


----------



## james bond

frigidweirdo said:


> Ima Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know there are similarities but I think they are coincidental, like cats and seals both have whiskers.  But cats didn't come from seals or vice a versa.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Believe? No, I don't do believing.
> 
> Dogs And Bears Are Closely Related To Seals - KnowledgeNuts
> 
> Dogs, bears and seals are closely related though.
> 
> But back to believing. Chimps, Humans 96 Percent the Same, Gene Study Finds
> 
> Scientists have done a study of human and monkey genomes and found we're 96% the same.
> 
> Cats are 90% similar, cows 80% similar, mice 75%, fruit fly 60%, chickens 60%.
> 
> Monkeys are the closest to humans. But you keep believing whatever crap you found inside your head this morning.
Click to expand...


What you linked is ridiculous and nuts.  They're not the same species nor related.

First, there isn't even a consensus over what animals are related.


----------



## james bond

Esmeralda said:


> Ima Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know there are similarities but I think they are coincidental, like cats and seals both have whiskers.  But cats didn't come from seals or vice a versa.
> 
> 
> 
> Our DNA is 95-98% the same as chimps. So, yes, we are evolved from the primate family that apes also evolved from.  Why is that a problem for you, for anyone?  "...the ancestral population of apes that gave rise to humans, chimps, and bonobos was quite large and diverse genetically—numbering about 27,000 breeding individuals. Once the ancestors of humans split from the ancestor of bonobos and chimps *more than 4 million years ago..." *Four million years ago and you are concerned about this?  Ridiculous.
> http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2012/06/bonobos-join-chimps-closest-human-relatives
Click to expand...


The basic error you make is assuming we have a common relative because of Darwin.  Darwin was wrong about his tree of life.  It's more like separate and non-related bushes (common ancestors within the bushes or family).  Darwin was wrong about a lot of his theories lol.  

We share a lot of our DNA with an earthworm, too.  Bottom line is take out Darwin's all the animals share a common ancestor and you have no relationship.  Apes and humans didn't share a common ancestor.


----------



## frigidweirdo

james bond said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ima Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know there are similarities but I think they are coincidental, like cats and seals both have whiskers.  But cats didn't come from seals or vice a versa.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Believe? No, I don't do believing.
> 
> Dogs And Bears Are Closely Related To Seals - KnowledgeNuts
> 
> Dogs, bears and seals are closely related though.
> 
> But back to believing. Chimps, Humans 96 Percent the Same, Gene Study Finds
> 
> Scientists have done a study of human and monkey genomes and found we're 96% the same.
> 
> Cats are 90% similar, cows 80% similar, mice 75%, fruit fly 60%, chickens 60%.
> 
> Monkeys are the closest to humans. But you keep believing whatever crap you found inside your head this morning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you linked is ridiculous and nuts.  They're not the same species nor related.
> 
> First, there isn't even a consensus over what animals are related.
Click to expand...


What I linked is fact. 

If you find facts "ridiculous and nuts" then I'm sorry you can't deal with reality. 

There isn't a consensus, you're right. But that's more to do with people making shit up and pretending that somehow humans are special, rather than there being consensus among those people who follow science.


----------



## james bond

frigidweirdo said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ima Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know there are similarities but I think they are coincidental, like cats and seals both have whiskers.  But cats didn't come from seals or vice a versa.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Believe? No, I don't do believing.
> 
> Dogs And Bears Are Closely Related To Seals - KnowledgeNuts
> 
> Dogs, bears and seals are closely related though.
> 
> But back to believing. Chimps, Humans 96 Percent the Same, Gene Study Finds
> 
> Scientists have done a study of human and monkey genomes and found we're 96% the same.
> 
> Cats are 90% similar, cows 80% similar, mice 75%, fruit fly 60%, chickens 60%.
> 
> Monkeys are the closest to humans. But you keep believing whatever crap you found inside your head this morning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you linked is ridiculous and nuts.  They're not the same species nor related.
> 
> First, there isn't even a consensus over what animals are related.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I linked is fact.
> 
> If you find facts "ridiculous and nuts" then I'm sorry you can't deal with reality.
> 
> There isn't a consensus, you're right. But that's more to do with people making shit up and pretending that somehow humans are special, rather than there being consensus among those people who follow science.
Click to expand...


No, they aren't facts or else we can all use it.  You just proved me right because you agreed there isn't a consensus.  Facts are such as the sky is blue, cold is the absence of heat or dark is the absence of light.  Only someone who believes Darwin believes we all come from a common ancestor.  You take that out and all your links turn to mush.  The tree of life is based on a huge assumption and a circular argument at best.  Darwin's idea of "selfish gene" behavior that drives organisms was proved incorrect.  It wasn't about survival of the fittest.  Besides, Darwin isn't believable anymore since he was wrong about most of his theories and he was racist.  His thinking led to social Darwinism, eugenics, the holocaust and genocide.  Today, with epigenetics, people are paying attention the Jean-Baptiste Lamarck again over Darwin's old ideas..


----------



## frigidweirdo

james bond said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ima Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know there are similarities but I think they are coincidental, like cats and seals both have whiskers.  But cats didn't come from seals or vice a versa.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Believe? No, I don't do believing.
> 
> Dogs And Bears Are Closely Related To Seals - KnowledgeNuts
> 
> Dogs, bears and seals are closely related though.
> 
> But back to believing. Chimps, Humans 96 Percent the Same, Gene Study Finds
> 
> Scientists have done a study of human and monkey genomes and found we're 96% the same.
> 
> Cats are 90% similar, cows 80% similar, mice 75%, fruit fly 60%, chickens 60%.
> 
> Monkeys are the closest to humans. But you keep believing whatever crap you found inside your head this morning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you linked is ridiculous and nuts.  They're not the same species nor related.
> 
> First, there isn't even a consensus over what animals are related.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I linked is fact.
> 
> If you find facts "ridiculous and nuts" then I'm sorry you can't deal with reality.
> 
> There isn't a consensus, you're right. But that's more to do with people making shit up and pretending that somehow humans are special, rather than there being consensus among those people who follow science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they aren't facts or else we can all use it.  You just proved me right because you agreed there isn't a consensus.  Facts are such as the sky is blue, cold is the absence of heat or dark is the absence of light.  Only someone who believes Darwin believes we all come from a common ancestor.  You take that out and all your links turn to mush.  The tree of life is based on a huge assumption and a circular argument at best.  Darwin's idea of "selfish gene" behavior that drives organisms was proved incorrect.  It wasn't about survival of the fittest.  Besides, Darwin isn't believable anymore since he was wrong about most of his theories and he was racist.  His thinking led to social Darwinism, eugenics, the holocaust and genocide.  Today, with epigenetics, people are paying attention the Jean-Baptiste Lamarck again over Darwin's old ideas..
Click to expand...


It's not a fact that our DNA is closest to monkeys? Then what it is? Wait, it's not a fact if you don't want to accept it? Come off it.

There will never be consensus because there are people who have weird agendas where they'll ignore all the evidence and peddle their crap. It doesn't help your case at all. 

So, how people misused his theories, proves he's wrong? Can you not see how bad an argument that is?

Darwin might have been wrong, that isn't the point of the topic here. The point is whether we came from Monkeys.

The reality is that both monkey and humans probably came from the same source which might not have been human or monkey.


----------



## RWS

Well, actually, our DNA is closest to the chimp family. Not monkeys. Monkeys are further down the tree when comparing DNA and are not considered apes. Jus sayin... But we all had a common ancestor at some point, and I agree that monkeys did not evolve into humans.


----------



## Picaro

Ima Cat said:


> I know there are similarities but I think they are coincidental, like cats and seals both have whiskers.  But cats didn't come from seals or vice a versa.



Well, it's clear the Democratic Party's base did.


----------



## Picaro

There is no empirical evidence humans come from a common ancestor. That's rubbish. Humans could easily have popped up anywhere, in many places; there is no basis in fact that all humans came from one single place, or even went through some long convoluted 'evolution' over zillions of years. Finding a tiny handful of bones from extinct species of apes that are kind of sort of similar to modern human bones, so small in number they will fit on most peoples' kitchen table, is not even remotely 'scientific evidence' for evolution. I know sociopaths and assorted  sicko sexual deviants and emotionally retarded gimps are fanatically desperate for that to be the case, since it would pave the way for them to marry their favorite puppies or whatever in their fevered minds, but it isn't, so tough shit, morons.


----------



## Picaro

james bond said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ima Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know there are similarities but I think they are coincidental, like cats and seals both have whiskers.  But cats didn't come from seals or vice a versa.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Believe? No, I don't do believing.
> 
> Dogs And Bears Are Closely Related To Seals - KnowledgeNuts
> 
> Dogs, bears and seals are closely related though.
> 
> But back to believing. Chimps, Humans 96 Percent the Same, Gene Study Finds
> 
> Scientists have done a study of human and monkey genomes and found we're 96% the same.
> 
> Cats are 90% similar, cows 80% similar, mice 75%, fruit fly 60%, chickens 60%.
> 
> Monkeys are the closest to humans. But you keep believing whatever crap you found inside your head this morning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you linked is ridiculous and nuts.  They're not the same species nor related.
> 
> First, there isn't even a consensus over what animals are related.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I linked is fact.
> 
> If you find facts "ridiculous and nuts" then I'm sorry you can't deal with reality.
> 
> There isn't a consensus, you're right. But that's more to do with people making shit up and pretending that somehow humans are special, rather than there being consensus among those people who follow science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they aren't facts or else we can all use it.  You just proved me right because you agreed there isn't a consensus.  Facts are such as the sky is blue, cold is the absence of heat or dark is the absence of light.  Only someone who believes Darwin believes we all come from a common ancestor.  You take that out and all your links turn to mush.  The tree of life is based on a huge assumption and a circular argument at best.  Darwin's idea of "selfish gene" behavior that drives organisms was proved incorrect.  It wasn't about survival of the fittest.  Besides, Darwin isn't believable anymore since he was wrong about most of his theories and he was racist.  His thinking led to social Darwinism, eugenics, the holocaust and genocide.  Today, with epigenetics, people are paying attention the Jean-Baptiste Lamarck again over Darwin's old ideas..
Click to expand...


Congratulations. Somebody else here is aware of Lamarck.


----------



## Picaro

bripat9643 said:


> Ima Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know there are similarities but I think they are coincidental, like cats and seals both have whiskers.  But cats didn't come from seals or vice a versa.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They both came from a common ancestor.  The problem with creationists is that they don't even understand the theory of evolution.
Click to expand...


The problem with sociopaths and deviants is they don't understand mathematical probability in their feverish campaign against Christianity and morals of any kind that interfere with their belief in their 'natural right' to mindless self-indulgence regardless of its consequences and effects on others, so they adopt stupid rubbish like 'Evolution is fact' as camouflage propaganda, and this goes for both 'right' and 'left' wing nutjobs.


----------



## bripat9643

Picaro said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ima Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know there are similarities but I think they are coincidental, like cats and seals both have whiskers.  But cats didn't come from seals or vice a versa.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They both came from a common ancestor.  The problem with creationists is that they don't even understand the theory of evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem with sociopaths and deviants is they don't understand mathematical probability in their feverish campaign against Christianity and morals of any kind that interfere with their belief in their 'natural right' to mindless self-indulgence regardless of its consequences and effects on others, so they adopt stupid rubbish like 'Evolution is fact' as camouflage propaganda, and this goes for both 'right' and 'left' wing nutjobs.
Click to expand...

What do you suppose the mathematical probability is of the universe being ruled by a petulant gaseous vertebrate with a penis?


----------



## RWS

Picaro said:


> There is no empirical evidence humans come from a common ancestor. That's rubbish. Humans could easily have popped up anywhere, in many places; there is no basis in fact that all humans came from one single place, or even went through some long convoluted 'evolution' over zillions of years. Finding a tiny handful of bones from extinct species of apes that are kind of sort of similar to modern human bones, so small in number they will fit on most peoples' kitchen table, is not even remotely 'scientific evidence' for evolution. I know sociopaths and assorted  sicko sexual deviants and emotionally retarded gimps are fanatically desperate for that to be the case, since it would pave the way for them to marry their favorite puppies or whatever in their fevered minds, but it isn't, so tough shit, morons.


Wow... I still find it hard to believe that people believe their religion so much, as to ignore reality....


----------



## RWS

And picaro, you are getting close to being dangerous. Please, let's calm this down, and be fonzie.


----------



## Picaro

RWS said:


> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no empirical evidence humans come from a common ancestor. That's rubbish. Humans could easily have popped up anywhere, in many places; there is no basis in fact that all humans came from one single place, or even went through some long convoluted 'evolution' over zillions of years. Finding a tiny handful of bones from extinct species of apes that are kind of sort of similar to modern human bones, so small in number they will fit on most peoples' kitchen table, is not even remotely 'scientific evidence' for evolution. I know sociopaths and assorted  sicko sexual deviants and emotionally retarded gimps are fanatically desperate for that to be the case, since it would pave the way for them to marry their favorite puppies or whatever in their fevered minds, but it isn't, so tough shit, morons.
> 
> 
> 
> Wow... I still find it hard to believe that people believe their religion so much, as to ignore reality....
Click to expand...


I'm an agnostic, dummy. Unlike most 'evolutionists', I've taken a lot of science courses and have a definitive understanding of what empirical evidence is versus sniveling, narcissistic whining from sociopaths and children.


----------



## Picaro

RWS said:


> And picaro, you are getting close to being dangerous. Please, let's calm this down, and be fonzie.



That's no fun.


----------



## RWS

Picaro said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no empirical evidence humans come from a common ancestor. That's rubbish. Humans could easily have popped up anywhere, in many places; there is no basis in fact that all humans came from one single place, or even went through some long convoluted 'evolution' over zillions of years. Finding a tiny handful of bones from extinct species of apes that are kind of sort of similar to modern human bones, so small in number they will fit on most peoples' kitchen table, is not even remotely 'scientific evidence' for evolution. I know sociopaths and assorted  sicko sexual deviants and emotionally retarded gimps are fanatically desperate for that to be the case, since it would pave the way for them to marry their favorite puppies or whatever in their fevered minds, but it isn't, so tough shit, morons.
> 
> 
> 
> Wow... I still find it hard to believe that people believe their religion so much, as to ignore reality....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm an agnostic, dummy. Unlike most 'evolutionists', I've taken a lot of science courses and have a definitive understanding of what empirical evidence is versus sniveling, narcissistic whining from sociopaths and children.
Click to expand...

You can't be agnostic and argue for Biblical creation theory at the same time.

If you value empirical evidence, then again, you can't side with religion. 

I don't think you are an agnostic. You're a wannabe... something....

You're not sure what you are yet. 

And that's ok. Just be a good person, and do good things in your local area. And things will work out in the end. Regardless of religion.


----------



## RWS




----------



## deanrd

Ima Cat said:


> I know there are similarities but I think they are coincidental, like cats and seals both have whiskers.  But cats didn't come from seals or vice a versa.


I think we were magically shimmered into being from a pile of dirt by a mystical white guy in a Gandolff like long white robe.  Nothing else makes sense.


----------



## Picaro

RWS said:


> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no empirical evidence humans come from a common ancestor. That's rubbish. Humans could easily have popped up anywhere, in many places; there is no basis in fact that all humans came from one single place, or even went through some long convoluted 'evolution' over zillions of years. Finding a tiny handful of bones from extinct species of apes that are kind of sort of similar to modern human bones, so small in number they will fit on most peoples' kitchen table, is not even remotely 'scientific evidence' for evolution. I know sociopaths and assorted  sicko sexual deviants and emotionally retarded gimps are fanatically desperate for that to be the case, since it would pave the way for them to marry their favorite puppies or whatever in their fevered minds, but it isn't, so tough shit, morons.
> 
> 
> 
> Wow... I still find it hard to believe that people believe their religion so much, as to ignore reality....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm an agnostic, dummy. Unlike most 'evolutionists', I've taken a lot of science courses and have a definitive understanding of what empirical evidence is versus sniveling, narcissistic whining from sociopaths and children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can't be agnostic and argue for Biblical creation theory at the same time.
> 
> If you value empirical evidence, then again, you can't side with religion.
> 
> I don't think you are an agnostic. You're a wannabe... something....
> 
> You're not sure what you are yet.
> 
> And that's ok. Just be a good person, and do good things in your local area. And things will work out in the end. Regardless of religion.
Click to expand...


I'm not arguing for Biblical creation, and never have, so your strawman is just evidence of your own intellectual limitations. I do have fun pointing out the obvious rip off of Genesis the 'Darwin's Dufuses' parrot in their cult verses, though, like replacing 'Garden of Eden' with the 'warm pond' fantasy, and the Genesis creation of the universe with the 'Big Bang' thingy. Hilarious stuff. I also greatly enjoy that 'spontaneous equilibrium' hand wave, one of the more ludicrous and silly comedies of the whole cult; even its inventor Gould finds it embarrassing.

Try and come up with new material, maybe hire a real scientist to make one up for you or something. This usual idiot 'evidence' is stale and boring, and already shot to pieces over a hundred years ago.


----------



## james bond

frigidweirdo said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ima Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know there are similarities but I think they are coincidental, like cats and seals both have whiskers.  But cats didn't come from seals or vice a versa.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Believe? No, I don't do believing.
> 
> Dogs And Bears Are Closely Related To Seals - KnowledgeNuts
> 
> Dogs, bears and seals are closely related though.
> 
> But back to believing. Chimps, Humans 96 Percent the Same, Gene Study Finds
> 
> Scientists have done a study of human and monkey genomes and found we're 96% the same.
> 
> Cats are 90% similar, cows 80% similar, mice 75%, fruit fly 60%, chickens 60%.
> 
> Monkeys are the closest to humans. But you keep believing whatever crap you found inside your head this morning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you linked is ridiculous and nuts.  They're not the same species nor related.
> 
> First, there isn't even a consensus over what animals are related.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I linked is fact.
> 
> If you find facts "ridiculous and nuts" then I'm sorry you can't deal with reality.
> 
> There isn't a consensus, you're right. But that's more to do with people making shit up and pretending that somehow humans are special, rather than there being consensus among those people who follow science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they aren't facts or else we can all use it.  You just proved me right because you agreed there isn't a consensus.  Facts are such as the sky is blue, cold is the absence of heat or dark is the absence of light.  Only someone who believes Darwin believes we all come from a common ancestor.  You take that out and all your links turn to mush.  The tree of life is based on a huge assumption and a circular argument at best.  Darwin's idea of "selfish gene" behavior that drives organisms was proved incorrect.  It wasn't about survival of the fittest.  Besides, Darwin isn't believable anymore since he was wrong about most of his theories and he was racist.  His thinking led to social Darwinism, eugenics, the holocaust and genocide.  Today, with epigenetics, people are paying attention the Jean-Baptiste Lamarck again over Darwin's old ideas..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not a fact that our DNA is closest to monkeys? Then what it is? Wait, it's not a fact if you don't want to accept it? Come off it.
> 
> There will never be consensus because there are people who have weird agendas where they'll ignore all the evidence and peddle their crap. It doesn't help your case at all.
> 
> So, how people misused his theories, proves he's wrong? Can you not see how bad an argument that is?
> 
> Darwin might have been wrong, that isn't the point of the topic here. The point is whether we came from Monkeys.
> 
> The reality is that both monkey and humans probably came from the same source which might not have been human or monkey.
Click to expand...


>>f:  It's not a fact that our DNA is closest to monkeys? Then what it is?<<






That's a good question and even Nature tried to point the closeness out.  What it is is statistics.  Mark Twain said, "There are lies, damn lies and statistics."

The scientists who want to argue for having chimps as a common ancestor use it.  Grant it, it's not much of a difference based on DNA, I think about 4% or less.  However, it's not enough to convict someone in a court of law just based on DNA (there has to be other corroborating evidence).  Moreover, those who are against the common ancestor theory use statistics, too.  It means a difference of around 35 million places where the molecules are different from chimps and humans.  Of that there are 5 million places where the human DNA either has more or fewer bases than chimp DNA.

Finally, I remember it was apes used as ancestor to humans previously.  Then it became ape-human.  Chimpanzees were never part of it until their DNA was found to be similar.


----------



## DrLove

No - I believe humans (Republicans anyway) are in the process of devolving into monkeys


----------



## sealybobo

james bond said:


> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ima Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know there are similarities but I think they are coincidental, like cats and seals both have whiskers.  But cats didn't come from seals or vice a versa.
> 
> 
> 
> Our DNA is 95-98% the same as chimps. So, yes, we are evolved from the primate family that apes also evolved from.  Why is that a problem for you, for anyone?  "...the ancestral population of apes that gave rise to humans, chimps, and bonobos was quite large and diverse genetically—numbering about 27,000 breeding individuals. Once the ancestors of humans split from the ancestor of bonobos and chimps *more than 4 million years ago..." *Four million years ago and you are concerned about this?  Ridiculous.
> http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2012/06/bonobos-join-chimps-closest-human-relatives
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The basic error you make is assuming we have a common relative because of Darwin.  Darwin was wrong about his tree of life.  It's more like separate and non-related bushes (common ancestors within the bushes or family).  Darwin was wrong about a lot of his theories lol.
> 
> We share a lot of our DNA with an earthworm, too.  Bottom line is take out Darwin's all the animals share a common ancestor and you have no relationship.  Apes and humans didn't share a common ancestor.
Click to expand...

Yes we did. 

Even if there were bushes instead of one tree apes and humans share a bush.

And god didn’t poof those bushes into existence. Every land creature evolved from a water creature first. That’s what evolution says. The alternative is what? God did it?


----------



## sealybobo

bripat9643 said:


> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ima Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know there are similarities but I think they are coincidental, like cats and seals both have whiskers.  But cats didn't come from seals or vice a versa.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They both came from a common ancestor.  The problem with creationists is that they don't even understand the theory of evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem with sociopaths and deviants is they don't understand mathematical probability in their feverish campaign against Christianity and morals of any kind that interfere with their belief in their 'natural right' to mindless self-indulgence regardless of its consequences and effects on others, so they adopt stupid rubbish like 'Evolution is fact' as camouflage propaganda, and this goes for both 'right' and 'left' wing nutjobs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What do you suppose the mathematical probability is of the universe being ruled by a petulant gaseous vertebrate with a penis?
Click to expand...

Blasphemy


----------



## Slyhunter

james bond said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Believe? No, I don't do believing.
> 
> Dogs And Bears Are Closely Related To Seals - KnowledgeNuts
> 
> Dogs, bears and seals are closely related though.
> 
> But back to believing. Chimps, Humans 96 Percent the Same, Gene Study Finds
> 
> Scientists have done a study of human and monkey genomes and found we're 96% the same.
> 
> Cats are 90% similar, cows 80% similar, mice 75%, fruit fly 60%, chickens 60%.
> 
> Monkeys are the closest to humans. But you keep believing whatever crap you found inside your head this morning.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you linked is ridiculous and nuts.  They're not the same species nor related.
> 
> First, there isn't even a consensus over what animals are related.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I linked is fact.
> 
> If you find facts "ridiculous and nuts" then I'm sorry you can't deal with reality.
> 
> There isn't a consensus, you're right. But that's more to do with people making shit up and pretending that somehow humans are special, rather than there being consensus among those people who follow science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they aren't facts or else we can all use it.  You just proved me right because you agreed there isn't a consensus.  Facts are such as the sky is blue, cold is the absence of heat or dark is the absence of light.  Only someone who believes Darwin believes we all come from a common ancestor.  You take that out and all your links turn to mush.  The tree of life is based on a huge assumption and a circular argument at best.  Darwin's idea of "selfish gene" behavior that drives organisms was proved incorrect.  It wasn't about survival of the fittest.  Besides, Darwin isn't believable anymore since he was wrong about most of his theories and he was racist.  His thinking led to social Darwinism, eugenics, the holocaust and genocide.  Today, with epigenetics, people are paying attention the Jean-Baptiste Lamarck again over Darwin's old ideas..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not a fact that our DNA is closest to monkeys? Then what it is? Wait, it's not a fact if you don't want to accept it? Come off it.
> 
> There will never be consensus because there are people who have weird agendas where they'll ignore all the evidence and peddle their crap. It doesn't help your case at all.
> 
> So, how people misused his theories, proves he's wrong? Can you not see how bad an argument that is?
> 
> Darwin might have been wrong, that isn't the point of the topic here. The point is whether we came from Monkeys.
> 
> The reality is that both monkey and humans probably came from the same source which might not have been human or monkey.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> >>f:  It's not a fact that our DNA is closest to monkeys? Then what it is?<<
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a good question and even Nature tried to point the closeness out.  What it is is statistics.  Mark Twain said, "There are lies, damn lies and statistics."
> 
> The scientists who want to argue for having chimps as a common ancestor use it.  Grant it, it's not much of a difference based on DNA, I think about 4% or less.  However, it's not enough to convict someone in a court of law just based on DNA (there has to be other corroborating evidence).  Moreover, those who are against the common ancestor theory use statistics, too.  It means a difference of around 35 million places where the molecules are different from chimps and humans.  Of that there are 5 million places where the human DNA either has more or fewer bases than chimp DNA.
> 
> Finally, I remember it was apes used as ancestor to humans previously.  Then it became ape-human.  Chimpanzees were never part of it until their DNA was found to be similar.
Click to expand...

Actually I heard we were closer to pigs, which is why they use pigs to make vaccines.


----------



## skye

No

We did not came from monkeys.


----------



## sealybobo

skye said:


> No
> 
> We did not came from monkeys.


What came first fully grown people or babies?


----------



## Esmeralda

james bond said:


> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ima Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know there are similarities but I think they are coincidental, like cats and seals both have whiskers.  But cats didn't come from seals or vice a versa.
> 
> 
> 
> Our DNA is 95-98% the same as chimps. So, yes, we are evolved from the primate family that apes also evolved from.  Why is that a problem for you, for anyone?  "...the ancestral population of apes that gave rise to humans, chimps, and bonobos was quite large and diverse genetically—numbering about 27,000 breeding individuals. Once the ancestors of humans split from the ancestor of bonobos and chimps *more than 4 million years ago..." *Four million years ago and you are concerned about this?  Ridiculous.
> http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2012/06/bonobos-join-chimps-closest-human-relatives
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The basic error you make is assuming we have a common relative because of Darwin.  Darwin was wrong about his tree of life.  It's more like separate and non-related bushes (common ancestors within the bushes or family).  Darwin was wrong about a lot of his theories lol.
> 
> We share a lot of our DNA with an earthworm, too.  Bottom line is take out Darwin's all the animals share a common ancestor and you have no relationship.  Apes and humans didn't share a common ancestor.
Click to expand...

I haven't made an error. It has nothing to do with me. Science confirms that our DNA is closely linked to that of apes.  More than any other being on the planet.  The DNA simply confirms what Darwin theorized. 

The real question is why you people are so pushed out of shape knowing that humans evolved, 4 million  years ago BTW, from apes.  You would be happier if we evolved from worms?  LOL  How ridiculous you are. It doesn't matter what species we decended from, IT WAS 4 MILLION YEARS AGO. WFT? Who fucking cares?


----------



## Picaro

Slyhunter said:


> Actually I heard we were closer to pigs, which is why they use pigs to make vaccines.



And rats, too, like 90% or so. And some chicken genes, and even a tree or something. It sounds good to people who don't know squat about genes, and rely on liars to inform them on the issues. Many people think they can use DNA to create orders of development, timelines, and date stuff, for instance, which of course is utter rubbish, but it sounds good when some parrot with an agenda pretends its all 'sciencey n stuff'. 'Rationalists' never lie, no scientist has ever lied, you know.


----------



## sealybobo

Esmeralda said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ima Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know there are similarities but I think they are coincidental, like cats and seals both have whiskers.  But cats didn't come from seals or vice a versa.
> 
> 
> 
> Our DNA is 95-98% the same as chimps. So, yes, we are evolved from the primate family that apes also evolved from.  Why is that a problem for you, for anyone?  "...the ancestral population of apes that gave rise to humans, chimps, and bonobos was quite large and diverse genetically—numbering about 27,000 breeding individuals. Once the ancestors of humans split from the ancestor of bonobos and chimps *more than 4 million years ago..." *Four million years ago and you are concerned about this?  Ridiculous.
> http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2012/06/bonobos-join-chimps-closest-human-relatives
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The basic error you make is assuming we have a common relative because of Darwin.  Darwin was wrong about his tree of life.  It's more like separate and non-related bushes (common ancestors within the bushes or family).  Darwin was wrong about a lot of his theories lol.
> 
> We share a lot of our DNA with an earthworm, too.  Bottom line is take out Darwin's all the animals share a common ancestor and you have no relationship.  Apes and humans didn't share a common ancestor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I haven't made an error. It has nothing to do with me. Science confirms that our DNA is closely linked to that of apes.  More than any other being on the planet.  The DNA simply confirms what Darwin theorized.
> 
> The real question is why you people are so pushed out of shape knowing that humans evolved, 4 million  years ago BTW, from apes.  You would be happier if we evolved from worms?  LOL  How ridiculous you are. It doesn't matter what species we decended from, IT WAS 4 MILLION YEARS AGO. WFT? Who fucking cares?
Click to expand...

They believe we were poofed into existence. If we are related to apes then maybe to them that means we aren’t special. We’re just another animal


----------



## Picaro

It's fun reading a lot of rubbish about how 'similar' the assorted DNA sequences are, even though they mean absolutely nothing to with being related. Any freshman chemistry student can point out that having 'similar' atoms combining has radically different results in chemical compounds with only very slight 'differences' in structures and numbers of atoms; it's as common as dirt in fact for 'similar' atomic compounds to be very different, and the same goes for DNA arrangements or any other chemically based processes and combos. '99%' doesn't equal '100%' or even mean there is automatically a relationship of any kind. The nature of DNA is dependent on the environment it operates in, and that indicates a lot 'similarities' are de facto going to be present in all forms of life, period.

'Evolution' is nothing but a cult fantasy; no empirical evidence exists for it, no chain of evidence. Fossils from extinct species of apes and monkeys scattered over millions of years, and very few of them at that, is not a chain of evidence under the premises of empiricism.


----------



## RWS

Esmeralda said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ima Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know there are similarities but I think they are coincidental, like cats and seals both have whiskers.  But cats didn't come from seals or vice a versa.
> 
> 
> 
> Our DNA is 95-98% the same as chimps. So, yes, we are evolved from the primate family that apes also evolved from.  Why is that a problem for you, for anyone?  "...the ancestral population of apes that gave rise to humans, chimps, and bonobos was quite large and diverse genetically—numbering about 27,000 breeding individuals. Once the ancestors of humans split from the ancestor of bonobos and chimps *more than 4 million years ago..." *Four million years ago and you are concerned about this?  Ridiculous.
> http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2012/06/bonobos-join-chimps-closest-human-relatives
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The basic error you make is assuming we have a common relative because of Darwin.  Darwin was wrong about his tree of life.  It's more like separate and non-related bushes (common ancestors within the bushes or family).  Darwin was wrong about a lot of his theories lol.
> 
> We share a lot of our DNA with an earthworm, too.  Bottom line is take out Darwin's all the animals share a common ancestor and you have no relationship.  Apes and humans didn't share a common ancestor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I haven't made an error. It has nothing to do with me. Science confirms that our DNA is closely linked to that of apes.  More than any other being on the planet.  The DNA simply confirms what Darwin theorized.
> 
> The real question is why you people are so pushed out of shape knowing that humans evolved, 4 million  years ago BTW, from apes.  You would be happier if we evolved from worms?  LOL  How ridiculous you are. It doesn't matter what species we decended from, IT WAS 4 MILLION YEARS AGO. WFT? Who fucking cares?
Click to expand...

It's a religious thing...


----------



## longknife

Ima Cat said:


> I know there are similarities but I think they are coincidental, like cats and seals both have whiskers.  But cats didn't come from seals or vice a versa.



*I wasn't certain until watching all the butthurt leftists screaming about President Trump's election.*


----------



## james bond

sealybobo said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ima Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know there are similarities but I think they are coincidental, like cats and seals both have whiskers.  But cats didn't come from seals or vice a versa.
> 
> 
> 
> Our DNA is 95-98% the same as chimps. So, yes, we are evolved from the primate family that apes also evolved from.  Why is that a problem for you, for anyone?  "...the ancestral population of apes that gave rise to humans, chimps, and bonobos was quite large and diverse genetically—numbering about 27,000 breeding individuals. Once the ancestors of humans split from the ancestor of bonobos and chimps *more than 4 million years ago..." *Four million years ago and you are concerned about this?  Ridiculous.
> http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2012/06/bonobos-join-chimps-closest-human-relatives
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The basic error you make is assuming we have a common relative because of Darwin.  Darwin was wrong about his tree of life.  It's more like separate and non-related bushes (common ancestors within the bushes or family).  Darwin was wrong about a lot of his theories lol.
> 
> We share a lot of our DNA with an earthworm, too.  Bottom line is take out Darwin's all the animals share a common ancestor and you have no relationship.  Apes and humans didn't share a common ancestor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes we did.
> 
> Even if there were bushes instead of one tree apes and humans share a bush.
> 
> And god didn’t poof those bushes into existence. Every land creature evolved from a water creature first. That’s what evolution says. The alternative is what? God did it?
Click to expand...


Monkeys, apes and gorillas share one bush of primate mammals with fur, walk on fours and have smaller cranial capacity.

Humans are in a separate bush.of bipedal and larger cranial cavity mammals.

Water creatures are either fish or aquatic mammals.

There are epigeneticists who are trying to sort these bushes out now and aim to complete by 2020.


----------



## james bond

Esmeralda said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ima Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know there are similarities but I think they are coincidental, like cats and seals both have whiskers.  But cats didn't come from seals or vice a versa.
> 
> 
> 
> Our DNA is 95-98% the same as chimps. So, yes, we are evolved from the primate family that apes also evolved from.  Why is that a problem for you, for anyone?  "...the ancestral population of apes that gave rise to humans, chimps, and bonobos was quite large and diverse genetically—numbering about 27,000 breeding individuals. Once the ancestors of humans split from the ancestor of bonobos and chimps *more than 4 million years ago..." *Four million years ago and you are concerned about this?  Ridiculous.
> http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2012/06/bonobos-join-chimps-closest-human-relatives
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The basic error you make is assuming we have a common relative because of Darwin.  Darwin was wrong about his tree of life.  It's more like separate and non-related bushes (common ancestors within the bushes or family).  Darwin was wrong about a lot of his theories lol.
> 
> We share a lot of our DNA with an earthworm, too.  Bottom line is take out Darwin's all the animals share a common ancestor and you have no relationship.  Apes and humans didn't share a common ancestor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I haven't made an error. It has nothing to do with me. Science confirms that our DNA is closely linked to that of apes.  More than any other being on the planet.  The DNA simply confirms what Darwin theorized.
> 
> The real question is why you people are so pushed out of shape knowing that humans evolved, 4 million  years ago BTW, from apes.  You would be happier if we evolved from worms?  LOL  How ridiculous you are. It doesn't matter what species we decended from, IT WAS 4 MILLION YEARS AGO. WFT? Who fucking cares?
Click to expand...


Just using DNA isn't enough.  It's just statistics.  If one uses molecules, then there are like 35 million protein differences and 5 million structure differences.  What should shake out with current research being done in epiegenetics are differences between apes, monkeys and gorillas in one primate mammal family with fur, non-bipedal and smaller cranial capacity while humans will be a different primate mammal family that are bipedal, have larger cranial capacity and have hair instead of fur.


----------



## james bond

RWS said:


> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ima Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know there are similarities but I think they are coincidental, like cats and seals both have whiskers.  But cats didn't come from seals or vice a versa.
> 
> 
> 
> Our DNA is 95-98% the same as chimps. So, yes, we are evolved from the primate family that apes also evolved from.  Why is that a problem for you, for anyone?  "...the ancestral population of apes that gave rise to humans, chimps, and bonobos was quite large and diverse genetically—numbering about 27,000 breeding individuals. Once the ancestors of humans split from the ancestor of bonobos and chimps *more than 4 million years ago..." *Four million years ago and you are concerned about this?  Ridiculous.
> http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2012/06/bonobos-join-chimps-closest-human-relatives
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The basic error you make is assuming we have a common relative because of Darwin.  Darwin was wrong about his tree of life.  It's more like separate and non-related bushes (common ancestors within the bushes or family).  Darwin was wrong about a lot of his theories lol.
> 
> We share a lot of our DNA with an earthworm, too.  Bottom line is take out Darwin's all the animals share a common ancestor and you have no relationship.  Apes and humans didn't share a common ancestor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I haven't made an error. It has nothing to do with me. Science confirms that our DNA is closely linked to that of apes.  More than any other being on the planet.  The DNA simply confirms what Darwin theorized.
> 
> The real question is why you people are so pushed out of shape knowing that humans evolved, 4 million  years ago BTW, from apes.  You would be happier if we evolved from worms?  LOL  How ridiculous you are. It doesn't matter what species we decended from, IT WAS 4 MILLION YEARS AGO. WFT? Who fucking cares?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's a religious thing...
Click to expand...


Not religion, but creation science vs atheist or secular science.


----------



## sealybobo

james bond said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ima Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know there are similarities but I think they are coincidental, like cats and seals both have whiskers.  But cats didn't come from seals or vice a versa.
> 
> 
> 
> Our DNA is 95-98% the same as chimps. So, yes, we are evolved from the primate family that apes also evolved from.  Why is that a problem for you, for anyone?  "...the ancestral population of apes that gave rise to humans, chimps, and bonobos was quite large and diverse genetically—numbering about 27,000 breeding individuals. Once the ancestors of humans split from the ancestor of bonobos and chimps *more than 4 million years ago..." *Four million years ago and you are concerned about this?  Ridiculous.
> http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2012/06/bonobos-join-chimps-closest-human-relatives
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The basic error you make is assuming we have a common relative because of Darwin.  Darwin was wrong about his tree of life.  It's more like separate and non-related bushes (common ancestors within the bushes or family).  Darwin was wrong about a lot of his theories lol.
> 
> We share a lot of our DNA with an earthworm, too.  Bottom line is take out Darwin's all the animals share a common ancestor and you have no relationship.  Apes and humans didn't share a common ancestor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes we did.
> 
> Even if there were bushes instead of one tree apes and humans share a bush.
> 
> And god didn’t poof those bushes into existence. Every land creature evolved from a water creature first. That’s what evolution says. The alternative is what? God did it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Monkeys, apes and gorillas share one bush of primate mammals with fur, walk on fours and have smaller cranial capacity.
> 
> Humans are in a separate bush.of bipedal and larger cranial cavity mammals.
> 
> Water creatures are either fish or aquatic mammals.
> 
> There are epigeneticists who are trying to sort these bushes out now and aim to complete by 2020.
Click to expand...

How did the animals in your bush get here if they didn't crawl out of the water originally?  Poof?  Did god poof fully grown animals into existence?  Is that your THEORY?  We need to know when your science stops and your fantasy kicks in.


----------



## Esmeralda

james bond said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ima Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know there are similarities but I think they are coincidental, like cats and seals both have whiskers.  But cats didn't come from seals or vice a versa.
> 
> 
> 
> Our DNA is 95-98% the same as chimps. So, yes, we are evolved from the primate family that apes also evolved from.  Why is that a problem for you, for anyone?  "...the ancestral population of apes that gave rise to humans, chimps, and bonobos was quite large and diverse genetically—numbering about 27,000 breeding individuals. Once the ancestors of humans split from the ancestor of bonobos and chimps *more than 4 million years ago..." *Four million years ago and you are concerned about this?  Ridiculous.
> http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2012/06/bonobos-join-chimps-closest-human-relatives
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The basic error you make is assuming we have a common relative because of Darwin.  Darwin was wrong about his tree of life.  It's more like separate and non-related bushes (common ancestors within the bushes or family).  Darwin was wrong about a lot of his theories lol.
> 
> We share a lot of our DNA with an earthworm, too.  Bottom line is take out Darwin's all the animals share a common ancestor and you have no relationship.  Apes and humans didn't share a common ancestor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I haven't made an error. It has nothing to do with me. Science confirms that our DNA is closely linked to that of apes.  More than any other being on the planet.  The DNA simply confirms what Darwin theorized.
> 
> The real question is why you people are so pushed out of shape knowing that humans evolved, 4 million  years ago BTW, from apes.  You would be happier if we evolved from worms?  LOL  How ridiculous you are. It doesn't matter what species we decended from, IT WAS 4 MILLION YEARS AGO. WFT? Who fucking cares?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's a religious thing...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not religion, but creation science vs atheist or secular science.
Click to expand...


Creationism is NOT SCIENCE.  It's a joke, a lame attempt to try to make the creation story something other than a fantastic myth.  LOL


----------



## Esmeralda

james bond said:


> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ima Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know there are similarities but I think they are coincidental, like cats and seals both have whiskers.  But cats didn't come from seals or vice a versa.
> 
> 
> 
> Our DNA is 95-98% the same as chimps. So, yes, we are evolved from the primate family that apes also evolved from.  Why is that a problem for you, for anyone?  "...the ancestral population of apes that gave rise to humans, chimps, and bonobos was quite large and diverse genetically—numbering about 27,000 breeding individuals. Once the ancestors of humans split from the ancestor of bonobos and chimps *more than 4 million years ago..." *Four million years ago and you are concerned about this?  Ridiculous.
> http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2012/06/bonobos-join-chimps-closest-human-relatives
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The basic error you make is assuming we have a common relative because of Darwin.  Darwin was wrong about his tree of life.  It's more like separate and non-related bushes (common ancestors within the bushes or family).  Darwin was wrong about a lot of his theories lol.
> 
> We share a lot of our DNA with an earthworm, too.  Bottom line is take out Darwin's all the animals share a common ancestor and you have no relationship.  Apes and humans didn't share a common ancestor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I haven't made an error. It has nothing to do with me. Science confirms that our DNA is closely linked to that of apes.  More than any other being on the planet.  The DNA simply confirms what Darwin theorized.
> 
> The real question is why you people are so pushed out of shape knowing that humans evolved, 4 million  years ago BTW, from apes.  You would be happier if we evolved from worms?  LOL  How ridiculous you are. It doesn't matter what species we decended from, IT WAS 4 MILLION YEARS AGO. WFT? Who fucking cares?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just using DNA isn't enough.  It's just statistics.  If one uses molecules, then there are like 35 million protein differences and 5 million structure differences.  What should shake out with current research being done in epiegenetics are differences between apes, monkeys and gorillas in one primate mammal family with fur, non-bipedal and smaller cranial capacity while humans will be a different primate mammal family that are bipedal, have larger cranial capacity and have hair instead of fur.
Click to expand...

My goodness, you are desperate.


----------



## Skull Pilot

I believe a large portion of us are still monkeys


----------



## LTCArmyRet

Esmeralda said:


> Ima Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know there are similarities but I think they are coincidental, like cats and seals both have whiskers.  But cats didn't come from seals or vice a versa.
> 
> 
> 
> Our DNA is 95-98% the same as chimps. So, yes, we are evolved from the primate family that apes also evolved from.  Why is that a problem for you, for anyone?  "...the ancestral population of apes that gave rise to humans, chimps, and bonobos was quite large and diverse genetically—numbering about 27,000 breeding individuals. Once the ancestors of humans split from the ancestor of bonobos and chimps *more than 4 million years ago..." *Four million years ago and you are concerned about this?  Ridiculous.
> http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2012/06/bonobos-join-chimps-closest-human-relatives
Click to expand...


Do pigs share 98 per cent of human genes?  › Ask an Expert (ABC Science)
Scientists have discovered about 20,000 mammalian genes that encode proteins with similar basic functions. So if you compare the protein-encoding portion of our DNA we have a lot in common with a lot of mammals. 

"Mammals have most of the same genes for similar biochemical and physiological functions. If you look at the details of the genes … there'll be differences between them, but they'll still be doing the same kind of function," says Moran.

"It's a little bit like having a Ford or a Holden — it's still obviously a car but a slightly different version."

But while 20,000 similar genes sounds like a lot, only one to two per cent of our DNA actually encodes proteins. Most of the rest is transcribed into RNA.

Pigs and humans share more genetic similarities than previously believed
Pigs share a number of surprising comparable traits with humans. For instance, we both have hairless skin, a thick layer of subcutaneous fat, light-colored eyes, protruding noses and heavy eyelashes. Pig skin tissues and heart valves can be used in medicine because of their compatibility with the human body. Medical students often practice suturing on pig's feet.

Most of these shared traits are likely due to convergent evolution, happenstance; they aren't the sign of close ancestry. But new genetic analysis suggests that pigs and primates may actually share a hidden evolutionary relationship after all


So....did we come from pigs?  apes?    hippopotamus?   Jury is still out....no conclusive evidence.   We (humans) once believed beyond a doubt that the earth was flat and we were the center of the universe.


----------



## james bond

Esmeralda said:


> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're primates that developed from a common ancestor 5-7 million years ago that yes was an ape.
> 
> That is a fact....The evidence is very strong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not a fact, it is a theory, big difference.   And if we descended from an ape, why are there still apes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OMG
Click to expand...


This is the other deception.  Scientists lie that apes from the past are different from today's evolved apes and that's why none of them walk (bipedal).  What a crock.  Feces alert .


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're primates that developed from a common ancestor 5-7 million years ago that yes was an ape.
> 
> That is a fact....The evidence is very strong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not a fact, it is a theory, big difference.   And if we descended from an ape, why are there still apes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OMG
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is the other deception.  Scientists lie that apes from the past are different from today's evolved apes and that's why none of them walk (bipedal).  What a crock.  Feces alert .
Click to expand...

Yeah, you figured it out, there is a vast conspiracy made up of almost every physicist, biologist, paleontologist, and geologist just to get you to question your faith in God.  Keep that tin foil handy.


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're primates that developed from a common ancestor 5-7 million years ago that yes was an ape.
> 
> That is a fact....The evidence is very strong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not a fact, it is a theory, big difference.   And if we descended from an ape, why are there still apes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OMG
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is the other deception.  Scientists lie that apes from the past are different from today's evolved apes and that's why none of them walk (bipedal).  What a crock.  Feces alert .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, you figured it out, there is a vast conspiracy made up of almost every physicist, biologist, paleontologist, and geologist just to get you to question your faith in God.  Keep that tin foil handy.
Click to expand...


Those who still believe in evolution.  We saw that that apes to humans was backed up by lies and fraud.

However, those who are creation scientists think different.  If we go by observation, then today's chimps and apes back up that we did not descend from chimps/apes and that backs up the Bible and creation scientists.

Also, explain how the apes today are not bipedal?  And why do they still have small cranial capacity and fur?


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> Those who still believe in evolution.  We saw that that apes to humans was backed up by lies and fraud.


What lies?  What frauds?  The only lies and frauds I've seen come from the creation science people.




james bond said:


> However, those who are creation scientists think different.  If we go by observation, then today's chimps and apes back up that we did not descend from chimps/apes and that backs up the Bible and creation scientists.


I certainly believe they think differently but how does observing today's chimps and apes back up that we did not descend from chimps/apes?  How does it support creation science?




james bond said:


> Also, explain how the apes today are not bipedal?  And why do they still have small cranial capacity and fur?


We're back to your fundamental lack of understanding of evolution.  Do you think apes want to be men or that evolution has a goal?

Todays apes are not bipedal and still have small cranial capacity and fur because they are well suited to their environment and these features offer no survival advantage.


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> What lies?  What frauds?  The only lies and frauds I've seen come from the creation science people.



No lies from creation scientists, but lies and fraud from evolution such as Piltdown Man and Nebraska Man.





alang1216 said:


> We're back to your fundamental lack of understanding of evolution.  Do you think apes want to be men or that evolution has a goal?



You're back to not being able to explain any evolution nor been able to answer my questions.  You've been shown to be ignorant and negligible.


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're back to not being able to explain any evolution nor been able to answer my questions.  You've been shown to be ignorant and negligible.
> 
> 
> 
> What questions have I not tried to answer?
Click to expand...


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> What questions have I not tried to answer?


[/QUOTE]

Not tried, but can't answer.  If you'd knew the answer, then you would jump on it like stink on feces . Thus, we know humans did not come from apes.  Too much evidence against it


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Picaro said:


> There is no empirical evidence humans come from a common ancestor.


See, there is zero point in engaging freaks like this. ^^

Let them talk and embarrass themselves. Who cares? Do we really have to try to rationalize with every 90 pound weakling who claims he can beat up Floyd Mayweather?

"Well son, you see, he has excellent technique, and had boxed professionally for many years. In fact, here are links to videos of him training and of him winning professional fights. Oh, and here are links to boxing experts describing how great he is. So, unfortunately, a person like you with zero skill or training in boxing is not going to beat him..."


Hahaha...no. We should only mock these fools.


----------



## sealybobo

Ima Cat said:


> I know there are similarities but I think they are coincidental, like cats and seals both have whiskers.  But cats didn't come from seals or vice a versa.


Back before we shared a common ancestor that species of hominoid evolved from a species that was more like a rodent. It crawled on all fours. This too is our relative. Forget did we evolve from monkeys. What was that monkey before it evolved into one? We trace our history all the way back to a creature that crawled out of the water.

If you don’t believe evolution you believe the goat herders guide to the universe. We were poofed into being right?

You can’t deny evolution and say you’re a scientist


----------



## MindWars

No ,  because if we came from monkeys somewhere along the through out history even to this day we would see people some where being born with some money DNA from some where popping up.  No different than a couple who has black hair but ends up having a baby with red hair.


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> Thus, we know humans did not come from apes.  Too much evidence against it


Please share some...


----------



## alang1216

MindWars said:


> No ,  because if we came from monkeys somewhere along the through out history even to this day we would see people some where being born with some money DNA from some where popping up.  No different than a couple who has black hair but ends up having a baby with red hair.


The truth is that *everyone *is born with 'monkey' DNA.

*Chimps, Humans 96 Percent the Same, Gene Study Finds*


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

MindWars said:


> No ,  because if we came from monkeys somewhere along the through out history even to this day we would see people some where being born with some money DNA from some where popping up.  No different than a couple who has black hair but ends up having a baby with red hair.


Actually, it's completely different than that, because hair color is coded by very few genes.


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> MindWars said:
> 
> 
> 
> No ,  because if we came from monkeys somewhere along the through out history even to this day we would see people some where being born with some money DNA from some where popping up.  No different than a couple who has black hair but ends up having a baby with red hair.
> 
> 
> 
> The truth is that *everyone *is born with 'monkey' DNA.
> 
> *Chimps, Humans 96 Percent the Same, Gene Study Finds*
Click to expand...


See post #485.


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thus, we know humans did not come from apes.  Too much evidence against it
> 
> 
> 
> Please share some...
Click to expand...








God created humans on a different day.


----------



## Votto

Muhammed said:


>



Nope, that is all wrong.


----------



## RWS

Creationist theory ranks right there with flat earth theory.

Both require religion, and science is not allowed.


----------



## cnm

alang1216 said:


> MindWars said:
> 
> 
> 
> No ,  because if we came from monkeys somewhere along the through out history even to this day we would see people some where being born with some money DNA from some where popping up.  No different than a couple who has black hair but ends up having a baby with red hair.
> 
> 
> 
> The truth is that *everyone *is born with 'monkey' DNA.
> 
> *Chimps, Humans 96 Percent the Same, Gene Study Finds*
Click to expand...

Shhhhhh. Don't disturb her...


----------



## james bond

RWS said:


> Creationist theory ranks right there with flat earth theory.
> 
> Both require religion, and science is not allowed.



"Are" not allowed.

This is why atheists are usually wrong.  Atheist science believes the universe started from nothing and that there are multiverses.  They are bat sh*t looney.  They also believe in the racist theory that humans in Africa came from apes.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Creationist theory ranks right there with flat earth theory.
> 
> Both require religion, and science is not allowed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Are" not allowed.
> 
> This is why atheists are usually wrong.  Atheist science believes the universe started from nothing and that there are multiverses.  They are bat sh*t looney.  They also believe in the racist theory that humans in Africa came from apes.
Click to expand...

Your grammar is as bad as your science knowledge . 

Hey fruitcake.... Have you published your science papers, yet? Scientists like to laugh too, you know.

Does it give you ANY pause at all that you think you are outsmarting lifelong scientists, yet you would get laughed out of a middle school science class?


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Creationist theory ranks right there with flat earth theory.
> 
> Both require religion, and science is not allowed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Are" not allowed.
> 
> This is why atheists are usually wrong.  Atheist science believes the universe started from nothing and that there are multiverses.  They are bat sh*t looney.  They also believe in the racist theory that humans in Africa came from apes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your grammar is as bad as your science knowledge .
> 
> Hey fruitcake.... Have you published your science papers, yet? Scientists like to laugh too, you know.
> 
> Does it give you ANY pause at all that you think you are outsmarting lifelong scientists, yet you would get laughed out of a middle school science class?
Click to expand...


Ha ha.  First time you were right in all the years I've known you.  My grammar is bad, but your brain is worse.

Let's look at Piltdown Man again.  A whole generation of people were fooled by it.  Yet, evolutionists have not made any correction and still believe humans came from apes and chimps.  It means another generation has been fooled.

"It has been called the greatest hoax in the history of palaeoanthropology. In 1912, two men announced the discovery of _Eoanthropus dawsoni_, the remains of what they claimed was the missing link between humans and apes. Because the fossils were found in the town of  Piltdown in East Sussex, England, this half-human-half-ape was named the Piltdown Man and the discovery was hailed as one of the greatest moments in archeological history for decades … until the 1950s when it was proven to be an elaborate hoax. Now the perpetrator of the hoax has finally been identified. It was …"

Piltdown Man Hoax, 100 Years Ago 

Some nice pics in this one
Charles Dawson who found the Piltdown Man 'fossil' was probably behind the hoax | Daily Mail Online


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Creationist theory ranks right there with flat earth theory.
> 
> Both require religion, and science is not allowed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Are" not allowed.
> 
> This is why atheists are usually wrong.  Atheist science believes the universe started from nothing and that there are multiverses.  They are bat sh*t looney.  They also believe in the racist theory that humans in Africa came from apes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your grammar is as bad as your science knowledge .
> 
> Hey fruitcake.... Have you published your science papers, yet? Scientists like to laugh too, you know.
> 
> Does it give you ANY pause at all that you think you are outsmarting lifelong scientists, yet you would get laughed out of a middle school science class?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ha ha.  First time you were right in all the years I've known you.  My grammar is bad, but your brain is worse.
> 
> Let's look at Piltdown Man again.  A whole generation of people were fooled by it.  Yet, evolutionists have not made any correction and still believe humans came from apes and chimps.  It means another generation has been fooled.
> 
> "It has been called the greatest hoax in the history of palaeoanthropology. In 1912, two men announced the discovery of _Eoanthropus dawsoni_, the remains of what they claimed was the missing link between humans and apes. Because the fossils were found in the town of  Piltdown in East Sussex, England, this half-human-half-ape was named the Piltdown Man and the discovery was hailed as one of the greatest moments in archeological history for decades … until the 1950s when it was proven to be an elaborate hoax. Now the perpetrator of the hoax has finally been identified. It was …"
> 
> Piltdown Man Hoax, 100 Years Ago
> 
> Some nice pics in this one
> Charles Dawson who found the Piltdown Man 'fossil' was probably behind the hoax | Daily Mail Online
Click to expand...

I'm not going to read a word of that gibberish. I went to a university and got an actual sconec education. That is all embarrassing garbage.


----------



## RWS

james bond said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Creationist theory ranks right there with flat earth theory.
> 
> Both require religion, and science is not allowed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Are" not allowed.
> 
> This is why atheists are usually wrong.  Atheist science believes the universe started from nothing and that there are multiverses.  They are bat sh*t looney.  They also believe in the racist theory that humans in Africa came from apes.
Click to expand...


Answer me this... Is the Earth round or flat?

Is it a ball or a pancake? I think it's a pancake! I don't care about the scientist bullshit. It's obviously flat. Besides all the shit we disagree on, I think we may finally agree on something, dang... I'm interested in your view on this


----------



## james bond

RWS said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Creationist theory ranks right there with flat earth theory.
> 
> Both require religion, and science is not allowed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Are" not allowed.
> 
> This is why atheists are usually wrong.  Atheist science believes the universe started from nothing and that there are multiverses.  They are bat sh*t looney.  They also believe in the racist theory that humans in Africa came from apes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Answer me this... Is the Earth round or flat?
> 
> Is it a ball or a pancake? I think it's a pancake! I don't care about the scientist bullshit. It's obviously flat. Besides all the shit we disagree on, I think we may finally agree on something, dang... I'm interested in your view on this
Click to expand...


I lost track since yesterday of where we were, so sorry if this is a repeat.

I'm afraid that we're still disagreeing .

The earth is a sphere floating in space.  That's from the Bible.  Do you want proof?

Even in those days, people used the stars for navigation.







++++++++

Today, I realized that I've known you for years on this forum, but never invited you.  Today, we talked about inviting at church..

Even if you believe you evolved from an ape, would you consider inviting Christ into your life?  That you are a sinner and that he died to save you from your sins.

Believing you're related to monkeys is probably not a sin unless you go too far.

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4 In him was life,1 and the life was the light of men. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it." Acts 1


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Creationist theory ranks right there with flat earth theory.
> 
> Both require religion, and science is not allowed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Are" not allowed.
> 
> This is why atheists are usually wrong.  Atheist science believes the universe started from nothing and that there are multiverses.  They are bat sh*t looney.  They also believe in the racist theory that humans in Africa came from apes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your grammar is as bad as your science knowledge .
> 
> Hey fruitcake.... Have you published your science papers, yet? Scientists like to laugh too, you know.
> 
> Does it give you ANY pause at all that you think you are outsmarting lifelong scientists, yet you would get laughed out of a middle school science class?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ha ha.  First time you were right in all the years I've known you.  My grammar is bad, but your brain is worse.
> 
> Let's look at Piltdown Man again.  A whole generation of people were fooled by it.  Yet, evolutionists have not made any correction and still believe humans came from apes and chimps.  It means another generation has been fooled.
> 
> "It has been called the greatest hoax in the history of palaeoanthropology. In 1912, two men announced the discovery of _Eoanthropus dawsoni_, the remains of what they claimed was the missing link between humans and apes. Because the fossils were found in the town of  Piltdown in East Sussex, England, this half-human-half-ape was named the Piltdown Man and the discovery was hailed as one of the greatest moments in archeological history for decades … until the 1950s when it was proven to be an elaborate hoax. Now the perpetrator of the hoax has finally been identified. It was …"
> 
> Piltdown Man Hoax, 100 Years Ago
> 
> Some nice pics in this one
> Charles Dawson who found the Piltdown Man 'fossil' was probably behind the hoax | Daily Mail Online
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not going to read a word of that gibberish. I went to a university and got an actual sconec education. That is all embarrassing garbage.
Click to expand...


What is an actual sconec education?

Okay, this is where we left off.  None of what I posted is garbage.  It's history based on someone who defrauded evos for personal gain.  They probably got a nice appointment, made money and lived a comfortable life.  Afterward he or they died, the plot was discovered.  Do you think that they won't be punished by Jesus?  That they got away scot free?  Where is the morality?


----------



## harmonica

so--a fully formed man just ''appeared'' ....hahahahhahahahha


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> See post #485.


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thus, we know humans did not come from apes.  Too much evidence against it
> 
> 
> 
> Please share some...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God created humans on a different day.
Click to expand...

Religious evidence, got it.  Any scientific evidence?


----------



## james bond

harmonica said:


> so--a fully formed man just ''appeared'' ....hahahahhahahahha



That's what the Bible says and science backs up the Bible.

Also, in 2017 the chicken came before the egg was proven.  It also backs up the Bible.


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thus, we know humans did not come from apes.  Too much evidence against it
> 
> 
> 
> Please share some...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God created humans on a different day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Religious evidence, got it.  Any scientific evidence?
Click to expand...


Religion and science are two sides of the same coin.  They're worldviews and influence us throughout our entire lives.

For evidence, let's look at the ancient humans vs the prehistoric humans that came after Noah's flood.  They knew how to use tools and quickly adapted to farming.  These people lived hundreds of years.  While the prehistoric humans that came after the flood weren't so advanced.  They had to learn things all over again.  These are the people you claim to have come from apes.


----------



## skye

monkeys come from one branch of beings

spiritual human beings from another

may be the two will meet at the end.....who knows

I certainly don't.


----------



## harmonica

james bond said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> so--a fully formed man just ''appeared'' ....hahahahhahahahha
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's what the Bible says and science backs up the Bible.
> 
> Also, in 2017 the chicken came before the egg was proven.  It also backs up the Bible.
Click to expand...

that's is some amazing stuff--like _Star Trek_


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> Religion and science are two sides of the same coin.  They're worldviews and influence us throughout our entire lives.


Exactly wrong, they are opposite worldviews and mutually exclusive.  Science is based on evidence and can be verified by anyone who cares to try.  Religion is based on faith and cannot be verified since the tenets are revealed and not discovered.  The revelations cannot be independently verified.



james bond said:


> For evidence, let's look at the ancient humans vs the prehistoric humans that came after Noah's flood.  They knew how to use tools and quickly adapted to farming.  These people lived hundreds of years.  While the prehistoric humans that came after the flood weren't so advanced.  They had to learn things all over again.  These are the people you claim to have come from apes.


There is almost nothing here that makes sense.  What are 'ancient humans' and 'prehistoric humans'?


----------



## james bond

harmonica said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> so--a fully formed man just ''appeared'' ....hahahahhahahahha
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's what the Bible says and science backs up the Bible.
> 
> Also, in 2017 the chicken came before the egg was proven.  It also backs up the Bible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that's is some amazing stuff--like _Star Trek_
Click to expand...


It's not sci-fi, but history.


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Religion and science are two sides of the same coin.  They're worldviews and influence us throughout our entire lives.
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly wrong, they are opposite worldviews and mutually exclusive.  Science is based on evidence and can be verified by anyone who cares to try.  Religion is based on faith and cannot be verified since the tenets are revealed and not discovered.  The revelations cannot be independently verified.
Click to expand...


I don't think you understand how much faith is involved in science.  These aren't truths that we agree upon.  It's a worldview.

Yet, I've heard some people call these "facts," such as evolution is fact.  Science is not in the business of facts nor proofs, but theories.  Science deals with facts and comes up with an explanation.  It starts with hypothesis and if enough science people accept it, then it becomes a theory.  Most of us who aren't scientists are educated with these theories.

So, what you just stated about science being based on evidence, or the facts, is only partially true.  The other part of science is interpreting the evidence, interpreting the facts.  Thus, you are partially wrong. Your view is not complete.

If we can't even agree on what we agree on, then there's no point in discussing matters with you.



alang1216 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> For evidence, let's look at the ancient humans vs the prehistoric humans that came after Noah's flood.  They knew how to use tools and quickly adapted to farming.  These people lived hundreds of years.  While the prehistoric humans that came after the flood weren't so advanced.  They had to learn things all over again.  These are the people you claim to have come from apes.
> 
> 
> 
> There is almost nothing here that makes sense.  What are 'ancient humans' and 'prehistoric humans'?
Click to expand...


Have you read the Bible at all?  I invite you to read the part about Adam and Eve and their ancestors.


----------



## harmonica

james bond said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> so--a fully formed man just ''appeared'' ....hahahahhahahahha
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's what the Bible says and science backs up the Bible.
> 
> Also, in 2017 the chicken came before the egg was proven.  It also backs up the Bible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that's is some amazing stuff--like _Star Trek_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not sci-fi, but history.
Click to expand...

actually it's fairytale land


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Can you all imagine the level of self-delusion it takes not just to believe this hilarious, magical nonsense that is contradicted by ALL of the evidence...

...but also to parade about an internet message board, regurgitating blogs from uneducated morons, and declaring victory...as if you have upended the global scientific community?

Embarrassing. We know evolution is a fact, just as confidently as we know the Earth revolves about the Sun. There is no debate. This is an exercise for school children.


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> Science is not in the business of facts nor proofs, but theories.  Science deals with facts and comes up with an explanation.  It starts with hypothesis and if enough science people accept it, then it becomes a theory


You're all over the place:
_Science is not in the business of facts_
and
_Science deals with facts_​
Science deals with observed facts.  Theories are hypothesized that fit these facts.  The theory is accepted so long as no new facts contradict the theory.  Theories with an enormous amount of facts behind them are accepted as truths.



james bond said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> There is almost nothing here that makes sense.  What are 'ancient humans' and 'prehistoric humans'?
> 
> 
> 
> Have you read the Bible at all?  I invite you to read the part about Adam and Eve and their ancestors.
Click to expand...

I have read the Bible and I can tell you there are no 'ancient humans' or 'prehistoric humans' anywhere in it.


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Science is not in the business of facts nor proofs, but theories.  Science deals with facts and comes up with an explanation.  It starts with hypothesis and if enough science people accept it, then it becomes a theory
> 
> 
> 
> You're all over the place:
> _Science is not in the business of facts_
> and
> _Science deals with facts_​
> Science deals with observed facts.  Theories are hypothesized that fit these facts.  The theory is accepted so long as no new facts contradict the theory.  Theories with an enormous amount of facts behind them are accepted as truths.
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> There is almost nothing here that makes sense.  What are 'ancient humans' and 'prehistoric humans'?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Have you read the Bible at all?  I invite you to read the part about Adam and Eve and their ancestors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have read the Bible and I can tell you there are no 'ancient humans' or 'prehistoric humans' anywhere in it.
Click to expand...


K, since you've read it.  Let's start after Adam and Eve.  One of their sons was Cain and he was a farmer.  He had tools and knew how to use them.  So, he ends up killing his brother the shepard.  A bit later we get to the begots.  These people during that time knew how to use fire, make tools, forge iron, make helmets with horns on them, make weapons, make musical instruments etc.  In Genesis 7, we got Noah who built a huge Ark by himself.  So, it never occurred to you that these people were more advanced than your prehistoric humans?


----------



## LuckyDuck

Ima Cat said:


> I know there are similarities but I think they are coincidental, like cats and seals both have whiskers.  But cats didn't come from seals or vice a versa.


We aren't descendants of "monkey's."  We are however, descendants of "primates."  
DNA doesn't lie and we share 99% of the same DNA with chimpanzees.   If you refuse to recognize the DNA similarity, then any crime committed against your family in which DNA was left behind, should be denied by you as not belonging to a specific individual.


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Science is not in the business of facts nor proofs, but theories.  Science deals with facts and comes up with an explanation.  It starts with hypothesis and if enough science people accept it, then it becomes a theory
> 
> 
> 
> You're all over the place:
> _Science is not in the business of facts_
> and
> _Science deals with facts_​
> Science deals with observed facts.  Theories are hypothesized that fit these facts.  The theory is accepted so long as no new facts contradict the theory.  Theories with an enormous amount of facts behind them are accepted as truths.
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> There is almost nothing here that makes sense.  What are 'ancient humans' and 'prehistoric humans'?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Have you read the Bible at all?  I invite you to read the part about Adam and Eve and their ancestors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have read the Bible and I can tell you there are no 'ancient humans' or 'prehistoric humans' anywhere in it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> K, since you've read it.  Let's start after Adam and Eve.  One of their sons was Cain and he was a farmer.  He had tools and knew how to use them.  So, he ends up killing his brother the shepard.  A bit later we get to the begots.  These people during that time knew how to use fire, make tools, forge iron, make helmets with horns on them, make weapons, make musical instruments etc.  In Genesis 7, we got Noah who built a huge Ark by himself.  So, it never occurred to you that these people were more advanced than your prehistoric humans?
Click to expand...

I said I read it, I didn't say I accepted it as historically accurate.  So I take it that the 'ancient humans' are in the Bible but the 'prehistoric humans' are not?  Were the 'prehistoric humans' the Neanderthals and other hominids known from the fossil record?


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Science is not in the business of facts nor proofs, but theories.  Science deals with facts and comes up with an explanation.  It starts with hypothesis and if enough science people accept it, then it becomes a theory
> 
> 
> 
> You're all over the place:
> _Science is not in the business of facts_
> and
> _Science deals with facts_​
> Science deals with observed facts.  Theories are hypothesized that fit these facts.  The theory is accepted so long as no new facts contradict the theory.  Theories with an enormous amount of facts behind them are accepted as truths.
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> There is almost nothing here that makes sense.  What are 'ancient humans' and 'prehistoric humans'?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Have you read the Bible at all?  I invite you to read the part about Adam and Eve and their ancestors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have read the Bible and I can tell you there are no 'ancient humans' or 'prehistoric humans' anywhere in it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> K, since you've read it.  Let's start after Adam and Eve.  One of their sons was Cain and he was a farmer.  He had tools and knew how to use them.  So, he ends up killing his brother the shepard.  A bit later we get to the begots.  These people during that time knew how to use fire, make tools, forge iron, make helmets with horns on them, make weapons, make musical instruments etc.  In Genesis 7, we got Noah who built a huge Ark by himself.  So, it never occurred to you that these people were more advanced than your prehistoric humans?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I said I read it, I didn't say I accepted it as historically accurate.  So I take it that the 'ancient humans' are in the Bible but the 'prehistoric humans' are not?  Were the 'prehistoric humans' the Neanderthals and other hominids known from the fossil record?
Click to expand...


I can believe your ignorance that you only get one side of the story.  However, I can't accept it.  I've told you I studied both evolution and evolutionary thinking and am still studying the Bible (since 2012).

The Bible is a history book of the first humans and a non-fiction book.  Don't think I don't have a source or a mythical source.  You believe what wikipedia tells you.  I know you would not accept it, but I don't accept humans come from apes.  Nor birds came from dinosaurs.  It's two different worldviews.  We are both going on "faith" that our worldview is true.  I trust God while you trust other humans whom you call teachers, scientists or authority.  God is my authority.  I explain the Piltdown Man which fooled an entire generation and no correction was made.  The tree of life and common ancestor theory continues to teach its falsity.  In fact, it's come down to atheist science trying to show creation science is wrong.  Thus, we have to have multiverses and a universe from nothing and other weird beliefs such as we came from fish and apes and it took billions of years in order to explain.  There was no intelligence behind anything because if there was any intelligence, then it would be evidence for the my side.  We have intelligence and beautiful design all around us.  It's right in front of our noses.  It's no accident, but science wants you to believe that it's common and can just happen.

Now, you're going to state that your view is science, but it's a theory and science changes every year.  My theory can't change and hasn't changed since it was written.  Moreover, I've stated the tree of life is being shown by epigentics that it is really the bushes of life in the orchard of life.  Not the tree of life and common ancestor theory.

We continue to argue the evidence of who is right or wrong.

Furthermore, your science does not accept the Bible as a source while my "religion," actually creation science, does not put on such limitations.  Just because something has a supernatural explanation, it does not mean it is not true.  It is the only thing supernatural that we believe.  We do not believe in ghosts, but only God (Trinity), angels and demons.  In fact, the Bible states to not believe in other supernatural or get advice by those who speak to the dead such as mediums.

Yes, the prehistoric "human" fossils are the early humans after the flood.  Not australopithecines, ardipithecus or homo naledi.  Those were apes or chimpanzees.  What the global flood did was, some theorize, that a canopy of water above the Earth was removed by God.  Thus, we experienced radiation and had our lives cut short to a maximum of 120 years as stated in the Bible.  The new generation of humans were much weaker.  Our having sex with our ancestors again further weakened our genetics until we can't have sex with close ancestors anymore.

I argue fossils, too.  Look at the remains of ancient humans such as Pompeii.  They were more perfect then such as straight teeth.  The prehistoric humans didn't have that.  The other evidence is other planet is covered with water and our mountains were formed during the catastrophe when the foundations from below the seafloor rose up.  You have no plausible explanation to explain the water on Earth.


----------



## james bond

LuckyDuck said:


> Ima Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know there are similarities but I think they are coincidental, like cats and seals both have whiskers.  But cats didn't come from seals or vice a versa.
> 
> 
> 
> We aren't descendants of "monkey's."  We are however, descendants of "primates."
> DNA doesn't lie and we share 99% of the same DNA with chimpanzees.   If you refuse to recognize the DNA similarity, then any crime committed against your family in which DNA was left behind, should be denied by you as not belonging to a specific individual.
Click to expand...


That's just statistics being used to back your theory.  Mark Twain said, "There are lies, damned lies and statistics."  No court in the world will convict anyone based on DNA evidence alone.

I have the statistics that 35 million molecules are different from apes and humans.  Of those 35 million, 5 million molecules are structured differently in the DNA.


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Science is not in the business of facts nor proofs, but theories.  Science deals with facts and comes up with an explanation.  It starts with hypothesis and if enough science people accept it, then it becomes a theory
> 
> 
> 
> You're all over the place:
> _Science is not in the business of facts_
> and
> _Science deals with facts_​
> Science deals with observed facts.  Theories are hypothesized that fit these facts.  The theory is accepted so long as no new facts contradict the theory.  Theories with an enormous amount of facts behind them are accepted as truths.
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> There is almost nothing here that makes sense.  What are 'ancient humans' and 'prehistoric humans'?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Have you read the Bible at all?  I invite you to read the part about Adam and Eve and their ancestors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have read the Bible and I can tell you there are no 'ancient humans' or 'prehistoric humans' anywhere in it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> K, since you've read it.  Let's start after Adam and Eve.  One of their sons was Cain and he was a farmer.  He had tools and knew how to use them.  So, he ends up killing his brother the shepard.  A bit later we get to the begots.  These people during that time knew how to use fire, make tools, forge iron, make helmets with horns on them, make weapons, make musical instruments etc.  In Genesis 7, we got Noah who built a huge Ark by himself.  So, it never occurred to you that these people were more advanced than your prehistoric humans?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I said I read it, I didn't say I accepted it as historically accurate.  So I take it that the 'ancient humans' are in the Bible but the 'prehistoric humans' are not?  Were the 'prehistoric humans' the Neanderthals and other hominids known from the fossil record?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can believe your ignorance that you only get one side of the story.  However, I can't accept it.  I've told you I studied both evolution and evolutionary thinking and am still studying the Bible (since 2012).
> 
> The Bible is a history book of the first humans and a non-fiction book.  Don't think I don't have a source or a mythical source.  You believe what wikipedia tells you.  I know you would not accept it, but I don't accept humans come from apes.  Nor birds came from dinosaurs.  It's two different worldviews.  We are both going on "faith" that our worldview is true.  I trust God while you trust other humans whom you call teachers, scientists or authority.  God is my authority.  I explain the Piltdown Man which fooled an entire generation and no correction was made.  The tree of life and common ancestor theory continues to teach its falsity.  In fact, it's come down to atheist science trying to show creation science is wrong.  Thus, we have to have multiverses and a universe from nothing and other weird beliefs such as we came from fish and apes and it took billions of years in order to explain.  There was no intelligence behind anything because if there was any intelligence, then it would be evidence for the my side.  We have intelligence and beautiful design all around us.  It's right in front of our noses.  It's no accident, but science wants you to believe that it's common and can just happen.
> 
> Now, you're going to state that your view is science, but it's a theory and science changes every year.  My theory can't change and hasn't changed since it was written.  Moreover, I've stated the tree of life is being shown by epigentics that it is really the bushes of life in the orchard of life.  Not the tree of life and common ancestor theory.
> 
> We continue to argue the evidence of who is right or wrong.
> 
> Furthermore, your science does not accept the Bible as a source while my "religion," actually creation science, does not put on such limitations.  Just because something has a supernatural explanation, it does not mean it is not true.  It is the only thing supernatural that we believe.  We do not believe in ghosts, but only God (Trinity), angels and demons.  In fact, the Bible states to not believe in other supernatural or get advice by those who speak to the dead such as mediums.
> 
> Yes, the prehistoric "human" fossils are the early humans after the flood.  Not australopithecines, ardipithecus or homo naledi.  Those were apes or chimpanzees.  What the global flood did was, some theorize, that a canopy of water above the Earth was removed by God.  Thus, we experienced radiation and had our lives cut short to a maximum of 120 years as stated in the Bible.  The new generation of humans were much weaker.  Our having sex with our ancestors again further weakened our genetics until we can't have sex with close ancestors anymore.
> 
> I argue fossils, too.  Look at the remains of ancient humans such as Pompeii.  They were more perfect then such as straight teeth.  The prehistoric humans didn't have that.  The other evidence is other planet is covered with water and our mountains were formed during the catastrophe when the foundations from below the seafloor rose up.  You have no plausible explanation to explain the water on Earth.
Click to expand...

First off, thanks for the thoughtful reply.

You're right we have different worldviews.  Yours is based on faith, mine is not.  Where you are wrong is when you say:
_*I trust God while you trust other humans whom you call teachers, scientists or authority.*_​
You're right, I do trust those who have earned the title of teacher, scientist, or authority.  Where you are wrong is implying you trust in God and not men.  Has God spoken directly to you or does your faith tell you that the Bible is God's word?  Whatever the Bible may be, it was written down by men and contains all the errors, typos, and contradictions that you'd expect.  So you too  trust other humans whom you call prophets or apostles but whether you know it or not you are also trusting the scribes and oral historians that preserved the Bible stories.


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> They lied to you as well, maybe.
> 
> Creationist theories and their corresponding religions are based on deception.
> 
> They will make you believe anything they want you to believe, and you are forced to believe it because your parents did.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the science forum, so will stick with creation science.
Click to expand...


'creation science' lol

reminds me of the "marijuana initiative'


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thus, we know humans did not come from apes.  Too much evidence against it
> 
> 
> 
> Please share some...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God created humans on a different day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Religious evidence, got it.  Any scientific evidence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Religion and science are two sides of the same coin.  They're worldviews and influence us throughout our entire lives.
> 
> For evidence, let's look at the ancient humans vs the prehistoric humans that came after Noah's flood.  They knew how to use tools and quickly adapted to farming.  These people lived hundreds of years.  While the prehistoric humans that came after the flood weren't so advanced.  They had to learn things all over again.  These are the people you claim to have come from apes.
Click to expand...


LOL- tell us more about the scientific evidence for ancient humans who 'lived hundreds of years'.

There are no 'ancient humans vs prehistoric humans after the Flood'- there are prehistoric humans- and there are historic humans.

While our hunter gatherer ancestors did live longer than our farming ancestors, there is no evidence that any early humans lived any longer than modern humans with access to modern healthcare and sanitation. 

None at all.


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Science is not in the business of facts nor proofs, but theories.  Science deals with facts and comes up with an explanation.  It starts with hypothesis and if enough science people accept it, then it becomes a theory
> 
> 
> 
> You're all over the place:
> _Science is not in the business of facts_
> and
> _Science deals with facts_​
> Science deals with observed facts.  Theories are hypothesized that fit these facts.  The theory is accepted so long as no new facts contradict the theory.  Theories with an enormous amount of facts behind them are accepted as truths.
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you read the Bible at all?  I invite you to read the part about Adam and Eve and their ancestors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have read the Bible and I can tell you there are no 'ancient humans' or 'prehistoric humans' anywhere in it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> K, since you've read it.  Let's start after Adam and Eve.  One of their sons was Cain and he was a farmer.  He had tools and knew how to use them.  So, he ends up killing his brother the shepard.  A bit later we get to the begots.  These people during that time knew how to use fire, make tools, forge iron, make helmets with horns on them, make weapons, make musical instruments etc.  In Genesis 7, we got Noah who built a huge Ark by himself.  So, it never occurred to you that these people were more advanced than your prehistoric humans?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I said I read it, I didn't say I accepted it as historically accurate.  So I take it that the 'ancient humans' are in the Bible but the 'prehistoric humans' are not?  Were the 'prehistoric humans' the Neanderthals and other hominids known from the fossil record?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can believe your ignorance that you only get one side of the story.  However, I can't accept it.  I've told you I studied both evolution and evolutionary thinking and am still studying the Bible (since 2012).
> 
> The Bible is a history book of the first humans and a non-fiction book.  Don't think I don't have a source or a mythical source.  You believe what wikipedia tells you.  I know you would not accept it, but I don't accept humans come from apes.  Nor birds came from dinosaurs.  It's two different worldviews.  We are both going on "faith" that our worldview is true.  I trust God while you trust other humans whom you call teachers, scientists or authority.  God is my authority.  I explain the Piltdown Man which fooled an entire generation and no correction was made.  The tree of life and common ancestor theory continues to teach its falsity.  In fact, it's come down to atheist science trying to show creation science is wrong.  Thus, we have to have multiverses and a universe from nothing and other weird beliefs such as we came from fish and apes and it took billions of years in order to explain.  There was no intelligence behind anything because if there was any intelligence, then it would be evidence for the my side.  We have intelligence and beautiful design all around us.  It's right in front of our noses.  It's no accident, but science wants you to believe that it's common and can just happen.
> 
> Now, you're going to state that your view is science, but it's a theory and science changes every year.  My theory can't change and hasn't changed since it was written.  Moreover, I've stated the tree of life is being shown by epigentics that it is really the bushes of life in the orchard of life.  Not the tree of life and common ancestor theory.
> 
> We continue to argue the evidence of who is right or wrong.
> 
> Furthermore, your science does not accept the Bible as a source while my "religion," actually creation science, does not put on such limitations.  Just because something has a supernatural explanation, it does not mean it is not true.  It is the only thing supernatural that we believe.  We do not believe in ghosts, but only God (Trinity), angels and demons.  In fact, the Bible states to not believe in other supernatural or get advice by those who speak to the dead such as mediums.
> 
> Yes, the prehistoric "human" fossils are the early humans after the flood.  Not australopithecines, ardipithecus or homo naledi.  Those were apes or chimpanzees.  What the global flood did was, some theorize, that a canopy of water above the Earth was removed by God.  Thus, we experienced radiation and had our lives cut short to a maximum of 120 years as stated in the Bible.  The new generation of humans were much weaker.  Our having sex with our ancestors again further weakened our genetics until we can't have sex with close ancestors anymore.
> 
> I argue fossils, too.  Look at the remains of ancient humans such as Pompeii.  They were more perfect then such as straight teeth.  The prehistoric humans didn't have that.  The other evidence is other planet is covered with water and our mountains were formed during the catastrophe when the foundations from below the seafloor rose up.  You have no plausible explanation to explain the water on Earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First off, thanks for the thoughtful reply.
> 
> You're right we have different worldviews.  Yours is based on faith, mine is not.  Where you are wrong is when you say:
> _*I trust God while you trust other humans whom you call teachers, scientists or authority.*_​
> You're right, I do trust those who have earned the title of teacher, scientist, or authority.  Where you are wrong is implying you trust in God and not men.  Has God spoken directly to you or does your faith tell you that the Bible is God's word?  Whatever the Bible may be, it was written down by men and contains all the errors, typos, and contradictions that you'd expect.  So you too trust other humans whom you call prophets or apostles but whether you know it or not you are also trusting the scribes and oral historians that preserved the Bible stories.
Click to expand...


First, we established that you haven't read the Bible much so I wouldn't insult God saying it contains errors and contradictions.  Nor do you understand how it was put together or how to approach reading it.  You'll pay for it in the end.

Yes, God has spoken to me like teachers, scientists and other authority.  After reading the Bible, I've come to the conclusion it is indeed God's Word.  Otherwise, it would have been contradicted long ago.  God's Word cannot change, but we know science texts change yearly.  We know throughout history and in the Bible that many people have died over it.  And people have died over Darwin's racist ideas, too.

I've read Darwin and those who seem to place him as a position of authority like God.  They found that he was wrong, but had to check their findings because it went against him.  Today, we find Darwin was wrong about most of his theories and Lamarckism has returned.

(I don't trust the prophets, but the prophecies in the Bible.  For human prophecies, I look at it like a system such as those by Nostradamus or Dr. Bruce Bueno de Mesquita.  The latter gets paid for political adversarial predictions such will Iran build a nuclear weapon.)


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're all over the place:
> _Science is not in the business of facts_
> and
> _Science deals with facts_​
> Science deals with observed facts.  Theories are hypothesized that fit these facts.  The theory is accepted so long as no new facts contradict the theory.  Theories with an enormous amount of facts behind them are accepted as truths.
> 
> I have read the Bible and I can tell you there are no 'ancient humans' or 'prehistoric humans' anywhere in it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K, since you've read it.  Let's start after Adam and Eve.  One of their sons was Cain and he was a farmer.  He had tools and knew how to use them.  So, he ends up killing his brother the shepard.  A bit later we get to the begots.  These people during that time knew how to use fire, make tools, forge iron, make helmets with horns on them, make weapons, make musical instruments etc.  In Genesis 7, we got Noah who built a huge Ark by himself.  So, it never occurred to you that these people were more advanced than your prehistoric humans?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I said I read it, I didn't say I accepted it as historically accurate.  So I take it that the 'ancient humans' are in the Bible but the 'prehistoric humans' are not?  Were the 'prehistoric humans' the Neanderthals and other hominids known from the fossil record?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can believe your ignorance that you only get one side of the story.  However, I can't accept it.  I've told you I studied both evolution and evolutionary thinking and am still studying the Bible (since 2012).
> 
> The Bible is a history book of the first humans and a non-fiction book.  Don't think I don't have a source or a mythical source.  You believe what wikipedia tells you.  I know you would not accept it, but I don't accept humans come from apes.  Nor birds came from dinosaurs.  It's two different worldviews.  We are both going on "faith" that our worldview is true.  I trust God while you trust other humans whom you call teachers, scientists or authority.  God is my authority.  I explain the Piltdown Man which fooled an entire generation and no correction was made.  The tree of life and common ancestor theory continues to teach its falsity.  In fact, it's come down to atheist science trying to show creation science is wrong.  Thus, we have to have multiverses and a universe from nothing and other weird beliefs such as we came from fish and apes and it took billions of years in order to explain.  There was no intelligence behind anything because if there was any intelligence, then it would be evidence for the my side.  We have intelligence and beautiful design all around us.  It's right in front of our noses.  It's no accident, but science wants you to believe that it's common and can just happen.
> 
> Now, you're going to state that your view is science, but it's a theory and science changes every year.  My theory can't change and hasn't changed since it was written.  Moreover, I've stated the tree of life is being shown by epigentics that it is really the bushes of life in the orchard of life.  Not the tree of life and common ancestor theory.
> 
> We continue to argue the evidence of who is right or wrong.
> 
> Furthermore, your science does not accept the Bible as a source while my "religion," actually creation science, does not put on such limitations.  Just because something has a supernatural explanation, it does not mean it is not true.  It is the only thing supernatural that we believe.  We do not believe in ghosts, but only God (Trinity), angels and demons.  In fact, the Bible states to not believe in other supernatural or get advice by those who speak to the dead such as mediums.
> 
> Yes, the prehistoric "human" fossils are the early humans after the flood.  Not australopithecines, ardipithecus or homo naledi.  Those were apes or chimpanzees.  What the global flood did was, some theorize, that a canopy of water above the Earth was removed by God.  Thus, we experienced radiation and had our lives cut short to a maximum of 120 years as stated in the Bible.  The new generation of humans were much weaker.  Our having sex with our ancestors again further weakened our genetics until we can't have sex with close ancestors anymore.
> 
> I argue fossils, too.  Look at the remains of ancient humans such as Pompeii.  They were more perfect then such as straight teeth.  The prehistoric humans didn't have that.  The other evidence is other planet is covered with water and our mountains were formed during the catastrophe when the foundations from below the seafloor rose up.  You have no plausible explanation to explain the water on Earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First off, thanks for the thoughtful reply.
> 
> You're right we have different worldviews.  Yours is based on faith, mine is not.  Where you are wrong is when you say:
> _*I trust God while you trust other humans whom you call teachers, scientists or authority.*_​
> You're right, I do trust those who have earned the title of teacher, scientist, or authority.  Where you are wrong is implying you trust in God and not men.  Has God spoken directly to you or does your faith tell you that the Bible is God's word?  Whatever the Bible may be, it was written down by men and contains all the errors, typos, and contradictions that you'd expect.  So you too trust other humans whom you call prophets or apostles but whether you know it or not you are also trusting the scribes and oral historians that preserved the Bible stories.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> .  Today, we find Darwin was wrong about most of his theories and Lamarckism has returned.)
Click to expand...


Today, we find that some Christians claim that Darwin was wrong about most of his theories- as part of their general attack on the science behind the theory of Evolution.

However, the central thesis of Darwin- 


"Charles Darwin proposed that all living species were derived from common ancestors. The primary mechanism he proposed to explain this fact was natural selection: that is, that organisms better adapted to their environment would benefit from higher rates of survival than those less well equipped to do so. However he noted that there were many examples of elaborate, and apparently non-adaptive, sexual traits that would clearly not aid in the survival of their bearers. He suggested that such traits might evolve if they are sexually selected, that is if they increase the individual's reproductive success, even at the expense of their survival (Darwin 1871). "

has never been proven wrong.


----------



## james bond

Syriusly said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thus, we know humans did not come from apes.  Too much evidence against it
> 
> 
> 
> Please share some...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God created humans on a different day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Religious evidence, got it.  Any scientific evidence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Religion and science are two sides of the same coin.  They're worldviews and influence us throughout our entire lives.
> 
> For evidence, let's look at the ancient humans vs the prehistoric humans that came after Noah's flood.  They knew how to use tools and quickly adapted to farming.  These people lived hundreds of years.  While the prehistoric humans that came after the flood weren't so advanced.  They had to learn things all over again.  These are the people you claim to have come from apes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL- tell us more about the scientific evidence for ancient humans who 'lived hundreds of years'.
> 
> There are no 'ancient humans vs prehistoric humans after the Flood'- there are prehistoric humans- and there are historic humans.
> 
> While our hunter gatherer ancestors did live longer than our farming ancestors, there is no evidence that any early humans lived any longer than modern humans with access to modern healthcare and sanitation.
> 
> None at all.
Click to expand...


Heh.  Another skeptic and critic of God's Word.

As evidence, would you pay me as follows?  First day, I get a penny.  Second day, two pennies.  You double my pennies every day for thirty days and that's what you'll end up owing me.  At the end of 30 days, I'll return 50% of what you owe me and call it square.

Who taught this idea in regards to population growth?  How can you apply it to Adam and Eve?


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please share some...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God created humans on a different day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Religious evidence, got it.  Any scientific evidence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Religion and science are two sides of the same coin.  They're worldviews and influence us throughout our entire lives.
> 
> For evidence, let's look at the ancient humans vs the prehistoric humans that came after Noah's flood.  They knew how to use tools and quickly adapted to farming.  These people lived hundreds of years.  While the prehistoric humans that came after the flood weren't so advanced.  They had to learn things all over again.  These are the people you claim to have come from apes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL- tell us more about the scientific evidence for ancient humans who 'lived hundreds of years'.
> 
> There are no 'ancient humans vs prehistoric humans after the Flood'- there are prehistoric humans- and there are historic humans.
> 
> While our hunter gatherer ancestors did live longer than our farming ancestors, there is no evidence that any early humans lived any longer than modern humans with access to modern healthcare and sanitation.
> 
> None at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Heh.  Another skeptic and critic of God's Word.
> 
> As evidence, would you pay me as follows?
Click to expand...


Pennies are not evidence that any ancient humans lived 'hundreds of years'.

Let me know when you have anything other than a book of fables to support that claim.


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> First, we established that you haven't read the Bible much so I wouldn't insult God saying it contains errors and contradictions.  Nor do you understand how it was put together or how to approach reading it.  You'll pay for it in the end.


We have established no such thing.  In fact, I'd put my knowledge of the Bible up against yours any day.



james bond said:


> Yes, God has spoken to me like teachers, scientists and other authority.  After reading the Bible, I've come to the conclusion it is indeed God's Word.  Otherwise, it would have been contradicted long ago.  God's Word cannot change, but we know science texts change yearly.


The Bible has been 'contradicted' from day one and yes, God's Word has changed.  Do you eat pork or wear different fabrics together?


----------



## danielpalos

james bond said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Science is not in the business of facts nor proofs, but theories.  Science deals with facts and comes up with an explanation.  It starts with hypothesis and if enough science people accept it, then it becomes a theory
> 
> 
> 
> You're all over the place:
> _Science is not in the business of facts_
> and
> _Science deals with facts_​
> Science deals with observed facts.  Theories are hypothesized that fit these facts.  The theory is accepted so long as no new facts contradict the theory.  Theories with an enormous amount of facts behind them are accepted as truths.
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> There is almost nothing here that makes sense.  What are 'ancient humans' and 'prehistoric humans'?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Have you read the Bible at all?  I invite you to read the part about Adam and Eve and their ancestors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have read the Bible and I can tell you there are no 'ancient humans' or 'prehistoric humans' anywhere in it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> K, since you've read it.  Let's start after Adam and Eve.  One of their sons was Cain and he was a farmer.  He had tools and knew how to use them.  So, he ends up killing his brother the shepard.  A bit later we get to the begots.  These people during that time knew how to use fire, make tools, forge iron, make helmets with horns on them, make weapons, make musical instruments etc.  In Genesis 7, we got Noah who built a huge Ark by himself.  So, it never occurred to you that these people were more advanced than your prehistoric humans?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I said I read it, I didn't say I accepted it as historically accurate.  So I take it that the 'ancient humans' are in the Bible but the 'prehistoric humans' are not?  Were the 'prehistoric humans' the Neanderthals and other hominids known from the fossil record?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have no plausible explanation to explain the water on Earth.
Click to expand...

An Ice Age would seem like a flood, to the uneducated mind.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please share some...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God created humans on a different day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Religious evidence, got it.  Any scientific evidence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Religion and science are two sides of the same coin.  They're worldviews and influence us throughout our entire lives.
> 
> For evidence, let's look at the ancient humans vs the prehistoric humans that came after Noah's flood.  They knew how to use tools and quickly adapted to farming.  These people lived hundreds of years.  While the prehistoric humans that came after the flood weren't so advanced.  They had to learn things all over again.  These are the people you claim to have come from apes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL- tell us more about the scientific evidence for ancient humans who 'lived hundreds of years'.
> 
> There are no 'ancient humans vs prehistoric humans after the Flood'- there are prehistoric humans- and there are historic humans.
> 
> While our hunter gatherer ancestors did live longer than our farming ancestors, there is no evidence that any early humans lived any longer than modern humans with access to modern healthcare and sanitation.
> 
> None at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Heh.  Another skeptic and critic of God's Word.
> 
> As evidence, would you pay me as follows?  First day, I get a penny.  Second day, two pennies.  You double my pennies every day for thirty days and that's what you'll end up owing me.  At the end of 30 days, I'll return 50% of what you owe me and call it square.
> 
> Who taught this idea in regards to population growth?  How can you apply it to Adam and Eve?
Click to expand...

Just make your point, so I can destroy it.


----------



## LuckyDuck

james bond said:


> LuckyDuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ima Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know there are similarities but I think they are coincidental, like cats and seals both have whiskers.  But cats didn't come from seals or vice a versa.
> 
> 
> 
> We aren't descendants of "monkey's."  We are however, descendants of "primates."
> DNA doesn't lie and we share 99% of the same DNA with chimpanzees.   If you refuse to recognize the DNA similarity, then any crime committed against your family in which DNA was left behind, should be denied by you as not belonging to a specific individual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's just statistics being used to back your theory.  Mark Twain said, "There are lies, damned lies and statistics."  No court in the world will convict anyone based on DNA evidence alone.
> 
> I have the statistics that 35 million molecules are different from apes and humans.  Of those 35 million, 5 million molecules are structured differently in the DNA.
Click to expand...

DNA is biology, not statistics.
Clearly you are one of those who believe in invisible deities.  The Dead Sea Scrolls were written by Hebrew priests as a primitive way to explain what they had no real answer for, a way to control behavior without a way to contradict them (the creation of an invisible being that can see all, knows all, can do all and can watch everyone's move and action so as to judge them when they die), thus feeding into their primitive and superstitious mentality.
If you have some unflinching belief that every word in that inane book is true, then I challenge you to do what Mark says in MK 16: 17-18. "Believers can handle snakes (I'm sure he means venomous snakes) and drink poison and will not experience harm.  Have your Will in order first.


----------



## danielpalos

evolution happens.  

what if, 

we are merely in Nexus 6, with Zardoz and the _incorrigibles_?


----------



## james bond

Syriusly said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God created humans on a different day.
> 
> 
> 
> Religious evidence, got it.  Any scientific evidence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Religion and science are two sides of the same coin.  They're worldviews and influence us throughout our entire lives.
> 
> For evidence, let's look at the ancient humans vs the prehistoric humans that came after Noah's flood.  They knew how to use tools and quickly adapted to farming.  These people lived hundreds of years.  While the prehistoric humans that came after the flood weren't so advanced.  They had to learn things all over again.  These are the people you claim to have come from apes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL- tell us more about the scientific evidence for ancient humans who 'lived hundreds of years'.
> 
> There are no 'ancient humans vs prehistoric humans after the Flood'- there are prehistoric humans- and there are historic humans.
> 
> While our hunter gatherer ancestors did live longer than our farming ancestors, there is no evidence that any early humans lived any longer than modern humans with access to modern healthcare and sanitation.
> 
> None at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Heh.  Another skeptic and critic of God's Word.
> 
> As evidence, would you pay me as follows?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pennies are not evidence that any ancient humans lived 'hundreds of years'.
> 
> Let me know when you have anything other than a book of fables to support that claim.
Click to expand...


I'm trying to give you a thought experiment in order to provide evidence through population.  Creation started with Adam and Eve.  How did evolution's human population start?  How many ape-humans were there?

You pay me a penny the first day.  2 pennies the second and keep doubling my salary for 30 days.  This is what you would pay.

Day 1 $0.01 
Day 2 $0.02 
Day 3 $0.04 
Day 4 $0.08 
Day 5 $0.16 
Day 6 $0.32 
Day 7 $0.64 
Day 8 $1.28 
Day 9 $2.56 
Day 10 $5.12 
Day 11 $10.24 
Day 12 $20.48 
Day 13 $40.96 
Day 14 $81.92 
Day 15 $163.84 
Day 16 $327.68 
Day 17 $655.36 
Day 18 $1,310.72 
Day 19 $2,621.44 
Day 20 $5,242.88 
Day 21 $10,485.76 
Day 22 $20,971.52 
Day 23 $41,943.04 
Day 24 $83,886.08 
Day 25 $167,772.16 
Day 26 $335,544.32 
Day 27 $671,088.64 
Day 28 $1,342,177.28 
Day 29 $2,684,354.56 
Day 30 $5,368,709.12 
Day 31 $10,737,418.24 

In 30 days, you would owe me over $5 million.  This shows the power of doubling.  

Thomas Malthus explained how two people could have populated a planet.  He "published in 1798, was _An Essay on the Principle of Population as it affects the Future Improvement of Society_.  In it, Malthus raised doubts about whether a nation could ever reach a point where laws would no longer be required, and in which everyone lived prosperously and harmoniously.  There was, he argued, a built-in agony to human existence, in that the growth of a population will always outrun its ability to feed itself. If every couple raised four children, the population could easily double in twenty-five years, and from then on, it would keep doubling. It would rise not arithmetically—by factors of three, four, five, and so on—but geometrically—by factors of four, eight, and sixteen."

The Ecology of Human Populations: Thomas Malthus

Today's population of 7.6 billion people backs a doubling of the population from Adam and Eve's time of around 6,000 years.  Evolution puts it around 200,000 years ago and that does not back a population of 7.6 billion.  It should be much higher.  What happened?

Billions of People in Thousands of Years?


----------



## james bond

LuckyDuck said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LuckyDuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ima Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know there are similarities but I think they are coincidental, like cats and seals both have whiskers.  But cats didn't come from seals or vice a versa.
> 
> 
> 
> We aren't descendants of "monkey's."  We are however, descendants of "primates."
> DNA doesn't lie and we share 99% of the same DNA with chimpanzees.   If you refuse to recognize the DNA similarity, then any crime committed against your family in which DNA was left behind, should be denied by you as not belonging to a specific individual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's just statistics being used to back your theory.  Mark Twain said, "There are lies, damned lies and statistics."  No court in the world will convict anyone based on DNA evidence alone.
> 
> I have the statistics that 35 million molecules are different from apes and humans.  Of those 35 million, 5 million molecules are structured differently in the DNA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> DNA is biology, not statistics.
> Clearly you are one of those who believe in invisible deities.  The Dead Sea Scrolls were written by Hebrew priests as a primitive way to explain what they had no real answer for, a way to control behavior without a way to contradict them (the creation of an invisible being that can see all, knows all, can do all and can watch everyone's move and action so as to judge them when they die), thus feeding into their primitive and superstitious mentality.
> If you have some unflinching belief that every word in that inane book is true, then I challenge you to do what Mark says in MK 16: 17-18. "Believers can handle snakes (I'm sure he means venomous snakes) and drink poison and will not experience harm.  Have your Will in order first.
Click to expand...


It's statistics the way you are using it as argument to show apes and humans are related.  If it's biology, then why are there apes and humans and no ape-humans today?  Apes and humans have been interbred in forbidden experiments and their offspring does not live beyond one generation.


----------



## james bond

danielpalos said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Science is not in the business of facts nor proofs, but theories.  Science deals with facts and comes up with an explanation.  It starts with hypothesis and if enough science people accept it, then it becomes a theory
> 
> 
> 
> You're all over the place:
> _Science is not in the business of facts_
> and
> _Science deals with facts_​
> Science deals with observed facts.  Theories are hypothesized that fit these facts.  The theory is accepted so long as no new facts contradict the theory.  Theories with an enormous amount of facts behind them are accepted as truths.
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you read the Bible at all?  I invite you to read the part about Adam and Eve and their ancestors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have read the Bible and I can tell you there are no 'ancient humans' or 'prehistoric humans' anywhere in it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> K, since you've read it.  Let's start after Adam and Eve.  One of their sons was Cain and he was a farmer.  He had tools and knew how to use them.  So, he ends up killing his brother the shepard.  A bit later we get to the begots.  These people during that time knew how to use fire, make tools, forge iron, make helmets with horns on them, make weapons, make musical instruments etc.  In Genesis 7, we got Noah who built a huge Ark by himself.  So, it never occurred to you that these people were more advanced than your prehistoric humans?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I said I read it, I didn't say I accepted it as historically accurate.  So I take it that the 'ancient humans' are in the Bible but the 'prehistoric humans' are not?  Were the 'prehistoric humans' the Neanderthals and other hominids known from the fossil record?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have no plausible explanation to explain the water on Earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> An Ice Age would seem like a flood, to the uneducated mind.
Click to expand...


You're the one who is uneducated and full of shyt.

Otherwise, explain where are all the ape-human fossils?  Furthermore, Is there enough prehistoric human fossils to fit the population from 200,000 years ago?   There should be a high numbers.


----------



## cnm

james bond said:


> For evidence, let's look at the ancient humans vs the prehistoric humans that came after Noah's flood.


Gods. I see you can't even work out what prehistoric means.


----------



## james bond

cnm said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> For evidence, let's look at the ancient humans vs the prehistoric humans that came after Noah's flood.
> 
> 
> 
> Gods. I see you can't even work out what prehistoric means.
Click to expand...


You do provide evidence that you're related to a dumb ape.  How well can you swing through trees and eat bananas lol?


----------



## LuckyDuck

james bond said:


> LuckyDuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LuckyDuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ima Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know there are similarities but I think they are coincidental, like cats and seals both have whiskers.  But cats didn't come from seals or vice a versa.
> 
> 
> 
> We aren't descendants of "monkey's."  We are however, descendants of "primates."
> DNA doesn't lie and we share 99% of the same DNA with chimpanzees.   If you refuse to recognize the DNA similarity, then any crime committed against your family in which DNA was left behind, should be denied by you as not belonging to a specific individual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's just statistics being used to back your theory.  Mark Twain said, "There are lies, damned lies and statistics."  No court in the world will convict anyone based on DNA evidence alone.
> 
> I have the statistics that 35 million molecules are different from apes and humans.  Of those 35 million, 5 million molecules are structured differently in the DNA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> DNA is biology, not statistics.
> Clearly you are one of those who believe in invisible deities.  The Dead Sea Scrolls were written by Hebrew priests as a primitive way to explain what they had no real answer for, a way to control behavior without a way to contradict them (the creation of an invisible being that can see all, knows all, can do all and can watch everyone's move and action so as to judge them when they die), thus feeding into their primitive and superstitious mentality.
> If you have some unflinching belief that every word in that inane book is true, then I challenge you to do what Mark says in MK 16: 17-18. "Believers can handle snakes (I'm sure he means venomous snakes) and drink poison and will not experience harm.  Have your Will in order first.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's statistics the way you are using it as argument to show apes and humans are related.  If it's biology, then why are there apes and humans and no ape-humans today?  Apes and humans have been interbred in forbidden experiments and their offspring does not live beyond one generation.
Click to expand...

Our ancestors were a form of primate and chimpanzees share many DNA similarities, however, that 1% difference is because we may be primates, but we are not in their direct family.  Way back, all primates shared a similar ancestor.  The picture of a tree to represent family trees and evolutional trees is a good one.  The great apes are a branch on that tree, lesser primates such as howler monkeys, et cetera, are another branch.  We are from "hominids."  Our "European" DNA is a combination of Neanderthal and other hominid types.  The fact that chimpanzees share 99% of human DNA only reflects that they were close on the evolutionary tree, but that crucial 1% is what differentiated us from them, otherwise we'd be still swinging from trees.
Like I said in my last input, if you believe that every word in that silly superstitious book called the bible, is true, then go ahead and do what Mark said in MK 16: 17-18 and you'll be just fine.


----------



## cnm

james bond said:


> How well can you swing through trees and eat bananas lol?


As well as I can tell ancient humans were prehistoric. I assume you can do neither.


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Religious evidence, got it.  Any scientific evidence?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Religion and science are two sides of the same coin.  They're worldviews and influence us throughout our entire lives.
> 
> For evidence, let's look at the ancient humans vs the prehistoric humans that came after Noah's flood.  They knew how to use tools and quickly adapted to farming.  These people lived hundreds of years.  While the prehistoric humans that came after the flood weren't so advanced.  They had to learn things all over again.  These are the people you claim to have come from apes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL- tell us more about the scientific evidence for ancient humans who 'lived hundreds of years'.
> 
> There are no 'ancient humans vs prehistoric humans after the Flood'- there are prehistoric humans- and there are historic humans.
> 
> While our hunter gatherer ancestors did live longer than our farming ancestors, there is no evidence that any early humans lived any longer than modern humans with access to modern healthcare and sanitation.
> 
> None at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Heh.  Another skeptic and critic of God's Word.
> 
> As evidence, would you pay me as follows?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pennies are not evidence that any ancient humans lived 'hundreds of years'.
> 
> Let me know when you have anything other than a book of fables to support that claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm trying to give you a thought experiment in order to provide evidence through population.
Click to expand...


And I am still pointing out that you have no evidence to back up your claim

So again:
Pennies are not evidence that any ancient humans lived 'hundreds of years'.

Let me know when you have anything other than a book of fables to support that claim


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> LuckyDuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LuckyDuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ima Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know there are similarities but I think they are coincidental, like cats and seals both have whiskers.  But cats didn't come from seals or vice a versa.
> 
> 
> 
> We aren't descendants of "monkey's."  We are however, descendants of "primates."
> DNA doesn't lie and we share 99% of the same DNA with chimpanzees.   If you refuse to recognize the DNA similarity, then any crime committed against your family in which DNA was left behind, should be denied by you as not belonging to a specific individual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's just statistics being used to back your theory.  Mark Twain said, "There are lies, damned lies and statistics."  No court in the world will convict anyone based on DNA evidence alone.
> 
> I have the statistics that 35 million molecules are different from apes and humans.  Of those 35 million, 5 million molecules are structured differently in the DNA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> DNA is biology, not statistics.
> Clearly you are one of those who believe in invisible deities.  The Dead Sea Scrolls were written by Hebrew priests as a primitive way to explain what they had no real answer for, a way to control behavior without a way to contradict them (the creation of an invisible being that can see all, knows all, can do all and can watch everyone's move and action so as to judge them when they die), thus feeding into their primitive and superstitious mentality.
> If you have some unflinching belief that every word in that inane book is true, then I challenge you to do what Mark says in MK 16: 17-18. "Believers can handle snakes (I'm sure he means venomous snakes) and drink poison and will not experience harm.  Have your Will in order first.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's statistics the way you are using it as argument to show apes and humans are related.  If it's biology, then why are there apes and humans and no ape-humans today?  Apes and humans have been interbred in forbidden experiments and their offspring does not live beyond one generation.
Click to expand...


Sigh.

There are no ape humans because we are different species. 

There have been no offspring of modern apes and humans- at all.

If you actually understood the theory of evolution- as you claim to- you would know exactly why there are no crossbred ape-humans today. 

That you ask the question just displays your ignorance of the science behind evolution.


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're all over the place:
> _Science is not in the business of facts_
> and
> _Science deals with facts_​
> Science deals with observed facts.  Theories are hypothesized that fit these facts.  The theory is accepted so long as no new facts contradict the theory.  Theories with an enormous amount of facts behind them are accepted as truths.
> 
> I have read the Bible and I can tell you there are no 'ancient humans' or 'prehistoric humans' anywhere in it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K, since you've read it.  Let's start after Adam and Eve.  One of their sons was Cain and he was a farmer.  He had tools and knew how to use them.  So, he ends up killing his brother the shepard.  A bit later we get to the begots.  These people during that time knew how to use fire, make tools, forge iron, make helmets with horns on them, make weapons, make musical instruments etc.  In Genesis 7, we got Noah who built a huge Ark by himself.  So, it never occurred to you that these people were more advanced than your prehistoric humans?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I said I read it, I didn't say I accepted it as historically accurate.  So I take it that the 'ancient humans' are in the Bible but the 'prehistoric humans' are not?  Were the 'prehistoric humans' the Neanderthals and other hominids known from the fossil record?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have no plausible explanation to explain the water on Earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> An Ice Age would seem like a flood, to the uneducated mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're the one who is uneducated and full of shyt.
> 
> Otherwise, explain where are all the ape-human fossils?  Furthermore, Is there enough prehistoric human fossils to fit the population from 200,000 years ago?   There should be a high numbers.
Click to expand...


Who says there should be higher numbers of prehistoric human fossils?

Hell where are the fossils of Adam and Eve? There should be fossils of Adam and Eve!

LOL


----------



## MaryL

Ima Cat said:


> I know there are similarities but I think they are coincidental, like cats and seals both have whiskers.  But cats didn't come from seals or vice a versa.


No...But Evolution, yes.  Cats did't evolve from dogs. Seals? Whiskers...Perhaps if you are interested, actually read about the issue instead of...THIS nonsense.


----------



## NoNukes

Ima Cat said:


> I know there are similarities but I think they are coincidental, like cats and seals both have whiskers.  But cats didn't come from seals or vice a versa.


I think many people on these boards prove this fact, but I may be insulting monkeys.


----------



## james bond

> DNA is biology, not statistics.



Let's stay on biology since it was brought up.  What Darwin, whom we get the idea that humans came from apes, claimed was humans in Africa came from apes.  Not only is that racist today, one cannot get a white person from a black person.  One cannot get a white blue eyed caucasian.  However, one can get that from a Middile Eastern (Aramaean) or Jews race.


----------



## The Irish Ram

*Do You Believe We Came From Monkeys? *



Mani did...


----------



## james bond

cnm said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> How well can you swing through trees and eat bananas lol?
> 
> 
> 
> As well as I can tell ancient humans were prehistoric. I assume you can do neither.
Click to expand...


And you can't tell prehistoric humans?  WTF is wrong with your evolution?

Largest prehistoric animals - Wikipedia

I can swing through trees using a vine or rope.  But I can't eat a banana like this -- 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 with seeds.  You can eat that shat.

Besides, you don't even know what the prehistoric apes did.


----------



## james bond

Syriusly said:


> There are no ape humans because we are different species.



Now, you're getting it through your bag of rocks head.  I think ha ha.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Religious evidence, got it.  Any scientific evidence?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Religion and science are two sides of the same coin.  They're worldviews and influence us throughout our entire lives.
> 
> For evidence, let's look at the ancient humans vs the prehistoric humans that came after Noah's flood.  They knew how to use tools and quickly adapted to farming.  These people lived hundreds of years.  While the prehistoric humans that came after the flood weren't so advanced.  They had to learn things all over again.  These are the people you claim to have come from apes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL- tell us more about the scientific evidence for ancient humans who 'lived hundreds of years'.
> 
> There are no 'ancient humans vs prehistoric humans after the Flood'- there are prehistoric humans- and there are historic humans.
> 
> While our hunter gatherer ancestors did live longer than our farming ancestors, there is no evidence that any early humans lived any longer than modern humans with access to modern healthcare and sanitation.
> 
> None at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Heh.  Another skeptic and critic of God's Word.
> 
> As evidence, would you pay me as follows?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pennies are not evidence that any ancient humans lived 'hundreds of years'.
> 
> Let me know when you have anything other than a book of fables to support that claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm trying to give you a thought experiment in order to provide evidence through population.  Creation started with Adam and Eve.  How did evolution's human population start?  How many ape-humans were there?
> 
> You pay me a penny the first day.  2 pennies the second and keep doubling my salary for 30 days.  This is what you would pay.
> 
> Day 1 $0.01
> Day 2 $0.02
> Day 3 $0.04
> Day 4 $0.08
> Day 5 $0.16
> Day 6 $0.32
> Day 7 $0.64
> Day 8 $1.28
> Day 9 $2.56
> Day 10 $5.12
> Day 11 $10.24
> Day 12 $20.48
> Day 13 $40.96
> Day 14 $81.92
> Day 15 $163.84
> Day 16 $327.68
> Day 17 $655.36
> Day 18 $1,310.72
> Day 19 $2,621.44
> Day 20 $5,242.88
> Day 21 $10,485.76
> Day 22 $20,971.52
> Day 23 $41,943.04
> Day 24 $83,886.08
> Day 25 $167,772.16
> Day 26 $335,544.32
> Day 27 $671,088.64
> Day 28 $1,342,177.28
> Day 29 $2,684,354.56
> Day 30 $5,368,709.12
> Day 31 $10,737,418.24
> 
> In 30 days, you would owe me over $5 million.  This shows the power of doubling.
> 
> Thomas Malthus explained how two people could have populated a planet.  He "published in 1798, was _An Essay on the Principle of Population as it affects the Future Improvement of Society_.  In it, Malthus raised doubts about whether a nation could ever reach a point where laws would no longer be required, and in which everyone lived prosperously and harmoniously.  There was, he argued, a built-in agony to human existence, in that the growth of a population will always outrun its ability to feed itself. If every couple raised four children, the population could easily double in twenty-five years, and from then on, it would keep doubling. It would rise not arithmetically—by factors of three, four, five, and so on—but geometrically—by factors of four, eight, and sixteen."
> 
> The Ecology of Human Populations: Thomas Malthus
> 
> Today's population of 7.6 billion people backs a doubling of the population from Adam and Eve's time of around 6,000 years.  Evolution puts it around 200,000 years ago and that does not back a population of 7.6 billion.  It should be much higher.  What happened?
> 
> Billions of People in Thousands of Years?
Click to expand...

What a ridiculous, simple minded pile of utter nonsense. For one, it is demonstrably false, using mitochondrial DNA studies. Furthermore, it can and should be rejected prima facie due to the absolute fantasy in the idea of a tiny, inbreeding population increasing so quickly and both sustaining itself and spreading across the globe.  Just utter, ridiculous nonsense meant for   gullible, religious nutballs .


I mean...seriously, you are an insufferable moron. How dare an uneducated slob like you call the scientists of the world liars and incompetents. If I had my way, I would parade you around on television and around Universities so you could soak up the ridicule you so richly deserve.


----------



## danielpalos

james bond said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're all over the place:
> _Science is not in the business of facts_
> and
> _Science deals with facts_​
> Science deals with observed facts.  Theories are hypothesized that fit these facts.  The theory is accepted so long as no new facts contradict the theory.  Theories with an enormous amount of facts behind them are accepted as truths.
> 
> I have read the Bible and I can tell you there are no 'ancient humans' or 'prehistoric humans' anywhere in it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K, since you've read it.  Let's start after Adam and Eve.  One of their sons was Cain and he was a farmer.  He had tools and knew how to use them.  So, he ends up killing his brother the shepard.  A bit later we get to the begots.  These people during that time knew how to use fire, make tools, forge iron, make helmets with horns on them, make weapons, make musical instruments etc.  In Genesis 7, we got Noah who built a huge Ark by himself.  So, it never occurred to you that these people were more advanced than your prehistoric humans?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I said I read it, I didn't say I accepted it as historically accurate.  So I take it that the 'ancient humans' are in the Bible but the 'prehistoric humans' are not?  Were the 'prehistoric humans' the Neanderthals and other hominids known from the fossil record?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have no plausible explanation to explain the water on Earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> An Ice Age would seem like a flood, to the uneducated mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're the one who is uneducated and full of shyt.
> 
> Otherwise, explain where are all the ape-human fossils?  Furthermore, Is there enough prehistoric human fossils to fit the population from 200,000 years ago?   There should be a high numbers.
Click to expand...

an ice age would account for any flood stories.

We have more than Ten simple Commandments from a God; only loyal subjects of the Animal Kingdom, do that.


----------



## MaryL

We didn't come from the Monkeys, we came from the Beatles.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Religion and science are two sides of the same coin.  They're worldviews and influence us throughout our entire lives.
> 
> For evidence, let's look at the ancient humans vs the prehistoric humans that came after Noah's flood.  They knew how to use tools and quickly adapted to farming.  These people lived hundreds of years.  While the prehistoric humans that came after the flood weren't so advanced.  They had to learn things all over again.  These are the people you claim to have come from apes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL- tell us more about the scientific evidence for ancient humans who 'lived hundreds of years'.
> 
> There are no 'ancient humans vs prehistoric humans after the Flood'- there are prehistoric humans- and there are historic humans.
> 
> While our hunter gatherer ancestors did live longer than our farming ancestors, there is no evidence that any early humans lived any longer than modern humans with access to modern healthcare and sanitation.
> 
> None at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Heh.  Another skeptic and critic of God's Word.
> 
> As evidence, would you pay me as follows?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pennies are not evidence that any ancient humans lived 'hundreds of years'.
> 
> Let me know when you have anything other than a book of fables to support that claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm trying to give you a thought experiment in order to provide evidence through population.  Creation started with Adam and Eve.  How did evolution's human population start?  How many ape-humans were there?
> 
> You pay me a penny the first day.  2 pennies the second and keep doubling my salary for 30 days.  This is what you would pay.
> 
> Day 1 $0.01
> Day 2 $0.02
> Day 3 $0.04
> Day 4 $0.08
> Day 5 $0.16
> Day 6 $0.32
> Day 7 $0.64
> Day 8 $1.28
> Day 9 $2.56
> Day 10 $5.12
> Day 11 $10.24
> Day 12 $20.48
> Day 13 $40.96
> Day 14 $81.92
> Day 15 $163.84
> Day 16 $327.68
> Day 17 $655.36
> Day 18 $1,310.72
> Day 19 $2,621.44
> Day 20 $5,242.88
> Day 21 $10,485.76
> Day 22 $20,971.52
> Day 23 $41,943.04
> Day 24 $83,886.08
> Day 25 $167,772.16
> Day 26 $335,544.32
> Day 27 $671,088.64
> Day 28 $1,342,177.28
> Day 29 $2,684,354.56
> Day 30 $5,368,709.12
> Day 31 $10,737,418.24
> 
> In 30 days, you would owe me over $5 million.  This shows the power of doubling.
> 
> Thomas Malthus explained how two people could have populated a planet.  He "published in 1798, was _An Essay on the Principle of Population as it affects the Future Improvement of Society_.  In it, Malthus raised doubts about whether a nation could ever reach a point where laws would no longer be required, and in which everyone lived prosperously and harmoniously.  There was, he argued, a built-in agony to human existence, in that the growth of a population will always outrun its ability to feed itself. If every couple raised four children, the population could easily double in twenty-five years, and from then on, it would keep doubling. It would rise not arithmetically—by factors of three, four, five, and so on—but geometrically—by factors of four, eight, and sixteen."
> 
> The Ecology of Human Populations: Thomas Malthus
> 
> Today's population of 7.6 billion people backs a doubling of the population from Adam and Eve's time of around 6,000 years.  Evolution puts it around 200,000 years ago and that does not back a population of 7.6 billion.  It should be much higher.  What happened?
> 
> Billions of People in Thousands of Years?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What a ridiculous, simple minded pile of utter nonsense. For one, it is demonstrably false, using mitochondrial DNA studies. Furthermore, it can and should be rejected prima facie due to the absolute fantasy in the idea of a tiny, inbreeding population increasing so quickly and both sustaining itself and spreading across the globe.  Just utter, ridiculous nonsense meant for   gullible, religious nutballs .
> 
> 
> I mean...seriously, you are an insufferable moron. How dare an uneducated slob like you call the scientists of the world liars and incompetents. If I had my way, I would parade you around on television and around Universities so you could soak up the ridicule you so richly deserve.
Click to expand...


Then go ahead and explain mitochondrial DNA studies using your own words.  How does it relate?

Mine is based on Malthus and he was seriously questioned over his population explosion theories, but not over the doubling in size of population and the population numbers back up today's population from a young earth.  You ignore everything I've said and instead fall into your dumb AF routine.  Besides, you are so dumb AF to not realize the ape humans would've had to inbreed, too. We already know that their progeny would be deformed.  They would've produced someone like you had they really existed.  Hairy, can't walk upright, small cranial capacity.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> Then go ahead and explain mitochondrial DNA studies using your own words. How does it relate?



Why? Why should any educated person spend one shred of energy providing any evidence or explanation to an asshole like you? You parade around with your stupid book of fairy tales, pissing on all the available evidence. 

But, okay.

We know for a fact that there was a mitochondrial Adam and a mitochondrial Eve. We know for a fact that these two individuals did not exist at the same time, and we also know for a fact that many other individuals of the species existed at the same time they existed. 

We know mitochondrial Adam lived about 100,000 years ago, and mitochondrial Eve lived about 200,000 years ago.

All of your claims are demonstrably false bullshit. Sorry,but you are complete joke, when it comes to this topic.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then go ahead and explain mitochondrial DNA studies using your own words. How does it relate?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why? Why should any educated person spend one shred of energy providing any evidence or explanation to an asshole like you? You parade around with your stupid book of fairy tales, pissing on all the available evidence.
> 
> But, okay.
> 
> We know for a fact that there was a mitochondrial Adam and a mitochondrial Eve. We know for a fact that these two individuals did not exist at the same time, and we also know for a fact that many other individuals of the species existed at the same time they existed.
> 
> We know mitochondrial Adam lived about 100,000 years ago, and mitochondrial Eve lived about 200,000 years ago.
> 
> All of your claims are demonstrably false bullshit. Sorry,but you are complete joke, when it comes to this topic.
Click to expand...


I wanted you to explain because you have no idea of what you are talking about.  For example, it's not mitochondrial Adam, but Y-chromosomal Adam and mitochondrial Eve.  And you accuse me of slinging bull when you do not read the Bible nor have a good understanding of science.  What you just did with your explanation is science backing up what the Bible stated.  It's about God creating Adam and Eve.  You admitted that all humans living today descended from a single male and single female humans.  Our disagreement are over the separate years and whether these were the only humans alive at the beginning.  Also, it hasn't been determined where these humans lived.  Right now, the focus is in Africa (more evidence for racist Darwin and his theory of ape-humans becoming black humans), but it could have been out of Africa.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> I wanted you to explain because you have no idea of what you are talking about. For example, it's not mitochondrial Adam, but Y-chromosomal Adam and mitochondrial Eve.


I do know what I am talking about. Sorry for that little mixup due to haste. My point stands. And all of your claims are embarrassingly stupid and false.


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> DNA is biology, not statistics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's stay on biology since it was brought up.  What Darwin, whom we get the idea that humans came from apes, claimed was humans in Africa came from apes.  Not only is that racist today, one cannot get a white person from a black person.  One cannot get a white blue eyed caucasian.  However, one can get that from a Middile Eastern (Aramaean) or Jews race.
Click to expand...


What is racist in pointing out that all humans- of all colors- and the apes of Africa- are descended from a common ancestor?


----------



## Syriusly

Syriusly said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Religion and science are two sides of the same coin.  They're worldviews and influence us throughout our entire lives.
> 
> For evidence, let's look at the ancient humans vs the prehistoric humans that came after Noah's flood.  They knew how to use tools and quickly adapted to farming.  These people lived hundreds of years.  While the prehistoric humans that came after the flood weren't so advanced.  They had to learn things all over again.  These are the people you claim to have come from apes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL- tell us more about the scientific evidence for ancient humans who 'lived hundreds of years'.
> 
> There are no 'ancient humans vs prehistoric humans after the Flood'- there are prehistoric humans- and there are historic humans.
> 
> While our hunter gatherer ancestors did live longer than our farming ancestors, there is no evidence that any early humans lived any longer than modern humans with access to modern healthcare and sanitation.
> 
> None at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Heh.  Another skeptic and critic of God's Word.
> 
> As evidence, would you pay me as follows?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pennies are not evidence that any ancient humans lived 'hundreds of years'.
> 
> Let me know when you have anything other than a book of fables to support that claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm trying to give you a thought experiment in order to provide evidence through population.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I am still pointing out that you have no evidence to back up your claim
> 
> So again:
> Pennies are not evidence that any ancient humans lived 'hundreds of years'.
> 
> Let me know when you have anything other than a book of fables to support that claim
Click to expand...


As always- when pressed to prove his claims- James dances away with the ease of Fred Astaire with Donald Trump on his back. 



So again:
Pennies are not evidence that any ancient humans lived 'hundreds of years'.

Let me know when you have anything other than a book of fables to support that claim


----------



## Unkotare

james bond said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thus, we know humans did not come from apes.  Too much evidence against it
> 
> 
> 
> Please share some...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God created humans on a different day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Religious evidence, got it.  Any scientific evidence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Religion and science are two sides of the same coin.  They're worldviews and influence us throughout our entire lives.
> 
> For evidence, let's look at the ancient humans vs the prehistoric humans that came after Noah's flood.  They knew how to use tools and quickly adapted to farming.  These people lived hundreds of years.  While the prehistoric humans that came after the flood weren't so advanced.  They had to learn things all over again.  These are the people you claim to have come from apes.
Click to expand...






 Did you say “lived hundreds of years”?


----------



## Votto

RWS said:


> Creationist theory ranks right there with flat earth theory.
> 
> Both require religion, and science is not allowed.



Not true.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Votto said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Creationist theory ranks right there with flat earth theory.
> 
> Both require religion, and science is not allowed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not true.
Click to expand...

There is no science to be found anywhere in those videos.


----------



## RWS

james bond said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Creationist theory ranks right there with flat earth theory.
> 
> Both require religion, and science is not allowed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Are" not allowed.
> 
> This is why atheists are usually wrong.  Atheist science believes the universe started from nothing and that there are multiverses.  They are bat sh*t looney.  They also believe in the racist theory that humans in Africa came from apes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Answer me this... Is the Earth round or flat?
> 
> Is it a ball or a pancake? I think it's a pancake! I don't care about the scientist bullshit. It's obviously flat. Besides all the shit we disagree on, I think we may finally agree on something, dang... I'm interested in your view on this
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I lost track since yesterday of where we were, so sorry if this is a repeat.
> 
> I'm afraid that we're still disagreeing .
> 
> The earth is a sphere floating in space.  That's from the Bible.  Do you want proof?
> 
> Even in those days, people used the stars for navigation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ++++++++
> 
> Today, I realized that I've known you for years on this forum, but never invited you.  Today, we talked about inviting at church..
> 
> Even if you believe you evolved from an ape, would you consider inviting Christ into your life?  That you are a sinner and that he died to save you from your sins.
> 
> Believing you're related to monkeys is probably not a sin unless you go too far.
> 
> "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4 In him was life,1 and the life was the light of men. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it." Acts 1
Click to expand...

Jesus is in my life. I try to live my life the way Jesus would, in the ideal, whether he existed or not. I just don't accept the religions that use that ideal (or others) to inflict harm upon others.


----------



## RWS

Votto said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Creationist theory ranks right there with flat earth theory.
> 
> Both require religion, and science is not allowed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not true.
Click to expand...


That's a heckuva lotta videos to watch... Could you please provide a point, and then use them as reference? I mean, I can also give you a million videos explaining evolution without a comment. 

Maybe your genesis theory is based on ancient aliens... hmm? That's much more believable.....


----------



## toobfreak

Ima Cat said:


> I know there are similarities but I think they are coincidental, like cats and seals both have whiskers.  But cats didn't come from seals or vice a versa.


----------



## RWS

toobfreak said:


> Ima Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know there are similarities but I think they are coincidental, like cats and seals both have whiskers.  But cats didn't come from seals or vice a versa.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 193155
Click to expand...

That can't be right, because it says "homo" in there, before us, and no descendants can come from homos....


----------



## alex.harmuth

If anything, evolution is like the flat Earth theory. Both ignore with their eyes what they try to prove with science. 

Flat Earthers use all sorts of math, calculate angles of the Sun, calculate distance over curvature and all the time, to them, it points to the Earth being flat.

Evolutionists point to genetic codes, similarities in the genes, imagined creatures with these genes based on thousands of year old bones and all the time, to them, it points to evolution.

Both beliefs fail to simply use their own eyes and common sense. You can see that the Earth is obviously round just like you can see that we obviously did not come from tadpoles or squirrels or monkeys. Math and science need not apply. 

Look at a tree, you know it's a tree. You don't need to do math or use DNA to prove it's a tree. Why?.... Because it's a tree. Now apply this to the Earth and to monkeys vs human beings. 

Sent from my SM-S975L using Tapatalk


----------



## RWS

alex.harmuth said:


> If anything, evolution is like the flat Earth theory. Both ignore with their eyes what they try to prove with science.
> 
> Flat Earthers use all sorts of math, calculate angles of the Sun, calculate distance over curvature and all the time, to them, it points to the Earth being flat.
> 
> Evolutionists point to genetic codes, similarities in the genes, imagined creatures with these genes based on thousands of year old bones and all the time, to them, it points to evolution.
> 
> Both beliefs fail to simply use their own eyes and common sense. You can see that the Earth is obviously round just like you can see that we obviously did not come from tadpoles or squirrels or monkeys. Math and science need not apply.
> 
> Look at a tree, you know it's a tree. You don't need to do math or use DNA to prove it's a tree. Why?.... Because it's a tree. Now apply this to the Earth and to monkeys vs human beings.
> 
> Sent from my SM-S975L using Tapatalk


The thing is you're hung up on the religion you were brainwashed into when you were born. 

Without the mask of religion clouding your vision, reality should become obvious. God didn't "poof" us into this world. We got here gradually over billions of years. 

But there's another thing to consider....

And here's where evolution and creationism mix, and is a great subject to debate:

The Sumerians wrote that the Anunnaki ("those who came from heaven to earth") created humans (AD.IM) in a place called ED.IN. They wrote this at least 2000 years before the supposed writing of the OT. They were our "creators" and "rulers". The OT turned the Anunnaki into a belief in a schizophrenic god. 

That's where your OT creation myths come from. 

Aliens could have come and created us out of other homos to use as slaves using their own genes, and left us with knowledge when they left. So "gods" created us in their image. Other than that possible part in human history, evolution rules, before and after.


----------



## alex.harmuth

Here's another thing to think about. The Summerians created writing. So put yourself in their shoes, if you just created writing, what would you write about?

I contend they wrote about their history, who they are where they came from. Their writing is almost exactly like the story of creation. They wrote that a God made a man and woman from dust, placed them in a garden, the woman was tricked by a serpent, they left the garden, there was a global flood (the sumerian deluge), 1 man built an ark and survived it, there are even mentions of people from the Bible, etc.... Note their history didn't say that old uncle Jerry was a cave man who evolved from a tadpole.

Sure maybe some elements aren't exactly the same, as several hundred years would have passed between Adam and Eve and the invention of writing. But if multiple historical texts verify a story, logically, doesn't that make the story more credible?

There are ZERO historical texts that mention anything about evolution. ZERO mentions of how man thought monkeys look similar and we came from monkeys. ZERO writings of discoveries of old humanoid skeletons with all the digging and building ancient people did. Meanwhile nearly every ancient religion has a story similar to the Garden of Eden. Now which belief seems to be more corroborated? 

And your wrong again by the way. I considered myself an atheist until around 18.

Sent from my SM-S975L using Tapatalk


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

alex.harmuth said:


> Both beliefs fail to simply use their own eyes and common sense.


How absurd....


----------



## james bond

Syriusly said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DNA is biology, not statistics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's stay on biology since it was brought up.  What Darwin, whom we get the idea that humans came from apes, claimed was humans in Africa came from apes.  Not only is that racist today, one cannot get a white person from a black person.  One cannot get a white blue eyed caucasian.  However, one can get that from a Middile Eastern (Aramaean) or Jews race.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is racist in pointing out that all humans- of all colors- and the apes of Africa- are descended from a common ancestor?
Click to expand...


You go to Africa and tell a black person that his ancestor is an ape.

Furthermore, you still haven't explained how ape-humans evolved from a single cell.  You have not explained anything from prehistoric humans.  Give us the 60-second rundown.  The infograph is in the link below.

Template:Life timeline - Wikipedia


----------



## james bond

Unkotare said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thus, we know humans did not come from apes.  Too much evidence against it
> 
> 
> 
> Please share some...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God created humans on a different day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Religious evidence, got it.  Any scientific evidence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Religion and science are two sides of the same coin.  They're worldviews and influence us throughout our entire lives.
> 
> For evidence, let's look at the ancient humans vs the prehistoric humans that came after Noah's flood.  They knew how to use tools and quickly adapted to farming.  These people lived hundreds of years.  While the prehistoric humans that came after the flood weren't so advanced.  They had to learn things all over again.  These are the people you claim to have come from apes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you say “lived hundreds of years”?
Click to expand...


Have you read the Bible?  It's the world's best selling non-fiction book.  In its history, Adam and Eve's and their descendants lived hundreds of years. 

Did people really live hundreds of years according to Genesis? | CARM.org


----------



## james bond

RWS said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Creationist theory ranks right there with flat earth theory.
> 
> Both require religion, and science is not allowed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Are" not allowed.
> 
> This is why atheists are usually wrong.  Atheist science believes the universe started from nothing and that there are multiverses.  They are bat sh*t looney.  They also believe in the racist theory that humans in Africa came from apes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Answer me this... Is the Earth round or flat?
> 
> Is it a ball or a pancake? I think it's a pancake! I don't care about the scientist bullshit. It's obviously flat. Besides all the shit we disagree on, I think we may finally agree on something, dang... I'm interested in your view on this
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I lost track since yesterday of where we were, so sorry if this is a repeat.
> 
> I'm afraid that we're still disagreeing .
> 
> The earth is a sphere floating in space.  That's from the Bible.  Do you want proof?
> 
> Even in those days, people used the stars for navigation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ++++++++
> 
> Today, I realized that I've known you for years on this forum, but never invited you.  Today, we talked about inviting at church..
> 
> Even if you believe you evolved from an ape, would you consider inviting Christ into your life?  That you are a sinner and that he died to save you from your sins.
> 
> Believing you're related to monkeys is probably not a sin unless you go too far.
> 
> "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4 In him was life,1 and the life was the light of men. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it." Acts 1
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jesus is in my life. I try to live my life the way Jesus would, in the ideal, whether he existed or not. I just don't accept the religions that use that ideal (or others) to inflict harm upon others.
Click to expand...


>>RWS:  Jesus is in my life. I try to live my life the way Jesus would, in the ideal, * whether he existed or not*. I just don't accept the religions that use that ideal (or others) to inflict harm upon others.<<

Don't play like that.  You'll BIH forever.

Jesus stands before everyone and everything like gravity.  He is like the container that holds our universe.  Atheist scientists think gravity is the weakest force since a magnet can overcome the pull of the earth.  However, when you factor in distance, it is the strongest force.  You cannot escape wherever you are in this universe.  You cannot build an anti-gravity chamber to escape.  So do not do this ever again.


----------



## RWS

alex.harmuth said:


> Here's another thing to think about. The Summerians created writing. So put yourself in their shoes, if you just created writing, what would you write about?
> 
> I contend they wrote about their history, who they are where they came from. Their writing is almost exactly like the story of creation. They wrote that a God made a man and woman from dust, placed them in a garden, the woman was tricked by a serpent, they left the garden, there was a global flood (the sumerian deluge), 1 man built an ark and survived it, there are even mentions of people from the Bible, etc.... Note their history didn't say that old uncle Jerry was a cave man who evolved from a tadpole.
> 
> Sure maybe some elements aren't exactly the same, as several hundred years would have passed between Adam and Eve and the invention of writing. But if multiple historical texts verify a story, logically, doesn't that make the story more credible?
> 
> There are ZERO historical texts that mention anything about evolution. ZERO mentions of how man thought monkeys look similar and we came from monkeys. ZERO writings of discoveries of old humanoid skeletons with all the digging and building ancient people did. Meanwhile nearly every ancient religion has a story similar to the Garden of Eden. Now which belief seems to be more corroborated?
> 
> And your wrong again by the way. I considered myself an atheist until around 18.
> 
> Sent from my SM-S975L using Tapatalk



The Sumerians did write about their history, and how they were created by the Anunnaki, and were taught everything they know by the Anunnaki. They were never trying to dig up bones and figure out the rest. 

The biblical story of creation (and many others as you mentioned) is plagiarized from Sumerian and Babylonian texts up to 2000 years before the OT. Enki is the serpent btw (but he's actually the good guy that created and protected us). 

The people back then had no idea about evolution, or what it meant. And it went that way for a few thousand years. Until some people started noticing physical traits that got passed on during experiments. As opposed to religious traits that get passed on regardless of experimentation, and demand you believe in that belief regardless of logic, common sense, and morals. 

Evolution took a long time to get accepted, because of the religious fervor that it created. So did the round earth. And so did the idea that the earth revolves around the sun. 

One of the last things you are left with is evolution. And the biblical creation theory, copies the Sumerian creation myth. And they were writing about aliens...


----------



## sealybobo

alex.harmuth said:


> Here's another thing to think about. The Summerians created writing. So put yourself in their shoes, if you just created writing, what would you write about?
> 
> I contend they wrote about their history, who they are where they came from. Their writing is almost exactly like the story of creation. They wrote that a God made a man and woman from dust, placed them in a garden, the woman was tricked by a serpent, they left the garden, there was a global flood (the sumerian deluge), 1 man built an ark and survived it, there are even mentions of people from the Bible, etc.... Note their history didn't say that old uncle Jerry was a cave man who evolved from a tadpole.
> 
> Sure maybe some elements aren't exactly the same, as several hundred years would have passed between Adam and Eve and the invention of writing. But if multiple historical texts verify a story, logically, doesn't that make the story more credible?
> 
> There are ZERO historical texts that mention anything about evolution. ZERO mentions of how man thought monkeys look similar and we came from monkeys. ZERO writings of discoveries of old humanoid skeletons with all the digging and building ancient people did. Meanwhile nearly every ancient religion has a story similar to the Garden of Eden. Now which belief seems to be more corroborated?
> 
> And your wrong again by the way. I considered myself an atheist until around 18.
> 
> Sent from my SM-S975L using Tapatalk



No. The fact that several different societies have the same stories don’t add credibility to the story. One made it up and the others took it as their own.

Those goat herders couldn’t have imagined evolution. They even thought the earth was still and the stars revolved around us. We were special they thought. Not just the most advanced and intelligent animal on the planet.


----------



## alex.harmuth

If evolution were true, I'd imagine life would be abundant in not just the universe, but in this solar system. There should be life on Mars, Venus, moons of Jupiter and Saturn. Life should be everywhere... But it's not. 

Sent from my SM-S975L using Tapatalk


----------



## alex.harmuth

Yeah and we evolved from fish is logical. 





Fort Fun Indiana said:


> alex.harmuth said:
> 
> 
> 
> Both beliefs fail to simply use their own eyes and common sense.
> 
> 
> 
> How absurd....
Click to expand...


Sent from my SM-S975L using Tapatalk


----------



## dannyboys

Look at who was in the Whitehouse before President Trump for eight years.
Your question will be answered.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

alex.harmuth said:


> evolution were true, I'd imagine life would be abundant in not just the universe, but in this solar system. There should be life on Mars, Venus, moons of Jupiter and Saturn. Life should be everywhere... But it's not.


None of this makes a lick of sense. Abiogenesis is the term you are looking for, not evolution.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

alex.harmuth said:


> Yeah and we evolved from fish is logical.


It absolutely is,in every single way. And we can so.y look at the fossil record and watch it happen. The evidence is overwhelming and is all mutually supportive.

Considering all of this, and considering the fact that there is no longer any scientific debate about the truth of evolution, have you ever paused to wonder that, oh just maybe, it doesn't "make sense" to you only because you know less than nothing about it?


----------



## Votto

RWS said:


> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Creationist theory ranks right there with flat earth theory.
> 
> Both require religion, and science is not allowed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a heckuva lotta videos to watch... Could you please provide a point, and then use them as reference? I mean, I can also give you a million videos explaining evolution without a comment.
> 
> Maybe your genesis theory is based on ancient aliens... hmm? That's much more believable.....
Click to expand...

The videos are not that long.'

Essentially he back tracks to ancient rabbinical texts that seem to suggest that the translation of the original Hebrew version of Genesis implies that the Earth is much older than thousands of years.  For example, the terms day and night during the first 7 days can be translated chaos and order instead of literal day and night, according to the expert rabbis.  Keep in mind, this was pre-modern science, so they had not benefit in trying to change the young earth theory into an old earth theory in order to fit what we know about science today.

He then goes on his own theory regarding the passage of time.  As we know, time is not constant, it varies according to where you are in the universe, so immediately after the Big Bang, time varied greatly than what is it today.  To make a long story short, he comes up with the theory that for each day time halves.  This means that the first day was 8 billion years, the second day 4 billion years, etc.  If you use his time clock, the evolutionary scale matches the Biblical scale.


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DNA is biology, not statistics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's stay on biology since it was brought up.  What Darwin, whom we get the idea that humans came from apes, claimed was humans in Africa came from apes.  Not only is that racist today, one cannot get a white person from a black person.  One cannot get a white blue eyed caucasian.  However, one can get that from a Middile Eastern (Aramaean) or Jews race.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is racist in pointing out that all humans- of all colors- and the apes of Africa- are descended from a common ancestor?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You go to Africa and tell a black person that his ancestor is an ape.
Click to expand...


Still waiting for an answer:

What is racist in pointing out that all humans- of all colors- and the apes of Africa- are descended from a common ancestor?


----------



## Syriusly

alex.harmuth said:


> If evolution were true, I'd imagine life would be abundant in not just the universe, but in this solar system. There should be life on Mars, Venus, moons of Jupiter and Saturn. Life should be everywhere... But it's not.
> 
> Sent from my SM-S975L using Tapatalk



Why anyone thinks that life would 'be everywhere' because of evolution is a mystery to me. 

There is nothing in the theory of evolution that makes that claim.


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Creationist theory ranks right there with flat earth theory.
> 
> Both require religion, and science is not allowed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Are" not allowed.
> 
> This is why atheists are usually wrong.  Atheist science believes the universe started from nothing and that there are multiverses.  They are bat sh*t looney.  They also believe in the racist theory that humans in Africa came from apes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Answer me this... Is the Earth round or flat?
> 
> Is it a ball or a pancake? I think it's a pancake! I don't care about the scientist bullshit. It's obviously flat. Besides all the shit we disagree on, I think we may finally agree on something, dang... I'm interested in your view on this
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I lost track since yesterday of where we were, so sorry if this is a repeat.
> 
> I'm afraid that we're still disagreeing .
> 
> The earth is a sphere floating in space.  That's from the Bible.  Do you want proof?
> 
> Even in those days, people used the stars for navigation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ++++++++
> 
> Today, I realized that I've known you for years on this forum, but never invited you.  Today, we talked about inviting at church..
> 
> Even if you believe you evolved from an ape, would you consider inviting Christ into your life?  That you are a sinner and that he died to save you from your sins.
> 
> Believing you're related to monkeys is probably not a sin unless you go too far.
> 
> "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4 In him was life,1 and the life was the light of men. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it." Acts 1
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jesus is in my life. I try to live my life the way Jesus would, in the ideal, whether he existed or not. I just don't accept the religions that use that ideal (or others) to inflict harm upon others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> >>RWS:  Jesus is in my life. I try to live my life the way Jesus would, in the ideal, * whether he existed or not*. I just don't accept the religions that use that ideal (or others) to inflict harm upon others.<<
> 
> Don't play like that.  You'll BIH forever.
> 
> Jesus stands before everyone and everything like gravity. .
Click to expand...


Except we can measure gravity.

We can't measure 'Jesus'.


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please share some...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God created humans on a different day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Religious evidence, got it.  Any scientific evidence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Religion and science are two sides of the same coin.  They're worldviews and influence us throughout our entire lives.
> 
> For evidence, let's look at the ancient humans vs the prehistoric humans that came after Noah's flood.  They knew how to use tools and quickly adapted to farming.  These people lived hundreds of years.  While the prehistoric humans that came after the flood weren't so advanced.  They had to learn things all over again.  These are the people you claim to have come from apes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you say “lived hundreds of years”?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you read the Bible?  It's the world's best selling non-fiction book.  In its history, Adam and Eve's and their descendants lived hundreds of years.
> 
> Did people really live hundreds of years according to Genesis? | CARM.org[/QUOTE
> 
> Still waiting for something authoritative to substantiate that people ever lived for hundreds of years.
> 
> Still waiting.......still waiting......
Click to expand...



Still waiting for something authoritative to substantiate that people ever lived for hundreds of years.

Still waiting.......still waiting.


----------



## Syriusly

alex.harmuth said:


> Look at a tree, you know it's a tree. You don't need to do math or use DNA to prove it's a tree. Why?.... Because it's a tree. Now apply this to the Earth and to monkeys vs human beings.
> 
> Sent from my SM-S975L using Tapatalk



So when you see a tree- you know it has always been a tree- and was always a tree.....and was never a seed? 

Now apply this to the Earth and the theory of evolution.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

james bond said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Creationist theory ranks right there with flat earth theory.
> 
> Both require religion, and science is not allowed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Are" not allowed.
> 
> This is why atheists are usually wrong.  Atheist science believes the universe started from nothing and that there are multiverses.  They are bat sh*t looney.  They also believe in the racist theory that humans in Africa came from apes.
Click to expand...



Except that its religion that believes it all came from nothing.

If you're talking about christianity, they believe their god waved his hand around for six days and then rested. I'm no bible scholar but I don't know of any place (except the idiotic Adam's rib stuff, where it says their god used some sort of raw material.

I've never heard of any belief that "humans in Africa came from apes". Perhaps you might want to familiarize yourself with evolution.

And for Pete's sake, get a different, more accurate name!


----------



## Luddly Neddite

Syriusly said:


> alex.harmuth said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look at a tree, you know it's a tree. You don't need to do math or use DNA to prove it's a tree. Why?.... Because it's a tree. Now apply this to the Earth and to monkeys vs human beings.
> 
> Sent from my SM-S975L using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So when you see a tree- you know it has always been a tree- and was always a tree.....and was never a seed?
> 
> Now apply this to the Earth and the theory of evolution.
Click to expand...


Exactly. 

And then ...

Are palms trees? Or maybe large, woody herbs?

Flat-Earthers Have a Wild New Theory About Forests - The Atlantic


----------



## alex.harmuth

The Earth is Earth, and always was Earth? A fish is a fish, and always was a fish? Not sure what your point was. 





Syriusly said:


> alex.harmuth said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look at a tree, you know it's a tree. You don't need to do math or use DNA to prove it's a tree. Why?.... Because it's a tree. Now apply this to the Earth and to monkeys vs human beings.
> 
> Sent from my SM-S975L using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So when you see a tree- you know it has always been a tree- and was always a tree.....and was never a seed?
> 
> Now apply this to the Earth and the theory of evolution.
Click to expand...


Sent from my SM-S975L using Tapatalk


----------



## Votto

For the record, I don't think human beings came from monkeys.

Progressives, however, I'm not so sure about.


----------



## alex.harmuth

You mean the Abiogensis that is no longer considered mainstream science since the only thing that it proved in 50 years is that it is impossible for life to begin in the ocean like Evolutionists claim? Salt water breaks apart amino acids, amino acids are considered the building blocks of life... That Abiogensis? 





Fort Fun Indiana said:


> alex.harmuth said:
> 
> 
> 
> evolution were true, I'd imagine life would be abundant in not just the universe, but in this solar system. There should be life on Mars, Venus, moons of Jupiter and Saturn. Life should be everywhere... But it's not.
> 
> 
> 
> None of this makes a lick of sense. Abiogenesis is the term you are looking for, not evolution.
Click to expand...


Sent from my SM-S975L using Tapatalk


----------



## alex.harmuth

Because if Earth is the only place in the universe that contains life that would disprove evolution. Now go find some aliens. 





Syriusly said:


> alex.harmuth said:
> 
> 
> 
> If evolution were true, I'd imagine life would be abundant in not just the universe, but in this solar system. There should be life on Mars, Venus, moons of Jupiter and Saturn. Life should be everywhere... But it's not.
> 
> Sent from my SM-S975L using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why anyone thinks that life would 'be everywhere' because of evolution is a mystery to me.
> 
> There is nothing in the theory of evolution that makes that claim.
Click to expand...


Sent from my SM-S975L using Tapatalk


----------



## james bond

There continue to be internet atheists on this forum who cannot do a simple search.

"Humans first evolved in Africa, and much of human evolution occurred on that continent. The fossils of early humans who lived between 6 and 2 million years ago come entirely from Africa."
...

"One of the earliest defining human traits, bipedalism -- the ability to walk on two legs -- evolved over 4 million years ago."

Introduction to Human Evolution

This is racism at its worst.  The climate in Darwin's time was pseudoscientific racism.  Darwin's grandfather, Erasmus, believed in it.  Probably got it from Aristotle.   Wasn't he an atheist?  It's easy enough to find these things.

"Most famous as a philosopher, Aristotle — who, it’s worth noting, is Murray’s favorite philosopher — was just as influential in what we would today consider the field of natural science. Indeed, Aristotle’s philosophical and political ideas cannot be separated from his methods of empirical observation. He spent years of his life observing and classifying animals. Charles Darwin himself said that “my two gods [Linnaeus and Cuvier] are mere school-boys to old Aristotle.”

Perspective | Aristotle, father of scientific racism

Darwin basically hypothesized that black people evolved from apes.  When we see the evolution chart, we see a white man at the far right.  It's not a black man.  Now you know why Darwin's first book was entitled _On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of *Favoured Races* in the Struggle for Life_ even though it had nothing to do with race.  His second book T_he Descent of Man_ was deemed racist as there is it is explicit.

I've already discussed eugenics that came from Darwin's cousin, Francis Galton, which was adopted by Hitler.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

alex.harmuth said:


> You mean the Abiogensis that is no longer considered mainstream science since the only thing that it proved in 50 years is that it is impossible for life to begin in the ocean like Evolutionists claim?


Every word of that is a Shameless lie.


----------



## james bond

This leaves no doubt that Darwinism was about racism and racial superiority.







"*Ota Benga* (c. 1883[1] – March 20, 1916) was a Congolese man, a _Mbuti_ pygmy known for being featured in an anthropology exhibit at the Louisiana Purchase Exposition in St. Louis, Missouri, in 1904, and in a human zoo exhibit in 1906 at the Bronx Zoo. Benga had been purchased from African slave traders by the missionary and anthropologist Samuel Phillips Verner,[2] a businessman searching for African people for the exhibition.[3] He traveled with Verner to the United States. At the Bronx Zoo, Benga had free run of the grounds before and after he was exhibited in the zoo's Monkey House. Except for a brief visit with Verner to Africa after the close of the St. Louis Fair, Benga lived in the United States, mostly in Virginia, for the rest of his life.

Displays of non-white humans as examples of "earlier stages" of human evolution were common in the early 20th century, when racial theories were frequently intertwined with concepts from evolutionary biology. African-American newspapers around the nation published editorials strongly opposing Benga's treatment. Dr. R. S. MacArthur, the spokesperson for a delegation of black churches, petitioned New York City Mayor George B. McClellan Jr. for his release from the Bronx Zoo."

Ota Benga - Wikipedia


----------



## Syriusly

alex.harmuth said:


> Because if Earth is the only place in the universe that contains life that would disprove evolution. Now go find some aliens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alex.harmuth said:
> 
> 
> 
> If evolution were true, I'd imagine life would be abundant in not just the universe, but in this solar system. There should be life on Mars, Venus, moons of Jupiter and Saturn. Life should be everywhere... But it's not.
> 
> Sent from my SM-S975L using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why anyone thinks that life would 'be everywhere' because of evolution is a mystery to me.
> 
> There is nothing in the theory of evolution that makes that claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sent from my SM-S975L using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


Again- you just keep demonstrating you don't understand the theory of evolution.

The theory of evolution makes no claims as to how life started on Earth. 

The Theory of Evolution doesn't care whether Earth is unique or whether life is everywhere.


----------



## Syriusly

alex.harmuth said:


> The Earth is Earth, and always was Earth? A fish is a fish, and always was a fish? Not sure what your point was.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alex.harmuth said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look at a tree, you know it's a tree. You don't need to do math or use DNA to prove it's a tree. Why?.... Because it's a tree. Now apply this to the Earth and to monkeys vs human beings.
> 
> Sent from my SM-S975L using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So when you see a tree- you know it has always been a tree- and was always a tree.....and was never a seed?
> 
> Now apply this to the Earth and the theory of evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sent from my SM-S975L using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


Of course you don't.


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> There continue to be internet atheists on this forum who cannot do a simple search.
> 
> "Humans first evolved in Africa, and much of human evolution occurred on that continent. The fossils of early humans who lived between 6 and 2 million years ago come entirely from Africa."
> ...
> 
> "One of the earliest defining human traits, bipedalism -- the ability to walk on two legs -- evolved over 4 million years ago."
> 
> Introduction to Human Evolution
> 
> This is racism at its worst.



And again- still you can't explain why science is somehow 'racism'.

It is unlikely that any of the 'races' of modern man even existed when when modern man first evolved in Africa or when our ancestors first ventured out of Africa. 

Do you consider the Theory of Gravity racist also?


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> Darwin basically hypothesized that black people evolved from apes.



Actually Darwin hypothesized that all mankind evolved from a common ancestor- whether we are 'black' or 'white'- 'asian' or 'indian'- Darwin hypothesized we all descended from a common ancestor- and he further hypothesized that man and apes had a common ancestor- even though the fossil evidence had not yet been found.

Now if we want to talk about racism......we can certainly look at the history of the Christian Church........


----------



## james bond

Syriusly said:


> alex.harmuth said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because if Earth is the only place in the universe that contains life that would disprove evolution. Now go find some aliens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alex.harmuth said:
> 
> 
> 
> If evolution were true, I'd imagine life would be abundant in not just the universe, but in this solar system. There should be life on Mars, Venus, moons of Jupiter and Saturn. Life should be everywhere... But it's not.
> 
> Sent from my SM-S975L using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why anyone thinks that life would 'be everywhere' because of evolution is a mystery to me.
> 
> There is nothing in the theory of evolution that makes that claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sent from my SM-S975L using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again- you just keep demonstrating you don't understand the theory of evolution.
> 
> The theory of evolution makes no claims as to how life started on Earth.
> 
> The Theory of Evolution doesn't care whether Earth is unique or whether life is everywhere.
Click to expand...


Ha ha.  We talked about this already.  People who just want to argue ToE are the ones who doesn't understand ToE and how it's based on evolutionary thinking.  And no aliens means that it's a point for creation.  God didn't create aliens.  In terms of evolution, the reason aliens do not exist is based on the fine tuning facts that atheist scientists discovered while trying to formulate the Big Bang Theory.  There plenty of evidence of no aliens.  Look up Fermi Paradox.  

History of evolutionary thought - Wikipedia


----------



## james bond

Syriusly said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> There continue to be internet atheists on this forum who cannot do a simple search.
> 
> "Humans first evolved in Africa, and much of human evolution occurred on that continent. The fossils of early humans who lived between 6 and 2 million years ago come entirely from Africa."
> ...
> 
> "One of the earliest defining human traits, bipedalism -- the ability to walk on two legs -- evolved over 4 million years ago."
> 
> Introduction to Human Evolution
> 
> This is racism at its worst.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And again- still you can't explain why science is somehow 'racism'.
> 
> It is unlikely that any of the 'races' of modern man even existed when when modern man first evolved in Africa or when our ancestors first ventured out of Africa.
> 
> Do you consider the Theory of Gravity racist also?
Click to expand...


I think I've covered how racism was tied in the Darwinism and humans evolving from apes and how it became eugenics and so forth.  Ota Benga should never have been placed in a zoo.  Today, it's evolved into Planned Parenthood.  Planned Parenthood has their offices in ghettos across the US.

The bottom line is no one evolved from a chimp or ape.  When you get a genealogy test from AncestryDNA today, does everyone come back with some chimpanzee in them ha ha?


----------



## james bond

Syriusly said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Darwin basically hypothesized that black people evolved from apes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually Darwin hypothesized that all mankind evolved from a common ancestor- whether we are 'black' or 'white'- 'asian' or 'indian'- Darwin hypothesized we all descended from a common ancestor- and he further hypothesized that man and apes had a common ancestor- even though the fossil evidence had not yet been found.
> 
> Now if we want to talk about racism......we can certainly look at the history of the Christian Church........
Click to expand...


No, Darwin claimed we evolved from a single-cell, fish, apes and ape-humans.  I even posted a link in it with an infograph which you could not explain how it happened.  Who doesn't understand ToE now?

The ape-humans started in Africa and that's where the racism begins.  It's no accident that social Darwinism, eugenics, Hitler and racism in the US was accepted.  Darwin even took "survival of the fittest" coined by the founder of social Darwinism, Herbert Spencer.

Eugenics in the United States - Wikipedia


----------



## Faun

Ima Cat said:


> I know there are similarities but I think they are coincidental, like cats and seals both have whiskers.  But cats didn't come from seals or vice a versa.


I believe conservatives come from slugs.


----------



## RWS

Votto said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Creationist theory ranks right there with flat earth theory.
> 
> Both require religion, and science is not allowed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a heckuva lotta videos to watch... Could you please provide a point, and then use them as reference? I mean, I can also give you a million videos explaining evolution without a comment.
> 
> Maybe your genesis theory is based on ancient aliens... hmm? That's much more believable.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The videos are not that long.'
> 
> Essentially he back tracks to ancient rabbinical texts that seem to suggest that the translation of the original Hebrew version of Genesis implies that the Earth is much older than thousands of years.  For example, the terms day and night during the first 7 days can be translated chaos and order instead of literal day and night, according to the expert rabbis.  Keep in mind, this was pre-modern science, so they had not benefit in trying to change the young earth theory into an old earth theory in order to fit what we know about science today.
> 
> He then goes on his own theory regarding the passage of time.  As we know, time is not constant, it varies according to where you are in the universe, so immediately after the Big Bang, time varied greatly than what is it today.  To make a long story short, he comes up with the theory that for each day time halves.  This means that the first day was 8 billion years, the second day 4 billion years, etc.  If you use his time clock, the evolutionary scale matches the Biblical scale.
Click to expand...

His time clock requires that halving to stop at some point, right? Based on day/night revolutions of the earth. Otherwise, we'd be in really slooooow-moooootioooon.... and we would never get to the conclusion of this thread....


----------



## RWS

james bond said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Creationist theory ranks right there with flat earth theory.
> 
> Both require religion, and science is not allowed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Are" not allowed.
> 
> This is why atheists are usually wrong.  Atheist science believes the universe started from nothing and that there are multiverses.  They are bat sh*t looney.  They also believe in the racist theory that humans in Africa came from apes.
Click to expand...

OK... first of all... you think you are correct in correcting my grammar... Really?

If you can't get basic grammar correct, what makes you think that you have the theory of the universe correct?

Oh... lemme guess... that's the religion you were taught from birth!

Humans did not come from apes, we are apes. We came from a common ancestor. And it's very highly likely that we migrated from Africa.

The only racist theory is the one you are insinuating, but not elaborating on....

So why not let us all in on what you really think? huh?

Did white people come from somewhere else than black people?


----------



## RWS

So here's a scenario where evolution and creationism can both work:

Evolution created black people from apes.

God created white people in his own image.

Do i have it right, Bond?


----------



## Votto

RWS said:


> So here's a scenario where evolution and creationism can both work:
> 
> Evolution created black people from apes.
> 
> God created white people in his own image.
> 
> Do i have it right, Bond?



I think men like Charles Darwin thought so.  He was an ardent racist who thought that the black race were inferior.  If so, how could he think that we had the same common ancestor?









Darwin thought that certain people made the gene pool "weak".  He insisted that people who were "sickly" weakened the gene pool and suggested that if we expunge them, it would strengthen the human race.

However, he then goes into this strange morality fixation about how noble it was to help those people weaken our gene pool.

“With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.

The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, if so urged by hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with a certain and great present evil. Hence we must bear without complaining the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; but there appears to be at least one check in steady action, namely the weaker and inferior members of society not marrying so freely as the sound; and this check might be indefinitely increased, though this is more to be hoped for than expected, by the weak in body or mind refraining from marriage.” 
― Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man 

Shrug.  Men like Hitler just laughed at the morality of being "noble" and killed off the inferior weak gene pool.  After all, how is being noble scientific?


----------



## Votto

I've come to the conclusion that those not of faith tend to be preoccupied with race.  These people typically are Leftists and insist on continuing to make racial distinctions much like Darwin who was also not of faith.

For them, man is merely a materialistic entity that is made up of genes.  Some are superior and some inferior.  In fact, this helps explain why Leftists continue to be preoccupied with race much like Hitler was.


----------



## alex.harmuth

I can't speak for James but in my opinion, Adam and Eve were probably darker skinned, brown or tan. Skin color changes, it's an adaptation. If I (the whitest person you've ever seen) were to move to Africa or anywhere near the equator, my skin would get darker. First from sun burn but gradually over time, it would become tan and darker without being burnt. Same goes for if a black person moves to a colder area their skin would get lighter.  Generations later, our great grandkids would be born naturally darker/lighter. That is NOT evolution since they are still human beings. That is adaptation. 

This is how we got dogs from wolves. Dogs did not 'evolve' from wolves, they adapted from them because in the end, they are still dogs. This also explains Darwins finches, still finches. Fruit flies, still flies. 

When applied to monkeys, australopithecus (if it even existed) was a monkey, all other monkeys adapted from it based on their biomes, and are still monkeys today. Humans came from Adam and Eve, maybe Adam and Eve looked a little different, could have been smaller and more hairy doesn't matter, they were humans and we today are still humans. 

Sent from my SM-S975L using Tapatalk


----------



## james bond

Faun said:


> Ima Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know there are similarities but I think they are coincidental, like cats and seals both have whiskers.  But cats didn't come from seals or vice a versa.
> 
> 
> 
> I believe conservatives come from slugs.
Click to expand...


That's just opinion fodder of a monkey.  Ask your neighbor.  They'll tell you that humans are apes.


----------



## james bond

RWS said:


> So here's a scenario where evolution and creationism can both work:
> 
> Evolution created black people from apes.
> 
> God created white people in his own image.
> 
> Do i have it right, Bond?



No.  Only one can be the truth.  In this case, it's atheist or secular science vs creation.

Let's me try a different tack.  Sorry, it's a bit long.

Let's look at it from an objective moral view or God's view.  If we describe him, then he's like us as the Bible tells us.  With Adam and Eve (Arameans, not white), he created the perfect male and female.  He gave us everything we would need or wanted for free.  Just think if A&E didn't commit the unpardonable sin!!!  We would have everything we need or want for free.  No waiting in lines.  The only thing he wanted was Rule #1 - Do not eat from the Tree of Knowlege (or do not disobey God).  Rule #2 - See rule #1.  Rule #3 - See Rule #1...

Fast forward to today.  He's still a simple guy in terms of objective moral view.  Still like us.  The only thing he says this time is Jesus Saves.  He says to believe that we will all die, but the believers will be risen like Jesus as he died to redeem our unpardonable sin.

Now, you mention evolution and what would that be?  A lie.  (Remember, we're still looking at this from an objective moral view.)

And who is the master of lies?  Satan.

The truth comes down to 1) You believe that humans came from apes via Satan and that there is no God or 2) God created humans.


----------



## RWS

james bond said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> So here's a scenario where evolution and creationism can both work:
> 
> Evolution created black people from apes.
> 
> God created white people in his own image.
> 
> Do i have it right, Bond?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  Only one can be the truth.  In this case, it's atheist or secular science vs creation.
> 
> Let's me try a different tack.  Sorry, it's a bit long.
> 
> Let's look at it from an objective moral view or God's view.  If we describe him, then he's like us as the Bible tells us.  With Adam and Eve (Arameans, not white), he created the perfect male and female.  He gave us everything we would need or wanted for free.  Just think if A&E didn't commit the unpardonable sin!!!  We would have everything we need or want for free.  No waiting in lines.  The only thing he wanted was Rule #1 - Do not eat from the Tree of Knowlege (or do not disobey God).  Rule #2 - See rule #1.  Rule #3 - See Rule #1...
> 
> Fast forward to today.  He's still a simple guy in terms of objective moral view.  Still like us.  The only thing he says this time is Jesus Saves.  He says to believe that we will all die, but the believers will be risen like Jesus as he died to redeem our unpardonable sin.
> 
> Now, you mention evolution and what would that be?  A lie.  (Remember, we're still looking at this from an objective moral view.)
> 
> And who is the master of lies?  Satan.
> 
> The truth comes down to 1) You believe that humans came from apes via Satan and that there is no God or 2) God created humans.
Click to expand...

No no no...

The question is whether white people and black people are created equal. Or is there something different in the creation sequence?


----------



## RWS

alex.harmuth said:


> I can't speak for James but in my opinion, Adam and Eve were probably darker skinned, brown or tan. Skin color changes, it's an adaptation. If I (the whitest person you've ever seen) were to move to Africa or anywhere near the equator, my skin would get darker. First from sun burn but gradually over time, it would become tan and darker without being burnt. Same goes for if a black person moves to a colder area their skin would get lighter.  Generations later, our great grandkids would be born naturally darker/lighter. That is NOT evolution since they are still human beings. That is adaptation.
> 
> This is how we got dogs from wolves. Dogs did not 'evolve' from wolves, they adapted from them because in the end, they are still dogs. This also explains Darwins finches, still finches. Fruit flies, still flies.
> 
> When applied to monkeys, australopithecus (if it even existed) was a monkey, all other monkeys adapted from it based on their biomes, and are still monkeys today. Humans came from Adam and Eve, maybe Adam and Eve looked a little different, could have been smaller and more hairy doesn't matter, they were humans and we today are still humans.
> 
> Sent from my SM-S975L using Tapatalk


Humans use natural skin pigmentation to help them in their natural environment. It's used to avoid too much radiation, and also to absorb radiation, depending on the area. I white person that gets a tan, and moves to Africa, will not turn black!!! That person will just get skin cancer! A black person that goes to Norway, will not turn white! Jeeezz.......  

head-bang-wall <- cannot find gif


----------



## alex.harmuth

RWS said:


> alex.harmuth said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can't speak for James but in my opinion, Adam and Eve were probably darker skinned, brown or tan. Skin color changes, it's an adaptation. If I (the whitest person you've ever seen) were to move to Africa or anywhere near the equator, my skin would get darker. First from sun burn but gradually over time, it would become tan and darker without being burnt. Same goes for if a black person moves to a colder area their skin would get lighter.  Generations later, our great grandkids would be born naturally darker/lighter. That is NOT evolution since they are still human beings. That is adaptation.
> 
> This is how we got dogs from wolves. Dogs did not 'evolve' from wolves, they adapted from them because in the end, they are still dogs. This also explains Darwins finches, still finches. Fruit flies, still flies.
> 
> When applied to monkeys, australopithecus (if it even existed) was a monkey, all other monkeys adapted from it based on their biomes, and are still monkeys today. Humans came from Adam and Eve, maybe Adam and Eve looked a little different, could have been smaller and more hairy doesn't matter, they were humans and we today are still humans.
> 
> Sent from my SM-S975L using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> Humans use natural skin pigmentation to help them in their natural environment. It's used to avoid too much radiation, and also to absorb radiation, depending on the area. I white person that gets a tan, and moves to Africa, will not turn black!!! That person will just get skin cancer! A black person that goes to Norway, will not turn white! Jeeezz.......
> 
> head-bang-wall <- cannot find gif
Click to expand...

Clearly you've never been anywhere but your parents basement banging your head.. Not healthy.... My brother went to Tanzania for a month and came back darker. Yes it wasn't permanent, but over generations like I said, if he would have stayed there, his grandchildren and great grandchildren would have been be born naturally darker. Skin color is an adaptation, not a proof of evolution. 

Sent from my SM-S975L using Tapatalk


----------



## RWS

Black people aren't "tanned white people". Your brother's grandkids will not have turned black unless their parents mated with black people. If they mated with white people, they would always be white. See South Africa.

Dark colored skin is the natural pigmentation that is necessary to survive in tropical regions. As humans migrated north and had less direct sunshine, pigmentation got lighter in order to absorb more vitamin D. That is evolution on a short scale. It's natural selection based on the needs to survive. A white person will not turn black by moving to Africa. A black person will not turn white by moving to Canada.

God does like white people though... I don't know why...


----------



## bripat9643

RWS said:


> Black people aren't "tanned white people". Your brother's grandkids will not have turned black unless their parents mated with black people. If they mated with white people, they would always be white. See South Africa.
> 
> Dark colored skin is the natural pigmentation that is necessary to survive in tropical regions. As humans migrated north and had less direct sunshine, pigmentation got lighter in order to absorb more vitamin D. That is evolution on a short scale. It's natural selection based on the needs to survive. A white person will not turn black by moving to Africa. A black person will not turn white by moving to Canada.
> 
> God does like white people though... I don't know why...


Creationist don't even really understand what the term "natural selection" really means.  The sun tan theory of skin color is a perfect example.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Votto said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> So here's a scenario where evolution and creationism can both work:
> 
> Evolution created black people from apes.
> 
> God created white people in his own image.
> 
> Do i have it right, Bond?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think men like Charles Darwin thought so.  He was an ardent racist who thought that the black race were inferior.  If so, how could he think that we had the same common ancestor?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darwin thought that certain people made the gene pool "weak".  He insisted that people who were "sickly" weakened the gene pool and suggested that if we expunge them, it would strengthen the human race.
> 
> However, he then goes into this strange morality fixation about how noble it was to help those people weaken our gene pool.
> 
> “With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.
> 
> The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, if so urged by hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with a certain and great present evil. Hence we must bear without complaining the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; but there appears to be at least one check in steady action, namely the weaker and inferior members of society not marrying so freely as the sound; and this check might be indefinitely increased, though this is more to be hoped for than expected, by the weak in body or mind refraining from marriage.”
> ― Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man
> 
> Shrug.  Men like Hitler just laughed at the morality of being "noble" and killed off the inferior weak gene pool.  After all, how is being noble scientific?
Click to expand...

So what? You worship an evil,genocidal liar.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

alex.harmuth said:


> I can't speak for James but in my opinion, Adam and Eve were probably darker skinned, brown or


They could be purple if you like, since they are madeup characters and did not actually exist.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

alex.harmuth said:


> Yes it wasn't permanent, but over generations like I said, if he would have stayed there, his grandchildren and great grandchildren would have been be born naturally darker


Oh really? By what mechanism, exactly? And who taught you this?


----------



## RWS

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> So here's a scenario where evolution and creationism can both work:
> 
> Evolution created black people from apes.
> 
> God created white people in his own image.
> 
> Do i have it right, Bond?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think men like Charles Darwin thought so.  He was an ardent racist who thought that the black race were inferior.  If so, how could he think that we had the same common ancestor?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darwin thought that certain people made the gene pool "weak".  He insisted that people who were "sickly" weakened the gene pool and suggested that if we expunge them, it would strengthen the human race.
> 
> However, he then goes into this strange morality fixation about how noble it was to help those people weaken our gene pool.
> 
> “With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.
> 
> The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, if so urged by hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with a certain and great present evil. Hence we must bear without complaining the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; but there appears to be at least one check in steady action, namely the weaker and inferior members of society not marrying so freely as the sound; and this check might be indefinitely increased, though this is more to be hoped for than expected, by the weak in body or mind refraining from marriage.”
> ― Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man
> 
> Shrug.  Men like Hitler just laughed at the morality of being "noble" and killed off the inferior weak gene pool.  After all, how is being noble scientific?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So what? You worship an evil,genocidal liar.
Click to expand...

I agree....


----------



## RWS

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> alex.harmuth said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it wasn't permanent, but over generations like I said, if he would have stayed there, his grandchildren and great grandchildren would have been be born naturally darker
> 
> 
> 
> Oh really? By what mechanism, exactly? And who taught you this?
Click to expand...

His offspring would only be darker if he mated with black people. And even then maybe not.  Evolution does not work based on sun-tans, or such short time-spans.


----------



## RWS

And white people and black people are on the same evolutionary scale. There's no difference except regional advantages. 

If you think that black people are different than white people, then please state why?


----------



## james bond

RWS said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> So here's a scenario where evolution and creationism can both work:
> 
> Evolution created black people from apes.
> 
> God created white people in his own image.
> 
> Do i have it right, Bond?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  Only one can be the truth.  In this case, it's atheist or secular science vs creation.
> 
> Let's me try a different tack.  Sorry, it's a bit long.
> 
> Let's look at it from an objective moral view or God's view.  If we describe him, then he's like us as the Bible tells us.  With Adam and Eve (Arameans, not white), he created the perfect male and female.  He gave us everything we would need or wanted for free.  Just think if A&E didn't commit the unpardonable sin!!!  We would have everything we need or want for free.  No waiting in lines.  The only thing he wanted was Rule #1 - Do not eat from the Tree of Knowlege (or do not disobey God).  Rule #2 - See rule #1.  Rule #3 - See Rule #1...
> 
> Fast forward to today.  He's still a simple guy in terms of objective moral view.  Still like us.  The only thing he says this time is Jesus Saves.  He says to believe that we will all die, but the believers will be risen like Jesus as he died to redeem our unpardonable sin.
> 
> Now, you mention evolution and what would that be?  A lie.  (Remember, we're still looking at this from an objective moral view.)
> 
> And who is the master of lies?  Satan.
> 
> The truth comes down to 1) You believe that humans came from apes via Satan and that there is no God or 2) God created humans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No no no...
> 
> The question is whether white people and black people are created equal. Or is there something different in the creation sequence?
Click to expand...


You're referring to human rights.  That's not the topic of this thread, but we already discussed that several times and it led to pseudoscientific racism via Darwin and many deaths.  Isn't that evidence that from an objective moral point of view that Satan exists?  

OTOH, God created humans with a special place above other animals.  America's forefathers came up with "all men are created equal . . . endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights."  That should give you an idea about all humans being created equal.


----------



## james bond

RWS said:


> alex.harmuth said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can't speak for James but in my opinion, Adam and Eve were probably darker skinned, brown or tan. Skin color changes, it's an adaptation. If I (the whitest person you've ever seen) were to move to Africa or anywhere near the equator, my skin would get darker. First from sun burn but gradually over time, it would become tan and darker without being burnt. Same goes for if a black person moves to a colder area their skin would get lighter.  Generations later, our great grandkids would be born naturally darker/lighter. That is NOT evolution since they are still human beings. That is adaptation.
> 
> This is how we got dogs from wolves. Dogs did not 'evolve' from wolves, they adapted from them because in the end, they are still dogs. This also explains Darwins finches, still finches. Fruit flies, still flies.
> 
> When applied to monkeys, australopithecus (if it even existed) was a monkey, all other monkeys adapted from it based on their biomes, and are still monkeys today. Humans came from Adam and Eve, maybe Adam and Eve looked a little different, could have been smaller and more hairy doesn't matter, they were humans and we today are still humans.
> 
> Sent from my SM-S975L using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> Humans use natural skin pigmentation to help them in their natural environment. It's used to avoid too much radiation, and also to absorb radiation, depending on the area. I white person that gets a tan, and moves to Africa, will not turn black!!! That person will just get skin cancer! A black person that goes to Norway, will not turn white! Jeeezz.......
> 
> head-bang-wall <- cannot find gif
Click to expand...


It's your ToE.  Not only did you not explain how apes became humans, you just agreed that a black person cannot become white.


----------



## james bond

RWS said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alex.harmuth said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it wasn't permanent, but over generations like I said, if he would have stayed there, his grandchildren and great grandchildren would have been be born naturally darker
> 
> 
> 
> Oh really? By what mechanism, exactly? And who taught you this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> His offspring would only be darker if he mated with black people. And even then maybe not.  Evolution does not work based on sun-tans, or such short time-spans.
Click to expand...


That's what I've been saying.  You can't mate black people to become whites, but you can Aramaeans.

https://christiananswers.net/q-aig/race-skincolor.html


----------



## alex.harmuth

RWS said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alex.harmuth said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it wasn't permanent, but over generations like I said, if he would have stayed there, his grandchildren and great grandchildren would have been be born naturally darker
> 
> 
> 
> Oh really? By what mechanism, exactly? And who taught you this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> His offspring would only be darker if he mated with black people. And even then maybe not.  Evolution does not work based on sun-tans, or such short time-spans.
Click to expand...

No. I can't believe I have to explain something I don't even think is real to you since you don't even seem to understand it. Over generations, descendants of a white person living in a hot climate will become darker. I understand your confusion, evolution just doesn't make sense. 

Whether it's a white person becoming darker, a wolf being domesticated and bred into various types of dogs, finches changing beaks, fruit flies living longer, ALL of these are examples of natural adaptation, NOT evolution. Evolution requires that a new species is created. Humans are still human, dogs are still dogs, birds are birds, flies are flies.
Scientists try to call this microevolution but that's just them making something up to try to claim that they are right.

Macroevolution is the change of kinds. Bacteria into fish, fish into reptile, reptile into birds or mammals. Macroevolution cannot be proven, has never been observed, and isn't even reflected in the fossil record. It isn't real. 

Sent from my SM-S975L using Tapatalk


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

alex.harmuth said:


> Whether it's a white person becoming darker, a wolf being domesticated and bred into various types of dogs, finches changing beaks, fruit flies living longer, ALL of these are examples of natural adaptation, NOT evolution.


Provably false, by all of the evidence available. Dang dude, you should really never open your mouth about this topic again.


----------



## alex.harmuth

How is it false? A dog sheds it's fur in the summer. That's adaptation. You wouldn't say the dog evolved short fur. 

Now take a wolf (a canine) and put it in the desert. It will shed it's fur, It's pups will shed it's fur, grandpups will probably still shed a little, great grand pups may be born with short fur, generations later... You have a chihuahua. It is STILL a wolf (canine).

By evolution's own definition, that isn't evolution since a new species has not been created. The wolf didn't grow wings, it didn't grow scales, it's still a wolf (dog, canine). It's not a bird, it's not a snake, it's not a mudcrab, it's not a monkey. It DIDN'T evolve, it adapted to environmental factors like life has always done. How am I wrong?

Seriously, I don't believe in evolution because it makes zero sense. If you could make sense of it, sure I'll buy into it. But I'm not going to believe in gobbledygook just because some fat ass scientists tell me to. It's gotta be real, it's gotta be true, and if something is real and true, it should make sense. Evolution doesn't. 





Fort Fun Indiana said:


> alex.harmuth said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whether it's a white person becoming darker, a wolf being domesticated and bred into various types of dogs, finches changing beaks, fruit flies living longer, ALL of these are examples of natural adaptation, NOT evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> Provably false, by all of the evidence available. Dang dude, you should really never open your mouth about this topic again.
Click to expand...


Sent from my SM-S975L using Tapatalk


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

alex.harmuth said:


> How is it false? A dog sheds it's fur in the summer. That's adaptation. You wouldn't say the dog evolved short fur.
> 
> Now take a wolf (a canine) and put it in the desert. It will shed it's fur, It's pups will shed it's fur, grandpups will probably still shed a little, great grand pups may be born with short fur, generations later... You have a chihuahua. It is STILL a wolf (canine).
> 
> By evolution's own definition, that isn't evolution since a new species has not been created. The wolf didn't grow wings, it didn't grow scales, it's still a wolf (dog, canine). It's not a bird, it's not a snake, it's not a mudcrab, it's not a monkey. It DIDN'T evolve, it adapted to environmental factors like life has always done. How am I wrong?
> 
> Seriously, I don't believe in evolution because it makes zero sense. If you could make sense of it, sure I'll buy into it. But I'm not going to believe in gobbledygook just because some fat ass scientists tell me to. It's gotta be real, it's gotta be true, and if something is real and true, it should make sense. Evolution doesn't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alex.harmuth said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whether it's a white person becoming darker, a wolf being domesticated and bred into various types of dogs, finches changing beaks, fruit flies living longer, ALL of these are examples of natural adaptation, NOT evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> Provably false, by all of the evidence available. Dang dude, you should really never open your mouth about this topic again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sent from my SM-S975L using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Look man, you clearly know less than nothing about any of this. The things you say and the qeustions you ask are what one would expect of a child being introduced to  this totop for the very first time. If you are truly interested in this topic, I suggest you go do some digging and look at one of many university and science society websites that contain beginners primers on this topic. What I suggest you do not do is go to websites full of freakish religious nutballs (like Bond in this thread, or the embarrassing creationist fraud sites) and beg for someone to spoonfeed you information.


----------



## alex.harmuth

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> alex.harmuth said:
> 
> 
> 
> How is it false? A dog sheds it's fur in the summer. That's adaptation. You wouldn't say the dog evolved short fur.
> 
> Now take a wolf (a canine) and put it in the desert. It will shed it's fur, It's pups will shed it's fur, grandpups will probably still shed a little, great grand pups may be born with short fur, generations later... You have a chihuahua. It is STILL a wolf (canine).
> 
> By evolution's own definition, that isn't evolution since a new species has not been created. The wolf didn't grow wings, it didn't grow scales, it's still a wolf (dog, canine). It's not a bird, it's not a snake, it's not a mudcrab, it's not a monkey. It DIDN'T evolve, it adapted to environmental factors like life has always done. How am I wrong?
> 
> Seriously, I don't believe in evolution because it makes zero sense. If you could make sense of it, sure I'll buy into it. But I'm not going to believe in gobbledygook just because some fat ass scientists tell me to. It's gotta be real, it's gotta be true, and if something is real and true, it should make sense. Evolution doesn't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alex.harmuth said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whether it's a white person becoming darker, a wolf being domesticated and bred into various types of dogs, finches changing beaks, fruit flies living longer, ALL of these are examples of natural adaptation, NOT evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> Provably false, by all of the evidence available. Dang dude, you should really never open your mouth about this topic again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sent from my SM-S975L using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look man, you clearly know less than nothing about any of this. The things you say and the qeustions you ask are what one would expect of a child being introduced to  this totop for the very first time. If you are truly interested in this topic, I suggest you go do some digging and look at one of many university and science society websites that contain beginners primers on this topic. What I suggest you do not do is go to websites full of freakish religious nutballs (like Bond in this thread, or the embarrassing creationist fraud sites) and beg for someone to spoonfeed you information.
Click to expand...

Wow so helpful. I'll add you to the tally of people I've beaten in a debate on this topic. I've been doing this for a long time, even wrote a book on it. So I think I know what I'm talking about. Don't feel bad. Evolution falls apart when you question it. It's starting to happen within the scientific community itself. 

There is a break among Evolutionary Biologists on if Natural Selection is what drives evolution or not. The challenge is that if all life began as single celled organisms that got energy from the sun, there would be no competition and therefore no need to evolve. Some scientists understand this flaw in the current theory and are trying to change it.
Have a look for yourself. These are evolutionary Biologists from across the world. No Ken Ham bull crap. 
Dissent from Darwin – There is a scientific dissent from Darwinism and it deserves to be heard.

 You won't hear anything about this in your universities since they know that if it gets out that if some aspects of evolution can be questioned, all of it can be questioned and once that happens, it will collapse.

Have a good week. 

Sent from my SM-S975L using Tapatalk


----------



## RWS

That site is just a sign up site, don't know if you've actually visited it yet... 

But further research on Philip Skell brings us to a Forbes website where he has a rebuttal to a previous article: 
The Dangers Of Overselling Evolution

To sum it up in a nutshell is this paragraph:


> It is unseemly and scientifically unfruitful that a major focus in biology should have turned into a war--between those who hold that the history of those unique organisms is purely a matter of chance aggregation from the inorganic world and those who hold that the aggregation must have been designed for a purpose.



He's arguing for the possibility of intelligent design. Which even atheists like me can accept. What we cannot accept, and what Dr Skell never says, is that humans are a product of creation. He believes in evolution, he just believes it was designed for a purpose. 

What that purpose is, he doesn't elaborate. I would assume it is to create a highly intelligent being that is capable of leaving Earth and spreading our life (DNA) onto other planets and solar systems. Humans are the sperm of the Earth, I have always said that. We are here to leave the Earth and spread DNA throughout our travels. But whether it be through chance that a mutation creates a higher level organism that survives and reproduces better, or that the mutation was planned by a higher intelligence, the fact remains that we are part of the ape family and that evolution based on natural selection did occur to get us here. 

We did not evolve from monkeys, though we are distantly related from a common ancestor. And a white person cannot get a tan and turn black by moving into the tropics. Likewise, a black person cannot turn white by moving into arctic areas. If that's what you think after reading what he said, then that seems a bit odd.... And you probably didn't read it.


----------



## james bond

RWS said:


> That site is just a sign up site, don't know if you've actually visited it yet...
> 
> But further research on Philip Skell brings us to a Forbes website where he has a rebuttal to a previous article:
> The Dangers Of Overselling Evolution
> 
> To sum it up in a nutshell is this paragraph:
> 
> 
> 
> It is unseemly and scientifically unfruitful that a major focus in biology should have turned into a war--between those who hold that the history of those unique organisms is purely a matter of chance aggregation from the inorganic world and those who hold that the aggregation must have been designed for a purpose.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He's arguing for the possibility of intelligent design. Which even atheists like me can accept. What we cannot accept, and what Dr Skell never says, is that humans are a product of creation. He believes in evolution, he just believes it was designed for a purpose.
> 
> What that purpose is, he doesn't elaborate. I would assume it is to create a highly intelligent being that is capable of leaving Earth and spreading our life (DNA) onto other planets and solar systems. Humans are the sperm of the Earth, I have always said that. We are here to leave the Earth and spread DNA throughout our travels. But whether it be through chance that a mutation creates a higher level organism that survives and reproduces better, or that the mutation was planned by a higher intelligence, the fact remains that we are part of the ape family and that evolution based on natural selection did occur to get us here.
> 
> We did not evolve from monkeys, though we are distantly related from a common ancestor. And a white person cannot get a tan and turn black by moving into the tropics. Likewise, a black person cannot turn white by moving into arctic areas. If that's what you think after reading what he said, then that seems a bit odd.... And you probably didn't read it.
Click to expand...


ID is different from creation, so will stay out of it.  Although design with intelligence behind it, such as DNA, is found in God's work.

One of Satan's lies evos believe is that apes started walking upright.


----------



## Dalia

Almost the entire Neanderthal genome has been deciphered, new fossils have been discovered, and a hypothesis with a very high probability of being fair has been formulated. Facts :

- Genetics shows that we have about 3% of our genes of Neanderthal origin, and that this concerns the entire world population, except for Africans

- in an Israeli cave, was recently discovered a skull with indisputable traits "sapiens", but also indisputable traits "Neanderthal".

- The fact that only African populations do not have Neanderthalian genes has led to the following hypothesis: at a given moment, a peak of cold, probably the beginning of the Wurm glaciation (+/- from -95000 to -12000 ) pushed Neanderthal populations towards the south, while at the same time homo sapiens left Africa. The two populations would have crossed where the current state of Israel is (there was shortly before the aforementioned cave, discovered two other nearby caves, one having sheltered Neanderthals, the other sapiens, the all in a too short period of time so that they could not cross each other), and crossbreeding took place. Subsequently, homo sapiens and hybrids were brightened all over the planet, and the Neanderthalian genes were diluted to represent only the current 3%, but were distributed throughout the populations. outside Africa.

If the infertility of a hybrid proves that its two parents are of different species, the opposite is not necessarily true, nevertheless, the universality of the survival of Neanderthalian genes outside African populations seems to be wrong to the followers of the classification "homo neanderthalensis v / s homo sapiens", and reason to those who prefer it "homo sapiens neanderthalensis v / s homo sapiens sapiens"


----------



## Muhammed

Toddsterpatriot said:


> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're primates that developed from a common ancestor 5-7 million years ago that yes was an ape.
> 
> That is a fact....The evidence is very strong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not a fact, it is a theory, big difference.   And if we descended from an ape, why are there still apes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *And if we descended from an ape, why are there still apes?*
> 
> The apes we descended from are no more.
Click to expand...

What about sasquatch and the yeti?


----------



## Hollie

alex.harmuth said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alex.harmuth said:
> 
> 
> 
> How is it false? A dog sheds it's fur in the summer. That's adaptation. You wouldn't say the dog evolved short fur.
> 
> Now take a wolf (a canine) and put it in the desert. It will shed it's fur, It's pups will shed it's fur, grandpups will probably still shed a little, great grand pups may be born with short fur, generations later... You have a chihuahua. It is STILL a wolf (canine).
> 
> By evolution's own definition, that isn't evolution since a new species has not been created. The wolf didn't grow wings, it didn't grow scales, it's still a wolf (dog, canine). It's not a bird, it's not a snake, it's not a mudcrab, it's not a monkey. It DIDN'T evolve, it adapted to environmental factors like life has always done. How am I wrong?
> 
> Seriously, I don't believe in evolution because it makes zero sense. If you could make sense of it, sure I'll buy into it. But I'm not going to believe in gobbledygook just because some fat ass scientists tell me to. It's gotta be real, it's gotta be true, and if something is real and true, it should make sense. Evolution doesn't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alex.harmuth said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whether it's a white person becoming darker, a wolf being domesticated and bred into various types of dogs, finches changing beaks, fruit flies living longer, ALL of these are examples of natural adaptation, NOT evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> Provably false, by all of the evidence available. Dang dude, you should really never open your mouth about this topic again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sent from my SM-S975L using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look man, you clearly know less than nothing about any of this. The things you say and the qeustions you ask are what one would expect of a child being introduced to  this totop for the very first time. If you are truly interested in this topic, I suggest you go do some digging and look at one of many university and science society websites that contain beginners primers on this topic. What I suggest you do not do is go to websites full of freakish religious nutballs (like Bond in this thread, or the embarrassing creationist fraud sites) and beg for someone to spoonfeed you information.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow so helpful. I'll add you to the tally of people I've beaten in a debate on this topic. I've been doing this for a long time, even wrote a book on it. So I think I know what I'm talking about. Don't feel bad. Evolution falls apart when you question it. It's starting to happen within the scientific community itself.
> 
> There is a break among Evolutionary Biologists on if Natural Selection is what drives evolution or not. The challenge is that if all life began as single celled organisms that got energy from the sun, there would be no competition and therefore no need to evolve. Some scientists understand this flaw in the current theory and are trying to change it.
> Have a look for yourself. These are evolutionary Biologists from across the world. No Ken Ham bull crap.
> Dissent from Darwin – There is a scientific dissent from Darwinism and it deserves to be heard.
> 
> You won't hear anything about this in your universities since they know that if it gets out that if some aspects of evolution can be questioned, all of it can be questioned and once that happens, it will collapse.
> 
> Have a good week.
> 
> Sent from my SM-S975L using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


Its important to be honest and understand that Michael Egnor is a creationist twit. When terms such as "Darwinism" are hurled around, it's a clue to dig deeper. You don't need to dig very deep to find that Egypt is a Disco'tute (Discovery Institute) groupie. 

Neurosurgeon Michael Egnor: Is the Mind What the Brain Does?


Dissent from Darwin – There is a scientific dissent from Darwinism and it deserves to be heard.

"Darwinism is a trivial idea that has been elevated to the status of the scientific theory that governs modern biology."

*Dr. Michael Egnor, Professor of Neurosurgery and Pediatrics at State University of New York, Stony Brook*


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Muhammed said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're primates that developed from a common ancestor 5-7 million years ago that yes was an ape.
> 
> That is a fact....The evidence is very strong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not a fact, it is a theory, big difference.   And if we descended from an ape, why are there still apes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *And if we descended from an ape, why are there still apes?*
> 
> The apes we descended from are no more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What about sasquatch and the yeti?
Click to expand...


Leave poor Michelle Obama out of it.....


----------



## james bond

Dalia said:


> Almost the entire Neanderthal genome has been deciphered, new fossils have been discovered, and a hypothesis with a very high probability of being fair has been formulated. Facts :
> 
> - Genetics shows that we have about 3% of our genes of Neanderthal origin, and that this concerns the entire world population, except for Africans
> 
> - in an Israeli cave, was recently discovered a skull with indisputable traits "sapiens", but also indisputable traits "Neanderthal".
> 
> - The fact that only African populations do not have Neanderthalian genes has led to the following hypothesis: at a given moment, a peak of cold, probably the beginning of the Wurm glaciation (+/- from -95000 to -12000 ) pushed Neanderthal populations towards the south, while at the same time homo sapiens left Africa. The two populations would have crossed where the current state of Israel is (there was shortly before the aforementioned cave, discovered two other nearby caves, one having sheltered Neanderthals, the other sapiens, the all in a too short period of time so that they could not cross each other), and crossbreeding took place. Subsequently, homo sapiens and hybrids were brightened all over the planet, and the Neanderthalian genes were diluted to represent only the current 3%, but were distributed throughout the populations. outside Africa.
> 
> If the infertility of a hybrid proves that its two parents are of different species, the opposite is not necessarily true, nevertheless, the universality of the survival of Neanderthalian genes outside African populations seems to be wrong to the followers of the classification "homo neanderthalensis v / s homo sapiens", and reason to those who prefer it "homo sapiens neanderthalensis v / s homo sapiens sapiens"



I agree with most of this.  Neanderthals were hominids.  Whether this included gorilla, chimpanzee and orangutan is still up for debate.  Creation scientists state they were genetically isolated humans, and lived throughout most of Europe and parts of Asia and northern Africa.  They walked upright and not stooped over.  Whether they were a subspecies or a separate species is still in question.  They appeared to have interbred with modern humans.  How they became extinct is up for debate, too.


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alex.harmuth said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because if Earth is the only place in the universe that contains life that would disprove evolution. Now go find some aliens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alex.harmuth said:
> 
> 
> 
> If evolution were true, I'd imagine life would be abundant in not just the universe, but in this solar system. There should be life on Mars, Venus, moons of Jupiter and Saturn. Life should be everywhere... But it's not.
> 
> Sent from my SM-S975L using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why anyone thinks that life would 'be everywhere' because of evolution is a mystery to me.
> 
> There is nothing in the theory of evolution that makes that claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sent from my SM-S975L using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again- you just keep demonstrating you don't understand the theory of evolution.
> 
> The theory of evolution makes no claims as to how life started on Earth.
> 
> The Theory of Evolution doesn't care whether Earth is unique or whether life is everywhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ha ha.  We talked about this already.  People who just want to argue ToE are the ones who doesn't understand ToE and how it's based on evolutionary thinking.  And no aliens means that it's a point for creation.  God didn't create aliens.  In terms of evolution, the reason aliens do not exist is based on the fine tuning facts that atheist scientists discovered while trying to formulate the Big Bang Theory.  There plenty of evidence of no aliens.  Look up Fermi Paradox.
> 
> History of evolutionary thought - Wikipedia
Click to expand...


And once again- the Theory of Evolution makes no claims about how life started on Earth- or even cares how life started on earth. 


Hell it could even be that Zeus created the first life on Earth- and the Theory of Evolution would still be just as valid.


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> There continue to be internet atheists on this forum who cannot do a simple search.
> 
> "Humans first evolved in Africa, and much of human evolution occurred on that continent. The fossils of early humans who lived between 6 and 2 million years ago come entirely from Africa."
> ...
> 
> "One of the earliest defining human traits, bipedalism -- the ability to walk on two legs -- evolved over 4 million years ago."
> 
> Introduction to Human Evolution
> 
> This is racism at its worst.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And again- still you can't explain why science is somehow 'racism'.
> 
> It is unlikely that any of the 'races' of modern man even existed when when modern man first evolved in Africa or when our ancestors first ventured out of Africa.
> 
> Do you consider the Theory of Gravity racist also?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think I've covered how racism was tied in the Darwinism and humans evolving from apes and how it became eugenics and so forth.
Click to expand...


Racism existed before Darwin's theory of evolution and exists to this day. 

And again- still you can't explain why science is somehow 'racism'.

It is unlikely that any of the 'races' of modern man even existed when when modern man first evolved in Africa or when our ancestors first ventured out of Africa.

Do you consider the Theory of Gravity racist also?


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> Dalia said:
> 
> 
> 
> Almost the entire Neanderthal genome has been deciphered, new fossils have been discovered, and a hypothesis with a very high probability of being fair has been formulated. Facts :
> 
> - Genetics shows that we have about 3% of our genes of Neanderthal origin, and that this concerns the entire world population, except for Africans
> 
> - in an Israeli cave, was recently discovered a skull with indisputable traits "sapiens", but also indisputable traits "Neanderthal".
> 
> - The fact that only African populations do not have Neanderthalian genes has led to the following hypothesis: at a given moment, a peak of cold, probably the beginning of the Wurm glaciation (+/- from -95000 to -12000 ) pushed Neanderthal populations towards the south, while at the same time homo sapiens left Africa. The two populations would have crossed where the current state of Israel is (there was shortly before the aforementioned cave, discovered two other nearby caves, one having sheltered Neanderthals, the other sapiens, the all in a too short period of time so that they could not cross each other), and crossbreeding took place. Subsequently, homo sapiens and hybrids were brightened all over the planet, and the Neanderthalian genes were diluted to represent only the current 3%, but were distributed throughout the populations. outside Africa.
> 
> If the infertility of a hybrid proves that its two parents are of different species, the opposite is not necessarily true, nevertheless, the universality of the survival of Neanderthalian genes outside African populations seems to be wrong to the followers of the classification "homo neanderthalensis v / s homo sapiens", and reason to those who prefer it "homo sapiens neanderthalensis v / s homo sapiens sapiens"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with most of this.  Neanderthals were hominids.  Whether this included gorilla, chimpanzee and orangutan is still up for debate.  Creation scientists state they were genetically isolated humans,.
Click to expand...


'Creation scientists'......lol....that always cracks me up. It's like saying Chiropractic car mechanics......


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

alex.harmuth said:


> Wow so helpful.


It is helpful. You know nothing about any of this And probably should not even be talking about it.

No, you are not in a debate, any more than a person who insists his houseplants talk to him is in a debate with botanists.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

Three Pieces of Evidence That Prove Evolution is a Fact

Addresses the 'monkey's as ancestors' myth.


----------



## RWS

Syriusly said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alex.harmuth said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because if Earth is the only place in the universe that contains life that would disprove evolution. Now go find some aliens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alex.harmuth said:
> 
> 
> 
> If evolution were true, I'd imagine life would be abundant in not just the universe, but in this solar system. There should be life on Mars, Venus, moons of Jupiter and Saturn. Life should be everywhere... But it's not.
> 
> Sent from my SM-S975L using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why anyone thinks that life would 'be everywhere' because of evolution is a mystery to me.
> 
> There is nothing in the theory of evolution that makes that claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sent from my SM-S975L using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again- you just keep demonstrating you don't understand the theory of evolution.
> 
> The theory of evolution makes no claims as to how life started on Earth.
> 
> The Theory of Evolution doesn't care whether Earth is unique or whether life is everywhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ha ha.  We talked about this already.  People who just want to argue ToE are the ones who doesn't understand ToE and how it's based on evolutionary thinking.  And no aliens means that it's a point for creation.  God didn't create aliens.  In terms of evolution, the reason aliens do not exist is based on the fine tuning facts that atheist scientists discovered while trying to formulate the Big Bang Theory.  There plenty of evidence of no aliens.  Look up Fermi Paradox.
> 
> History of evolutionary thought - Wikipedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And once again- the Theory of Evolution makes no claims about how life started on Earth- or even cares how life started on earth.
> 
> 
> Hell it could even be that Zeus created the first life on Earth- and the Theory of Evolution would still be just as valid.
Click to expand...

Agree! But more likely Enki created humans... jus sayin....


----------



## RWS

Syriusly said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dalia said:
> 
> 
> 
> Almost the entire Neanderthal genome has been deciphered, new fossils have been discovered, and a hypothesis with a very high probability of being fair has been formulated. Facts :
> 
> - Genetics shows that we have about 3% of our genes of Neanderthal origin, and that this concerns the entire world population, except for Africans
> 
> - in an Israeli cave, was recently discovered a skull with indisputable traits "sapiens", but also indisputable traits "Neanderthal".
> 
> - The fact that only African populations do not have Neanderthalian genes has led to the following hypothesis: at a given moment, a peak of cold, probably the beginning of the Wurm glaciation (+/- from -95000 to -12000 ) pushed Neanderthal populations towards the south, while at the same time homo sapiens left Africa. The two populations would have crossed where the current state of Israel is (there was shortly before the aforementioned cave, discovered two other nearby caves, one having sheltered Neanderthals, the other sapiens, the all in a too short period of time so that they could not cross each other), and crossbreeding took place. Subsequently, homo sapiens and hybrids were brightened all over the planet, and the Neanderthalian genes were diluted to represent only the current 3%, but were distributed throughout the populations. outside Africa.
> 
> If the infertility of a hybrid proves that its two parents are of different species, the opposite is not necessarily true, nevertheless, the universality of the survival of Neanderthalian genes outside African populations seems to be wrong to the followers of the classification "homo neanderthalensis v / s homo sapiens", and reason to those who prefer it "homo sapiens neanderthalensis v / s homo sapiens sapiens"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with most of this.  Neanderthals were hominids.  Whether this included gorilla, chimpanzee and orangutan is still up for debate.  Creation scientists state they were genetically isolated humans,.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 'Creation scientists'......lol....that always cracks me up. It's like saying Chiropractic car mechanics......
Click to expand...


Well, i did kick my car the other day, and it worked....


----------



## Shazoomx4

Ima Cat said:


> I know there are similarities but I think they are coincidental, like cats and seals both have whiskers.  But cats didn't come from seals or vice a versa.


No, but we have the same old ancestor


----------



## RWS

Shazoomx4 said:


> Ima Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know there are similarities but I think they are coincidental, like cats and seals both have whiskers.  But cats didn't come from seals or vice a versa.
> 
> 
> 
> No, but we have the same old ancestor
Click to expand...


Sorry Shazoom, you're a little behind. We have settled that part, i think... But welcome to the conversation!

Are you Jewish? And if so, why?


----------



## Shazoomx4

RWS said:


> Shazoomx4 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ima Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know there are similarities but I think they are coincidental, like cats and seals both have whiskers.  But cats didn't come from seals or vice a versa.
> 
> 
> 
> No, but we have the same old ancestor
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry Shazoom, you're a little behind. We have settled that part, i think... But welcome to the conversation!
> 
> Are you Jewish? And if so, why?
Click to expand...

Jewish is not only religion... 
I born as Jewish..


----------



## james bond

Syriusly said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alex.harmuth said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because if Earth is the only place in the universe that contains life that would disprove evolution. Now go find some aliens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alex.harmuth said:
> 
> 
> 
> If evolution were true, I'd imagine life would be abundant in not just the universe, but in this solar system. There should be life on Mars, Venus, moons of Jupiter and Saturn. Life should be everywhere... But it's not.
> 
> Sent from my SM-S975L using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why anyone thinks that life would 'be everywhere' because of evolution is a mystery to me.
> 
> There is nothing in the theory of evolution that makes that claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sent from my SM-S975L using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again- you just keep demonstrating you don't understand the theory of evolution.
> 
> The theory of evolution makes no claims as to how life started on Earth.
> 
> The Theory of Evolution doesn't care whether Earth is unique or whether life is everywhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ha ha.  We talked about this already.  People who just want to argue ToE are the ones who doesn't understand ToE and how it's based on evolutionary thinking.  And no aliens means that it's a point for creation.  God didn't create aliens.  In terms of evolution, the reason aliens do not exist is based on the fine tuning facts that atheist scientists discovered while trying to formulate the Big Bang Theory.  There plenty of evidence of no aliens.  Look up Fermi Paradox.
> 
> History of evolutionary thought - Wikipedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And once again- the Theory of Evolution makes no claims about how life started on Earth- or even cares how life started on earth.
> 
> 
> Hell it could even be that Zeus created the first life on Earth- and the Theory of Evolution would still be just as valid.
Click to expand...


You are too weak and ignorant to understand the history of evolutionary thinking.  We know Zeus does not exist because Mt. Olympus did not exist in the ancient past.    

I've linked this several times now, but your intellect is sadly lacking.

History of evolutionary thought - Wikipedia


----------



## james bond

Syriusly said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> There continue to be internet atheists on this forum who cannot do a simple search.
> 
> "Humans first evolved in Africa, and much of human evolution occurred on that continent. The fossils of early humans who lived between 6 and 2 million years ago come entirely from Africa."
> ...
> 
> "One of the earliest defining human traits, bipedalism -- the ability to walk on two legs -- evolved over 4 million years ago."
> 
> Introduction to Human Evolution
> 
> This is racism at its worst.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And again- still you can't explain why science is somehow 'racism'.
> 
> It is unlikely that any of the 'races' of modern man even existed when when modern man first evolved in Africa or when our ancestors first ventured out of Africa.
> 
> Do you consider the Theory of Gravity racist also?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think I've covered how racism was tied in the Darwinism and humans evolving from apes and how it became eugenics and so forth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Racism existed before Darwin's theory of evolution and exists to this day.
> 
> And again- still you can't explain why science is somehow 'racism'.
> 
> It is unlikely that any of the 'races' of modern man even existed when when modern man first evolved in Africa or when our ancestors first ventured out of Africa.
> 
> Do you consider the Theory of Gravity racist also?
Click to expand...


 Eyeroll.  Eyeroll.  Eyeroll.

All of the pseudoscientific racism led up to Darwinism and then social Darwinism and Eugenics.


----------



## james bond

Syriusly said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dalia said:
> 
> 
> 
> Almost the entire Neanderthal genome has been deciphered, new fossils have been discovered, and a hypothesis with a very high probability of being fair has been formulated. Facts :
> 
> - Genetics shows that we have about 3% of our genes of Neanderthal origin, and that this concerns the entire world population, except for Africans
> 
> - in an Israeli cave, was recently discovered a skull with indisputable traits "sapiens", but also indisputable traits "Neanderthal".
> 
> - The fact that only African populations do not have Neanderthalian genes has led to the following hypothesis: at a given moment, a peak of cold, probably the beginning of the Wurm glaciation (+/- from -95000 to -12000 ) pushed Neanderthal populations towards the south, while at the same time homo sapiens left Africa. The two populations would have crossed where the current state of Israel is (there was shortly before the aforementioned cave, discovered two other nearby caves, one having sheltered Neanderthals, the other sapiens, the all in a too short period of time so that they could not cross each other), and crossbreeding took place. Subsequently, homo sapiens and hybrids were brightened all over the planet, and the Neanderthalian genes were diluted to represent only the current 3%, but were distributed throughout the populations. outside Africa.
> 
> If the infertility of a hybrid proves that its two parents are of different species, the opposite is not necessarily true, nevertheless, the universality of the survival of Neanderthalian genes outside African populations seems to be wrong to the followers of the classification "homo neanderthalensis v / s homo sapiens", and reason to those who prefer it "homo sapiens neanderthalensis v / s homo sapiens sapiens"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with most of this.  Neanderthals were hominids.  Whether this included gorilla, chimpanzee and orangutan is still up for debate.  Creation scientists state they were genetically isolated humans,.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 'Creation scientists'......lol....that always cracks me up. It's like saying Chiropractic car mechanics......
Click to expand...


That's for atheist scientists.


----------



## james bond

RWS said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alex.harmuth said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because if Earth is the only place in the universe that contains life that would disprove evolution. Now go find some aliens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why anyone thinks that life would 'be everywhere' because of evolution is a mystery to me.
> 
> There is nothing in the theory of evolution that makes that claim.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my SM-S975L using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again- you just keep demonstrating you don't understand the theory of evolution.
> 
> The theory of evolution makes no claims as to how life started on Earth.
> 
> The Theory of Evolution doesn't care whether Earth is unique or whether life is everywhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ha ha.  We talked about this already.  People who just want to argue ToE are the ones who doesn't understand ToE and how it's based on evolutionary thinking.  And no aliens means that it's a point for creation.  God didn't create aliens.  In terms of evolution, the reason aliens do not exist is based on the fine tuning facts that atheist scientists discovered while trying to formulate the Big Bang Theory.  There plenty of evidence of no aliens.  Look up Fermi Paradox.
> 
> History of evolutionary thought - Wikipedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And once again- the Theory of Evolution makes no claims about how life started on Earth- or even cares how life started on earth.
> 
> 
> Hell it could even be that Zeus created the first life on Earth- and the Theory of Evolution would still be just as valid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Agree! But more likely Enki created humans... jus sayin....
Click to expand...


You're kidding.  Maybe atheists do believe in no God and mythological gods


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dalia said:
> 
> 
> 
> Almost the entire Neanderthal genome has been deciphered, new fossils have been discovered, and a hypothesis with a very high probability of being fair has been formulated. Facts :
> 
> - Genetics shows that we have about 3% of our genes of Neanderthal origin, and that this concerns the entire world population, except for Africans
> 
> - in an Israeli cave, was recently discovered a skull with indisputable traits "sapiens", but also indisputable traits "Neanderthal".
> 
> - The fact that only African populations do not have Neanderthalian genes has led to the following hypothesis: at a given moment, a peak of cold, probably the beginning of the Wurm glaciation (+/- from -95000 to -12000 ) pushed Neanderthal populations towards the south, while at the same time homo sapiens left Africa. The two populations would have crossed where the current state of Israel is (there was shortly before the aforementioned cave, discovered two other nearby caves, one having sheltered Neanderthals, the other sapiens, the all in a too short period of time so that they could not cross each other), and crossbreeding took place. Subsequently, homo sapiens and hybrids were brightened all over the planet, and the Neanderthalian genes were diluted to represent only the current 3%, but were distributed throughout the populations. outside Africa.
> 
> If the infertility of a hybrid proves that its two parents are of different species, the opposite is not necessarily true, nevertheless, the universality of the survival of Neanderthalian genes outside African populations seems to be wrong to the followers of the classification "homo neanderthalensis v / s homo sapiens", and reason to those who prefer it "homo sapiens neanderthalensis v / s homo sapiens sapiens"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with most of this.  Neanderthals were hominids.  Whether this included gorilla, chimpanzee and orangutan is still up for debate.  Creation scientists state they were genetically isolated humans,.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 'Creation scientists'......lol....that always cracks me up. It's like saying Chiropractic car mechanics......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's for atheist scientists.
Click to expand...


Scientists use science.

"Creation Scientists'  are a contradiction in terms.


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> There continue to be internet atheists on this forum who cannot do a simple search.
> 
> "Humans first evolved in Africa, and much of human evolution occurred on that continent. The fossils of early humans who lived between 6 and 2 million years ago come entirely from Africa."
> ...
> 
> "One of the earliest defining human traits, bipedalism -- the ability to walk on two legs -- evolved over 4 million years ago."
> 
> Introduction to Human Evolution
> 
> This is racism at its worst.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And again- still you can't explain why science is somehow 'racism'.
> 
> It is unlikely that any of the 'races' of modern man even existed when when modern man first evolved in Africa or when our ancestors first ventured out of Africa.
> 
> Do you consider the Theory of Gravity racist also?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think I've covered how racism was tied in the Darwinism and humans evolving from apes and how it became eugenics and so forth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Racism existed before Darwin's theory of evolution and exists to this day.
> 
> And again- still you can't explain why science is somehow 'racism'.
> 
> It is unlikely that any of the 'races' of modern man even existed when when modern man first evolved in Africa or when our ancestors first ventured out of Africa.
> 
> Do you consider the Theory of Gravity racist also?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> All of the pseudoscientific racism led up to Darwinism .
Click to expand...


Creationism led to Institutionalized racism.


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alex.harmuth said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because if Earth is the only place in the universe that contains life that would disprove evolution. Now go find some aliens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why anyone thinks that life would 'be everywhere' because of evolution is a mystery to me.
> 
> There is nothing in the theory of evolution that makes that claim.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my SM-S975L using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again- you just keep demonstrating you don't understand the theory of evolution.
> 
> The theory of evolution makes no claims as to how life started on Earth.
> 
> The Theory of Evolution doesn't care whether Earth is unique or whether life is everywhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ha ha.  We talked about this already.  People who just want to argue ToE are the ones who doesn't understand ToE and how it's based on evolutionary thinking.  And no aliens means that it's a point for creation.  God didn't create aliens.  In terms of evolution, the reason aliens do not exist is based on the fine tuning facts that atheist scientists discovered while trying to formulate the Big Bang Theory.  There plenty of evidence of no aliens.  Look up Fermi Paradox.
> 
> History of evolutionary thought - Wikipedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And once again- the Theory of Evolution makes no claims about how life started on Earth- or even cares how life started on earth.
> 
> 
> Hell it could even be that Zeus created the first life on Earth- and the Theory of Evolution would still be just as valid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are too weak and ignorant to understand the history of evolutionary thinking.  We know Zeus does not exist because Mt. Olympus did not exist in the ancient past.
Click to expand...


Prove that Mt. Olympus did not exist in the ancient past- go for it. 

You are too weak to actually defend Christianity or understand the Theory of Evolution.

Remember- the Theory of Evolution makes no claim as to how life started on Earth.

While Christianity posits that the world was created around 6,000 years ago- and that every species of bird, mammal and reptile got onto a single boat and sailed around for awhile- and then unloaded them all on Mt. Ararat- and then miraculously in a couple thousand years- all of those animals made it to their individual far corners of the earth.


----------



## Syriusly

Has there ever been a Jew who was a Creationist? A modern Jew who believes in a literal interpretation of the Old Testament and uses pretend science like the Creato-Christians do- to somehow bolster their own feeble faith in their God?

I can't think of any.  

The Creato-Christian movement is a rather odd Christian cult that somehow feels a need to deny science in order to somehow convince themselves that Jesus is their savior.


----------



## LittleNipper

The the earth was likely created roughly 6000 to 10,000 years ago by GOD. When the Fall of Adam & Eve occurred, deterioration kicked in for the entire Universe. Prior to that event everything existed in a continuing state of perfection. Monkeys, gorillas and humans in no way share a common ancestor; however, they do share a common CREATOR. The present state of our planet reflects the continuing deterioration of the environment due to the FALL and the scares from the FLOOD.  Meteor and asteroid strikes throughout the Solar system are the result of the FALL.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

LittleNipper said:


> The the earth was likely created roughly 6000 to 10,000 years ago by GOD. When the Fall of Adam & Eve occurred, deterioration kicked in for the entire Universe. Prior to that event everything existed in a continuing state of perfection. Monkeys, gorillas and humans in no way share a common ancestor; however, they do share a common CREATOR. The present state of our planet reflects the continuing deterioration of the environment due to the FALL and the scares from the FLOOD.  Meteor and asteroid strikes throughout the Solar system are the result of the FALL.


----------



## Shazoomx4

LittleNipper said:


> The the earth was likely created roughly 6000 to 10,000 years ago by GOD. When the Fall of Adam & Eve occurred, deterioration kicked in for the entire Universe. Prior to that event everything existed in a continuing state of perfection. Monkeys, gorillas and humans in no way share a common ancestor; however, they do share a common CREATOR. The present state of our planet reflects the continuing deterioration of the environment due to the FALL and the scares from the FLOOD.  Meteor and asteroid strikes throughout the Solar system are the result of the FALL.



Nop the world exist 4.5 billion years..


----------



## alex.harmuth

Syriusly said:


> Has there ever been a Jew who was a Creationist? A modern Jew who believes in a literal interpretation of the Old Testament and uses pretend science like the Creato-Christians do- to somehow bolster their own feeble faith in their God?
> 
> I can't think of any.
> 
> The Creato-Christian movement is a rather odd Christian cult that somehow feels a need to deny science in order to somehow convince themselves that Jesus is their savior.


Strap yourself in... 

Rational people have already seen the numerous fatal flaws in Evolution. 

First off, Show me 1 animal fossil of a half reptile half mammal. A reptile with fur and gave birth to live offspring but was cold blooded like all reptiles are. Show me 1. You can't, because it doesn't exist. For the theory of evolution to even be viable, there shouldn't just be 1 animal fossil that's half reptile half mammal, there should be hundreds if not thousands if not millions over the supposed millions of years it takes for evolution to work. When you're done not finding the half reptile half mammal, start looking for the half bacteria half fish, half fish half bird, half bird half otter, half otter half gorilla, etc. or whatever fantasy animal you think was real. Macro evolution, the change of kinds, the evolution that is forced down people's throats, has NEVER been seen in the fossil record and will never be seen because it is not real. This flaw in the religion of evolution is quickly dismissed by it's worshipers for whatever reason no one can ever explain. 

Another flaw is, what caused evolution to begin? You might say natural selection but you would be wrong. Life supposedly began as single celled organisms in the ocean who got their energy from the sun. Natural selection requires that there is competition. So what were the first lifeforms competing against each other for, sunlight? Seems pretty absurd if you actually take 2 seconds to think about it doesn't it? In fact, some evolutionists HAVE thought about this and there is a growing movement in the scientific world away from natural selection. Eventually one day natural selection will be disproven officially by scientists and the religion of evolution worshipers will accept it blindly and continue to march on. 

Another flaw is life itself and if you can't see how life beginning to exist and evolution aren't connected than we're well and truly done here and good luck. When you build a house you start with it's foundation. That's what life is for evolution, the foundation. Without life, there is no evolution. Currently, the mainstream scientific concensus on how life began is... nothing. Science has NO answer on how life began in fact, according to some early scientific "laws" (which were actually theories) it was impossible for life to even be real. It was once believed that life can only come from life. At the same time, it was believed that the Earth, and by extension the universe, was completely lifeless. To a mealworm, that doesn't even make sense. So they changed their beliefs (because science can do that in an instant) to life CAN come from non-life. They gave this study a name, Abiogensis. It was introduced in the early 70's and has since been rejected as mainstream science and for nearly 50 years has not proven anything but that life could not have possibly started in the ocean. They have now resorted to just simply saying "evolution is based on life already existing" and they've found their useful idiot worshipers have accepted it without question and march on. 

I seriously could go on literally till the day I die pointing out to you how dumb evolution is and how it makes zero sense but I have better things to do. If you want to believe in tadpole fishmen, go right ahead. But don't for a second try to force that utter stupidity onto anyone else. I would rather see the World get over evolution and turn to the belief in something greater than they are. It doesn't even have to be Christianity. If that doesn't make sense to you, find something else. There are plenty of creation religions you can choose from. Every one of them makes more sense than evolution and hopefully the World will soon realize that. 

Sent from my SM-S975L using Tapatalk


----------



## Shazoomx4

alex.harmuth said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Has there ever been a Jew who was a Creationist? A modern Jew who believes in a literal interpretation of the Old Testament and uses pretend science like the Creato-Christians do- to somehow bolster their own feeble faith in their God?
> 
> I can't think of any.
> 
> The Creato-Christian movement is a rather odd Christian cult that somehow feels a need to deny science in order to somehow convince themselves that Jesus is their savior.
> 
> 
> 
> Strap yourself in...
> 
> Rational people have already seen the numerous fatal flaws in Evolution.
> 
> First off, Show me 1 animal fossil of a half reptile half mammal. A reptile with fur and gave birth to live offspring but was cold blooded like all reptiles are. Show me 1. You can't, because it doesn't exist. For the theory of evolution to even be viable, there shouldn't just be 1 animal fossil that's half reptile half mammal, there should be hundreds if not thousands if not millions over the supposed millions of years it takes for evolution to work. When you're done not finding the half reptile half mammal, start looking for the half bacteria half fish, half fish half bird, half bird half otter, half otter half gorilla, etc. or whatever fantasy animal you think was real. Macro evolution, the change of kinds, the evolution that is forced down people's throats, has NEVER been seen in the fossil record and will never be seen because it is not real. This flaw in the religion of evolution is quickly dismissed by it's worshipers for whatever reason no one can ever explain.
> 
> Another flaw is, what caused evolution to begin? You might say natural selection but you would be wrong. Life supposedly began as single celled organisms in the ocean who got their energy from the sun. Natural selection requires that there is competition. So what were the first lifeforms competing against each other for, sunlight? Seems pretty absurd if you actually take 2 seconds to think about it doesn't it? In fact, some evolutionists HAVE thought about this and there is a growing movement in the scientific world away from natural selection. Eventually one day natural selection will be disproven officially by scientists and the religion of evolution worshipers will accept it blindly and continue to march on.
> 
> Another flaw is life itself and if you can't see how life beginning to exist and evolution aren't connected than we're well and truly done here and good luck. When you build a house you start with it's foundation. That's what life is for evolution, the foundation. Without life, there is no evolution. Currently, the mainstream scientific concensus on how life began is... nothing. Science has NO answer on how life began in fact, according to some early scientific "laws" (which were actually theories) it was impossible for life to even be real. It was once believed that life can only come from life. At the same time, it was believed that the Earth, and by extension the universe, was completely lifeless. To a mealworm, that doesn't even make sense. So they changed their beliefs (because science can do that in an instant) to life CAN come from non-life. They gave this study a name, Abiogensis. It was introduced in the early 70's and has since been rejected as mainstream science and for nearly 50 years has not proven anything but that life could not have possibly started in the ocean. They have now resorted to just simply saying "evolution is based on life already existing" and they've found their useful idiot worshipers have accepted it without question and march on.
> 
> I seriously could go on literally till the day I die pointing out to you how dumb evolution is and how it makes zero sense but I have better things to do. If you want to believe in tadpole fishmen, go right ahead. But don't for a second try to force that utter stupidity onto anyone else. I would rather see the World get over evolution and turn to the belief in something greater than they are. It doesn't even have to be Christianity. If that doesn't make sense to you, find something else. There are plenty of creation religions you can choose from. Every one of them makes more sense than evolution and hopefully the World will soon realize that.
> 
> Sent from my SM-S975L using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


Half mammal, half reptile fossil discovered in Utah


----------



## alex.harmuth

Shazoomx4 said:


> alex.harmuth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Has there ever been a Jew who was a Creationist? A modern Jew who believes in a literal interpretation of the Old Testament and uses pretend science like the Creato-Christians do- to somehow bolster their own feeble faith in their God?
> 
> I can't think of any.
> 
> The Creato-Christian movement is a rather odd Christian cult that somehow feels a need to deny science in order to somehow convince themselves that Jesus is their savior.
> 
> 
> 
> Strap yourself in...
> 
> Rational people have already seen the numerous fatal flaws in Evolution.
> 
> First off, Show me 1 animal fossil of a half reptile half mammal. A reptile with fur and gave birth to live offspring but was cold blooded like all reptiles are. Show me 1. You can't, because it doesn't exist. For the theory of evolution to even be viable, there shouldn't just be 1 animal fossil that's half reptile half mammal, there should be hundreds if not thousands if not millions over the supposed millions of years it takes for evolution to work. When you're done not finding the half reptile half mammal, start looking for the half bacteria half fish, half fish half bird, half bird half otter, half otter half gorilla, etc. or whatever fantasy animal you think was real. Macro evolution, the change of kinds, the evolution that is forced down people's throats, has NEVER been seen in the fossil record and will never be seen because it is not real. This flaw in the religion of evolution is quickly dismissed by it's worshipers for whatever reason no one can ever explain.
> 
> Another flaw is, what caused evolution to begin? You might say natural selection but you would be wrong. Life supposedly began as single celled organisms in the ocean who got their energy from the sun. Natural selection requires that there is competition. So what were the first lifeforms competing against each other for, sunlight? Seems pretty absurd if you actually take 2 seconds to think about it doesn't it? In fact, some evolutionists HAVE thought about this and there is a growing movement in the scientific world away from natural selection. Eventually one day natural selection will be disproven officially by scientists and the religion of evolution worshipers will accept it blindly and continue to march on.
> 
> Another flaw is life itself and if you can't see how life beginning to exist and evolution aren't connected than we're well and truly done here and good luck. When you build a house you start with it's foundation. That's what life is for evolution, the foundation. Without life, there is no evolution. Currently, the mainstream scientific concensus on how life began is... nothing. Science has NO answer on how life began in fact, according to some early scientific "laws" (which were actually theories) it was impossible for life to even be real. It was once believed that life can only come from life. At the same time, it was believed that the Earth, and by extension the universe, was completely lifeless. To a mealworm, that doesn't even make sense. So they changed their beliefs (because science can do that in an instant) to life CAN come from non-life. They gave this study a name, Abiogensis. It was introduced in the early 70's and has since been rejected as mainstream science and for nearly 50 years has not proven anything but that life could not have possibly started in the ocean. They have now resorted to just simply saying "evolution is based on life already existing" and they've found their useful idiot worshipers have accepted it without question and march on.
> 
> I seriously could go on literally till the day I die pointing out to you how dumb evolution is and how it makes zero sense but I have better things to do. If you want to believe in tadpole fishmen, go right ahead. But don't for a second try to force that utter stupidity onto anyone else. I would rather see the World get over evolution and turn to the belief in something greater than they are. It doesn't even have to be Christianity. If that doesn't make sense to you, find something else. There are plenty of creation religions you can choose from. Every one of them makes more sense than evolution and hopefully the World will soon realize that.
> 
> Sent from my SM-S975L using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Half mammal, half reptile fossil discovered in Utah
Click to expand...

Article even says it was related to the platypus ergo, it's a platypus not a reptile.
It had hair (warm blooded) and laid eggs like the platypus. How is that half reptile? Just because the article writer called it a reptile doesn't make it one. 

Keep in mind that evolutionist are so desperate to find these millions of missing transitional fossils that they would take a modern dog skull, make up a random animal to fill a niche, and call it proof of evolution. 

The skull (that's all they found was the skull) is supposedly 15 million years old but was found a couple feet under the surface...? Um... that's not how time, works... 

Even if I give you this 1, there's 999,999 more transitions to go. Where is the animal fossil that this one evolved from and into? Keep looking.

They also found an alien body in Russia. Turned out, it was a chicken. 

Sent from my SM-S975L using Tapatalk


----------



## james bond

Syriusly said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alex.harmuth said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because if Earth is the only place in the universe that contains life that would disprove evolution. Now go find some aliens. Sent from my SM-S975L using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again- you just keep demonstrating you don't understand the theory of evolution.
> 
> The theory of evolution makes no claims as to how life started on Earth.
> 
> The Theory of Evolution doesn't care whether Earth is unique or whether life is everywhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ha ha.  We talked about this already.  People who just want to argue ToE are the ones who doesn't understand ToE and how it's based on evolutionary thinking.  And no aliens means that it's a point for creation.  God didn't create aliens.  In terms of evolution, the reason aliens do not exist is based on the fine tuning facts that atheist scientists discovered while trying to formulate the Big Bang Theory.  There plenty of evidence of no aliens.  Look up Fermi Paradox.
> 
> History of evolutionary thought - Wikipedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And once again- the Theory of Evolution makes no claims about how life started on Earth- or even cares how life started on earth.
> 
> 
> Hell it could even be that Zeus created the first life on Earth- and the Theory of Evolution would still be just as valid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are too weak and ignorant to understand the history of evolutionary thinking.  We know Zeus does not exist because Mt. Olympus did not exist in the ancient past.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Prove that Mt. Olympus did not exist in the ancient past- go for it.
> 
> You are too weak to actually defend Christianity or understand the Theory of Evolution.
> 
> Remember- the Theory of Evolution makes no claim as to how life started on Earth.
> 
> While Christianity posits that the world was created around 6,000 years ago- and that every species of bird, mammal and reptile got onto a single boat and sailed around for awhile- and then unloaded them all on Mt. Ararat- and then miraculously in a couple thousand years- all of those animals made it to their individual far corners of the earth.
Click to expand...


If I prove it, then what will you give me since you are too weak to provide anything?


----------



## james bond

Syriusly said:


> And once again- the Theory of Evolution makes no claims about how life started on Earth- or even cares how life started on earth.



Since you cannot explain history of evolutionary thought and can only discuss ToE, then let's discuss chemical evolution.

Chemical evolution is part of the ‘General Theory of Evolution’, defined by the evolutionist G.A. Kerkut as. "the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form."

Kerkut, G.A., _Implications of Evolution_, Pergamon, Oxford, UK, p. 157, 1960.


----------



## LittleNipper

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The the earth was likely created roughly 6000 to 10,000 years ago by GOD. When the Fall of Adam & Eve occurred, deterioration kicked in for the entire Universe. Prior to that event everything existed in a continuing state of perfection. Monkeys, gorillas and humans in no way share a common ancestor; however, they do share a common CREATOR. The present state of our planet reflects the continuing deterioration of the environment due to the FALL and the scares from the FLOOD.  Meteor and asteroid strikes throughout the Solar system are the result of the FALL.
Click to expand...

Well, the only alternative is that the Black man is at the bottom of the heap and the other races have evolved up from him with Caucasians having sprung up hundreds of thousands of years afterwards. So maybe you have a laugh at your own expense. I personally can never believe such nonsense. I am firm in my belief that EVERYONE was created in the image of GOD and every race is a brother and not a great, great, grandson...  This is not the Planet of the Ape and it never was.


----------



## LittleNipper

Shazoomx4 said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The the earth was likely created roughly 6000 to 10,000 years ago by GOD. When the Fall of Adam & Eve occurred, deterioration kicked in for the entire Universe. Prior to that event everything existed in a continuing state of perfection. Monkeys, gorillas and humans in no way share a common ancestor; however, they do share a common CREATOR. The present state of our planet reflects the continuing deterioration of the environment due to the FALL and the scares from the FLOOD.  Meteor and asteroid strikes throughout the Solar system are the result of the FALL.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nop the world exist 4.5 billion years..
Click to expand...

Nop you are wrong.


----------



## LittleNipper

Shazoomx4 said:


> alex.harmuth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Has there ever been a Jew who was a Creationist? A modern Jew who believes in a literal interpretation of the Old Testament and uses pretend science like the Creato-Christians do- to somehow bolster their own feeble faith in their God?
> 
> I can't think of any.
> 
> The Creato-Christian movement is a rather odd Christian cult that somehow feels a need to deny science in order to somehow convince themselves that Jesus is their savior.
> 
> 
> 
> Strap yourself in...
> 
> Rational people have already seen the numerous fatal flaws in Evolution.
> 
> First off, Show me 1 animal fossil of a half reptile half mammal. A reptile with fur and gave birth to live offspring but was cold blooded like all reptiles are. Show me 1. You can't, because it doesn't exist. For the theory of evolution to even be viable, there shouldn't just be 1 animal fossil that's half reptile half mammal, there should be hundreds if not thousands if not millions over the supposed millions of years it takes for evolution to work. When you're done not finding the half reptile half mammal, start looking for the half bacteria half fish, half fish half bird, half bird half otter, half otter half gorilla, etc. or whatever fantasy animal you think was real. Macro evolution, the change of kinds, the evolution that is forced down people's throats, has NEVER been seen in the fossil record and will never be seen because it is not real. This flaw in the religion of evolution is quickly dismissed by it's worshipers for whatever reason no one can ever explain.
> 
> Another flaw is, what caused evolution to begin? You might say natural selection but you would be wrong. Life supposedly began as single celled organisms in the ocean who got their energy from the sun. Natural selection requires that there is competition. So what were the first lifeforms competing against each other for, sunlight? Seems pretty absurd if you actually take 2 seconds to think about it doesn't it? In fact, some evolutionists HAVE thought about this and there is a growing movement in the scientific world away from natural selection. Eventually one day natural selection will be disproven officially by scientists and the religion of evolution worshipers will accept it blindly and continue to march on.
> 
> Another flaw is life itself and if you can't see how life beginning to exist and evolution aren't connected than we're well and truly done here and good luck. When you build a house you start with it's foundation. That's what life is for evolution, the foundation. Without life, there is no evolution. Currently, the mainstream scientific concensus on how life began is... nothing. Science has NO answer on how life began in fact, according to some early scientific "laws" (which were actually theories) it was impossible for life to even be real. It was once believed that life can only come from life. At the same time, it was believed that the Earth, and by extension the universe, was completely lifeless. To a mealworm, that doesn't even make sense. So they changed their beliefs (because science can do that in an instant) to life CAN come from non-life. They gave this study a name, Abiogensis. It was introduced in the early 70's and has since been rejected as mainstream science and for nearly 50 years has not proven anything but that life could not have possibly started in the ocean. They have now resorted to just simply saying "evolution is based on life already existing" and they've found their useful idiot worshipers have accepted it without question and march on.
> 
> I seriously could go on literally till the day I die pointing out to you how dumb evolution is and how it makes zero sense but I have better things to do. If you want to believe in tadpole fishmen, go right ahead. But don't for a second try to force that utter stupidity onto anyone else. I would rather see the World get over evolution and turn to the belief in something greater than they are. It doesn't even have to be Christianity. If that doesn't make sense to you, find something else. There are plenty of creation religions you can choose from. Every one of them makes more sense than evolution and hopefully the World will soon realize that.
> 
> Sent from my SM-S975L using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Half mammal, half reptile fossil discovered in Utah
Click to expand...

You realize that they are extrapolating this from only a shull ------ and a crushed one at that. Maybe they should check its DNA through Ancestry.com...


----------



## Old Rocks

alex.harmuth said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Has there ever been a Jew who was a Creationist? A modern Jew who believes in a literal interpretation of the Old Testament and uses pretend science like the Creato-Christians do- to somehow bolster their own feeble faith in their God?
> 
> I can't think of any.
> 
> The Creato-Christian movement is a rather odd Christian cult that somehow feels a need to deny science in order to somehow convince themselves that Jesus is their savior.
> 
> 
> 
> Strap yourself in...
> 
> Rational people have already seen the numerous fatal flaws in Evolution.
> 
> First off, Show me 1 animal fossil of a half reptile half mammal. A reptile with fur and gave birth to live offspring but was cold blooded like all reptiles are. Show me 1. You can't, because it doesn't exist. For the theory of evolution to even be viable, there shouldn't just be 1 animal fossil that's half reptile half mammal, there should be hundreds if not thousands if not millions over the supposed millions of years it takes for evolution to work. When you're done not finding the half reptile half mammal, start looking for the half bacteria half fish, half fish half bird, half bird half otter, half otter half gorilla, etc. or whatever fantasy animal you think was real. Macro evolution, the change of kinds, the evolution that is forced down people's throats, has NEVER been seen in the fossil record and will never be seen because it is not real. This flaw in the religion of evolution is quickly dismissed by it's worshipers for whatever reason no one can ever explain.
> 
> Another flaw is, what caused evolution to begin? You might say natural selection but you would be wrong. Life supposedly began as single celled organisms in the ocean who got their energy from the sun. Natural selection requires that there is competition. So what were the first lifeforms competing against each other for, sunlight? Seems pretty absurd if you actually take 2 seconds to think about it doesn't it? In fact, some evolutionists HAVE thought about this and there is a growing movement in the scientific world away from natural selection. Eventually one day natural selection will be disproven officially by scientists and the religion of evolution worshipers will accept it blindly and continue to march on.
> 
> Another flaw is life itself and if you can't see how life beginning to exist and evolution aren't connected than we're well and truly done here and good luck. When you build a house you start with it's foundation. That's what life is for evolution, the foundation. Without life, there is no evolution. Currently, the mainstream scientific concensus on how life began is... nothing. Science has NO answer on how life began in fact, according to some early scientific "laws" (which were actually theories) it was impossible for life to even be real. It was once believed that life can only come from life. At the same time, it was believed that the Earth, and by extension the universe, was completely lifeless. To a mealworm, that doesn't even make sense. So they changed their beliefs (because science can do that in an instant) to life CAN come from non-life. They gave this study a name, Abiogensis. It was introduced in the early 70's and has since been rejected as mainstream science and for nearly 50 years has not proven anything but that life could not have possibly started in the ocean. They have now resorted to just simply saying "evolution is based on life already existing" and they've found their useful idiot worshipers have accepted it without question and march on.
> 
> I seriously could go on literally till the day I die pointing out to you how dumb evolution is and how it makes zero sense but I have better things to do. If you want to believe in tadpole fishmen, go right ahead. But don't for a second try to force that utter stupidity onto anyone else. I would rather see the World get over evolution and turn to the belief in something greater than they are. It doesn't even have to be Christianity. If that doesn't make sense to you, find something else. There are plenty of creation religions you can choose from. Every one of them makes more sense than evolution and hopefully the World will soon realize that.
> 
> Sent from my SM-S975L using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

*LOL  You don't need half a day to demonstrate your stupidity and ignorance. You just did it in a few paragraphs. *







The late Permian therapsid _Lycaenops_, a typical gorgonopsid. This animal was about the size of, and a large dog. It may have been covered in fur, and hence at least partially warm-blooded. 
Artwork by Dmitry Bogdanov, GNU Free Documentation/Creative Commons Attribution license, Wikipedia
The Therapsids were one of the great success stories of the Permo-Triassic. First appearing in the middle or even the early (if _Tetraceratops_ is a member of this group) Permian, they very quickly dominated terrestrial and semi-aquatic environments, filling a number of ecological niches and guilds, including felid, canid, bear, otter, ungulate, and even mole analogues, as well as many forms with no contemporary counterparts. In keeping with the episodic nature of synapsid evolution, there seem to have been at least two distinct dynasties, a middle Permian fauna dominated by dinocephalians and other primitive forms, and a late Permian fauna characterised by a wide range of more advanced carnivorous and herbivorous groups. These animals were so abundant (especially the herbivorous yet bizaarely specialised dicynodonts with their toothless beaks) that one could easily refer to this period as the age of therapsids, with both anapsid reptiles and relict pelycosaurs playing second fiddle. Their evolutionary success was unfortunately cut short by the end Permian extinction event, and although a number of lineages made it through to the Triassic, their protomammalian metabolism put them at a disadvantage in a hot dry Triassic world far more suited to sauropsid reptiles, and increasingly dominated by thecodontian archosaurs. They survived by becoming progressively smaller and more mammal-like, except for the dicynodonts which if anything became larger. By the time the dinosaurs had appeared, the therapsids had given rise to the first mammals, although one lineage of rodent-like, non-mammalian therapsids, the tritylodonts, would continue to the Middle Cretaceous. MAK120127

Palaeos Vertebrates: Therapsida Overview


----------



## Shazoomx4

LittleNipper said:


> Shazoomx4 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The the earth was likely created roughly 6000 to 10,000 years ago by GOD. When the Fall of Adam & Eve occurred, deterioration kicked in for the entire Universe. Prior to that event everything existed in a continuing state of perfection. Monkeys, gorillas and humans in no way share a common ancestor; however, they do share a common CREATOR. The present state of our planet reflects the continuing deterioration of the environment due to the FALL and the scares from the FLOOD.  Meteor and asteroid strikes throughout the Solar system are the result of the FALL.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nop the world exist 4.5 billion years..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nop you are wrong.
Click to expand...

Yes I am right


----------



## deanrd

SYTFE said:


> We didn't.  We evolved from a common ancestor.


Most of us.
Who knows where Republicans came from?


----------



## Shazoomx4

deanrd said:


> SYTFE said:
> 
> 
> 
> We didn't.  We evolved from a common ancestor.
> 
> 
> 
> Most of us.
> Who knows where Republicans came from?
Click to expand...

IDK... I am not from USA anyway..


----------



## Syriusly

LittleNipper said:


> The the earth was likely created roughly 6000 to 10,000 years ago by GOD. When the Fall of Adam & Eve occurred, deterioration kicked in for the entire Universe. Prior to that event everything existed in a continuing state of perfection. Monkeys, gorillas and humans in no way share a common ancestor; however, they do share a common CREATOR. The present state of our planet reflects the continuing deterioration of the environment due to the FALL and the scares from the FLOOD.  Meteor and asteroid strikes throughout the Solar system are the result of the FALL.



Well thank you for that religion inspired opinion that is totally devoid of any factual evidence.


----------



## Syriusly

alex.harmuth said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Has there ever been a Jew who was a Creationist? A modern Jew who believes in a literal interpretation of the Old Testament and uses pretend science like the Creato-Christians do- to somehow bolster their own feeble faith in their God?
> 
> I can't think of any.
> 
> The Creato-Christian movement is a rather odd Christian cult that somehow feels a need to deny science in order to somehow convince themselves that Jesus is their savior.
> 
> 
> 
> Strap yourself in...
> 
> Rational people have already seen the numerous fatal flaws in Evolution.
> 
> First off, Show me 1 animal fossil of a half reptile half mammal. A reptile with fur and gave birth to live offspring but was cold blooded like all reptiles are. Show me 1. You can't, because it doesn't exist. For the theory of evolution to even be viable, there shouldn't just be 1 animal fossil that's half reptile half mammal, there should be hundreds if not thousands if not millions over the supposed millions of years it takes for evolution to work.
Click to expand...


Why do you think that?

Oh wait- you just picked this up from some Creato-Christian cult website that told you this must be the case. 

Please dont' insult rational people this way.


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> And once again- the Theory of Evolution makes no claims about how life started on Earth- or even cares how life started on earth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since you cannot explain history of evolutionary thought and can only discuss ToE, .
Click to expand...


Why would I care to explain the history of evolutionary thought- when I am interested in the science of the Theory of Evolution.

Why are you so scared to debate the Theory of Evolution?


----------



## Syriusly

alex.harmuth said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Has there ever been a Jew who was a Creationist? A modern Jew who believes in a literal interpretation of the Old Testament and uses pretend science like the Creato-Christians do- to somehow bolster their own feeble faith in their God?
> 
> I can't think of any.
> 
> The Creato-Christian movement is a rather odd Christian cult that somehow feels a need to deny science in order to somehow convince themselves that Jesus is their savior.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another flaw is, what caused evolution to begin? k
Click to expand...


What causes gravity to begin? Not what causes gravity on earth- but what caused gravity itself- to exist in the universe? 

We don't need to know what caused gravity to know gravity exists. 

Just as we don't need to know what started evolution to know that evolution exists.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

alex.harmuth said:


> Rational people have already seen the numerous fatal flaws in Evolution.


Hahaha ..right....except for the world's scientists...


----------



## Syriusly

alex.harmuth said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Has there ever been a Jew who was a Creationist? A modern Jew who believes in a literal interpretation of the Old Testament and uses pretend science like the Creato-Christians do- to somehow bolster their own feeble faith in their God?
> 
> I can't think of any.
> 
> The Creato-Christian movement is a rather odd Christian cult that somehow feels a need to deny science in order to somehow convince themselves that Jesus is their savior.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I seriously could go on literally till the day I die pointing out to you how dumb evolution is and how it makes zero sense but I have better things to do.
Click to expand...


Please do not waste your time regurgitating Creato-Christian cult talking points.

The Bible is a wonderful book of great tales and some really important moral lessons- but it makes zero sense as to explaining how live on Earth has come to exist in across all of Earth.


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again- you just keep demonstrating you don't understand the theory of evolution.
> 
> The theory of evolution makes no claims as to how life started on Earth.
> 
> The Theory of Evolution doesn't care whether Earth is unique or whether life is everywhere.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ha ha.  We talked about this already.  People who just want to argue ToE are the ones who doesn't understand ToE and how it's based on evolutionary thinking.  And no aliens means that it's a point for creation.  God didn't create aliens.  In terms of evolution, the reason aliens do not exist is based on the fine tuning facts that atheist scientists discovered while trying to formulate the Big Bang Theory.  There plenty of evidence of no aliens.  Look up Fermi Paradox.
> 
> History of evolutionary thought - Wikipedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And once again- the Theory of Evolution makes no claims about how life started on Earth- or even cares how life started on earth.
> 
> 
> Hell it could even be that Zeus created the first life on Earth- and the Theory of Evolution would still be just as valid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are too weak and ignorant to understand the history of evolutionary thinking.  We know Zeus does not exist because Mt. Olympus did not exist in the ancient past.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Prove that Mt. Olympus did not exist in the ancient past- go for it.
> 
> You are too weak to actually defend Christianity or understand the Theory of Evolution.
> 
> Remember- the Theory of Evolution makes no claim as to how life started on Earth.
> 
> While Christianity posits that the world was created around 6,000 years ago- and that every species of bird, mammal and reptile got onto a single boat and sailed around for awhile- and then unloaded them all on Mt. Ararat- and then miraculously in a couple thousand years- all of those animals made it to their individual far corners of the earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If I prove it, then what will you give me since you are too weak to provide anything?
Click to expand...


I am certain you will post something and claim victory. But since it will be centered around your Creato-Christian cult faith- I am confident it will be the same BS as you have spewed so far.


----------



## Syriusly

LittleNipper said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The the earth was likely created roughly 6000 to 10,000 years ago by GOD. When the Fall of Adam & Eve occurred, deterioration kicked in for the entire Universe. Prior to that event everything existed in a continuing state of perfection. Monkeys, gorillas and humans in no way share a common ancestor; however, they do share a common CREATOR. The present state of our planet reflects the continuing deterioration of the environment due to the FALL and the scares from the FLOOD.  Meteor and asteroid strikes throughout the Solar system are the result of the FALL.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, the only alternative is that the Black man is at the bottom of the heap and the other races have evolved up from him with Caucasians having sprung up hundreds of thousands of years afterwards. So maybe you have a laugh at your own expense. I personally can never believe such nonsense. I am firm in my belief that EVERYONE was created in the image of GOD and every race is a brother and not a great, great, grandson...  This is not the Planet of the Ape and it never was.
Click to expand...


Every race is a brother. 

You just have displayed your ignorance of Evolution and science- and your belief in Creato-Christian cult fantasies.


----------



## james bond

Syriusly said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ha ha.  We talked about this already.  People who just want to argue ToE are the ones who doesn't understand ToE and how it's based on evolutionary thinking.  And no aliens means that it's a point for creation.  God didn't create aliens.  In terms of evolution, the reason aliens do not exist is based on the fine tuning facts that atheist scientists discovered while trying to formulate the Big Bang Theory.  There plenty of evidence of no aliens.  Look up Fermi Paradox.
> 
> History of evolutionary thought - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And once again- the Theory of Evolution makes no claims about how life started on Earth- or even cares how life started on earth.
> 
> 
> Hell it could even be that Zeus created the first life on Earth- and the Theory of Evolution would still be just as valid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are too weak and ignorant to understand the history of evolutionary thinking.  We know Zeus does not exist because Mt. Olympus did not exist in the ancient past.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Prove that Mt. Olympus did not exist in the ancient past- go for it.
> 
> You are too weak to actually defend Christianity or understand the Theory of Evolution.
> 
> Remember- the Theory of Evolution makes no claim as to how life started on Earth.
> 
> While Christianity posits that the world was created around 6,000 years ago- and that every species of bird, mammal and reptile got onto a single boat and sailed around for awhile- and then unloaded them all on Mt. Ararat- and then miraculously in a couple thousand years- all of those animals made it to their individual far corners of the earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If I prove it, then what will you give me since you are too weak to provide anything?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am certain you will post something and claim victory. But since it will be centered around your Creato-Christian cult faith- I am confident it will be the same BS as you have spewed so far.
Click to expand...


I won't claim victory against a defenseless opponent ha ha.  To the contrary, it's you who lost because of ignorance of ToE, chemical evolution and history of evolutionary thought.

I'll move on to...







I'm not the one arguing Valerie Jarrett and Barack Obummer came from apes.  You RACIST atheist libs are.

I'm the one arguing Darwin and Darwinism is racist and pseudoscientific racism, and that we didn't come from monkeys/apes.


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> And once again- the Theory of Evolution makes no claims about how life started on Earth- or even cares how life started on earth.
> 
> 
> Hell it could even be that Zeus created the first life on Earth- and the Theory of Evolution would still be just as valid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are too weak and ignorant to understand the history of evolutionary thinking.  We know Zeus does not exist because Mt. Olympus did not exist in the ancient past.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Prove that Mt. Olympus did not exist in the ancient past- go for it.
> 
> You are too weak to actually defend Christianity or understand the Theory of Evolution.
> 
> Remember- the Theory of Evolution makes no claim as to how life started on Earth.
> 
> While Christianity posits that the world was created around 6,000 years ago- and that every species of bird, mammal and reptile got onto a single boat and sailed around for awhile- and then unloaded them all on Mt. Ararat- and then miraculously in a couple thousand years- all of those animals made it to their individual far corners of the earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If I prove it, then what will you give me since you are too weak to provide anything?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am certain you will post something and claim victory. But since it will be centered around your Creato-Christian cult faith- I am confident it will be the same BS as you have spewed so far.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I won't claim victory against a defenseless opponent ha ha.  To the contrary, it's you who lost because of ignorance of ToE, chemical evolution and history of evolutionary thought..
Click to expand...


Let me know what you find a 'defenseless opponent'.

I would suggest someone with a similar background in science- like maybe a 4 year old.


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> And once again- the Theory of Evolution makes no claims about how life started on Earth- or even cares how life started on earth.
> 
> 
> Hell it could even be that Zeus created the first life on Earth- and the Theory of Evolution would still be just as valid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are too weak and ignorant to understand the history of evolutionary thinking.  We know Zeus does not exist because Mt. Olympus did not exist in the ancient past.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Prove that Mt. Olympus did not exist in the ancient past- go for it.
> 
> You are too weak to actually defend Christianity or understand the Theory of Evolution.
> 
> Remember- the Theory of Evolution makes no claim as to how life started on Earth.
> 
> While Christianity posits that the world was created around 6,000 years ago- and that every species of bird, mammal and reptile got onto a single boat and sailed around for awhile- and then unloaded them all on Mt. Ararat- and then miraculously in a couple thousand years- all of those animals made it to their individual far corners of the earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If I prove it, then what will you give me since you are too weak to provide anything?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am certain you will post something and claim victory. But since it will be centered around your Creato-Christian cult faith- I am confident it will be the same BS as you have spewed so far.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm the one arguing Darwin and Darwinism is racist and pseudoscientific racism, and that we didn't come from monkeys/apes.
Click to expand...


Yeah- those of your Creato-Christian cult faith do like to say that. 

Meanwhile those of your faith promulgated racism throughout the history of the United States- all in the name of your book of fairy tales.


----------



## james bond

Syriusly said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are too weak and ignorant to understand the history of evolutionary thinking.  We know Zeus does not exist because Mt. Olympus did not exist in the ancient past.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Prove that Mt. Olympus did not exist in the ancient past- go for it.
> 
> You are too weak to actually defend Christianity or understand the Theory of Evolution.
> 
> Remember- the Theory of Evolution makes no claim as to how life started on Earth.
> 
> While Christianity posits that the world was created around 6,000 years ago- and that every species of bird, mammal and reptile got onto a single boat and sailed around for awhile- and then unloaded them all on Mt. Ararat- and then miraculously in a couple thousand years- all of those animals made it to their individual far corners of the earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If I prove it, then what will you give me since you are too weak to provide anything?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am certain you will post something and claim victory. But since it will be centered around your Creato-Christian cult faith- I am confident it will be the same BS as you have spewed so far.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I won't claim victory against a defenseless opponent ha ha.  To the contrary, it's you who lost because of ignorance of ToE, chemical evolution and history of evolutionary thought..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me know what you find a 'defenseless opponent'.
> 
> I would suggest someone with a similar background in science- like maybe a 4 year old.
Click to expand...


Just look in the mirror .  A four-year old is better than you.


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Prove that Mt. Olympus did not exist in the ancient past- go for it.
> 
> You are too weak to actually defend Christianity or understand the Theory of Evolution.
> 
> Remember- the Theory of Evolution makes no claim as to how life started on Earth.
> 
> While Christianity posits that the world was created around 6,000 years ago- and that every species of bird, mammal and reptile got onto a single boat and sailed around for awhile- and then unloaded them all on Mt. Ararat- and then miraculously in a couple thousand years- all of those animals made it to their individual far corners of the earth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I prove it, then what will you give me since you are too weak to provide anything?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am certain you will post something and claim victory. But since it will be centered around your Creato-Christian cult faith- I am confident it will be the same BS as you have spewed so far.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I won't claim victory against a defenseless opponent ha ha.  To the contrary, it's you who lost because of ignorance of ToE, chemical evolution and history of evolutionary thought..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me know what you find a 'defenseless opponent'.
> 
> I would suggest someone with a similar background in science- like maybe a 4 year old.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just look in the mirror .  A four-year old is better than you.
Click to expand...


Since you demanded it- I went and looked. 

Damn I am good looking- thanks for reminding me.


----------



## james bond

Syriusly said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I prove it, then what will you give me since you are too weak to provide anything?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am certain you will post something and claim victory. But since it will be centered around your Creato-Christian cult faith- I am confident it will be the same BS as you have spewed so far.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I won't claim victory against a defenseless opponent ha ha.  To the contrary, it's you who lost because of ignorance of ToE, chemical evolution and history of evolutionary thought..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me know what you find a 'defenseless opponent'.
> 
> I would suggest someone with a similar background in science- like maybe a 4 year old.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just look in the mirror .  A four-year old is better than you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since you demanded it- I went and looked.
> 
> Damn I am good looking- thanks for reminding me.
Click to expand...


Even though, it's not as handsome as #me, It doesn't matter how good looking you are.  This is because we can't take what we have in this life to the next.  Those who believe humans came from apes will lose their perfectly spiritual selves in the Lake of Fire.  Maybe that's what unbelievers will gnash their teeth on.


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am certain you will post something and claim victory. But since it will be centered around your Creato-Christian cult faith- I am confident it will be the same BS as you have spewed so far.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I won't claim victory against a defenseless opponent ha ha.  To the contrary, it's you who lost because of ignorance of ToE, chemical evolution and history of evolutionary thought..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me know what you find a 'defenseless opponent'.
> 
> I would suggest someone with a similar background in science- like maybe a 4 year old.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just look in the mirror .  A four-year old is better than you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since you demanded it- I went and looked.
> 
> Damn I am good looking- thanks for reminding me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even though, it's not as handsome as #me, It doesn't matter how good looking you are.  This is because we can't take what we have in this life to the next.  Those who believe humans came from apes will lose their perfectly spiritual selves in the Lake of Fire.  Maybe that's what unbelievers will gnash their teeth on.
Click to expand...


I am fine with you believing in any fairy tales that bring you comfort and relief from your burdensome life here on earth.


----------



## LittleNipper

Syriusly said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The the earth was likely created roughly 6000 to 10,000 years ago by GOD. When the Fall of Adam & Eve occurred, deterioration kicked in for the entire Universe. Prior to that event everything existed in a continuing state of perfection. Monkeys, gorillas and humans in no way share a common ancestor; however, they do share a common CREATOR. The present state of our planet reflects the continuing deterioration of the environment due to the FALL and the scares from the FLOOD.  Meteor and asteroid strikes throughout the Solar system are the result of the FALL.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well thank you for that religion inspired opinion that is totally devoid of any factual evidence.
Click to expand...

And you have all the evidence? Where is it?


----------



## LittleNipper

Syriusly said:


> alex.harmuth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Has there ever been a Jew who was a Creationist? A modern Jew who believes in a literal interpretation of the Old Testament and uses pretend science like the Creato-Christians do- to somehow bolster their own feeble faith in their God?
> 
> I can't think of any.
> 
> The Creato-Christian movement is a rather odd Christian cult that somehow feels a need to deny science in order to somehow convince themselves that Jesus is their savior.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I seriously could go on literally till the day I die pointing out to you how dumb evolution is and how it makes zero sense but I have better things to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please do not waste your time regurgitating Creato-Christian cult talking points.
> 
> The Bible is a wonderful book of great tales and some really important moral lessons- but it makes zero sense as to explaining how live on Earth has come to exist in across all of Earth.
Click to expand...

And without GOD you have no idea explaining how life came about without making up a tale you imagine is "scientific" because it's godless. I'm not impressed!

*Evolutionary scientist admits theory’s major flaws*
*EVOLUTION | Gerd Müller notes evolution doesn’t adequately explain life’s origins or complexity
by Julie Borg 
Posted 9/07/17, 12:33 pm*
Gerd Müller, a highly regarded Austrian evolutionary theorist, recently gave a presentation, published in _Interface Focus_, in which he admitted Charlies Darwin’s theory largely avoids explaining how life originated and how complexity developed.

Müller did not espouse any creationist or design beliefs, but his presentation demonstrated that even the most staunch advocates of evolution are forced to admit the theory has many holes. The presentation was devastating “for anyone who wants to think that, on the great questions of biological origins, orthodox evolutionary theory has got it all figured out,” Discovery Institute experts wrote on their organization’s blog.

Müller’s admission offers a particularly damning critique since answers to questions about how things originated and how complexity developed form the basis for all origin theories. He also referred to the concept of macroevolution, the idea that one species can evolve into a totally different species, as “vague” and advised proponents of an expanded framework of evolution to avoid the term altogether. 

Many Christians reject the theory of macroevolution because the Bible teaches that God created everything according to its kind. Somewhat less controversial is the theory of microevolution, which refers to changes or adaptations within a species. For example, dog breeders can breed a dog that sheds less, but it’s still a dog. But they can’t breed a dog that can fly. Many evolutionists believe microevolutionary changes lead to macroevolution, but Müller admitted even evolutionary experts argue among themselves about whether microevolutionary adaptations actually produce macroevolution.

Even within evolutionary circles, Müller noted, a large number of scientists recognize that the standard theory of evolution needs to be revised or replaced altogether: “A rising number of publications argue for a major revision or even a replacement of the standard theory of evolution, indicating that this cannot be dismissed as a minority view but rather is a widespread feeling among scientists and philosophers alike.”

Canadian musician Leonard Cohen once said, “There is a crack in everything, that’s how the light gets in.” Perhaps the ever-widening cracks in the theory of evolution will let some of the light of God’s truth shine into the scientific world.


----------



## james bond

Syriusly Your ToE has a crack just like your head.  The ToE crack lets light get in, but your head is too dark for the light to do much good through the crack.


----------



## Syriusly

LittleNipper said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The the earth was likely created roughly 6000 to 10,000 years ago by GOD. When the Fall of Adam & Eve occurred, deterioration kicked in for the entire Universe. Prior to that event everything existed in a continuing state of perfection. Monkeys, gorillas and humans in no way share a common ancestor; however, they do share a common CREATOR. The present state of our planet reflects the continuing deterioration of the environment due to the FALL and the scares from the FLOOD.  Meteor and asteroid strikes throughout the Solar system are the result of the FALL.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well thank you for that religion inspired opinion that is totally devoid of any factual evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you have all the evidence? Where is it?
Click to expand...


I don't have 'all of the evidence' - part of science is accepting that you will never have all of the evidence. What I do have is a preponderance of evidence which all confirms that the Theory of Evolution is the theory that best fits the evidence that we have for the diversity of life on earth.


----------



## Syriusly

LittleNipper said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alex.harmuth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Has there ever been a Jew who was a Creationist? A modern Jew who believes in a literal interpretation of the Old Testament and uses pretend science like the Creato-Christians do- to somehow bolster their own feeble faith in their God?
> 
> I can't think of any.
> 
> The Creato-Christian movement is a rather odd Christian cult that somehow feels a need to deny science in order to somehow convince themselves that Jesus is their savior.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I seriously could go on literally till the day I die pointing out to you how dumb evolution is and how it makes zero sense but I have better things to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please do not waste your time regurgitating Creato-Christian cult talking points.
> 
> The Bible is a wonderful book of great tales and some really important moral lessons- but it makes zero sense as to explaining how live on Earth has come to exist in across all of Earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And without GOD you have no idea explaining how life came about without making up a tale you imagine is "scientific" because it's godless. I'm not impressed!.
Click to expand...


So you prefer a tale without any evidence to support it at all? You operate on faith- nothing wrong with you believing in your big book of fairy tales- but that isn't science.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Ima Cat said:


> I know there are similarities but I think they are coincidental, like cats and seals both have whiskers.  But cats didn't come from seals or vice a versa.



Not being a believer in species-to-species evolution, no.  But I don't think the similarities are coincidental, either.  I think when more than one species has a similar trait, it's because that trait serves a useful purpose which both species require.


----------



## Cecilie1200

LTCArmyRet said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're primates that developed from a common ancestor 5-7 million years ago that yes was an ape.
> 
> That is a fact....The evidence is very strong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not a fact, it is a theory, big difference.   And if we descended from an ape, why are there still apes?
Click to expand...


Presumably, it was a different, more primitive type of ape, or primate anyway.  The idea is that humans and various modern species of apes both evolved from that primitive species.


----------



## abrere

nobody has ever claimed anything of the kind, you lying pos creationists.  All darwin said was  that humans and primates had a common ancestor, many millions of years ago.


----------



## Cecilie1200

miketx said:


> But then, if we came from monkeys, why aren't monkeys still turning into people?



Allegedly, it takes longer than our recorded history has existed, so it's not exactly something that can be witnessed.


----------



## Cecilie1200

deanrd said:


> SYTFE said:
> 
> 
> 
> We didn't.  We evolved from a common ancestor.
> 
> 
> 
> Most of us.
> Who knows where Republicans came from?
Click to expand...


The higher beings who created leftists as a drunken practical joke.


----------



## james bond

Syriusly said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alex.harmuth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Has there ever been a Jew who was a Creationist? A modern Jew who believes in a literal interpretation of the Old Testament and uses pretend science like the Creato-Christians do- to somehow bolster their own feeble faith in their God?
> 
> I can't think of any.
> 
> The Creato-Christian movement is a rather odd Christian cult that somehow feels a need to deny science in order to somehow convince themselves that Jesus is their savior.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I seriously could go on literally till the day I die pointing out to you how dumb evolution is and how it makes zero sense but I have better things to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please do not waste your time regurgitating Creato-Christian cult talking points.
> 
> The Bible is a wonderful book of great tales and some really important moral lessons- but it makes zero sense as to explaining how live on Earth has come to exist in across all of Earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And without GOD you have no idea explaining how life came about without making up a tale you imagine is "scientific" because it's godless. I'm not impressed!.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you prefer a tale without any evidence to support it at all? You operate on faith- nothing wrong with you believing in your big book of fairy tales- but that isn't science.
Click to expand...


Nice.  You just ignored the evidence that ToE has holes in the origins (which I mentioned via chemical evolution).  CE is part of ToE.

As for creation, you have continued to be ignorant of the evidence presented.  We have bushes of life vs tree of life.  The bushes are being discovered as we speak.  Creation also has rapid evolution by natural selection and catastrophism.  We also have the human population of the Earth to being what it is currently from Adam and Eve's time.


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alex.harmuth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Has there ever been a Jew who was a Creationist? A modern Jew who believes in a literal interpretation of the Old Testament and uses pretend science like the Creato-Christians do- to somehow bolster their own feeble faith in their God?
> 
> I can't think of any.
> 
> The Creato-Christian movement is a rather odd Christian cult that somehow feels a need to deny science in order to somehow convince themselves that Jesus is their savior.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I seriously could go on literally till the day I die pointing out to you how dumb evolution is and how it makes zero sense but I have better things to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please do not waste your time regurgitating Creato-Christian cult talking points.
> 
> The Bible is a wonderful book of great tales and some really important moral lessons- but it makes zero sense as to explaining how live on Earth has come to exist in across all of Earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And without GOD you have no idea explaining how life came about without making up a tale you imagine is "scientific" because it's godless. I'm not impressed!.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you prefer a tale without any evidence to support it at all? You operate on faith- nothing wrong with you believing in your big book of fairy tales- but that isn't science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nice.  You just ignored the evidence that ToE has holes in the origins .
Click to expand...


The Theory of Evolution doesn't say anything about how life originated on earth. How often do I have to teach you what the Theory of Evolution is?


----------



## Syriusly

Cecilie1200 said:


> Ima Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know there are similarities but I think they are coincidental, like cats and seals both have whiskers.  But cats didn't come from seals or vice a versa.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not being a believer in species-to-species evolution, no.  But I don't think the similarities are coincidental, either.  I think when more than one species has a similar trait, it's because that trait serves a useful purpose which both species require.
Click to expand...

Certainly there are similar adaptations from whole different families of species- such as the Tasmanian 'wolf' to dogs. Both their actual physiology and their DNA show that those species are only distantly related- since the all of the native Australian/Tasmanian mammals are marsupials. 

But house cats and Tigers- humans and orangutans are much, much closer related with common ancestor much more recent than that of the common ancestor of placental and marsupial mammals.


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alex.harmuth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Has there ever been a Jew who was a Creationist? A modern Jew who believes in a literal interpretation of the Old Testament and uses pretend science like the Creato-Christians do- to somehow bolster their own feeble faith in their God?
> 
> I can't think of any.
> 
> The Creato-Christian movement is a rather odd Christian cult that somehow feels a need to deny science in order to somehow convince themselves that Jesus is their savior.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I seriously could go on literally till the day I die pointing out to you how dumb evolution is and how it makes zero sense but I have better things to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please do not waste your time regurgitating Creato-Christian cult talking points.
> 
> The Bible is a wonderful book of great tales and some really important moral lessons- but it makes zero sense as to explaining how live on Earth has come to exist in across all of Earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And without GOD you have no idea explaining how life came about without making up a tale you imagine is "scientific" because it's godless. I'm not impressed!.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you prefer a tale without any evidence to support it at all? You operate on faith- nothing wrong with you believing in your big book of fairy tales- but that isn't science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nice.  You just ignored the evidence that ToE has holes in the origins (which I mentioned via chemical evolution).  CE is part of ToE.
> 
> As for creation, you have continued to be ignorant of the evidence presented.  We have bushes of life vs tree of life.  The bushes are being discovered as we speak.  Creation also has rapid evolution by natural selection and catastrophism.  We also have the human population of the Earth to being what it is currently from Adam and Eve's time.
Click to expand...


'Creation' is nothing more than a euphemism for a Creato Christian cult who subscribes to a literal Bible creation story. There is no evidence to support the fairy tale creation stories of the Bible. You can continue to repeat 'bushes of life' like a parrot- but those are not evidence of God creating any life- just of your faith in your fairy tale book.


----------



## ChesBayJJ

Ima Cat said:


> I know there are similarities but I think they are coincidental, like cats and seals both have whiskers.  But cats didn't come from seals or vice a versa.



Cats and seals both evolved from a common ancestor, a very early mammal, which quite likely had whiskers.

Meet the Ancestor of Every Human, Bat, Cat, Whale and Mouse


----------



## Cecilie1200

ChesBayJJ said:


> Ima Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know there are similarities but I think they are coincidental, like cats and seals both have whiskers.  But cats didn't come from seals or vice a versa.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cats and seals both evolved from a common ancestor, a very early mammal, which quite likely had whiskers.
> 
> Meet the Ancestor of Every Human, Bat, Cat, Whale and Mouse
Click to expand...


I get so enormously tired of "scientific" types stating theory as established, proven, witnessed fact.  ACTUAL scientists do it in the certainty that other scientists will understand the difference, but lay-twerps can't keep from conflating.

From your link:
*
"They have predicted how much it would have weighed, the number of molars in its jaws, the shape of its sperm, and the path that its carotid artery took up its neck. None of this comes from a fossil of the creature itself.* Instead, the *predictions are based on 80 of its descendants*, including some that are still alive and others that joined it in extinction."

In other words, they looked at a bunch of current and recent critters with similar traits and said, "I'll bet they all came from an animal who looked like THIS!"


----------



## ChesBayJJ

Cecilie1200 said:


> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ima Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know there are similarities but I think they are coincidental, like cats and seals both have whiskers.  But cats didn't come from seals or vice a versa.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cats and seals both evolved from a common ancestor, a very early mammal, which quite likely had whiskers.
> 
> Meet the Ancestor of Every Human, Bat, Cat, Whale and Mouse
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I get so enormously tired of "scientific" types stating theory as established, proven, witnessed fact.  ACTUAL scientists do it in the certainty that other scientists will understand the difference, but lay-twerps can't keep from conflating.
> 
> From your link:
> *
> "They have predicted how much it would have weighed, the number of molars in its jaws, the shape of its sperm, and the path that its carotid artery took up its neck. None of this comes from a fossil of the creature itself.* Instead, the *predictions are based on 80 of its descendants*, including some that are still alive and others that joined it in extinction."
> 
> In other words, they looked at a bunch of current and recent critters with similar traits and said, "I'll bet they all came from an animal who looked like THIS!"
Click to expand...


Sure, it is a theory, it is speculation, but it is likely a very good estimate. They did a very comprehensive study looking at 4600 different skeletal traits across 86 different species.


----------



## Cecilie1200

ChesBayJJ said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ima Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know there are similarities but I think they are coincidental, like cats and seals both have whiskers.  But cats didn't come from seals or vice a versa.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cats and seals both evolved from a common ancestor, a very early mammal, which quite likely had whiskers.
> 
> Meet the Ancestor of Every Human, Bat, Cat, Whale and Mouse
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I get so enormously tired of "scientific" types stating theory as established, proven, witnessed fact.  ACTUAL scientists do it in the certainty that other scientists will understand the difference, but lay-twerps can't keep from conflating.
> 
> From your link:
> *
> "They have predicted how much it would have weighed, the number of molars in its jaws, the shape of its sperm, and the path that its carotid artery took up its neck. None of this comes from a fossil of the creature itself.* Instead, the *predictions are based on 80 of its descendants*, including some that are still alive and others that joined it in extinction."
> 
> In other words, they looked at a bunch of current and recent critters with similar traits and said, "I'll bet they all came from an animal who looked like THIS!"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, it is a theory, it is speculation, but it is likely a very good estimate. They did a very comprehensive study looking at 4600 different skeletal traits across 86 different species.
Click to expand...


Yes, I'm sure it was a very comprehensive study . . . too bad it goes about it ass-backward, by defining the conclusion they want to prove, and THEN selecting the proof to go with it.


----------



## ChesBayJJ

Cecilie1200 said:


> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ima Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know there are similarities but I think they are coincidental, like cats and seals both have whiskers.  But cats didn't come from seals or vice a versa.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cats and seals both evolved from a common ancestor, a very early mammal, which quite likely had whiskers.
> 
> Meet the Ancestor of Every Human, Bat, Cat, Whale and Mouse
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I get so enormously tired of "scientific" types stating theory as established, proven, witnessed fact.  ACTUAL scientists do it in the certainty that other scientists will understand the difference, but lay-twerps can't keep from conflating.
> 
> From your link:
> *
> "They have predicted how much it would have weighed, the number of molars in its jaws, the shape of its sperm, and the path that its carotid artery took up its neck. None of this comes from a fossil of the creature itself.* Instead, the *predictions are based on 80 of its descendants*, including some that are still alive and others that joined it in extinction."
> 
> In other words, they looked at a bunch of current and recent critters with similar traits and said, "I'll bet they all came from an animal who looked like THIS!"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, it is a theory, it is speculation, but it is likely a very good estimate. They did a very comprehensive study looking at 4600 different skeletal traits across 86 different species.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I'm sure it was a very comprehensive study . . . too bad it goes about it ass-backward, by defining the conclusion they want to prove, and THEN selecting the proof to go with it.
Click to expand...


How did you reach that conclusion?


----------



## Cecilie1200

ChesBayJJ said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ima Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know there are similarities but I think they are coincidental, like cats and seals both have whiskers.  But cats didn't come from seals or vice a versa.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cats and seals both evolved from a common ancestor, a very early mammal, which quite likely had whiskers.
> 
> Meet the Ancestor of Every Human, Bat, Cat, Whale and Mouse
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I get so enormously tired of "scientific" types stating theory as established, proven, witnessed fact.  ACTUAL scientists do it in the certainty that other scientists will understand the difference, but lay-twerps can't keep from conflating.
> 
> From your link:
> *
> "They have predicted how much it would have weighed, the number of molars in its jaws, the shape of its sperm, and the path that its carotid artery took up its neck. None of this comes from a fossil of the creature itself.* Instead, the *predictions are based on 80 of its descendants*, including some that are still alive and others that joined it in extinction."
> 
> In other words, they looked at a bunch of current and recent critters with similar traits and said, "I'll bet they all came from an animal who looked like THIS!"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, it is a theory, it is speculation, but it is likely a very good estimate. They did a very comprehensive study looking at 4600 different skeletal traits across 86 different species.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I'm sure it was a very comprehensive study . . . too bad it goes about it ass-backward, by defining the conclusion they want to prove, and THEN selecting the proof to go with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How did you reach that conclusion?
Click to expand...


I read the article.  And then I used logic.

Look at my quote from the article:  "None of this comes from a fossil of the creature itself.  Instead, the predictions are based on 80 of its descendants . . ."

So okay.  They have no fossil, no actual evidence that there ever WAS such a creature, other than their own belief that this is how things work, therefore such a creature MUST have existed.  And then they move from that assumption right on to, "So now that there must have been such a creature, what did it look like?"

They defined their foregone conclusion - There was a creature who was the common ancestor of all these animals.

Then they selected the proof to go with it - Predictions based on 80 animals they decided had had a common ancestor, for whom there is no actual, hard evidence like a fossil.


----------



## ChesBayJJ

Cecilie1200 said:


> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cats and seals both evolved from a common ancestor, a very early mammal, which quite likely had whiskers.
> 
> Meet the Ancestor of Every Human, Bat, Cat, Whale and Mouse
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I get so enormously tired of "scientific" types stating theory as established, proven, witnessed fact.  ACTUAL scientists do it in the certainty that other scientists will understand the difference, but lay-twerps can't keep from conflating.
> 
> From your link:
> *
> "They have predicted how much it would have weighed, the number of molars in its jaws, the shape of its sperm, and the path that its carotid artery took up its neck. None of this comes from a fossil of the creature itself.* Instead, the *predictions are based on 80 of its descendants*, including some that are still alive and others that joined it in extinction."
> 
> In other words, they looked at a bunch of current and recent critters with similar traits and said, "I'll bet they all came from an animal who looked like THIS!"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, it is a theory, it is speculation, but it is likely a very good estimate. They did a very comprehensive study looking at 4600 different skeletal traits across 86 different species.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I'm sure it was a very comprehensive study . . . too bad it goes about it ass-backward, by defining the conclusion they want to prove, and THEN selecting the proof to go with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How did you reach that conclusion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I read the article.  And then I used logic.
> 
> Look at my quote from the article:  "None of this comes from a fossil of the creature itself.  Instead, the predictions are based on 80 of its descendants . . ."
> 
> So okay.  They have no fossil, no actual evidence that there ever WAS such a creature, other than their own belief that this is how things work, therefore such a creature MUST have existed.  And then they move from that assumption right on to, "So now that there must have been such a creature, what did it look like?"
> 
> They defined their foregone conclusion - There was a creature who was the common ancestor of all these animals.
> 
> Then they selected the proof to go with it - Predictions based on 80 animals they decided had had a common ancestor, for whom there is no actual, hard evidence like a fossil.
Click to expand...


I read the article and reached the opposite conclusion.  They compiled a large database of characteristics and used them to reach their conclusion about the nature of the ancestor animal. As far as the conclusion a common ancestor existed, that is straight out of evolutionary theory. 

Anyway, enough of this debate.


----------



## Cecilie1200

ChesBayJJ said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I get so enormously tired of "scientific" types stating theory as established, proven, witnessed fact.  ACTUAL scientists do it in the certainty that other scientists will understand the difference, but lay-twerps can't keep from conflating.
> 
> From your link:
> *
> "They have predicted how much it would have weighed, the number of molars in its jaws, the shape of its sperm, and the path that its carotid artery took up its neck. None of this comes from a fossil of the creature itself.* Instead, the *predictions are based on 80 of its descendants*, including some that are still alive and others that joined it in extinction."
> 
> In other words, they looked at a bunch of current and recent critters with similar traits and said, "I'll bet they all came from an animal who looked like THIS!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, it is a theory, it is speculation, but it is likely a very good estimate. They did a very comprehensive study looking at 4600 different skeletal traits across 86 different species.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I'm sure it was a very comprehensive study . . . too bad it goes about it ass-backward, by defining the conclusion they want to prove, and THEN selecting the proof to go with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How did you reach that conclusion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I read the article.  And then I used logic.
> 
> Look at my quote from the article:  "None of this comes from a fossil of the creature itself.  Instead, the predictions are based on 80 of its descendants . . ."
> 
> So okay.  They have no fossil, no actual evidence that there ever WAS such a creature, other than their own belief that this is how things work, therefore such a creature MUST have existed.  And then they move from that assumption right on to, "So now that there must have been such a creature, what did it look like?"
> 
> They defined their foregone conclusion - There was a creature who was the common ancestor of all these animals.
> 
> Then they selected the proof to go with it - Predictions based on 80 animals they decided had had a common ancestor, for whom there is no actual, hard evidence like a fossil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I read the article and reached the opposite conclusion.  They compiled a large database of characteristics and used them to reach their conclusion about the nature of the ancestor animal. As far as the conclusion a common ancestor existed, that is straight out of evolutionary theory.
> 
> Anyway, enough of this debate.
Click to expand...


I just heard, "I can't really refute you, so never mind."

Run along.


----------



## ChesBayJJ

Cecilie1200 said:


> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, it is a theory, it is speculation, but it is likely a very good estimate. They did a very comprehensive study looking at 4600 different skeletal traits across 86 different species.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I'm sure it was a very comprehensive study . . . too bad it goes about it ass-backward, by defining the conclusion they want to prove, and THEN selecting the proof to go with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How did you reach that conclusion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I read the article.  And then I used logic.
> 
> Look at my quote from the article:  "None of this comes from a fossil of the creature itself.  Instead, the predictions are based on 80 of its descendants . . ."
> 
> So okay.  They have no fossil, no actual evidence that there ever WAS such a creature, other than their own belief that this is how things work, therefore such a creature MUST have existed.  And then they move from that assumption right on to, "So now that there must have been such a creature, what did it look like?"
> 
> They defined their foregone conclusion - There was a creature who was the common ancestor of all these animals.
> 
> Then they selected the proof to go with it - Predictions based on 80 animals they decided had had a common ancestor, for whom there is no actual, hard evidence like a fossil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I read the article and reached the opposite conclusion.  They compiled a large database of characteristics and used them to reach their conclusion about the nature of the ancestor animal. As far as the conclusion a common ancestor existed, that is straight out of evolutionary theory.
> 
> Anyway, enough of this debate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just heard, "I can't really refute you, so never mind."
> 
> Run along.
Click to expand...


There is nothing to refute. I expressed my opposite opinion. You seem to be taking a jab at the general process of science itself - collect data, study it, reach conclusions, make predictions. That is what this group did. You appear to be a person that doesn't believe in evolution so I see no need in going any further.


----------



## Cecilie1200

ChesBayJJ said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I'm sure it was a very comprehensive study . . . too bad it goes about it ass-backward, by defining the conclusion they want to prove, and THEN selecting the proof to go with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How did you reach that conclusion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I read the article.  And then I used logic.
> 
> Look at my quote from the article:  "None of this comes from a fossil of the creature itself.  Instead, the predictions are based on 80 of its descendants . . ."
> 
> So okay.  They have no fossil, no actual evidence that there ever WAS such a creature, other than their own belief that this is how things work, therefore such a creature MUST have existed.  And then they move from that assumption right on to, "So now that there must have been such a creature, what did it look like?"
> 
> They defined their foregone conclusion - There was a creature who was the common ancestor of all these animals.
> 
> Then they selected the proof to go with it - Predictions based on 80 animals they decided had had a common ancestor, for whom there is no actual, hard evidence like a fossil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I read the article and reached the opposite conclusion.  They compiled a large database of characteristics and used them to reach their conclusion about the nature of the ancestor animal. As far as the conclusion a common ancestor existed, that is straight out of evolutionary theory.
> 
> Anyway, enough of this debate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just heard, "I can't really refute you, so never mind."
> 
> Run along.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is nothing to refute. I expressed my opposite opinion. You seem to be taking a jab at the general process of science itself - collect data, study it, reach conclusions, make predictions. That is what this group did. You appear to be a person that doesn't believe in evolution so I see no need in going any further.
Click to expand...


What happened to "enough of this debate"?

Oh, I see.  You wanted to say your piece and flounce off with the last word.  And you're going to keep throwing in ONE MORE THING and "NOW we're done" until I let you have it.

Ain't gonna happen.

Your "opposite opinion" was exactly the same thing I said, just prefaced with "I disagree".

"They compiled a large database of characteristics and used them to reach their conclusion about the nature of the ancestor animal."

Yeah, like I said, they decided there was an ancestor animal, and THEN they set about selecting data that supported the conclusion they'd made.  At no point in time have you OR the people in your little study EVER said, "We found evidence, and concluded that there was an ancestor animal based on it".

"You seem to be taking a jab at the general process of science itself - collect data, study it, reach conclusions, make predictions."  No, I'm taking a jab at pseudo-science that does exactly the opposite:  reach a conclusion, THEN collect data that agrees with it . . . which you yourself have admitted is exactly what they did.

This is now the second time you've said, "Debate over", but we both know that's based on "THIS IS MY OPINION and now I'm leaving so you can't answer."  We'll see whether or not you actually think the debate isn't worth your time, or if you're just trying to win through shutting down any debate at all.


----------



## james bond

Syriusly said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alex.harmuth said:
> 
> 
> 
> I seriously could go on literally till the day I die pointing out to you how dumb evolution is and how it makes zero sense but I have better things to do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please do not waste your time regurgitating Creato-Christian cult talking points.
> 
> The Bible is a wonderful book of great tales and some really important moral lessons- but it makes zero sense as to explaining how live on Earth has come to exist in across all of Earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And without GOD you have no idea explaining how life came about without making up a tale you imagine is "scientific" because it's godless. I'm not impressed!.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you prefer a tale without any evidence to support it at all? You operate on faith- nothing wrong with you believing in your big book of fairy tales- but that isn't science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nice.  You just ignored the evidence that ToE has holes in the origins .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Theory of Evolution doesn't say anything about how life originated on earth. How often do I have to teach you what the Theory of Evolution is?
Click to expand...


The ToE has chemical evolution lol, Mr. Darkness in the Brain.


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please do not waste your time regurgitating Creato-Christian cult talking points.
> 
> The Bible is a wonderful book of great tales and some really important moral lessons- but it makes zero sense as to explaining how live on Earth has come to exist in across all of Earth.
> 
> 
> 
> And without GOD you have no idea explaining how life came about without making up a tale you imagine is "scientific" because it's godless. I'm not impressed!.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you prefer a tale without any evidence to support it at all? You operate on faith- nothing wrong with you believing in your big book of fairy tales- but that isn't science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nice.  You just ignored the evidence that ToE has holes in the origins .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Theory of Evolution doesn't say anything about how life originated on earth. How often do I have to teach you what the Theory of Evolution is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The ToE has chemical evolution lol, Mr. Darkness in the Brain.]
Click to expand...


And again:
The Theory of Evolution doesn't say anything about how life originated on earth. How often do I have to teach you what the Theory of Evolution is?


----------



## Syriusly

Cecilie1200 said:


> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> How did you reach that conclusion?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I read the article.  And then I used logic.
> 
> Look at my quote from the article:  "None of this comes from a fossil of the creature itself.  Instead, the predictions are based on 80 of its descendants . . ."
> 
> So okay.  They have no fossil, no actual evidence that there ever WAS such a creature, other than their own belief that this is how things work, therefore such a creature MUST have existed.  And then they move from that assumption right on to, "So now that there must have been such a creature, what did it look like?"
> 
> They defined their foregone conclusion - There was a creature who was the common ancestor of all these animals.
> 
> Then they selected the proof to go with it - Predictions based on 80 animals they decided had had a common ancestor, for whom there is no actual, hard evidence like a fossil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I read the article and reached the opposite conclusion.  They compiled a large database of characteristics and used them to reach their conclusion about the nature of the ancestor animal. As far as the conclusion a common ancestor existed, that is straight out of evolutionary theory.
> 
> Anyway, enough of this debate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just heard, "I can't really refute you, so never mind."
> 
> Run along.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is nothing to refute. I expressed my opposite opinion. You seem to be taking a jab at the general process of science itself - collect data, study it, reach conclusions, make predictions. That is what this group did. You appear to be a person that doesn't believe in evolution so I see no need in going any further.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What happened to "enough of this debate"?
> 
> Oh, I see.  You wanted to say your piece and flounce off with the last word.  And you're going to keep throwing in ONE MORE THING and "NOW we're done" until I let you have it.
> 
> Ain't gonna happen.
> 
> Your "opposite opinion" was exactly the same thing I said, just prefaced with "I disagree".
> 
> "They compiled a large database of characteristics and used them to reach their conclusion about the nature of the ancestor animal."
> 
> Yeah, like I said, they decided there was an ancestor animal, and THEN they set about selecting data that supported the conclusion they'd made.  At no point in time have you OR the people in your little study EVER said, "We found evidence, and concluded that there was an ancestor animal based on it".
> 
> "You seem to be taking a jab at the general process of science itself - collect data, study it, reach conclusions, make predictions."  No, I'm taking a jab at pseudo-science that does exactly the opposite:  reach a conclusion, THEN collect data that agrees with it . . . which you yourself have admitted is exactly what they did.
> 
> This is now the second time you've said, "Debate over", but we both know that's based on "THIS IS MY OPINION and now I'm leaving so you can't answer."  We'll see whether or not you actually think the debate isn't worth your time, or if you're just trying to win through shutting down any debate at all.
Click to expand...


Actually science takes several approaches.

One of the precepts of science is coming up with a theory and then based upon that theory making a prediction of the outcome of experiments.

That of course is what has happened repeatedly in the study of Evolution. 

Amazingly much of early evolutionary thought has been confirmed through DNA testing- studies of characteristics of animals- such as for example the very similar physiology of chimpanzees, and bonobos, and gorillas and man- leading to the theory that all of them were closely related biologically- and indeed when DNA testing was possible- DNA confirmed the very, very close relationship between these species.


----------



## LittleNipper

Syriusly said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The the earth was likely created roughly 6000 to 10,000 years ago by GOD. When the Fall of Adam & Eve occurred, deterioration kicked in for the entire Universe. Prior to that event everything existed in a continuing state of perfection. Monkeys, gorillas and humans in no way share a common ancestor; however, they do share a common CREATOR. The present state of our planet reflects the continuing deterioration of the environment due to the FALL and the scares from the FLOOD.  Meteor and asteroid strikes throughout the Solar system are the result of the FALL.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well thank you for that religion inspired opinion that is totally devoid of any factual evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you have all the evidence? Where is it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't have 'all of the evidence' - part of science is accepting that you will never have all of the evidence. What I do have is a preponderance of evidence which all confirms that the Theory of Evolution is the theory that best fits the evidence that we have for the diversity of life on earth.
Click to expand...

I'm a Christian and I don't have to have all the evidence. What I do have is a revelation from GOD called the Bible that makes total sense to me and provides the reason that sin exists! I have hope and an eternity to look forward to. What does Stephen Hawking have now?


----------



## RWS

Shazoomx4 said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shazoomx4 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ima Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know there are similarities but I think they are coincidental, like cats and seals both have whiskers.  But cats didn't come from seals or vice a versa.
> 
> 
> 
> No, but we have the same old ancestor
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry Shazoom, you're a little behind. We have settled that part, i think... But welcome to the conversation!
> 
> Are you Jewish? And if so, why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jewish is not only religion...
> I born as Jewish..
Click to expand...

"Jewish" is not a race, it's a religion. Your parents are Jewish and because of that, you are Jewish as well.

You never had a choice. You were born into your religion and brainwashed from birth. Same with Christian and Muslim religions.

They usually don't have a choice.

I had a choice. because I never got brainwashed. And I studied many religions and their history. And my findings were that the big three were all corrupt and wrong. There is no need to believe in a religion if you are a righteous person. Just be a righteous person, and don't follow corruption.

And then the world would be fine...sans religion....


----------



## LittleNipper

RWS said:


> Shazoomx4 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shazoomx4 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ima Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know there are similarities but I think they are coincidental, like cats and seals both have whiskers.  But cats didn't come from seals or vice a versa.
> 
> 
> 
> No, but we have the same old ancestor
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry Shazoom, you're a little behind. We have settled that part, i think... But welcome to the conversation!
> 
> Are you Jewish? And if so, why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jewish is not only religion...
> I born as Jewish..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Jewish" is not a race, it's a religion. Your parents are Jewish and because of that, you are Jewish as well.
> 
> You never had a choice. You were born into your religion and brainwashed from birth. Same with Christian and Muslim religions.
> 
> They usually don't have a choice.
> 
> I had a choice. because I never got brainwashed. And I studied many religions and their history. And my findings were that the big three were all corrupt and wrong. There is no need to believe in a religion if you are a righteous person. Just be a righteous person, and don't follow corruption.
> 
> And then the world would be fine...sans religion....
Click to expand...

I have to disagree. I know people who where raised in a "Christian" home and believed that being born into a faith was all there was. The Lord doesn't care who your parents are! He wants a one on one. And I came to know the Lord when I was 12. I know Jews who felt the same way, even to the point that it was better to be a Jew and atheistic then become "Messianic" and have faith in GOD...  Religion is not what true "Christianity " is all about. It's a relationship. Relationships for the most part are free; however, they do involve interaction and that is where prayer and research/study come into play.


----------



## LittleNipper

Here is something to ponder. Things are seldom what they seem.
*What percentage of human DNA is shared with other things?*

6 Answers



Xu Beixi, loves Nature.
Answered Mar 24 2014 · Author has 4.7k answers and 31.1m answer views


It depends on what you mean by share.

What do you consider the premise of your study? It it genome size, number of genes, chromosome number, phylogeny, etc. etc.? What constitutes alike as to different?

Also, it doesn't help that we don't know what all our genes are for, how they're used, what proteins they make, and there are so many ways for post-transcriptional modification that we can't begin to figure all of them out.

Finally, to answer:

It is very difficult to find reliable data comparing the human genome to animal genome. The principal reason is that few animals have had their full genome sequenced. Even those that have cannot be easily compared in terms of percentages because the genomic length and chromosomal division can vary greatly from one species to another.

Scouring the Web, here is what I have found so far.

- Genome-wide variation from one *human being* to another can be up to 0.5% (99.5% similarity)

- *Chimpanzees* are 96% to 98% similar to humans, depending on how it is calculated. 

- *Cats *have 90% of homologous genes with humans, 82% with dogs, 80% with cows, 79% with chimpanzees, 69% with rats and 67% with mice. 

- *Cows *(_Bos taurus_) are 80% genetically similar to humans 

- 75% of *mouse* genes have equivalents in humans (source), 90% of the mouse genome could be lined up with a region on the human genome 99% of mouse genes turn out to have analogues in humans

- The *fruit fly* (_Drosophila_) shares about 60% of its DNA with humans.

- About 60% of *chicken* genes correspond to a similar human gene.


----------



## indiajo

LittleNipper said:


> Here is something to ponder. Things are seldom what they seem.
> *What percentage of human DNA is shared with other things?*
> 
> .



Actually humans share around 50% of their genes with bananas.
Some, 100%, appearantly.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Cecilie1200 said:


> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ima Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know there are similarities but I think they are coincidental, like cats and seals both have whiskers.  But cats didn't come from seals or vice a versa.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cats and seals both evolved from a common ancestor, a very early mammal, which quite likely had whiskers.
> 
> Meet the Ancestor of Every Human, Bat, Cat, Whale and Mouse
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I get so enormously tired of "scientific" types stating theory as established, proven, witnessed fact.  ACTUAL scientists do it in the certainty that other scientists will understand the difference, but lay-twerps can't keep from conflating.
> 
> From your link:
> *
> "They have predicted how much it would have weighed, the number of molars in its jaws, the shape of its sperm, and the path that its carotid artery took up its neck. None of this comes from a fossil of the creature itself.* Instead, the *predictions are based on 80 of its descendants*, including some that are still alive and others that joined it in extinction."
> 
> In other words, they looked at a bunch of current and recent critters with similar traits and said, "I'll bet they all came from an animal who looked like THIS!"
Click to expand...

Oh please....scientists consider evolution to be fact, period. No, you goobers are not presenting any actual challenge to the theory of evolution. Instead, you are embarrassing yourselves.


----------



## LittleNipper

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ima Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know there are similarities but I think they are coincidental, like cats and seals both have whiskers.  But cats didn't come from seals or vice a versa.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cats and seals both evolved from a common ancestor, a very early mammal, which quite likely had whiskers.
> 
> Meet the Ancestor of Every Human, Bat, Cat, Whale and Mouse
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I get so enormously tired of "scientific" types stating theory as established, proven, witnessed fact.  ACTUAL scientists do it in the certainty that other scientists will understand the difference, but lay-twerps can't keep from conflating.
> 
> From your link:
> *
> "They have predicted how much it would have weighed, the number of molars in its jaws, the shape of its sperm, and the path that its carotid artery took up its neck. None of this comes from a fossil of the creature itself.* Instead, the *predictions are based on 80 of its descendants*, including some that are still alive and others that joined it in extinction."
> 
> In other words, they looked at a bunch of current and recent critters with similar traits and said, "I'll bet they all came from an animal who looked like THIS!"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh please....scientists consider evolution to be fact, period. No, you goobers are not presenting any actual challenge to the theory of evolution. Instead, you are embarrassing yourselves.
Click to expand...

Not ALL scientists consider evolution to be a"fact".


----------



## task0778

LittleNipper said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ima Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know there are similarities but I think they are coincidental, like cats and seals both have whiskers.  But cats didn't come from seals or vice a versa.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cats and seals both evolved from a common ancestor, a very early mammal, which quite likely had whiskers.
> 
> Meet the Ancestor of Every Human, Bat, Cat, Whale and Mouse
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I get so enormously tired of "scientific" types stating theory as established, proven, witnessed fact.  ACTUAL scientists do it in the certainty that other scientists will understand the difference, but lay-twerps can't keep from conflating.
> 
> From your link:
> *
> "They have predicted how much it would have weighed, the number of molars in its jaws, the shape of its sperm, and the path that its carotid artery took up its neck. None of this comes from a fossil of the creature itself.* Instead, the *predictions are based on 80 of its descendants*, including some that are still alive and others that joined it in extinction."
> 
> In other words, they looked at a bunch of current and recent critters with similar traits and said, "I'll bet they all came from an animal who looked like THIS!"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh please....scientists consider evolution to be fact, period. No, you goobers are not presenting any actual challenge to the theory of evolution. Instead, you are embarrassing yourselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not ALL scientists consider evolution to be a"fact".
Click to expand...


Any real scientist who considers evolution to be a "fact" is not much of a scientist, for the simple truth that evolution is a theory.   An unproven theory, although widely accepted as true but not a "fact".   For that you would need proof, which does not exist.

ME?  I believe every human being alive today or who was alive at any point in the past several million years has evolved from apes.   Don't think they know precisely which kind of ape, but nonetheless to dismiss evolution as wrong is nonsense.   

Which does not mean we aren't all God's creation, evolution may have been the tool from which we came to be.   It just wasn't as it was depicted in the Bible as Adam and Eve and that damn snake.   I heard the snake founded the democratic party after he got us kicked out of Eden.


----------



## Syriusly

LittleNipper said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The the earth was likely created roughly 6000 to 10,000 years ago by GOD. When the Fall of Adam & Eve occurred, deterioration kicked in for the entire Universe. Prior to that event everything existed in a continuing state of perfection. Monkeys, gorillas and humans in no way share a common ancestor; however, they do share a common CREATOR. The present state of our planet reflects the continuing deterioration of the environment due to the FALL and the scares from the FLOOD.  Meteor and asteroid strikes throughout the Solar system are the result of the FALL.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well thank you for that religion inspired opinion that is totally devoid of any factual evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you have all the evidence? Where is it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't have 'all of the evidence' - part of science is accepting that you will never have all of the evidence. What I do have is a preponderance of evidence which all confirms that the Theory of Evolution is the theory that best fits the evidence that we have for the diversity of life on earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm a Christian and I don't have to have all the evidence. What I do have is a revelation from GOD called the Bible that makes total sense to me and provides the reason that sin exists! I have hope and an eternity to look forward to. What does Stephen Hawking have now?
Click to expand...

Hey I have no problem with you clinging to any belief that brings you comfort. 

What does Stephan Hawking have now? 

Exactly what you will have when you die.


----------



## Syriusly

task0778 said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ima Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know there are similarities but I think they are coincidental, like cats and seals both have whiskers.  But cats didn't come from seals or vice a versa.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cats and seals both evolved from a common ancestor, a very early mammal, which quite likely had whiskers.
> 
> Meet the Ancestor of Every Human, Bat, Cat, Whale and Mouse
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I get so enormously tired of "scientific" types stating theory as established, proven, witnessed fact.  ACTUAL scientists do it in the certainty that other scientists will understand the difference, but lay-twerps can't keep from conflating.
> 
> From your link:
> *
> "They have predicted how much it would have weighed, the number of molars in its jaws, the shape of its sperm, and the path that its carotid artery took up its neck. None of this comes from a fossil of the creature itself.* Instead, the *predictions are based on 80 of its descendants*, including some that are still alive and others that joined it in extinction."
> 
> In other words, they looked at a bunch of current and recent critters with similar traits and said, "I'll bet they all came from an animal who looked like THIS!"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh please....scientists consider evolution to be fact, period. No, you goobers are not presenting any actual challenge to the theory of evolution. Instead, you are embarrassing yourselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not ALL scientists consider evolution to be a"fact".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Any real scientist who considers evolution to be a "fact" is not much of a scientist, for the simple truth that evolution is a theory.   An unproven theory, although widely accepted as true but not a "fact".   For that you would need proof, which does not exist..
Click to expand...


'proof' is a mathematical concept- not a scientific concept. 

Evolution is the scientific theory that best fits the evidence that we have for the diversity of life on earth.

Now let us compare that to any other theory that explains the diversity of life- I am not aware of a single alternative theory that has any evidence to support it- but I am open to examples.


----------



## ChesBayJJ

task0778 said:


> Any real scientist who considers evolution to be a "fact" is not much of a scientist, for the simple truth that evolution is a theory.   An unproven theory, although widely accepted as true but not a "fact".   For that you would need proof, which does not exist.
> 
> ME?  I believe every human being alive today or who was alive at any point in the past several million years has evolved from apes.   Don't think they know precisely which kind of ape, but nonetheless to dismiss evolution as wrong is nonsense.
> 
> Which does not mean we aren't all God's creation, evolution may have been the tool from which we came to be.   It just wasn't as it was depicted in the Bible as Adam and Eve and that damn snake.   I heard the snake founded the democratic party after he got us kicked out of Eden.



Theories are not facts. But there is a great deal of evidence supporting the theory.

And as far as the snake goes, I think it was reincarnated as Dick Cheney.


----------



## task0778

ChesBayJJ said:


> task0778 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any real scientist who considers evolution to be a "fact" is not much of a scientist, for the simple truth that evolution is a theory.   An unproven theory, although widely accepted as true but not a "fact".   For that you would need proof, which does not exist.
> 
> ME?  I believe every human being alive today or who was alive at any point in the past several million years has evolved from apes.   Don't think they know precisely which kind of ape, but nonetheless to dismiss evolution as wrong is nonsense.
> 
> Which does not mean we aren't all God's creation, evolution may have been the tool from which we came to be.   It just wasn't as it was depicted in the Bible as Adam and Eve and that damn snake.   I heard the snake founded the democratic party after he got us kicked out of Eden.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Theories are not facts. But there is a great deal of evidence supporting the theory.
> 
> And as far as the snake goes, I think it was reincarnated as Dick Cheney.
Click to expand...


I think the snake was reincarnated as Hillary Clinton.   Some would say Donald J. Trump, but maybe we shouldn't go there in the Science and Technology forum.   I know, I started it;  my bad.


----------



## ChesBayJJ

task0778 said:


> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> task0778 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any real scientist who considers evolution to be a "fact" is not much of a scientist, for the simple truth that evolution is a theory.   An unproven theory, although widely accepted as true but not a "fact".   For that you would need proof, which does not exist.
> 
> ME?  I believe every human being alive today or who was alive at any point in the past several million years has evolved from apes.   Don't think they know precisely which kind of ape, but nonetheless to dismiss evolution as wrong is nonsense.
> 
> Which does not mean we aren't all God's creation, evolution may have been the tool from which we came to be.   It just wasn't as it was depicted in the Bible as Adam and Eve and that damn snake.   I heard the snake founded the democratic party after he got us kicked out of Eden.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Theories are not facts. But there is a great deal of evidence supporting the theory.
> 
> And as far as the snake goes, I think it was reincarnated as Dick Cheney.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think the snake was reincarnated as Hillary Clinton.   Some would say Donald J. Trump, but maybe we shouldn't go there in the Science and Technology forum.   I know, I started it;  my bad.
Click to expand...


Yeah, we should keep politics out of it. And I can agree about Hillary. I'll let it go at that.


----------



## LittleNipper

Syriusly said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The the earth was likely created roughly 6000 to 10,000 years ago by GOD. When the Fall of Adam & Eve occurred, deterioration kicked in for the entire Universe. Prior to that event everything existed in a continuing state of perfection. Monkeys, gorillas and humans in no way share a common ancestor; however, they do share a common CREATOR. The present state of our planet reflects the continuing deterioration of the environment due to the FALL and the scares from the FLOOD.  Meteor and asteroid strikes throughout the Solar system are the result of the FALL.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well thank you for that religion inspired opinion that is totally devoid of any factual evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you have all the evidence? Where is it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't have 'all of the evidence' - part of science is accepting that you will never have all of the evidence. What I do have is a preponderance of evidence which all confirms that the Theory of Evolution is the theory that best fits the evidence that we have for the diversity of life on earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm a Christian and I don't have to have all the evidence. What I do have is a revelation from GOD called the Bible that makes total sense to me and provides the reason that sin exists! I have hope and an eternity to look forward to. What does Stephen Hawking have now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey I have no problem with you clinging to any belief that brings you comfort.
> 
> What does Stephan Hawking have now?
> 
> Exactly what you will have when you die.
Click to expand...

Hawking according to his own "beliefs" is nothing, has nothing, gains nothing, is worth nothing, and amounted to nothing. I do believe in GOD and see no logic that would make GOD an impossibility. I know Mr. Hawking now knows the truth; however, unless he had some moment when he called out to GOD through the Lord Jesus Christ ---- now is very sad indeed. Shame --- out of the wheelchair and into an eternal burning separation...  For many this life is as close to heaven as they will get ---- sorry, that isn't very comforting...


----------



## LittleNipper

Syriusly said:


> task0778 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cats and seals both evolved from a common ancestor, a very early mammal, which quite likely had whiskers.
> 
> Meet the Ancestor of Every Human, Bat, Cat, Whale and Mouse
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I get so enormously tired of "scientific" types stating theory as established, proven, witnessed fact.  ACTUAL scientists do it in the certainty that other scientists will understand the difference, but lay-twerps can't keep from conflating.
> 
> From your link:
> *
> "They have predicted how much it would have weighed, the number of molars in its jaws, the shape of its sperm, and the path that its carotid artery took up its neck. None of this comes from a fossil of the creature itself.* Instead, the *predictions are based on 80 of its descendants*, including some that are still alive and others that joined it in extinction."
> 
> In other words, they looked at a bunch of current and recent critters with similar traits and said, "I'll bet they all came from an animal who looked like THIS!"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh please....scientists consider evolution to be fact, period. No, you goobers are not presenting any actual challenge to the theory of evolution. Instead, you are embarrassing yourselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not ALL scientists consider evolution to be a"fact".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Any real scientist who considers evolution to be a "fact" is not much of a scientist, for the simple truth that evolution is a theory.   An unproven theory, although widely accepted as true but not a "fact".   For that you would need proof, which does not exist..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 'proof' is a mathematical concept- not a scientific concept.
> 
> Evolution is the scientific theory that best fits the evidence that we have for the diversity of life on earth.
> 
> Now let us compare that to any other theory that explains the diversity of life- I am not aware of a single alternative theory that has any evidence to support it- but I am open to examples.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but mathematically there isn't enough time for the inert to turn into something living and then evolve into something very complex that then became diverse on its own. HOWEVER, there is needed only 6 days and a FLOOD to give us exactly what we now observe since ALMIGHTY GOD is the CREATOR of everything.


----------



## task0778

LittleNipper said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> task0778 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I get so enormously tired of "scientific" types stating theory as established, proven, witnessed fact.  ACTUAL scientists do it in the certainty that other scientists will understand the difference, but lay-twerps can't keep from conflating.
> 
> From your link:
> *
> "They have predicted how much it would have weighed, the number of molars in its jaws, the shape of its sperm, and the path that its carotid artery took up its neck. None of this comes from a fossil of the creature itself.* Instead, the *predictions are based on 80 of its descendants*, including some that are still alive and others that joined it in extinction."
> 
> In other words, they looked at a bunch of current and recent critters with similar traits and said, "I'll bet they all came from an animal who looked like THIS!"
> 
> 
> 
> Oh please....scientists consider evolution to be fact, period. No, you goobers are not presenting any actual challenge to the theory of evolution. Instead, you are embarrassing yourselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not ALL scientists consider evolution to be a"fact".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Any real scientist who considers evolution to be a "fact" is not much of a scientist, for the simple truth that evolution is a theory.   An unproven theory, although widely accepted as true but not a "fact".   For that you would need proof, which does not exist..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 'proof' is a mathematical concept- not a scientific concept.
> 
> Evolution is the scientific theory that best fits the evidence that we have for the diversity of life on earth.
> 
> Now let us compare that to any other theory that explains the diversity of life- I am not aware of a single alternative theory that has any evidence to support it- but I am open to examples.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, but mathematically there isn't enough time for the inert to turn into something living and then evolve into something very complex that then became diverse on its own. HOWEVER, there is needed only 6 days and a FLOOD to give us exactly what we now observe since ALMIGHTY GOD is the CREATOR of everything.
Click to expand...


LOL, how would you know how much time it takes for life to happen?   You are entitled to your opinion but not your own facts, of which you have exactly NONE.


----------



## Syriusly

LittleNipper said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> task0778 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I get so enormously tired of "scientific" types stating theory as established, proven, witnessed fact.  ACTUAL scientists do it in the certainty that other scientists will understand the difference, but lay-twerps can't keep from conflating.
> 
> From your link:
> *
> "They have predicted how much it would have weighed, the number of molars in its jaws, the shape of its sperm, and the path that its carotid artery took up its neck. None of this comes from a fossil of the creature itself.* Instead, the *predictions are based on 80 of its descendants*, including some that are still alive and others that joined it in extinction."
> 
> In other words, they looked at a bunch of current and recent critters with similar traits and said, "I'll bet they all came from an animal who looked like THIS!"
> 
> 
> 
> Oh please....scientists consider evolution to be fact, period. No, you goobers are not presenting any actual challenge to the theory of evolution. Instead, you are embarrassing yourselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not ALL scientists consider evolution to be a"fact".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Any real scientist who considers evolution to be a "fact" is not much of a scientist, for the simple truth that evolution is a theory.   An unproven theory, although widely accepted as true but not a "fact".   For that you would need proof, which does not exist..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 'proof' is a mathematical concept- not a scientific concept.
> 
> Evolution is the scientific theory that best fits the evidence that we have for the diversity of life on earth.
> 
> Now let us compare that to any other theory that explains the diversity of life- I am not aware of a single alternative theory that has any evidence to support it- but I am open to examples.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, but mathematically there isn't enough time for the inert to turn into something living and then evolve into something very complex that then became diverse on its own. HOWEVER, there is needed only 6 days and a FLOOD to give us exactly what we now observe since ALMIGHTY GOD is the CREATOR of everything.
Click to expand...


Tell us all Nipper- how after the "Flood" - how did all of the animals get from Mt. Ararat to each of their future homes?
How did all of the marsupials get to Australia? In a couple of thousand years. 
How did all of the anacondas get to South America?
How did the lemurs get to Madegascar?
How did the giant tortoises get to the Galapagos.

And how did they all get to those places- and nowhere else?

Tell us your CREATOR accomplished that.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> [Oh please....scientists consider evolution to be fact, period. No, you goobers are not presenting any actual challenge to the theory of evolution. Instead, you are embarrassing yourselves.



Evolution is not a fact or else we can all use it.  Thus, you are wrong again.  Atheists are usually wrong ha ha.  We KNOW who the goober is.


----------



## RWS

LittleNipper said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shazoomx4 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shazoomx4 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ima Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know there are similarities but I think they are coincidental, like cats and seals both have whiskers.  But cats didn't come from seals or vice a versa.
> 
> 
> 
> No, but we have the same old ancestor
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry Shazoom, you're a little behind. We have settled that part, i think... But welcome to the conversation!
> 
> Are you Jewish? And if so, why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jewish is not only religion...
> I born as Jewish..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Jewish" is not a race, it's a religion. Your parents are Jewish and because of that, you are Jewish as well.
> 
> You never had a choice. You were born into your religion and brainwashed from birth. Same with Christian and Muslim religions.
> 
> They usually don't have a choice.
> 
> I had a choice. because I never got brainwashed. And I studied many religions and their history. And my findings were that the big three were all corrupt and wrong. There is no need to believe in a religion if you are a righteous person. Just be a righteous person, and don't follow corruption.
> 
> And then the world would be fine...sans religion....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have to disagree. I know people who where raised in a "Christian" home and believed that being born into a faith was all there was. The Lord doesn't care who your parents are! He wants a one on one. And I came to know the Lord when I was 12. I know Jews who felt the same way, even to the point that it was better to be a Jew and atheistic then become "Messianic" and have faith in GOD...  Religion is not what true "Christianity " is all about. It's a relationship. Relationships for the most part are free; however, they do involve interaction and that is where prayer and research/study come into play.
Click to expand...

If you were born into a Muslim family, would you still be Jewish/Christian?

Is it the religion that is right? Or the birthright that is right?


----------



## RWS

LittleNipper said:


> Here is something to ponder. Things are seldom what they seem.
> *What percentage of human DNA is shared with other things?*
> 
> 6 Answers
> 
> 
> 
> Xu Beixi, loves Nature.
> Answered Mar 24 2014 · Author has 4.7k answers and 31.1m answer views
> 
> 
> It depends on what you mean by share.
> 
> What do you consider the premise of your study? It it genome size, number of genes, chromosome number, phylogeny, etc. etc.? What constitutes alike as to different?
> 
> Also, it doesn't help that we don't know what all our genes are for, how they're used, what proteins they make, and there are so many ways for post-transcriptional modification that we can't begin to figure all of them out.
> 
> Finally, to answer:
> 
> It is very difficult to find reliable data comparing the human genome to animal genome. The principal reason is that few animals have had their full genome sequenced. Even those that have cannot be easily compared in terms of percentages because the genomic length and chromosomal division can vary greatly from one species to another.
> 
> Scouring the Web, here is what I have found so far.
> 
> - Genome-wide variation from one *human being* to another can be up to 0.5% (99.5% similarity)
> 
> - *Chimpanzees* are 96% to 98% similar to humans, depending on how it is calculated.
> 
> - *Cats *have 90% of homologous genes with humans, 82% with dogs, 80% with cows, 79% with chimpanzees, 69% with rats and 67% with mice.
> 
> - *Cows *(_Bos taurus_) are 80% genetically similar to humans
> 
> - 75% of *mouse* genes have equivalents in humans (source), 90% of the mouse genome could be lined up with a region on the human genome 99% of mouse genes turn out to have analogues in humans
> 
> - The *fruit fly* (_Drosophila_) shares about 60% of its DNA with humans.
> 
> - About 60% of *chicken* genes correspond to a similar human gene.



Yes, we're all related due to evolution!

Had God Created Spontaneous Creation, we would not share those similar genetic traits.


----------



## LittleNipper

Syriusly said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> task0778 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh please....scientists consider evolution to be fact, period. No, you goobers are not presenting any actual challenge to the theory of evolution. Instead, you are embarrassing yourselves.
> 
> 
> 
> Not ALL scientists consider evolution to be a"fact".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Any real scientist who considers evolution to be a "fact" is not much of a scientist, for the simple truth that evolution is a theory.   An unproven theory, although widely accepted as true but not a "fact".   For that you would need proof, which does not exist..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 'proof' is a mathematical concept- not a scientific concept.
> 
> Evolution is the scientific theory that best fits the evidence that we have for the diversity of life on earth.
> 
> Now let us compare that to any other theory that explains the diversity of life- I am not aware of a single alternative theory that has any evidence to support it- but I am open to examples.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, but mathematically there isn't enough time for the inert to turn into something living and then evolve into something very complex that then became diverse on its own. HOWEVER, there is needed only 6 days and a FLOOD to give us exactly what we now observe since ALMIGHTY GOD is the CREATOR of everything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell us all Nipper- how after the "Flood" - how did all of the animals get from Mt. Ararat to each of their future homes?
> How did all of the marsupials get to Australia? In a couple of thousand years.
> How did all of the anacondas get to South America?
> How did the lemurs get to Madegascar?
> How did the giant tortoises get to the Galapagos.
> 
> And how did they all get to those places- and nowhere else?
> 
> Tell us your CREATOR accomplished that.
Click to expand...

I am a firm believer in GOD's interaction with nature. Jesus did calm the storm. Jesus walked on water. GOD had a hand in cause and affect that spread out the animals exactly where He desired them to go. God brought them to the Ark according to the Genesis account. He dispersed them. I also believe GOD has given to each species the ability to survive and that means adaptability. Did Koalas always only eat Eucalyptus --- I don't know but He obviously brought them to a save place and that food was found there. And as the continents emerged or spread and the land bridges sank, each animal group was provided with a safe haven. As for your dinosaurs, I even believe they are still with us; however, since animals like man can no longer live hundreds of years, they never reach the sizes and proportion they once did.


----------



## LittleNipper

RWS said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shazoomx4 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shazoomx4 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, but we have the same old ancestor
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry Shazoom, you're a little behind. We have settled that part, i think... But welcome to the conversation!
> 
> Are you Jewish? And if so, why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jewish is not only religion...
> I born as Jewish..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Jewish" is not a race, it's a religion. Your parents are Jewish and because of that, you are Jewish as well.
> 
> You never had a choice. You were born into your religion and brainwashed from birth. Same with Christian and Muslim religions.
> 
> They usually don't have a choice.
> 
> I had a choice. because I never got brainwashed. And I studied many religions and their history. And my findings were that the big three were all corrupt and wrong. There is no need to believe in a religion if you are a righteous person. Just be a righteous person, and don't follow corruption.
> 
> And then the world would be fine...sans religion....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have to disagree. I know people who where raised in a "Christian" home and believed that being born into a faith was all there was. The Lord doesn't care who your parents are! He wants a one on one. And I came to know the Lord when I was 12. I know Jews who felt the same way, even to the point that it was better to be a Jew and atheistic then become "Messianic" and have faith in GOD...  Religion is not what true "Christianity " is all about. It's a relationship. Relationships for the most part are free; however, they do involve interaction and that is where prayer and research/study come into play.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you were born into a Muslim family, would you still be Jewish/Christian?
> 
> Is it the religion that is right? Or the birthright that is right?
Click to expand...

It is the truth and fact that is right. And I know Muslims and Hindus and Buddhists and Jews who have awakened to the truth of Our LORD JESUS  the Messiah and have become CHRISTIANS (followers of Christ). Only the TRUTH shall set you free!

Acts 8:26-40

26 But as for Philip, an angel of the Lord said to him, “Go over to the road that runs from Jerusalem through the Gaza Desert, arriving around noon.” 27 So he did, and who should be coming down the road but the Treasurer of Ethiopia, a eunuch of great authority under Candace the queen. He had gone to Jerusalem to worship 28 and was now returning in his chariot, reading aloud from the book of the prophet Isaiah.

29 The Holy Spirit said to Philip, “Go over and walk along beside the chariot.”

30 Philip ran over and heard what he was reading and asked, “Do you understand it?”

31 “Of course not!” the man replied. “How can I when there is no one to instruct me?” And he begged Philip to come up into the chariot and sit with him.

32 The passage of Scripture he had been reading from was this:

“He was led as a sheep to the slaughter, and as a lamb is silent before the shearers, so he opened not his mouth; 33 in his humiliation, justice was denied him; and who can express the wickedness of the people of his generation? For his life is taken from the earth.”

34 The eunuch asked Philip, “Was Isaiah talking about himself or someone else?”

35 So Philip began with this same Scripture and then used many others to tell him about Jesus.

36 As they rode along, they came to a small body of water, and the eunuch said, “Look! Water! Why can’t I be baptized?”

37 “You can,” Philip answered, “if you believe with all your heart.”

And the eunuch replied, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.”

38 He stopped the chariot, and they went down into the water and Philip baptized him. 39 And when they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, and the eunuch never saw him again, but went on his way rejoicing. 40 Meanwhile, Philip found himself at Azotus! He preached the Good News there and in every city along the way, as he traveled to Caesarea.


----------



## Syriusly

LittleNipper said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> task0778 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not ALL scientists consider evolution to be a"fact".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Any real scientist who considers evolution to be a "fact" is not much of a scientist, for the simple truth that evolution is a theory.   An unproven theory, although widely accepted as true but not a "fact".   For that you would need proof, which does not exist..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 'proof' is a mathematical concept- not a scientific concept.
> 
> Evolution is the scientific theory that best fits the evidence that we have for the diversity of life on earth.
> 
> Now let us compare that to any other theory that explains the diversity of life- I am not aware of a single alternative theory that has any evidence to support it- but I am open to examples.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, but mathematically there isn't enough time for the inert to turn into something living and then evolve into something very complex that then became diverse on its own. HOWEVER, there is needed only 6 days and a FLOOD to give us exactly what we now observe since ALMIGHTY GOD is the CREATOR of everything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell us all Nipper- how after the "Flood" - how did all of the animals get from Mt. Ararat to each of their future homes?
> How did all of the marsupials get to Australia? In a couple of thousand years.
> How did all of the anacondas get to South America?
> How did the lemurs get to Madegascar?
> How did the giant tortoises get to the Galapagos.
> 
> And how did they all get to those places- and nowhere else?
> 
> Tell us your CREATOR accomplished that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am a firm believer in GOD's interaction with nature. Jesus did calm the storm. Jesus walked on water. GOD had a hand in cause and affect that spread out the animals exactly where He desired them to go. God brought them to the Ark according to the Genesis account. He dispersed them. I also believe GOD has given to each species the ability to survive and that means adaptability. Did Koalas always only eat Eucalyptus --- I don't know but He obviously brought them to a save place and that food was found there. And as the continents emerged or spread and the land bridges sank, each animal group was provided with a safe haven. As for your dinosaurs, I even believe they are still with us; however, since animals like man can no longer live hundreds of years, they never reach the sizes and proportion they once did.
Click to expand...


Well like I said- you are entitled to believe any fairy tales that you want to.

What I find fascinating about yours- is that it is supported by neither science- or the Bible.


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> [Oh please....scientists consider evolution to be fact, period. No, you goobers are not presenting any actual challenge to the theory of evolution. Instead, you are embarrassing yourselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution is not a fact or else we can all use it.  Thus, you are wrong again.  Atheists are usually wrong ha ha.  We KNOW who the goober is.
Click to expand...

The stories of the Bible are not a fact- which is why we all don't use them. Chreato-Christian cultists are always wrong. 

Evolution is the scientific theory which best explains the diversity of life on earth. Not the fairy tales of the Bible.


----------



## Uncensored2008

ScienceRocks said:


> We're primates that developed from a common ancestor 5-7 million years ago that yes was an ape.
> 
> That is a fact....The evidence is very strong.




No Matty, it was not an ape. Apes evolved from that source, as did humans. Neither branch froze.


----------



## Tuatara

LittleNipper said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> task0778 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not ALL scientists consider evolution to be a"fact".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Any real scientist who considers evolution to be a "fact" is not much of a scientist, for the simple truth that evolution is a theory.   An unproven theory, although widely accepted as true but not a "fact".   For that you would need proof, which does not exist..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 'proof' is a mathematical concept- not a scientific concept.
> 
> Evolution is the scientific theory that best fits the evidence that we have for the diversity of life on earth.
> 
> Now let us compare that to any other theory that explains the diversity of life- I am not aware of a single alternative theory that has any evidence to support it- but I am open to examples.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, but mathematically there isn't enough time for the inert to turn into something living and then evolve into something very complex that then became diverse on its own. HOWEVER, there is needed only 6 days and a FLOOD to give us exactly what we now observe since ALMIGHTY GOD is the CREATOR of everything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell us all Nipper- how after the "Flood" - how did all of the animals get from Mt. Ararat to each of their future homes?
> How did all of the marsupials get to Australia? In a couple of thousand years.
> How did all of the anacondas get to South America?
> How did the lemurs get to Madegascar?
> How did the giant tortoises get to the Galapagos.
> 
> And how did they all get to those places- and nowhere else?
> 
> Tell us your CREATOR accomplished that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am a firm believer in GOD's interaction with nature. Jesus did calm the storm. Jesus walked on water. GOD had a hand in cause and affect that spread out the animals exactly where He desired them to go. God brought them to the Ark according to the Genesis account. He dispersed them. I also believe GOD has given to each species the ability to survive and that means adaptability. Did Koalas always only eat Eucalyptus --- I don't know but He obviously brought them to a save place and that food was found there. And as the continents emerged or spread and the land bridges sank, each animal group was provided with a safe haven. As for your dinosaurs, I even believe they are still with us; however, since animals like man can no longer live hundreds of years, they never reach the sizes and proportion they once did.
Click to expand...

Sorry Nipper but the world wide flood story is just a story. It didn't happen. Plant and tree life need light to survive. If all the trees and plants are miles under water all plant and tree life dies out thus providing no oxygen for the planet. That is all you need to know about the flood story.


----------



## Tuatara

LittleNipper said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> task0778 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not ALL scientists consider evolution to be a"fact".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Any real scientist who considers evolution to be a "fact" is not much of a scientist, for the simple truth that evolution is a theory.   An unproven theory, although widely accepted as true but not a "fact".   For that you would need proof, which does not exist..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 'proof' is a mathematical concept- not a scientific concept.
> 
> Evolution is the scientific theory that best fits the evidence that we have for the diversity of life on earth.
> 
> Now let us compare that to any other theory that explains the diversity of life- I am not aware of a single alternative theory that has any evidence to support it- but I am open to examples.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, but mathematically there isn't enough time for the inert to turn into something living and then evolve into something very complex that then became diverse on its own. HOWEVER, there is needed only 6 days and a FLOOD to give us exactly what we now observe since ALMIGHTY GOD is the CREATOR of everything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell us all Nipper- how after the "Flood" - how did all of the animals get from Mt. Ararat to each of their future homes?
> How did all of the marsupials get to Australia? In a couple of thousand years.
> How did all of the anacondas get to South America?
> How did the lemurs get to Madegascar?
> How did the giant tortoises get to the Galapagos.
> 
> And how did they all get to those places- and nowhere else?
> 
> Tell us your CREATOR accomplished that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am a firm believer in GOD's interaction with nature. Jesus did calm the storm. Jesus walked on water. GOD had a hand in cause and affect that spread out the animals exactly where He desired them to go. God brought them to the Ark according to the Genesis account. He dispersed them. I also believe GOD has given to each species the ability to survive and that means adaptability. Did Koalas always only eat Eucalyptus --- I don't know but He obviously brought them to a save place and that food was found there. And as the continents emerged or spread and the land bridges sank, each animal group was provided with a safe haven. *As for your dinosaurs, I even believe they are still with us; however, since animals like man can no longer live hundreds of years, they never reach the sizes and proportion they once did.*
Click to expand...

You do know that there were many dinosaurs no bigger than dogs. As for dinosaurs living today, which ones are they? Unless you believe these dinosaurs evolved into the birds and reptiles of today.


----------



## Tuatara

Uncensored2008 said:


> ScienceRocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're primates that developed from a common ancestor 5-7 million years ago that yes was an ape.
> 
> That is a fact....The evidence is very strong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No Matty, it was not an ape. Apes evolved from that source, as did humans. Neither branch froze.
Click to expand...

Technically, we are apes.


----------



## Mousterian

The last few decades have revealed many surprises in the evolutionary chain. 
Particularly among the birds, descended from the Theropod Dinosaurs (which includes the celebrated T Rex), a complex lineage which has many uncanny examples of convergent evolution. This means that many species long thought to have been closely related, have been revealed (by DNA studies, mostly) to be, in fact, very distant cousins.
A typical example: swallows (Hirundinidae)  are very distant to swifts (Apodidae).

The 'Theory' of evolution is probably the most well-verified biological process we know. It is happening all the time, and, as with anti-biotic resistance, we humans are facilitating runaway evolution, to our detriment.


----------



## ChesBayJJ

Tuatara said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ScienceRocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're primates that developed from a common ancestor 5-7 million years ago that yes was an ape.
> 
> That is a fact....The evidence is very strong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No Matty, it was not an ape. Apes evolved from that source, as did humans. Neither branch froze.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Technically, we are apes.
Click to expand...


Correct. We are included with the hominoids, known as the great apes, which includes we humans, chimps. gorillas, and orangs.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Tuatara said:


> Technically, we are apes.



Nonsense.

No more than a zebra is technically a horse.

We are RELATED to apes, but we are humans, a separate and distinct family.

We didn't evolve from apes, apes didn't evolve from apes, which would be absurds.

Humans and apes share a common ancestor, but that doesn't make humans apes.


----------



## Uncensored2008

ChesBayJJ said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ScienceRocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're primates that developed from a common ancestor 5-7 million years ago that yes was an ape.
> 
> That is a fact....The evidence is very strong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No Matty, it was not an ape. Apes evolved from that source, as did humans. Neither branch froze.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Technically, we are apes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correct. We are included with the hominoids, known as the great apes, which includes we humans, chimps. gorillas, and orangs.
Click to expand...



Included by whom? 

First of, it's Hominid. Because hominids are bipedal, this excludes the great apes.

Hominids include Neanderthal, homo erectus, et al.


----------



## ChesBayJJ

Uncensored2008 said:


> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ScienceRocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're primates that developed from a common ancestor 5-7 million years ago that yes was an ape.
> 
> That is a fact....The evidence is very strong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No Matty, it was not an ape. Apes evolved from that source, as did humans. Neither branch froze.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Technically, we are apes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correct. We are included with the hominoids, known as the great apes, which includes we humans, chimps. gorillas, and orangs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Included by whom?
> 
> First of, it's Hominid. Because hominids are bipedal, this excludes the great apes.
> 
> Hominids include Neanderthal, homo erectus, et al.
Click to expand...


ape | Definition & Facts

Taxonomy Browser

Google the ncbi taxonomy browser

Enter Hominidae

*Hominidae* (great apes)    LinkOut _Click on organism name to get more information._
*Homininae* LinkOut
*Gorilla* LinkOut
*Gorilla beringei* (eastern gorilla)    LinkOut
*Gorilla gorilla* (western gorilla)    LinkOut BLAST page

*Homo* LinkOut
*Homo heidelbergensis* (Heidelberg man)   
*Homo sapiens* (human)    LinkOut BLAST page

*Pan* (chimpanzees)    LinkOut
*Pan paniscus* (pygmy chimpanzee)    LinkOut BLAST page
*Pan troglodytes* (chimpanzee)    LinkOut BLAST page


*Ponginae* LinkOut
*Pongo* LinkOut
*Pongo abelii* (Sumatran orangutan)    LinkOut BLAST page
*Pongo abelii x pygmaeus* LinkOut
*Pongo pygmaeus* (Bornean orangutan)    LinkOut BLAST page
*Pongo tapanuliensis* (Tapanuli orangutan)   
*Pongo sp.* LinkOut


----------



## ChesBayJJ

the definition of hominoid

noun

Anthropology. a member of the biological superfamily Hominoidea, including all modern great apes and humans and a number of their extinct ancestors and relatives.


----------



## ChesBayJJ

And I will depart with this
_
We are Stardust, we are golden

And we got to get ourselves back to the garden
_


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

LittleNipper said:


> Not ALL scientists consider evolution to be a"fact".


Hmm,no, it's pretty much all of them. The ones that do not are a very tiny percentage, and are wrong.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

LittleNipper said:


> Sorry, but mathematically there isn't enough time for the inert to turn into something living


As if you have any idea whatsoever...please....


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> Evolution is not a fact or else we can all use


Uh...what?  Haha, you're dumb.


----------



## james bond

RWS said:


> Yes, we're all related due to evolution!
> 
> Had God Created Spontaneous Creation, we would not share those similar genetic traits.



You and I are not related and we have 99% similar DNA and 1% difference.  The 1% is enough to show no relationship.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, we're all related due to evolution!
> 
> Had God Created Spontaneous Creation, we would not share those similar genetic traits.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You and I are not related and we have 99% similar DNA and 1% difference.  The 1% is enough to show no relationship.
Click to expand...

Wrong, as usual.  There are no two humans on the planet whose DNA differs by as much as 1%.  You know less than nothing about any of this and should stop talking immediately.


----------



## james bond

Syriusly said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> [Oh please....scientists consider evolution to be fact, period. No, you goobers are not presenting any actual challenge to the theory of evolution. Instead, you are embarrassing yourselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution is not a fact or else we can all use it.  Thus, you are wrong again.  Atheists are usually wrong ha ha.  We KNOW who the goober is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The stories of the Bible are not a fact- which is why we all don't use them. Chreato-Christian cultists are always wrong.
> 
> Evolution is the scientific theory which best explains the diversity of life on earth. Not the fairy tales of the Bible.
Click to expand...


Diversity of species, but not origins of life.  Instead of being related by a common ancestor, we are related by family (species) as part of the bushes of life.  The Bible is God's Word which is complete, inerrant, authoritative, reliable, and sufficient to meet our needs.


----------



## LittleNipper

Syriusly said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> task0778 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any real scientist who considers evolution to be a "fact" is not much of a scientist, for the simple truth that evolution is a theory.   An unproven theory, although widely accepted as true but not a "fact".   For that you would need proof, which does not exist..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 'proof' is a mathematical concept- not a scientific concept.
> 
> Evolution is the scientific theory that best fits the evidence that we have for the diversity of life on earth.
> 
> Now let us compare that to any other theory that explains the diversity of life- I am not aware of a single alternative theory that has any evidence to support it- but I am open to examples.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, but mathematically there isn't enough time for the inert to turn into something living and then evolve into something very complex that then became diverse on its own. HOWEVER, there is needed only 6 days and a FLOOD to give us exactly what we now observe since ALMIGHTY GOD is the CREATOR of everything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell us all Nipper- how after the "Flood" - how did all of the animals get from Mt. Ararat to each of their future homes?
> How did all of the marsupials get to Australia? In a couple of thousand years.
> How did all of the anacondas get to South America?
> How did the lemurs get to Madegascar?
> How did the giant tortoises get to the Galapagos.
> 
> And how did they all get to those places- and nowhere else?
> 
> Tell us your CREATOR accomplished that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am a firm believer in GOD's interaction with nature. Jesus did calm the storm. Jesus walked on water. GOD had a hand in cause and affect that spread out the animals exactly where He desired them to go. God brought them to the Ark according to the Genesis account. He dispersed them. I also believe GOD has given to each species the ability to survive and that means adaptability. Did Koalas always only eat Eucalyptus --- I don't know but He obviously brought them to a save place and that food was found there. And as the continents emerged or spread and the land bridges sank, each animal group was provided with a safe haven. As for your dinosaurs, I even believe they are still with us; however, since animals like man can no longer live hundreds of years, they never reach the sizes and proportion they once did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> Well like I said- you are entitled to believe any fairy tales that you want to.
> 
> What I find fascinating about yours- is that it is supported by neither science- or the Bible.
Click to expand...

The same is true for you also. You may believe any fairytale you wish. What I find sad is what people judge to be "science" and how they judge scientists. And a person who doesn't study the Bible or may visit its pages only in search of mistakes, has little clue what is actually revealed there --- and likely could care less...


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

LittleNipper said:


> You may believe any fairytale you wish.


The fact that you and Bond repeat so many embarrassing falsehoods about scientific theories is not unrelated to your fetish for believing magical fairy tales.  You both long ago left the realm of just adopting ideas that supported your religious nonsense, and have gone down the rabbit hole of complete suspension of incredulity, when the result suits whatever emotion has fizzled into existence from the depths of your colon.. As one may expect, you are the wrong side of many things for precisely the same reason.


----------



## LittleNipper

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> You may believe any fairytale you wish.
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that you and Bond repeat so many embarrassing falsehoods about scientific theories is not unrelated to your fetish for believing magical fairy tales.  You both long ago left the realm of just adopting ideas that supported your religious nonsense, and have gone down the rabbit hole of complete suspension of incredulity, when the result suits whatever emotion has fizzled into existence from the depths of your colon.. As one may expect, you are the wrong side of many things for precisely the same reason.
Click to expand...

Here is what your secular science says about the races. This is the full evolutionary teaching you must accept when disregarding GOD. Science on racial differences With GOD all are equal. With evolution one race is in general terms INFERIOR. You cannot have it both ways.


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, we're all related due to evolution!
> 
> Had God Created Spontaneous Creation, we would not share those similar genetic traits.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You and I are not related and we have 99% similar DNA and 1% difference.  The 1% is enough to show no relationship.
Click to expand...


Whether you believe the fairy tales from the Bible- or whether you believe in science- we are all related- however distantly.


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> [Oh please....scientists consider evolution to be fact, period. No, you goobers are not presenting any actual challenge to the theory of evolution. Instead, you are embarrassing yourselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution is not a fact or else we can all use it.  Thus, you are wrong again.  Atheists are usually wrong ha ha.  We KNOW who the goober is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The stories of the Bible are not a fact- which is why we all don't use them. Chreato-Christian cultists are always wrong.
> 
> Evolution is the scientific theory which best explains the diversity of life on earth. Not the fairy tales of the Bible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Bible is God's Word which is complete, inerrant, authoritative, reliable, and sufficient to meet our needs.
Click to expand...


I absolutely understand that you have faith in your Bible and not in science.


----------



## Syriusly

LittleNipper said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 'proof' is a mathematical concept- not a scientific concept.
> 
> Evolution is the scientific theory that best fits the evidence that we have for the diversity of life on earth.
> 
> Now let us compare that to any other theory that explains the diversity of life- I am not aware of a single alternative theory that has any evidence to support it- but I am open to examples.
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, but mathematically there isn't enough time for the inert to turn into something living and then evolve into something very complex that then became diverse on its own. HOWEVER, there is needed only 6 days and a FLOOD to give us exactly what we now observe since ALMIGHTY GOD is the CREATOR of everything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell us all Nipper- how after the "Flood" - how did all of the animals get from Mt. Ararat to each of their future homes?
> How did all of the marsupials get to Australia? In a couple of thousand years.
> How did all of the anacondas get to South America?
> How did the lemurs get to Madegascar?
> How did the giant tortoises get to the Galapagos.
> 
> And how did they all get to those places- and nowhere else?
> 
> Tell us your CREATOR accomplished that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am a firm believer in GOD's interaction with nature. Jesus did calm the storm. Jesus walked on water. GOD had a hand in cause and affect that spread out the animals exactly where He desired them to go. God brought them to the Ark according to the Genesis account. He dispersed them. I also believe GOD has given to each species the ability to survive and that means adaptability. Did Koalas always only eat Eucalyptus --- I don't know but He obviously brought them to a save place and that food was found there. And as the continents emerged or spread and the land bridges sank, each animal group was provided with a safe haven. As for your dinosaurs, I even believe they are still with us; however, since animals like man can no longer live hundreds of years, they never reach the sizes and proportion they once did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> Well like I said- you are entitled to believe any fairy tales that you want to.
> 
> What I find fascinating about yours- is that it is supported by neither science- or the Bible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The same is true for you also. You may believe any fairytale you wish. What I find sad is what people judge to be "science" and how they judge scientists. And a person who doesn't study the Bible or may visit its pages only in search of mistakes, has little clue what is actually revealed there --- and likely could care less...
Click to expand...


I believe what the preponderance of evidence shows- not a book of fairy tales.  The Bible has some wonderful moral lessons in it- but it is not science. There is a reason why there are no Jewish 'creationists'.


----------



## Syriusly

LittleNipper said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> You may believe any fairytale you wish.
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that you and Bond repeat so many embarrassing falsehoods about scientific theories is not unrelated to your fetish for believing magical fairy tales.  You both long ago left the realm of just adopting ideas that supported your religious nonsense, and have gone down the rabbit hole of complete suspension of incredulity, when the result suits whatever emotion has fizzled into existence from the depths of your colon.. As one may expect, you are the wrong side of many things for precisely the same reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here is what your secular science says about the races. This is the full evolutionary teaching you must accept when disregarding GOD. Science on racial differences With GOD all are equal. With evolution one race is in general terms INFERIOR. You cannot have it both ways.
Click to expand...


LOL- you are citing a blog of an Australian nationalist- not a scientist. Hell you might as well be citing Donald Trump. 

It is rather bizarre really- are you saying that according to your God- African Americans don't suffer from higher rates of high blood pressure than Caucasian Americans?

Do you believe that Jews are 'inferior' because they have much, much higher rates of Tay Sachs disease than non-Jews? 

I don't believe any 'race'- which is rather subjective term is inferior or superior to another. 

But certainly there have been Christians who have promoted very specifically that whites are superior to other races- and spouted the Bible as evidence to support that idea.


----------



## LittleNipper

Syriusly said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> [Oh please....scientists consider evolution to be fact, period. No, you goobers are not presenting any actual challenge to the theory of evolution. Instead, you are embarrassing yourselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution is not a fact or else we can all use it.  Thus, you are wrong again.  Atheists are usually wrong ha ha.  We KNOW who the goober is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The stories of the Bible are not a fact- which is why we all don't use them. Chreato-Christian cultists are always wrong.
> 
> Evolution is the scientific theory which best explains the diversity of life on earth. Not the fairy tales of the Bible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Bible is God's Word which is complete, inerrant, authoritative, reliable, and sufficient to meet our needs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I absolutely understand that you have faith in your Bible and not in science.
Click to expand...

The Bible is historical fact. Man's values and opinions are tainted, compromised, skewed, and bias. Science study without any regard for GOD is incomplete at best and incorrect to one degree or another.


----------



## LittleNipper

Syriusly said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> You may believe any fairytale you wish.
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that you and Bond repeat so many embarrassing falsehoods about scientific theories is not unrelated to your fetish for believing magical fairy tales.  You both long ago left the realm of just adopting ideas that supported your religious nonsense, and have gone down the rabbit hole of complete suspension of incredulity, when the result suits whatever emotion has fizzled into existence from the depths of your colon.. As one may expect, you are the wrong side of many things for precisely the same reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here is what your secular science says about the races. This is the full evolutionary teaching you must accept when disregarding GOD. Science on racial differences With GOD all are equal. With evolution one race is in general terms INFERIOR. You cannot have it both ways.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL- you are citing a blog of an Australian nationalist- not a scientist. Hell you might as well be citing Donald Trump.
> 
> It is rather bizarre really- are you saying that according to your God- African Americans don't suffer from higher rates of high blood pressure than Caucasian Americans?
> 
> Do you believe that Jews are 'inferior' because they have much, much higher rates of Tay Sachs disease than non-Jews?
> 
> I don't believe any 'race'- which is rather subjective term is inferior or superior to another.
> 
> But certainly there have been Christians who have promoted very specifically that whites are superior to other races- and spouted the Bible as evidence to support that idea.
Click to expand...

What I'm saying is that all humans are of equal value to HIM.


----------



## Cecilie1200

RWS said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is something to ponder. Things are seldom what they seem.
> *What percentage of human DNA is shared with other things?*
> 
> 6 Answers
> 
> 
> 
> Xu Beixi, loves Nature.
> Answered Mar 24 2014 · Author has 4.7k answers and 31.1m answer views
> 
> 
> It depends on what you mean by share.
> 
> What do you consider the premise of your study? It it genome size, number of genes, chromosome number, phylogeny, etc. etc.? What constitutes alike as to different?
> 
> Also, it doesn't help that we don't know what all our genes are for, how they're used, what proteins they make, and there are so many ways for post-transcriptional modification that we can't begin to figure all of them out.
> 
> Finally, to answer:
> 
> It is very difficult to find reliable data comparing the human genome to animal genome. The principal reason is that few animals have had their full genome sequenced. Even those that have cannot be easily compared in terms of percentages because the genomic length and chromosomal division can vary greatly from one species to another.
> 
> Scouring the Web, here is what I have found so far.
> 
> - Genome-wide variation from one *human being* to another can be up to 0.5% (99.5% similarity)
> 
> - *Chimpanzees* are 96% to 98% similar to humans, depending on how it is calculated.
> 
> - *Cats *have 90% of homologous genes with humans, 82% with dogs, 80% with cows, 79% with chimpanzees, 69% with rats and 67% with mice.
> 
> - *Cows *(_Bos taurus_) are 80% genetically similar to humans
> 
> - 75% of *mouse* genes have equivalents in humans (source), 90% of the mouse genome could be lined up with a region on the human genome 99% of mouse genes turn out to have analogues in humans
> 
> - The *fruit fly* (_Drosophila_) shares about 60% of its DNA with humans.
> 
> - About 60% of *chicken* genes correspond to a similar human gene.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, we're all related due to evolution!
> 
> Had God Created Spontaneous Creation, we would not share those similar genetic traits.
Click to expand...


Really?  Why not?  What rock-solid evidence, or any evidence, do you have that says that Creation would require everything to be 100% genetically different?  We all have to exist on the same planet.  Why wouldn't He use similar traits, in different combinations, to fit us to live in the same place?

A master artist's work, no matter what the subject matter, can be identified by the similarity of brush strokes, after all.


----------



## ChesBayJJ

LittleNipper said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> [Oh please....scientists consider evolution to be fact, period. No, you goobers are not presenting any actual challenge to the theory of evolution. Instead, you are embarrassing yourselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution is not a fact or else we can all use it.  Thus, you are wrong again.  Atheists are usually wrong ha ha.  We KNOW who the goober is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The stories of the Bible are not a fact- which is why we all don't use them. Chreato-Christian cultists are always wrong.
> 
> Evolution is the scientific theory which best explains the diversity of life on earth. Not the fairy tales of the Bible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Bible is God's Word which is complete, inerrant, authoritative, reliable, and sufficient to meet our needs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I absolutely understand that you have faith in your Bible and not in science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Bible is historical fact. Man's values and opinions are tainted, compromised, skewed, and bias. Science study without any regard for GOD is incomplete at best and incorrect to one degree or another.
Click to expand...


Some of the Bible addresses history - the early state of Israel as an example. But Genesis and the story of creation is mythology.


----------



## james bond

Syriusly said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> [Oh please....scientists consider evolution to be fact, period. No, you goobers are not presenting any actual challenge to the theory of evolution. Instead, you are embarrassing yourselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution is not a fact or else we can all use it.  Thus, you are wrong again.  Atheists are usually wrong ha ha.  We KNOW who the goober is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The stories of the Bible are not a fact- which is why we all don't use them. Chreato-Christian cultists are always wrong.
> 
> Evolution is the scientific theory which best explains the diversity of life on earth. Not the fairy tales of the Bible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Bible is God's Word which is complete, inerrant, authoritative, reliable, and sufficient to meet our needs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I absolutely understand that you have faith in your Bible and not in science.
Click to expand...


I understand that evo is part of your worldview, but I argue the Bible, creation and atheist science against some of evolutionary thinking and ToE such as humans came from monkeys.  Have no prob with common ancestors within a clade, but not all clades come from a common ancestor.


----------



## james bond

ChesBayJJ said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution is not a fact or else we can all use it.  Thus, you are wrong again.  Atheists are usually wrong ha ha.  We KNOW who the goober is.
> 
> 
> 
> The stories of the Bible are not a fact- which is why we all don't use them. Chreato-Christian cultists are always wrong.
> 
> Evolution is the scientific theory which best explains the diversity of life on earth. Not the fairy tales of the Bible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Bible is God's Word which is complete, inerrant, authoritative, reliable, and sufficient to meet our needs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I absolutely understand that you have faith in your Bible and not in science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Bible is historical fact. Man's values and opinions are tainted, compromised, skewed, and bias. Science study without any regard for GOD is incomplete at best and incorrect to one degree or another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some of the Bible addresses history - the early state of Israel as an example. But Genesis and the story of creation is mythology.
Click to expand...


I thought this way before, but found the Bible is a non-fiction book.  After investigating and comparing with evolution, I thought creation was true instead of evo.  For example, last year, we found the chicken came before the egg.  That's a fact.  What parts do you think is myth?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

LittleNipper said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> You may believe any fairytale you wish.
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that you and Bond repeat so many embarrassing falsehoods about scientific theories is not unrelated to your fetish for believing magical fairy tales.  You both long ago left the realm of just adopting ideas that supported your religious nonsense, and have gone down the rabbit hole of complete suspension of incredulity, when the result suits whatever emotion has fizzled into existence from the depths of your colon.. As one may expect, you are the wrong side of many things for precisely the same reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here is what your secular science says about the races. This is the full evolutionary teaching you must accept when disregarding GOD. Science on racial differences With GOD all are equal. With evolution one race is in general terms INFERIOR. You cannot have it both ways.
Click to expand...

Shut up idiot, that is not what science says about the races. Get your head out of your ass and go read some real sources, instead of what  religious nutball freaks are spoon-feeding you. 

And furthermore, one does not have to reject God to accept evolution. You are wrong about every damn thing you have said and should shut up immediately


----------



## Syriusly

LittleNipper said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> You may believe any fairytale you wish.
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that you and Bond repeat so many embarrassing falsehoods about scientific theories is not unrelated to your fetish for believing magical fairy tales.  You both long ago left the realm of just adopting ideas that supported your religious nonsense, and have gone down the rabbit hole of complete suspension of incredulity, when the result suits whatever emotion has fizzled into existence from the depths of your colon.. As one may expect, you are the wrong side of many things for precisely the same reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here is what your secular science says about the races. This is the full evolutionary teaching you must accept when disregarding GOD. Science on racial differences With GOD all are equal. With evolution one race is in general terms INFERIOR. You cannot have it both ways.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL- you are citing a blog of an Australian nationalist- not a scientist. Hell you might as well be citing Donald Trump.
> 
> It is rather bizarre really- are you saying that according to your God- African Americans don't suffer from higher rates of high blood pressure than Caucasian Americans?
> 
> Do you believe that Jews are 'inferior' because they have much, much higher rates of Tay Sachs disease than non-Jews?
> 
> I don't believe any 'race'- which is rather subjective term is inferior or superior to another.
> 
> But certainly there have been Christians who have promoted very specifically that whites are superior to other races- and spouted the Bible as evidence to support that idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What I'm saying is that all humans are of equal value to HIM.
Click to expand...


All human beings are of equal value to science. 

But please tell us more about the white supremacist Australian blogs you read.


----------



## Syriusly

LittleNipper said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> [Oh please....scientists consider evolution to be fact, period. No, you goobers are not presenting any actual challenge to the theory of evolution. Instead, you are embarrassing yourselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution is not a fact or else we can all use it.  Thus, you are wrong again.  Atheists are usually wrong ha ha.  We KNOW who the goober is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The stories of the Bible are not a fact- which is why we all don't use them. Chreato-Christian cultists are always wrong.
> 
> Evolution is the scientific theory which best explains the diversity of life on earth. Not the fairy tales of the Bible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Bible is God's Word which is complete, inerrant, authoritative, reliable, and sufficient to meet our needs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I absolutely understand that you have faith in your Bible and not in science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Bible is historical fact. Man's values and opinions are tainted, compromised, skewed, and bias. Science study without any regard for GOD is incomplete at best and incorrect to one degree or another.
Click to expand...


That the Bible exists is historical fact. That the Bible sometimes references historical fact has been confirmed- but most of the Bible is totally unconfirmed. 

But thanks for pointing out that your values and opinions are tainted, compromised, skewed and biased.


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> [Oh please....scientists consider evolution to be fact, period. No, you goobers are not presenting any actual challenge to the theory of evolution. Instead, you are embarrassing yourselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution is not a fact or else we can all use it.  Thus, you are wrong again.  Atheists are usually wrong ha ha.  We KNOW who the goober is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The stories of the Bible are not a fact- which is why we all don't use them. Chreato-Christian cultists are always wrong.
> 
> Evolution is the scientific theory which best explains the diversity of life on earth. Not the fairy tales of the Bible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Bible is God's Word which is complete, inerrant, authoritative, reliable, and sufficient to meet our needs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I absolutely understand that you have faith in your Bible and not in science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> but I argue the Bible, creation and atheist science against some of evolutionary thinking and ToE such as humans came from monkeys. .
Click to expand...


The Theory of Evolution doesn't say that humans came from Monkeys. 

That is the equivalent of me arguing that the Bible says that whites are superior to blacks.


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> [Oh please....scientists consider evolution to be fact, period. No, you goobers are not presenting any actual challenge to the theory of evolution. Instead, you are embarrassing yourselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution is not a fact or else we can all use it.  Thus, you are wrong again.  Atheists are usually wrong ha ha.  We KNOW who the goober is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The stories of the Bible are not a fact- which is why we all don't use them. Chreato-Christian cultists are always wrong.
> 
> Evolution is the scientific theory which best explains the diversity of life on earth. Not the fairy tales of the Bible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Bible is God's Word which is complete, inerrant, authoritative, reliable, and sufficient to meet our needs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I absolutely understand that you have faith in your Bible and not in science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Have no prob with common ancestors within a clade, but not all clades come from a common ancestor.
Click to expand...

so you agree that Gorillas and Chimpanzees and humans have a common ancestor- but not Gibbons and humans?


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> The stories of the Bible are not a fact- which is why we all don't use them. Chreato-Christian cultists are always wrong.
> 
> Evolution is the scientific theory which best explains the diversity of life on earth. Not the fairy tales of the Bible.
> 
> 
> 
> The Bible is God's Word which is complete, inerrant, authoritative, reliable, and sufficient to meet our needs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I absolutely understand that you have faith in your Bible and not in science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Bible is historical fact. Man's values and opinions are tainted, compromised, skewed, and bias. Science study without any regard for GOD is incomplete at best and incorrect to one degree or another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some of the Bible addresses history - the early state of Israel as an example. But Genesis and the story of creation is mythology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I thought this way before, but found the Bible is a non-fiction book.  After investigating and comparing with evolution, I thought creation was true instead of evo.  For example, last year, we found the chicken came before the egg.  That's a fact.  What parts do you think is myth?
Click to expand...

Finally answered! Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
_Basically, many, many moons ago there was a chicken-like bird. It was genetically close to a chicken but wasn't a full-blown chicken yet. The video calls it a proto-chicken. So proto-hen laid an egg, and proto-rooster fertilized it. But when the genes from ma and pa almost-chicken fused, they combined in a new way, creating a mutation that accidentally made the baby different from its parents. Although it would take millennia for the difference to be noticed, that egg was different enough to become the official progenitor of a new species, now known as... the chicken! So in a nutshell (or an eggshell, if you like), two birds that weren't really chickens created a chicken egg, and hence, we have an answer: The egg came first, and then it hatched a chicken._


----------



## ChesBayJJ

james bond said:


> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> The stories of the Bible are not a fact- which is why we all don't use them. Chreato-Christian cultists are always wrong.
> 
> Evolution is the scientific theory which best explains the diversity of life on earth. Not the fairy tales of the Bible.
> 
> 
> 
> The Bible is God's Word which is complete, inerrant, authoritative, reliable, and sufficient to meet our needs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I absolutely understand that you have faith in your Bible and not in science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Bible is historical fact. Man's values and opinions are tainted, compromised, skewed, and bias. Science study without any regard for GOD is incomplete at best and incorrect to one degree or another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some of the Bible addresses history - the early state of Israel as an example. But Genesis and the story of creation is mythology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I thought this way before, but found the Bible is a non-fiction book.  After investigating and comparing with evolution, I thought creation was true instead of evo.  For example, last year, we found the chicken came before the egg.  That's a fact.  What parts do you think is myth?
Click to expand...


I think the creation story and the flood are both mythical - folklore passed down verbally from generation to generation. As far as the chicken before the egg, I don't know what that is supposed to mean. Before we had birds, we had various kinds of reptiles, which were also egg layers, so I'd say the egg came before the chicken.

Here is a reference to one theory about the great flood

Black Sea deluge hypothesis - Wikipedia

The Ryan/Pitman book is very good.

Edit:

Saying the flood story is a myth is incorrect. There very likely was a large scale event with many ancient peoples displaced by flooding. Tales of that flooding are parts of a number of cultures, and the tale has been included in the Bible.


----------



## LittleNipper

ChesBayJJ said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution is not a fact or else we can all use it.  Thus, you are wrong again.  Atheists are usually wrong ha ha.  We KNOW who the goober is.
> 
> 
> 
> The stories of the Bible are not a fact- which is why we all don't use them. Chreato-Christian cultists are always wrong.
> 
> Evolution is the scientific theory which best explains the diversity of life on earth. Not the fairy tales of the Bible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Bible is God's Word which is complete, inerrant, authoritative, reliable, and sufficient to meet our needs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I absolutely understand that you have faith in your Bible and not in science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Bible is historical fact. Man's values and opinions are tainted, compromised, skewed, and bias. Science study without any regard for GOD is incomplete at best and incorrect to one degree or another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some of the Bible addresses history - the early state of Israel as an example. But Genesis and the story of creation is mythology.
Click to expand...

Hardly, I don't see GOD driving the sun around in a chariot or eating HIS children. I do see very poignant observations regarding a thoughtful view of creation unparalleled by any pagan story developed by other cultures. The fact alone that most call the "writers" of the Bible mere sheepherders only makes the revelation that much more astounding.

Job 9
8 He alone spreads out the sky
and walks on the waves in the sea.
9 He made the Great Bear, Orion, the Pleiades
and the hidden constellations of the south.
10 He does great, unsearchable things,
wonders beyond counting.
11 He can go right by me, and I don’t see him;
he moves past without my being aware of him.


----------



## james bond

ChesBayJJ said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Bible is God's Word which is complete, inerrant, authoritative, reliable, and sufficient to meet our needs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I absolutely understand that you have faith in your Bible and not in science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Bible is historical fact. Man's values and opinions are tainted, compromised, skewed, and bias. Science study without any regard for GOD is incomplete at best and incorrect to one degree or another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some of the Bible addresses history - the early state of Israel as an example. But Genesis and the story of creation is mythology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I thought this way before, but found the Bible is a non-fiction book.  After investigating and comparing with evolution, I thought creation was true instead of evo.  For example, last year, we found the chicken came before the egg.  That's a fact.  What parts do you think is myth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think the creation story and the flood are both mythical - folklore passed down verbally from generation to generation. As far as the chicken before the egg, I don't know what that is supposed to mean. Before we had birds, we had various kinds of reptiles, which were also egg layers, so I'd say the egg came before the chicken.
> 
> Here is a reference to one theory about the great flood
> 
> Black Sea deluge hypothesis - Wikipedia
> 
> The Ryan/Pitman book is very good.
> 
> Edit:
> 
> Saying the flood story is a myth is incorrect. There very likely was a large scale event with many ancient peoples displaced by flooding. Tales of that flooding are parts of a number of cultures, and the tale has been included in the Bible.
Click to expand...


How can a non-fiction book be mythical?  You can say it's historical.  And if you do not understand the chicken came first, then you do not understand longtime science mysteries.  Too many people believed evolution which taught that the egg came first, but the secular (atheist) scientists were wrong.  The egg can't fertilize itself.  One needs a chicken and rooster.  Also, the chicken produces the protein that coats the egg.  We all know that one needs a cell to produce protein.  It can't pop into existence at the molecular level.

There's evidence of global flooding is that the earth is 3/4 covered with water and we see that mountains came up from beneath the seafloor.  People think the water can't get as high as Mt. Everest, which I can understand, but it could if Everest was lower and then became higher from the earthquake in the seafloor.  Scientists think there are oceans of water hidden in the earth's mantle.

And why do you bring up a local flood?


----------



## james bond

Syriusly said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Bible is God's Word which is complete, inerrant, authoritative, reliable, and sufficient to meet our needs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I absolutely understand that you have faith in your Bible and not in science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Bible is historical fact. Man's values and opinions are tainted, compromised, skewed, and bias. Science study without any regard for GOD is incomplete at best and incorrect to one degree or another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some of the Bible addresses history - the early state of Israel as an example. But Genesis and the story of creation is mythology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I thought this way before, but found the Bible is a non-fiction book.  After investigating and comparing with evolution, I thought creation was true instead of evo.  For example, last year, we found the chicken came before the egg.  That's a fact.  What parts do you think is myth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Finally answered! Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
> _Basically, many, many moons ago there was a chicken-like bird. It was genetically close to a chicken but wasn't a full-blown chicken yet. The video calls it a proto-chicken. So proto-hen laid an egg, and proto-rooster fertilized it. But when the genes from ma and pa almost-chicken fused, they combined in a new way, creating a mutation that accidentally made the baby different from its parents. Although it would take millennia for the difference to be noticed, that egg was different enough to become the official progenitor of a new species, now known as... the chicken! So in a nutshell (or an eggshell, if you like), two birds that weren't really chickens created a chicken egg, and hence, we have an answer: The egg came first, and then it hatched a chicken._
Click to expand...


Syriusly you believe in myths.

There's also the problem of infinite regression.  If there was a proto-chicken and proto-rooster, then where did they come from?  The proto-proto-chicken?  And where did the proto-proto-chicken come from?  The proto-proto-proto-chicken?  Ha ha.


----------



## ChesBayJJ

james bond said:


> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> I absolutely understand that you have faith in your Bible and not in science.
> 
> 
> 
> The Bible is historical fact. Man's values and opinions are tainted, compromised, skewed, and bias. Science study without any regard for GOD is incomplete at best and incorrect to one degree or another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some of the Bible addresses history - the early state of Israel as an example. But Genesis and the story of creation is mythology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I thought this way before, but found the Bible is a non-fiction book.  After investigating and comparing with evolution, I thought creation was true instead of evo.  For example, last year, we found the chicken came before the egg.  That's a fact.  What parts do you think is myth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think the creation story and the flood are both mythical - folklore passed down verbally from generation to generation. As far as the chicken before the egg, I don't know what that is supposed to mean. Before we had birds, we had various kinds of reptiles, which were also egg layers, so I'd say the egg came before the chicken.
> 
> Here is a reference to one theory about the great flood
> 
> Black Sea deluge hypothesis - Wikipedia
> 
> The Ryan/Pitman book is very good.
> 
> Edit:
> 
> Saying the flood story is a myth is incorrect. There very likely was a large scale event with many ancient peoples displaced by flooding. Tales of that flooding are parts of a number of cultures, and the tale has been included in the Bible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How can a non-fiction book be mythical?  You can say it's historical.  And if you do not understand the chicken came first, then you do not understand longtime science mysteries.  Too many people believed evolution which taught that the egg came first, but the secular (atheist) scientists were wrong.  The egg can't fertilize itself.  One needs a chicken and rooster.  Also, the chicken produces the protein that coats the egg.  We all know that one needs a cell to produce protein.  It can't pop into existence at the molecular level.
> 
> There's evidence of global flooding is that the earth is 3/4 covered with water and we see that mountains came up from beneath the seafloor.  People think the water can't get as high as Mt. Everest, which I can understand, but it could if Everest was lower and then became higher from the earthquake in the seafloor.  Scientists think there are oceans of water hidden in the earth's mantle.
> 
> And why do you bring up a local flood?
Click to expand...


Because it is very likely the source of the biblical flood story.


----------



## ChesBayJJ

james bond said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> I absolutely understand that you have faith in your Bible and not in science.
> 
> 
> 
> The Bible is historical fact. Man's values and opinions are tainted, compromised, skewed, and bias. Science study without any regard for GOD is incomplete at best and incorrect to one degree or another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some of the Bible addresses history - the early state of Israel as an example. But Genesis and the story of creation is mythology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I thought this way before, but found the Bible is a non-fiction book.  After investigating and comparing with evolution, I thought creation was true instead of evo.  For example, last year, we found the chicken came before the egg.  That's a fact.  What parts do you think is myth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Finally answered! Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
> _Basically, many, many moons ago there was a chicken-like bird. It was genetically close to a chicken but wasn't a full-blown chicken yet. The video calls it a proto-chicken. So proto-hen laid an egg, and proto-rooster fertilized it. But when the genes from ma and pa almost-chicken fused, they combined in a new way, creating a mutation that accidentally made the baby different from its parents. Although it would take millennia for the difference to be noticed, that egg was different enough to become the official progenitor of a new species, now known as... the chicken! So in a nutshell (or an eggshell, if you like), two birds that weren't really chickens created a chicken egg, and hence, we have an answer: The egg came first, and then it hatched a chicken._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Syriusly you believe in myths.
> 
> There's also the problem of infinite regression.  If there was a proto-chicken and proto-rooster, then where did they come from?  The proto-proto-chicken?  And where did the proto-proto-chicken come from?  The proto-proto-proto-chicken?  Ha ha.
Click to expand...


The proto-chicken and proto-rooster evolved from egg laying reptiles.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ChesBayJJ said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Bible is historical fact. Man's values and opinions are tainted, compromised, skewed, and bias. Science study without any regard for GOD is incomplete at best and incorrect to one degree or another.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some of the Bible addresses history - the early state of Israel as an example. But Genesis and the story of creation is mythology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I thought this way before, but found the Bible is a non-fiction book.  After investigating and comparing with evolution, I thought creation was true instead of evo.  For example, last year, we found the chicken came before the egg.  That's a fact.  What parts do you think is myth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Finally answered! Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
> _Basically, many, many moons ago there was a chicken-like bird. It was genetically close to a chicken but wasn't a full-blown chicken yet. The video calls it a proto-chicken. So proto-hen laid an egg, and proto-rooster fertilized it. But when the genes from ma and pa almost-chicken fused, they combined in a new way, creating a mutation that accidentally made the baby different from its parents. Although it would take millennia for the difference to be noticed, that egg was different enough to become the official progenitor of a new species, now known as... the chicken! So in a nutshell (or an eggshell, if you like), two birds that weren't really chickens created a chicken egg, and hence, we have an answer: The egg came first, and then it hatched a chicken._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Syriusly you believe in myths.
> 
> There's also the problem of infinite regression.  If there was a proto-chicken and proto-rooster, then where did they come from?  The proto-proto-chicken?  And where did the proto-proto-chicken come from?  The proto-proto-proto-chicken?  Ha ha.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The proto-chicken and proto-rooster evolved from egg laying reptiles.
Click to expand...

Duh.i mean,come on people,small children get this stuff. These guys are embarrassing themselves.


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> I absolutely understand that you have faith in your Bible and not in science.
> 
> 
> 
> The Bible is historical fact. Man's values and opinions are tainted, compromised, skewed, and bias. Science study without any regard for GOD is incomplete at best and incorrect to one degree or another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some of the Bible addresses history - the early state of Israel as an example. But Genesis and the story of creation is mythology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I thought this way before, but found the Bible is a non-fiction book.  After investigating and comparing with evolution, I thought creation was true instead of evo.  For example, last year, we found the chicken came before the egg.  That's a fact.  What parts do you think is myth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think the creation story and the flood are both mythical - folklore passed down verbally from generation to generation. As far as the chicken before the egg, I don't know what that is supposed to mean. Before we had birds, we had various kinds of reptiles, which were also egg layers, so I'd say the egg came before the chicken.
> 
> Here is a reference to one theory about the great flood
> 
> Black Sea deluge hypothesis - Wikipedia
> 
> The Ryan/Pitman book is very good.
> 
> Edit:
> 
> Saying the flood story is a myth is incorrect. There very likely was a large scale event with many ancient peoples displaced by flooding. Tales of that flooding are parts of a number of cultures, and the tale has been included in the Bible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How can a non-fiction book be mythical?  You can say it's historical.
Click to expand...


The Bible is considered a religious book- and is classified with all of the other books of religions- including Koran, and books about Greek and Roman religions (Dewey Decimal 200-299)


----------



## james bond

ChesBayJJ said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Bible is historical fact. Man's values and opinions are tainted, compromised, skewed, and bias. Science study without any regard for GOD is incomplete at best and incorrect to one degree or another.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some of the Bible addresses history - the early state of Israel as an example. But Genesis and the story of creation is mythology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I thought this way before, but found the Bible is a non-fiction book.  After investigating and comparing with evolution, I thought creation was true instead of evo.  For example, last year, we found the chicken came before the egg.  That's a fact.  What parts do you think is myth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think the creation story and the flood are both mythical - folklore passed down verbally from generation to generation. As far as the chicken before the egg, I don't know what that is supposed to mean. Before we had birds, we had various kinds of reptiles, which were also egg layers, so I'd say the egg came before the chicken.
> 
> Here is a reference to one theory about the great flood
> 
> Black Sea deluge hypothesis - Wikipedia
> 
> The Ryan/Pitman book is very good.
> 
> Edit:
> 
> Saying the flood story is a myth is incorrect. There very likely was a large scale event with many ancient peoples displaced by flooding. Tales of that flooding are parts of a number of cultures, and the tale has been included in the Bible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How can a non-fiction book be mythical?  You can say it's historical.  And if you do not understand the chicken came first, then you do not understand longtime science mysteries.  Too many people believed evolution which taught that the egg came first, but the secular (atheist) scientists were wrong.  The egg can't fertilize itself.  One needs a chicken and rooster.  Also, the chicken produces the protein that coats the egg.  We all know that one needs a cell to produce protein.  It can't pop into existence at the molecular level.
> 
> There's evidence of global flooding is that the earth is 3/4 covered with water and we see that mountains came up from beneath the seafloor.  People think the water can't get as high as Mt. Everest, which I can understand, but it could if Everest was lower and then became higher from the earthquake in the seafloor.  Scientists think there are oceans of water hidden in the earth's mantle.
> 
> And why do you bring up a local flood?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because it is very likely the source of the biblical flood story.
Click to expand...


Your story is more recent than the Bible's reporting.  These flood stories and hypothesis from all around the world, like Gilgamesh, came about the same way.  From the real global flood.  Even Bill Nye provided the evidence (inadvertently).


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> I absolutely understand that you have faith in your Bible and not in science.
> 
> 
> 
> The Bible is historical fact. Man's values and opinions are tainted, compromised, skewed, and bias. Science study without any regard for GOD is incomplete at best and incorrect to one degree or another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some of the Bible addresses history - the early state of Israel as an example. But Genesis and the story of creation is mythology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I thought this way before, but found the Bible is a non-fiction book.  After investigating and comparing with evolution, I thought creation was true instead of evo.  For example, last year, we found the chicken came before the egg.  That's a fact.  What parts do you think is myth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think the creation story and the flood are both mythical - folklore passed down verbally from generation to generation. As far as the chicken before the egg, I don't know what that is supposed to mean. Before we had birds, we had various kinds of reptiles, which were also egg layers, so I'd say the egg came before the chicken.
> 
> Here is a reference to one theory about the great flood
> 
> Black Sea deluge hypothesis - Wikipedia
> 
> The Ryan/Pitman book is very good.
> 
> Edit:
> 
> Saying the flood story is a myth is incorrect. There very likely was a large scale event with many ancient peoples displaced by flooding. Tales of that flooding are parts of a number of cultures, and the tale has been included in the Bible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And if you do not understand the chicken came first, then you do not understand longtime science mysteries.  Too many people believed evolution which taught that the egg came first, but the secular (atheist) scientists were wrong.  The egg can't fertilize itself.  One needs a chicken and rooster.  Also, the chicken produces the protein that coats the egg.  We all know that one needs a cell to produce protein.  It can't pop into existence at the molecular level.
Click to expand...


I love how you 'secular scientists' are wrong- when you could have just been more succinct and said 'scientists'. 

I am not surprised that you Creato-Christian cultists refuse the science of evolution- or that the egg came first.
Finally answered! Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
_Basically, many, many moons ago there was a chicken-like bird. It was genetically close to a chicken but wasn't a full-blown chicken yet. The video calls it a proto-chicken. So proto-hen laid an egg, and proto-rooster fertilized it. But when the genes from ma and pa almost-chicken fused, they combined in a new way, creating a mutation that accidentally made the baby different from its parents. Although it would take millennia for the difference to be noticed, that egg was different enough to become the official progenitor of a new species, now known as... the chicken! So in a nutshell (or an eggshell, if you like), two birds that weren't really chickens created a chicken egg, and hence, we have an answer: The egg came first, and then it hatched a chicken.
_
Want another example?

Which came first a baby Liger or an adult Liger?


----------



## james bond

ChesBayJJ said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Bible is historical fact. Man's values and opinions are tainted, compromised, skewed, and bias. Science study without any regard for GOD is incomplete at best and incorrect to one degree or another.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some of the Bible addresses history - the early state of Israel as an example. But Genesis and the story of creation is mythology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I thought this way before, but found the Bible is a non-fiction book.  After investigating and comparing with evolution, I thought creation was true instead of evo.  For example, last year, we found the chicken came before the egg.  That's a fact.  What parts do you think is myth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Finally answered! Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
> _Basically, many, many moons ago there was a chicken-like bird. It was genetically close to a chicken but wasn't a full-blown chicken yet. The video calls it a proto-chicken. So proto-hen laid an egg, and proto-rooster fertilized it. But when the genes from ma and pa almost-chicken fused, they combined in a new way, creating a mutation that accidentally made the baby different from its parents. Although it would take millennia for the difference to be noticed, that egg was different enough to become the official progenitor of a new species, now known as... the chicken! So in a nutshell (or an eggshell, if you like), two birds that weren't really chickens created a chicken egg, and hence, we have an answer: The egg came first, and then it hatched a chicken._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Syriusly you believe in myths.
> 
> There's also the problem of infinite regression.  If there was a proto-chicken and proto-rooster, then where did they come from?  The proto-proto-chicken?  And where did the proto-proto-chicken come from?  The proto-proto-proto-chicken?  Ha ha.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The proto-chicken and proto-rooster evolved from egg laying reptiles.
Click to expand...


No evidence of a proto-chicken-rooster, and we can apply infinite regression to egg laying reptiles.


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> I absolutely understand that you have faith in your Bible and not in science.
> 
> 
> 
> The Bible is historical fact. Man's values and opinions are tainted, compromised, skewed, and bias. Science study without any regard for GOD is incomplete at best and incorrect to one degree or another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some of the Bible addresses history - the early state of Israel as an example. But Genesis and the story of creation is mythology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I thought this way before, but found the Bible is a non-fiction book.  After investigating and comparing with evolution, I thought creation was true instead of evo.  For example, last year, we found the chicken came before the egg.  That's a fact.  What parts do you think is myth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think the creation story and the flood are both mythical - folklore passed down verbally from generation to generation. As far as the chicken before the egg, I don't know what that is supposed to mean. Before we had birds, we had various kinds of reptiles, which were also egg layers, so I'd say the egg came before the chicken.
> 
> Here is a reference to one theory about the great flood
> 
> Black Sea deluge hypothesis - Wikipedia
> 
> The Ryan/Pitman book is very good.
> 
> Edit:
> 
> Saying the flood story is a myth is incorrect. There very likely was a large scale event with many ancient peoples displaced by flooding. Tales of that flooding are parts of a number of cultures, and the tale has been included in the Bible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There's evidence of global flooding is that the earth is 3/4 covered with water and we see that mountains came up from beneath the seafloor.  People think the water can't get as high as Mt. Everest, which I can understand, but it could if Everest was lower and then became higher f
Click to expand...


Sorry- that is not evidence of 'global flooding' but of misguided Creato-Christian thinking. 

Yes- the Earth is 3/4 covered with water- but there is absolutely no evidence- zilch- that it was ever covered 100% by water.  Instead the evidence shows the reverse- that the earth was never 100% covered by water. 

But I am amused that you think that Everest in the last 4,000 years has become dramatically higher.


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> I absolutely understand that you have faith in your Bible and not in science.
> 
> 
> 
> The Bible is historical fact. Man's values and opinions are tainted, compromised, skewed, and bias. Science study without any regard for GOD is incomplete at best and incorrect to one degree or another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some of the Bible addresses history - the early state of Israel as an example. But Genesis and the story of creation is mythology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I thought this way before, but found the Bible is a non-fiction book.  After investigating and comparing with evolution, I thought creation was true instead of evo.  For example, last year, we found the chicken came before the egg.  That's a fact.  What parts do you think is myth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Finally answered! Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
> _Basically, many, many moons ago there was a chicken-like bird. It was genetically close to a chicken but wasn't a full-blown chicken yet. The video calls it a proto-chicken. So proto-hen laid an egg, and proto-rooster fertilized it. But when the genes from ma and pa almost-chicken fused, they combined in a new way, creating a mutation that accidentally made the baby different from its parents. Although it would take millennia for the difference to be noticed, that egg was different enough to become the official progenitor of a new species, now known as... the chicken! So in a nutshell (or an eggshell, if you like), two birds that weren't really chickens created a chicken egg, and hence, we have an answer: The egg came first, and then it hatched a chicken._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Syriusly you believe in myths.
> 
> There's also the problem of infinite regression.  If there was a proto-chicken and proto-rooster, then where did they come from?  The proto-proto-chicken?  And where did the proto-proto-chicken come from?  The proto-proto-proto-chicken?  Ha ha.
Click to expand...


Oh I am sure there is some myth I believe in that I am not even aware of. 

There is no problem of 'infinite regression' - there is just evolution and that you find the concept of evolution to be in conflict with your narrow view of your holy book.


----------



## james bond

Syriusly said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Bible is historical fact. Man's values and opinions are tainted, compromised, skewed, and bias. Science study without any regard for GOD is incomplete at best and incorrect to one degree or another.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some of the Bible addresses history - the early state of Israel as an example. But Genesis and the story of creation is mythology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I thought this way before, but found the Bible is a non-fiction book.  After investigating and comparing with evolution, I thought creation was true instead of evo.  For example, last year, we found the chicken came before the egg.  That's a fact.  What parts do you think is myth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think the creation story and the flood are both mythical - folklore passed down verbally from generation to generation. As far as the chicken before the egg, I don't know what that is supposed to mean. Before we had birds, we had various kinds of reptiles, which were also egg layers, so I'd say the egg came before the chicken.
> 
> Here is a reference to one theory about the great flood
> 
> Black Sea deluge hypothesis - Wikipedia
> 
> The Ryan/Pitman book is very good.
> 
> Edit:
> 
> Saying the flood story is a myth is incorrect. There very likely was a large scale event with many ancient peoples displaced by flooding. Tales of that flooding are parts of a number of cultures, and the tale has been included in the Bible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And if you do not understand the chicken came first, then you do not understand longtime science mysteries.  Too many people believed evolution which taught that the egg came first, but the secular (atheist) scientists were wrong.  The egg can't fertilize itself.  One needs a chicken and rooster.  Also, the chicken produces the protein that coats the egg.  We all know that one needs a cell to produce protein.  It can't pop into existence at the molecular level.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I love how you 'secular scientists' are wrong- when you could have just been more succinct and said 'scientists'.
> 
> I am not surprised that you Creato-Christian cultists refuse the science of evolution- or that the egg came first.
> Finally answered! Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
> _Basically, many, many moons ago there was a chicken-like bird. It was genetically close to a chicken but wasn't a full-blown chicken yet. The video calls it a proto-chicken. So proto-hen laid an egg, and proto-rooster fertilized it. But when the genes from ma and pa almost-chicken fused, they combined in a new way, creating a mutation that accidentally made the baby different from its parents. Although it would take millennia for the difference to be noticed, that egg was different enough to become the official progenitor of a new species, now known as... the chicken! So in a nutshell (or an eggshell, if you like), two birds that weren't really chickens created a chicken egg, and hence, we have an answer: The egg came first, and then it hatched a chicken.
> _
> Want another example?
> 
> Which came first a baby Liger or an adult Liger?
Click to expand...


Eyeroll.  It's a FACT now that the chicken came first.  You keep dodging the question, so I'm going to ignore yours. * If the egg came first, then how did the protein which only the chicken can produce end up on the shell?*


----------



## james bond

Syriusly said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Bible is historical fact. Man's values and opinions are tainted, compromised, skewed, and bias. Science study without any regard for GOD is incomplete at best and incorrect to one degree or another.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some of the Bible addresses history - the early state of Israel as an example. But Genesis and the story of creation is mythology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I thought this way before, but found the Bible is a non-fiction book.  After investigating and comparing with evolution, I thought creation was true instead of evo.  For example, last year, we found the chicken came before the egg.  That's a fact.  What parts do you think is myth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think the creation story and the flood are both mythical - folklore passed down verbally from generation to generation. As far as the chicken before the egg, I don't know what that is supposed to mean. Before we had birds, we had various kinds of reptiles, which were also egg layers, so I'd say the egg came before the chicken.
> 
> Here is a reference to one theory about the great flood
> 
> Black Sea deluge hypothesis - Wikipedia
> 
> The Ryan/Pitman book is very good.
> 
> Edit:
> 
> Saying the flood story is a myth is incorrect. There very likely was a large scale event with many ancient peoples displaced by flooding. Tales of that flooding are parts of a number of cultures, and the tale has been included in the Bible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There's evidence of global flooding is that the earth is 3/4 covered with water and we see that mountains came up from beneath the seafloor.  People think the water can't get as high as Mt. Everest, which I can understand, but it could if Everest was lower and then became higher f
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry- that is not evidence of 'global flooding' but of misguided Creato-Christian thinking.
> 
> Yes- the Earth is 3/4 covered with water- but there is absolutely no evidence- zilch- that it was ever covered 100% by water.  Instead the evidence shows the reverse- that the earth was never 100% covered by water.
> 
> But I am amused that you think that Everest in the last 4,000 years has become dramatically higher.
Click to expand...


LOL.  We agree.  The earth was not covered by water.  It had water vapors and some water, but not 3/4 covered by water.  It just goes to show you do not understand the Bible and the science behind it.


----------



## james bond

Syriusly said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Bible is historical fact. Man's values and opinions are tainted, compromised, skewed, and bias. Science study without any regard for GOD is incomplete at best and incorrect to one degree or another.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some of the Bible addresses history - the early state of Israel as an example. But Genesis and the story of creation is mythology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I thought this way before, but found the Bible is a non-fiction book.  After investigating and comparing with evolution, I thought creation was true instead of evo.  For example, last year, we found the chicken came before the egg.  That's a fact.  What parts do you think is myth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Finally answered! Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
> _Basically, many, many moons ago there was a chicken-like bird. It was genetically close to a chicken but wasn't a full-blown chicken yet. The video calls it a proto-chicken. So proto-hen laid an egg, and proto-rooster fertilized it. But when the genes from ma and pa almost-chicken fused, they combined in a new way, creating a mutation that accidentally made the baby different from its parents. Although it would take millennia for the difference to be noticed, that egg was different enough to become the official progenitor of a new species, now known as... the chicken! So in a nutshell (or an eggshell, if you like), two birds that weren't really chickens created a chicken egg, and hence, we have an answer: The egg came first, and then it hatched a chicken._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Syriusly you believe in myths.
> 
> There's also the problem of infinite regression.  If there was a proto-chicken and proto-rooster, then where did they come from?  The proto-proto-chicken?  And where did the proto-proto-chicken come from?  The proto-proto-proto-chicken?  Ha ha.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh I am sure there is some myth I believe in that I am not even aware of.
> 
> There is no problem of 'infinite regression' - there is just evolution and that you find the concept of evolution to be in conflict with your narrow view of your holy book.
Click to expand...


Do I have to just spit it out ha ha?  The myth you believe in is evolution.  I've compared both evo and the Bible and still am studying each.  Evo is taught in schools while creation isn't.  The interested students do not think evolution tells the whole story and parts of it are wrong.  Even educated adults think this way.  This is why creation teaching, as another theory, needs to be taught.


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some of the Bible addresses history - the early state of Israel as an example. But Genesis and the story of creation is mythology.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought this way before, but found the Bible is a non-fiction book.  After investigating and comparing with evolution, I thought creation was true instead of evo.  For example, last year, we found the chicken came before the egg.  That's a fact.  What parts do you think is myth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think the creation story and the flood are both mythical - folklore passed down verbally from generation to generation. As far as the chicken before the egg, I don't know what that is supposed to mean. Before we had birds, we had various kinds of reptiles, which were also egg layers, so I'd say the egg came before the chicken.
> 
> Here is a reference to one theory about the great flood
> 
> Black Sea deluge hypothesis - Wikipedia
> 
> The Ryan/Pitman book is very good.
> 
> Edit:
> 
> Saying the flood story is a myth is incorrect. There very likely was a large scale event with many ancient peoples displaced by flooding. Tales of that flooding are parts of a number of cultures, and the tale has been included in the Bible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And if you do not understand the chicken came first, then you do not understand longtime science mysteries.  Too many people believed evolution which taught that the egg came first, but the secular (atheist) scientists were wrong.  The egg can't fertilize itself.  One needs a chicken and rooster.  Also, the chicken produces the protein that coats the egg.  We all know that one needs a cell to produce protein.  It can't pop into existence at the molecular level.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I love how you 'secular scientists' are wrong- when you could have just been more succinct and said 'scientists'.
> 
> I am not surprised that you Creato-Christian cultists refuse the science of evolution- or that the egg came first.
> Finally answered! Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
> _Basically, many, many moons ago there was a chicken-like bird. It was genetically close to a chicken but wasn't a full-blown chicken yet. The video calls it a proto-chicken. So proto-hen laid an egg, and proto-rooster fertilized it. But when the genes from ma and pa almost-chicken fused, they combined in a new way, creating a mutation that accidentally made the baby different from its parents. Although it would take millennia for the difference to be noticed, that egg was different enough to become the official progenitor of a new species, now known as... the chicken! So in a nutshell (or an eggshell, if you like), two birds that weren't really chickens created a chicken egg, and hence, we have an answer: The egg came first, and then it hatched a chicken.
> _
> Want another example?
> 
> Which came first a baby Liger or an adult Liger?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Eyeroll.  It's a FACT now that the chicken came first.  You keep dodging the question, so I'm going to ignore yours. * If the egg came first, then how did the protein which only the chicken can produce end up on the shell?*
Click to expand...


You know- the only fact is that you keep saying that the chicken came first. 

Finally answered! Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
_Basically, many, many moons ago there was a chicken-like bird. It was genetically close to a chicken but wasn't a full-blown chicken yet. The video calls it a proto-chicken. So proto-hen laid an egg, and proto-rooster fertilized it. But when the genes from ma and pa almost-chicken fused, they combined in a new way, creating a mutation that accidentally made the baby different from its parents. Although it would take millennia for the difference to be noticed, that egg was different enough to become the official progenitor of a new species, now known as... the chicken! So in a nutshell (or an eggshell, if you like), two birds that weren't really chickens created a chicken egg, and hence, we have an answer: The egg came first, and then it hatched a chicken.
_
Want another example?
*
Which came first a baby Liger or an adult Liger?

Where did the Liger DNA come from?*


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some of the Bible addresses history - the early state of Israel as an example. But Genesis and the story of creation is mythology.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought this way before, but found the Bible is a non-fiction book.  After investigating and comparing with evolution, I thought creation was true instead of evo.  For example, last year, we found the chicken came before the egg.  That's a fact.  What parts do you think is myth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think the creation story and the flood are both mythical - folklore passed down verbally from generation to generation. As far as the chicken before the egg, I don't know what that is supposed to mean. Before we had birds, we had various kinds of reptiles, which were also egg layers, so I'd say the egg came before the chicken.
> 
> Here is a reference to one theory about the great flood
> 
> Black Sea deluge hypothesis - Wikipedia
> 
> The Ryan/Pitman book is very good.
> 
> Edit:
> 
> Saying the flood story is a myth is incorrect. There very likely was a large scale event with many ancient peoples displaced by flooding. Tales of that flooding are parts of a number of cultures, and the tale has been included in the Bible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There's evidence of global flooding is that the earth is 3/4 covered with water and we see that mountains came up from beneath the seafloor.  People think the water can't get as high as Mt. Everest, which I can understand, but it could if Everest was lower and then became higher f
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry- that is not evidence of 'global flooding' but of misguided Creato-Christian thinking.
> 
> Yes- the Earth is 3/4 covered with water- but there is absolutely no evidence- zilch- that it was ever covered 100% by water.  Instead the evidence shows the reverse- that the earth was never 100% covered by water.
> 
> But I am amused that you think that Everest in the last 4,000 years has become dramatically higher.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL.  We agree.  The earth was not covered by water.  It had water vapors and some water, but not 3/4 covered by water.  It just goes to show you do not understand the Bible and the science behind it.
Click to expand...

17 For forty days the flood kept coming on the earth, and as the waters increased they lifted the ark high above the earth. 18 The waters rose and increased greatly on the earth, and the ark floated on the surface of the water. 19 They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. 20 The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than fifteen cubits.e]">[e]f]">[f] 21 Every living thing that moved on land perished—birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind. 22 Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. 23 Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; people and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark.

24 The waters flooded the earth for a hundred and fifty days.

I don't know off hand how big a cubit is- but if Everest was covered at all- then yes- the Bible said that the entire earth was covered- 100%


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some of the Bible addresses history - the early state of Israel as an example. But Genesis and the story of creation is mythology.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought this way before, but found the Bible is a non-fiction book.  After investigating and comparing with evolution, I thought creation was true instead of evo.  For example, last year, we found the chicken came before the egg.  That's a fact.  What parts do you think is myth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Finally answered! Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
> _Basically, many, many moons ago there was a chicken-like bird. It was genetically close to a chicken but wasn't a full-blown chicken yet. The video calls it a proto-chicken. So proto-hen laid an egg, and proto-rooster fertilized it. But when the genes from ma and pa almost-chicken fused, they combined in a new way, creating a mutation that accidentally made the baby different from its parents. Although it would take millennia for the difference to be noticed, that egg was different enough to become the official progenitor of a new species, now known as... the chicken! So in a nutshell (or an eggshell, if you like), two birds that weren't really chickens created a chicken egg, and hence, we have an answer: The egg came first, and then it hatched a chicken._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Syriusly you believe in myths.
> 
> There's also the problem of infinite regression.  If there was a proto-chicken and proto-rooster, then where did they come from?  The proto-proto-chicken?  And where did the proto-proto-chicken come from?  The proto-proto-proto-chicken?  Ha ha.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh I am sure there is some myth I believe in that I am not even aware of.
> 
> There is no problem of 'infinite regression' - there is just evolution and that you find the concept of evolution to be in conflict with your narrow view of your holy book.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do I have to just spit it out ha ha?  The myth you believe in is evolution. .
Click to expand...


A myth is a story unsupported by history, science or evidence. 
Evolution is a scientific theory that is supported by the evidence we have of life on earth, past and present. I believe the evidence- not the fairy tales.


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some of the Bible addresses history - the early state of Israel as an example. But Genesis and the story of creation is mythology.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought this way before, but found the Bible is a non-fiction book.  After investigating and comparing with evolution, I thought creation was true instead of evo.  For example, last year, we found the chicken came before the egg.  That's a fact.  What parts do you think is myth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Finally answered! Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
> _Basically, many, many moons ago there was a chicken-like bird. It was genetically close to a chicken but wasn't a full-blown chicken yet. The video calls it a proto-chicken. So proto-hen laid an egg, and proto-rooster fertilized it. But when the genes from ma and pa almost-chicken fused, they combined in a new way, creating a mutation that accidentally made the baby different from its parents. Although it would take millennia for the difference to be noticed, that egg was different enough to become the official progenitor of a new species, now known as... the chicken! So in a nutshell (or an eggshell, if you like), two birds that weren't really chickens created a chicken egg, and hence, we have an answer: The egg came first, and then it hatched a chicken._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Syriusly you believe in myths.
> 
> There's also the problem of infinite regression.  If there was a proto-chicken and proto-rooster, then where did they come from?  The proto-proto-chicken?  And where did the proto-proto-chicken come from?  The proto-proto-proto-chicken?  Ha ha.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh I am sure there is some myth I believe in that I am not even aware of.
> 
> There is no problem of 'infinite regression' - there is just evolution and that you find the concept of evolution to be in conflict with your narrow view of your holy book.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is why creation teaching, as another theory, needs to be taught.
Click to expand...


Tell us more about this 'creation teaching' that needs to be taught. In your opinion- what is the 'theory of creation' that is supported by science that kids need to learn?


----------



## james bond

Syriusly said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Bible is historical fact. Man's values and opinions are tainted, compromised, skewed, and bias. Science study without any regard for GOD is incomplete at best and incorrect to one degree or another.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some of the Bible addresses history - the early state of Israel as an example. But Genesis and the story of creation is mythology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I thought this way before, but found the Bible is a non-fiction book.  After investigating and comparing with evolution, I thought creation was true instead of evo.  For example, last year, we found the chicken came before the egg.  That's a fact.  What parts do you think is myth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think the creation story and the flood are both mythical - folklore passed down verbally from generation to generation. As far as the chicken before the egg, I don't know what that is supposed to mean. Before we had birds, we had various kinds of reptiles, which were also egg layers, so I'd say the egg came before the chicken.
> 
> Here is a reference to one theory about the great flood
> 
> Black Sea deluge hypothesis - Wikipedia
> 
> The Ryan/Pitman book is very good.
> 
> Edit:
> 
> Saying the flood story is a myth is incorrect. There very likely was a large scale event with many ancient peoples displaced by flooding. Tales of that flooding are parts of a number of cultures, and the tale has been included in the Bible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How can a non-fiction book be mythical?  You can say it's historical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Bible is considered a religious book- and is classified with all of the other books of religions- including Koran, and books about Greek and Roman religions (Dewey Decimal 200-299)
Click to expand...


It's non-fiction and historical.

I doubt you've read it because it's too difficult to understand.  Else, why don't you start with Genesis and you'll realize maybe humans didn't come from monkeys.


----------



## james bond

Syriusly said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought this way before, but found the Bible is a non-fiction book.  After investigating and comparing with evolution, I thought creation was true instead of evo.  For example, last year, we found the chicken came before the egg.  That's a fact.  What parts do you think is myth?
> 
> 
> 
> Finally answered! Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
> _Basically, many, many moons ago there was a chicken-like bird. It was genetically close to a chicken but wasn't a full-blown chicken yet. The video calls it a proto-chicken. So proto-hen laid an egg, and proto-rooster fertilized it. But when the genes from ma and pa almost-chicken fused, they combined in a new way, creating a mutation that accidentally made the baby different from its parents. Although it would take millennia for the difference to be noticed, that egg was different enough to become the official progenitor of a new species, now known as... the chicken! So in a nutshell (or an eggshell, if you like), two birds that weren't really chickens created a chicken egg, and hence, we have an answer: The egg came first, and then it hatched a chicken._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Syriusly you believe in myths.
> 
> There's also the problem of infinite regression.  If there was a proto-chicken and proto-rooster, then where did they come from?  The proto-proto-chicken?  And where did the proto-proto-chicken come from?  The proto-proto-proto-chicken?  Ha ha.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh I am sure there is some myth I believe in that I am not even aware of.
> 
> There is no problem of 'infinite regression' - there is just evolution and that you find the concept of evolution to be in conflict with your narrow view of your holy book.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is why creation teaching, as another theory, needs to be taught.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell us more about this 'creation teaching' that needs to be taught. In your opinion- what is the 'theory of creation' that is supported by science that kids need to learn?
Click to expand...


Genesis.


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some of the Bible addresses history - the early state of Israel as an example. But Genesis and the story of creation is mythology.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought this way before, but found the Bible is a non-fiction book.  After investigating and comparing with evolution, I thought creation was true instead of evo.  For example, last year, we found the chicken came before the egg.  That's a fact.  What parts do you think is myth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think the creation story and the flood are both mythical - folklore passed down verbally from generation to generation. As far as the chicken before the egg, I don't know what that is supposed to mean. Before we had birds, we had various kinds of reptiles, which were also egg layers, so I'd say the egg came before the chicken.
> 
> Here is a reference to one theory about the great flood
> 
> Black Sea deluge hypothesis - Wikipedia
> 
> The Ryan/Pitman book is very good.
> 
> Edit:
> 
> Saying the flood story is a myth is incorrect. There very likely was a large scale event with many ancient peoples displaced by flooding. Tales of that flooding are parts of a number of cultures, and the tale has been included in the Bible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How can a non-fiction book be mythical?  You can say it's historical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Bible is considered a religious book- and is classified with all of the other books of religions- including Koran, and books about Greek and Roman religions (Dewey Decimal 200-299)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's non-fiction and historical.
> 
> I doubt you've read it because it's too difficult to understand.  Else, why don't you start with Genesis and you'll realize maybe humans didn't come from monkeys.
Click to expand...


It is neither non-fiction or fiction- it is a mixture of fairy tales and legends about historical events. 

I have read the Bible many times- more so the Old Testament than the New Testament because I enjoy the Old Testament more. 

By the way- which creation story for humans in the Old Testament do you prefer?
Genesis 1?
11 Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.

26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,a]">[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

27 So God created mankind in his own image,
    in the image of God he created them;
    male and female he created them.

Or Genesis 2?

4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, when the Lord God made the earth and the heavens.

5 Now no shrub had yet appeared on the eartha]">[a] and no plant had yet sprung up, for the Lord God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no one to work the ground, 6 but streamsb]">[b] came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground. 7 Then the Lord God formed a manc]">[c] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Finally answered! Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
> _Basically, many, many moons ago there was a chicken-like bird. It was genetically close to a chicken but wasn't a full-blown chicken yet. The video calls it a proto-chicken. So proto-hen laid an egg, and proto-rooster fertilized it. But when the genes from ma and pa almost-chicken fused, they combined in a new way, creating a mutation that accidentally made the baby different from its parents. Although it would take millennia for the difference to be noticed, that egg was different enough to become the official progenitor of a new species, now known as... the chicken! So in a nutshell (or an eggshell, if you like), two birds that weren't really chickens created a chicken egg, and hence, we have an answer: The egg came first, and then it hatched a chicken._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly you believe in myths.
> 
> There's also the problem of infinite regression.  If there was a proto-chicken and proto-rooster, then where did they come from?  The proto-proto-chicken?  And where did the proto-proto-chicken come from?  The proto-proto-proto-chicken?  Ha ha.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh I am sure there is some myth I believe in that I am not even aware of.
> 
> There is no problem of 'infinite regression' - there is just evolution and that you find the concept of evolution to be in conflict with your narrow view of your holy book.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is why creation teaching, as another theory, needs to be taught.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell us more about this 'creation teaching' that needs to be taught. In your opinion- what is the 'theory of creation' that is supported by science that kids need to learn?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Genesis.
Click to expand...

Oh so you want to force Hindu's and Buddhists and atheists to believe in the Christian tale of Creation.

That is not 'creation teaching' that is just wanting to teach the Bible in school.


----------



## ChesBayJJ

_The Earth is a little over 4.5 billion years old, its oldest materials being 4.3 billion-year-old zircon crystals. Its earliest times were geologically violent, and it suffered constant bombardment from meteorites. When this ended, the Earth cooled and its surface solidified to a crust - the first solid rocks. There were no continents as yet, just a global ocean peppered with small islands. Erosion, sedimentation and volcanic activity - possibly assisted by more meteor impacts - eventually created small proto-continents which grew until they reached roughly their current size 2.5 billion years ago. The continents have since repeatedly collided and been torn apart, so maps of Earth in the distant past are quite different to today's.


The history of life on Earth began about 3.8 billion years ago, initially with single-celled prokaryotic cells, such as bacteria. Multicellular life evolved over a billion years later and it's only in the last 570 million years that the kind of life forms we are familiar with began to evolve, starting with arthropods, followed by fish 530 million years ago (Ma), land plants 475Ma and forests 385Ma. Mammals didn't evolve until 200Ma and our own species, Homo sapiens, only 200,000 years ago. So humans have been around for a mere 0.004% of the Earth's history._

BBC Nature - History of life on Earth


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> It's non-fiction and historical.


It is neither of those things. You are a delusional freakish religious nutball.


----------



## james bond

ChesBayJJ said:


> _The Earth is a little over 4.5 billion years old, its oldest materials being 4.3 billion-year-old zircon crystals. Its earliest times were geologically violent, and it suffered constant bombardment from meteorites. When this ended, the Earth cooled and its surface solidified to a crust - the first solid rocks. There were no continents as yet, just a global ocean peppered with small islands. Erosion, sedimentation and volcanic activity - possibly assisted by more meteor impacts - eventually created small proto-continents which grew until they reached roughly their current size 2.5 billion years ago. The continents have since repeatedly collided and been torn apart, so maps of Earth in the distant past are quite different to today's.
> 
> 
> The history of life on Earth began about 3.8 billion years ago, initially with single-celled prokaryotic cells, such as bacteria. Multicellular life evolved over a billion years later and it's only in the last 570 million years that the kind of life forms we are familiar with began to evolve, starting with arthropods, followed by fish 530 million years ago (Ma), land plants 475Ma and forests 385Ma. Mammals didn't evolve until 200Ma and our own species, Homo sapiens, only 200,000 years ago. So humans have been around for a mere 0.004% of the Earth's history._
> 
> BBC Nature - History of life on Earth



Where is the evidence for as you state?  What I have is the Earth is 4.5 billion years old.  Do you even know who came up with the Earth being 4.5 billions years old?  Evolution has been getting longer and longer and the Earth getting older and older as the years roll by.  In Darwin's time, he estimated Earth was around 300 millions years old.

Next, single cells do not just form from primordial soup.  We've had hypotheses of spotaneous generation, chemical evolution and abiogenesis and still not one singe cell.  All of it is pseudoscience.  You mention a single cell, but how does it evolve into a multicell and a cell that has reproduces via sexual union?  All you did was added billions of years.  Darwin didn't have that kind of luxury.


----------



## ChesBayJJ

james bond said:


> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> _The Earth is a little over 4.5 billion years old, its oldest materials being 4.3 billion-year-old zircon crystals. Its earliest times were geologically violent, and it suffered constant bombardment from meteorites. When this ended, the Earth cooled and its surface solidified to a crust - the first solid rocks. There were no continents as yet, just a global ocean peppered with small islands. Erosion, sedimentation and volcanic activity - possibly assisted by more meteor impacts - eventually created small proto-continents which grew until they reached roughly their current size 2.5 billion years ago. The continents have since repeatedly collided and been torn apart, so maps of Earth in the distant past are quite different to today's.
> 
> 
> The history of life on Earth began about 3.8 billion years ago, initially with single-celled prokaryotic cells, such as bacteria. Multicellular life evolved over a billion years later and it's only in the last 570 million years that the kind of life forms we are familiar with began to evolve, starting with arthropods, followed by fish 530 million years ago (Ma), land plants 475Ma and forests 385Ma. Mammals didn't evolve until 200Ma and our own species, Homo sapiens, only 200,000 years ago. So humans have been around for a mere 0.004% of the Earth's history._
> 
> BBC Nature - History of life on Earth
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where is the evidence for as you state?  What I have is the Earth is 4.5 billion years old.  Do you even know who came up with the Earth being 4.5 billions years old?  Evolution has been getting longer and longer and the Earth getting older and older as the years roll by.  In Darwin's time, he estimated Earth was around 300 millions years old.
> 
> Next, single cells do not just form from primordial soup.  We've had hypotheses of spotaneous generation, chemical evolution and abiogenesis and still not one singe cell.  All of it is pseudoscience.  You mention a single cell, but how does it evolve into a multicell and a cell that has reproduces via sexual union?  All you did was added billions of years.  Darwin didn't have that kind of luxury.
Click to expand...


The web is full of answers to your questions. Do some research on your own. Educate yourself, dingbat.


----------



## james bond

ChesBayJJ said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> _The Earth is a little over 4.5 billion years old, its oldest materials being 4.3 billion-year-old zircon crystals. Its earliest times were geologically violent, and it suffered constant bombardment from meteorites. When this ended, the Earth cooled and its surface solidified to a crust - the first solid rocks. There were no continents as yet, just a global ocean peppered with small islands. Erosion, sedimentation and volcanic activity - possibly assisted by more meteor impacts - eventually created small proto-continents which grew until they reached roughly their current size 2.5 billion years ago. The continents have since repeatedly collided and been torn apart, so maps of Earth in the distant past are quite different to today's.
> 
> 
> The history of life on Earth began about 3.8 billion years ago, initially with single-celled prokaryotic cells, such as bacteria. Multicellular life evolved over a billion years later and it's only in the last 570 million years that the kind of life forms we are familiar with began to evolve, starting with arthropods, followed by fish 530 million years ago (Ma), land plants 475Ma and forests 385Ma. Mammals didn't evolve until 200Ma and our own species, Homo sapiens, only 200,000 years ago. So humans have been around for a mere 0.004% of the Earth's history._
> 
> BBC Nature - History of life on Earth
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where is the evidence for as you state?  What I have is the Earth is 4.5 billion years old.  Do you even know who came up with the Earth being 4.5 billions years old?  Evolution has been getting longer and longer and the Earth getting older and older as the years roll by.  In Darwin's time, he estimated Earth was around 300 millions years old.
> 
> Next, single cells do not just form from primordial soup.  We've had hypotheses of spotaneous generation, chemical evolution and abiogenesis and still not one singe cell.  All of it is pseudoscience.  You mention a single cell, but how does it evolve into a multicell and a cell that has reproduces via sexual union?  All you did was added billions of years.  Darwin didn't have that kind of luxury.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The web is full of answers to your questions. Do some research on your own. Educate yourself, dingbat.
Click to expand...


It's not the web, but the Bible that has the answers.  I ended up with these same questions when I compared evolution to what the creation scientists were saying.  However, I am smart enough to have an open mind and figure out who has the better theory and science.  You were wrong about the evolution age of the Earth.  You did not know that Clair Patterson came up with 4.5 B years old.  This gave the atheist evo scientists enough time for their misguided theories..  

How can one be a scientist if they throw out one of the answers right off the bat?  That God created the earth and universe and everything living there.  Instead, we have an universe created by invisible particles and meteors and star death forming planets.  We have invisible dark energy that accelerates and expands our universe.  How can meteors and dead stars align our planet just so that we do not go flying off into space or freeze to death or burn to a crisp?  That kind of accuracy does not happen by chance even in 4.5 B years. 

The Bible states that God stretches the heavens.  How can a 4th century book predict that?  It also predicted the universe would be flat and shaped like a scroll.  The omega = 1, so it's flat.  How much time will pass until the atheist scientists discover that the universe has borders and that its edges start to curve onto itself?  That spacetime curves and we have the event horizon?  Haven't they hypothesized some of this already?  Furthermore, you could not answer how a single cell becomes a multicell and becomes capable of reproducing via sexual union.  Chilarity prevents it, so it can't happen unless a creator makes it so.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ChesBayJJ said:


> Educate yourself, dingbat.


But that is not possible. When you are a freakish cult member, there are no such things as "facts". Any idea that supports his pre conceived, embarrassing magical bullshit is "true", and all else is "false".

Such a failed human can't truly learn anything. Reason and evidence are meaningless to him.


----------



## RWS

LittleNipper said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shazoomx4 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry Shazoom, you're a little behind. We have settled that part, i think... But welcome to the conversation!
> 
> Are you Jewish? And if so, why?
> 
> 
> 
> Jewish is not only religion...
> I born as Jewish..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Jewish" is not a race, it's a religion. Your parents are Jewish and because of that, you are Jewish as well.
> 
> You never had a choice. You were born into your religion and brainwashed from birth. Same with Christian and Muslim religions.
> 
> They usually don't have a choice.
> 
> I had a choice. because I never got brainwashed. And I studied many religions and their history. And my findings were that the big three were all corrupt and wrong. There is no need to believe in a religion if you are a righteous person. Just be a righteous person, and don't follow corruption.
> 
> And then the world would be fine...sans religion....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have to disagree. I know people who where raised in a "Christian" home and believed that being born into a faith was all there was. The Lord doesn't care who your parents are! He wants a one on one. And I came to know the Lord when I was 12. I know Jews who felt the same way, even to the point that it was better to be a Jew and atheistic then become "Messianic" and have faith in GOD...  Religion is not what true "Christianity " is all about. It's a relationship. Relationships for the most part are free; however, they do involve interaction and that is where prayer and research/study come into play.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you were born into a Muslim family, would you still be Jewish/Christian?
> Wrong, if you were borne intoHin , let's say,
> Is it the religion that is right? Or the birthright that is right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is the truth and fact that is right. And I know Muslims and Hindus and Buddhists and Jews who have awakened to the truth of Our LORD JESUS  the Messiah and have become CHRISTIANS (followers of Christ). Only the TRUTH shall set you free!
> 
> Acts 8:26-40
> 
> 26 But as for Philip, an angel of the Lord said to him, “Go over to the road that runs from Jerusalem through the Gaza Desert, arriving around noon.” 27 So he did, and who should be coming down the road but the Treasurer of Ethiopia, a eunuch of great authority under Candace the queen. He had gone to Jerusalem to worship 28 and was now returning in his chariot, reading aloud from the book of the prophet Isaiah.
> 
> 29 The Holy Spirit said to Philip, “Go over and walk along beside the chariot.”
> 
> 30 Philip ran over and heard what he was reading and asked, “Do you understand it?”
> 
> 31 “Of course not!” the man replied. “How can I when there is no one to instruct me?” And he begged Philip to come up into the chariot and sit with him.
> 
> 32 The passage of Scripture he had been reading from was this:
> 
> “He was led as a sheep to the slaughter, and as a lamb is silent before the shearers, so he opened not his mouth; 33 in his humiliation, justice was denied him; and who can express the wickedness of the people of his generation? For his life is taken from the earth.”
> 
> 34 The eunuch asked Philip, “Was Isaiah talking about himself or someone else?”
> 
> 35 So Philip began with this same Scripture and then used many others to tell him about Jesus.
> 
> 36 As they rode along, they came to a small body of water, and the eunuch said, “Look! Water! Why can’t I be baptized?”
> 
> 37 “You can,” Philip answered, “if you believe with all your heart.”
> 
> And the eunuch replied, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.”
> 
> 38 He stopped the chariot, and they went down into the water and Philip baptized him. 39 And when they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, and the eunuch never saw him again, but went on his way rejoicing. 40 Meanwhile, Philip found himself at Azotus! He preached the Good News there and in every city along the way, as he traveled to Caesarea.
Click to expand...


If you were borne into a different religion, you would not be quoting those things. You would be quoting different things.

It's about brainwashing. And the best way to do it is at birth...


----------



## RWS

james bond said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, we're all related due to evolution!
> 
> Had God Created Spontaneous Creation, we would not share those similar genetic traits.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You and I are not related and we have 99% similar DNA and 1% difference.  The 1% is enough to show no relationship.
Click to expand...

Heck yes we are related. As much as we argue, you are me. And I am you. Had God created everything spontaneously, we would have much different variations in our DNA. 

Makin me superior of course....


----------



## RWS

Cecilie1200 said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is something to ponder. Things are seldom what they seem.
> *What percentage of human DNA is shared with other things?*
> 
> 6 Answers
> 
> 
> 
> Xu Beixi, loves Nature.
> Answered Mar 24 2014 · Author has 4.7k answers and 31.1m answer views
> 
> 
> It depends on what you mean by share.
> 
> What do you consider the premise of your study? It it genome size, number of genes, chromosome number, phylogeny, etc. etc.? What constitutes alike as to different?
> 
> Also, it doesn't help that we don't know what all our genes are for, how they're used, what proteins they make, and there are so many ways for post-transcriptional modification that we can't begin to figure all of them out.
> 
> Finally, to answer:
> 
> It is very difficult to find reliable data comparing the human genome to animal genome. The principal reason is that few animals have had their full genome sequenced. Even those that have cannot be easily compared in terms of percentages because the genomic length and chromosomal division can vary greatly from one species to another.
> 
> Scouring the Web, here is what I have found so far.
> 
> - Genome-wide variation from one *human being* to another can be up to 0.5% (99.5% similarity)
> 
> - *Chimpanzees* are 96% to 98% similar to humans, depending on how it is calculated.
> 
> - *Cats *have 90% of homologous genes with humans, 82% with dogs, 80% with cows, 79% with chimpanzees, 69% with rats and 67% with mice.
> 
> - *Cows *(_Bos taurus_) are 80% genetically similar to humans
> 
> - 75% of *mouse* genes have equivalents in humans (source), 90% of the mouse genome could be lined up with a region on the human genome 99% of mouse genes turn out to have analogues in humans
> 
> - The *fruit fly* (_Drosophila_) shares about 60% of its DNA with humans.
> 
> - About 60% of *chicken* genes correspond to a similar human gene.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, we're all related due to evolution!
> 
> Had God Created Spontaneous Creation, we would not share those similar genetic traits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  Why not?  What rock-solid evidence, or any evidence, do you have that says that Creation would require everything to be 100% genetically different?  We all have to exist on the same planet.  Why wouldn't He use similar traits, in different combinations, to fit us to live in the same place?
> 
> A master artist's work, no matter what the subject matter, can be identified by the similarity of brush strokes, after all.
Click to expand...

100% genetically different is impossible, unless it's a different origin. We are all related due to evolution and therefore share very many similar genes.

If all organisms were instantaneously "created" by a "God", all organisms wouldn't share such a similar gene pool.

The similarity of the gene pool, from bacteria to humans, shows that is was a gradual thing that took billions of years, of evolution....


----------



## RWS

Just one more thing to consider....

God may have created all organisms on Earth spontaneously about 6000 years ago.

The Devil changed our DNA sequences, and buried fake dino fossils, just to cause doubt and be a dick...

I can agree with that.


----------



## james bond

RWS said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, we're all related due to evolution!
> 
> Had God Created Spontaneous Creation, we would not share those similar genetic traits.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You and I are not related and we have 99% similar DNA and 1% difference.  The 1% is enough to show no relationship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Heck yes we are related. As much as we argue, you are me. And I am you. Had God created everything spontaneously, we would have much different variations in our DNA.
> 
> Makin me superior of course....
Click to expand...


No, my point was to show that even though we have similar DNA, out immediate families aren't related.  As for what you are referring to, God didn't create us all spontaneiously.  We came from a common ancestor of humans, Adam and Eve.  Who is the common ancestor in your explanation?


----------



## james bond

This study goes to show that our MRCA live a couple thousand years ago.  Doesn't it fit the Bible timeline of Noah's ancestors?

'Most recent common ancestor' of all living humans surprisingly recent

RWS where is your MRCA timeline?


----------



## Richard-H

I believe that I was created by the hand and in the image of GOD.

However, I also believe that my wife's family is clearly descended from monkeys.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> Doesn't it fit the Bible timeline of Noah's ancestors?


No, it doesn't. Like, not at all. You clearly do not understand any of this.  The world would still have been populated , worlwide, with humans. In fact, the research depends on it.

As it clearly states in the study -- which you clearly regurgitated from some goofy YEC site, and of which you clearly did not read a single word, -- that the results are dependent upon the data of all the people that lived in the last 20,000 years. It also says that the same methods can be used to work backwards, that is, into the future. What this means is that all of the people 2000 or 3000 years from now will be descended from most of us. But but but look around! No flood, no Noah, no population bottleneck.

So, no, the study does not imply anything like what you are saying at all. In fact, it implies exactly the opposite. Just stop.


----------



## Cecilie1200

ChesBayJJ said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Bible is historical fact. Man's values and opinions are tainted, compromised, skewed, and bias. Science study without any regard for GOD is incomplete at best and incorrect to one degree or another.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some of the Bible addresses history - the early state of Israel as an example. But Genesis and the story of creation is mythology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I thought this way before, but found the Bible is a non-fiction book.  After investigating and comparing with evolution, I thought creation was true instead of evo.  For example, last year, we found the chicken came before the egg.  That's a fact.  What parts do you think is myth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Finally answered! Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
> _Basically, many, many moons ago there was a chicken-like bird. It was genetically close to a chicken but wasn't a full-blown chicken yet. The video calls it a proto-chicken. So proto-hen laid an egg, and proto-rooster fertilized it. But when the genes from ma and pa almost-chicken fused, they combined in a new way, creating a mutation that accidentally made the baby different from its parents. Although it would take millennia for the difference to be noticed, that egg was different enough to become the official progenitor of a new species, now known as... the chicken! So in a nutshell (or an eggshell, if you like), two birds that weren't really chickens created a chicken egg, and hence, we have an answer: The egg came first, and then it hatched a chicken._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Syriusly you believe in myths.
> 
> There's also the problem of infinite regression.  If there was a proto-chicken and proto-rooster, then where did they come from?  The proto-proto-chicken?  And where did the proto-proto-chicken come from?  The proto-proto-proto-chicken?  Ha ha.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The proto-chicken and proto-rooster evolved from egg laying reptiles.
Click to expand...


That's a very definitive assertion, for someone who wasn't there.

And where did the reptiles come from?


----------



## Cecilie1200

ChesBayJJ said:


> _The Earth is a little over 4.5 billion years old, its oldest materials being 4.3 billion-year-old zircon crystals. Its earliest times were geologically violent, and it suffered constant bombardment from meteorites. When this ended, the Earth cooled and its surface solidified to a crust - the first solid rocks. There were no continents as yet, just a global ocean peppered with small islands. Erosion, sedimentation and volcanic activity - possibly assisted by more meteor impacts - eventually created small proto-continents which grew until they reached roughly their current size 2.5 billion years ago. The continents have since repeatedly collided and been torn apart, so maps of Earth in the distant past are quite different to today's.
> 
> 
> The history of life on Earth began about 3.8 billion years ago, initially with single-celled prokaryotic cells, such as bacteria. Multicellular life evolved over a billion years later and it's only in the last 570 million years that the kind of life forms we are familiar with began to evolve, starting with arthropods, followed by fish 530 million years ago (Ma), land plants 475Ma and forests 385Ma. Mammals didn't evolve until 200Ma and our own species, Homo sapiens, only 200,000 years ago. So humans have been around for a mere 0.004% of the Earth's history._
> 
> BBC Nature - History of life on Earth



". . . and our ability to state assumptions as fact should be enough for you, peon."


----------



## Cecilie1200

ChesBayJJ said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> _The Earth is a little over 4.5 billion years old, its oldest materials being 4.3 billion-year-old zircon crystals. Its earliest times were geologically violent, and it suffered constant bombardment from meteorites. When this ended, the Earth cooled and its surface solidified to a crust - the first solid rocks. There were no continents as yet, just a global ocean peppered with small islands. Erosion, sedimentation and volcanic activity - possibly assisted by more meteor impacts - eventually created small proto-continents which grew until they reached roughly their current size 2.5 billion years ago. The continents have since repeatedly collided and been torn apart, so maps of Earth in the distant past are quite different to today's.
> 
> 
> The history of life on Earth began about 3.8 billion years ago, initially with single-celled prokaryotic cells, such as bacteria. Multicellular life evolved over a billion years later and it's only in the last 570 million years that the kind of life forms we are familiar with began to evolve, starting with arthropods, followed by fish 530 million years ago (Ma), land plants 475Ma and forests 385Ma. Mammals didn't evolve until 200Ma and our own species, Homo sapiens, only 200,000 years ago. So humans have been around for a mere 0.004% of the Earth's history._
> 
> BBC Nature - History of life on Earth
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where is the evidence for as you state?  What I have is the Earth is 4.5 billion years old.  Do you even know who came up with the Earth being 4.5 billions years old?  Evolution has been getting longer and longer and the Earth getting older and older as the years roll by.  In Darwin's time, he estimated Earth was around 300 millions years old.
> 
> Next, single cells do not just form from primordial soup.  We've had hypotheses of spotaneous generation, chemical evolution and abiogenesis and still not one singe cell.  All of it is pseudoscience.  You mention a single cell, but how does it evolve into a multicell and a cell that has reproduces via sexual union?  All you did was added billions of years.  Darwin didn't have that kind of luxury.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The web is full of answers to your questions. Do some research on your own. Educate yourself, dingbat.
Click to expand...


In other words, you can't answer his question.  You just ASSume that it has been answered, by someone, somewhere, because you want to believe.

That's an awful lot of blind faith for someone deriding others for their faith.


----------



## Cecilie1200

RWS said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is something to ponder. Things are seldom what they seem.
> *What percentage of human DNA is shared with other things?*
> 
> 6 Answers
> 
> 
> 
> Xu Beixi, loves Nature.
> Answered Mar 24 2014 · Author has 4.7k answers and 31.1m answer views
> 
> 
> It depends on what you mean by share.
> 
> What do you consider the premise of your study? It it genome size, number of genes, chromosome number, phylogeny, etc. etc.? What constitutes alike as to different?
> 
> Also, it doesn't help that we don't know what all our genes are for, how they're used, what proteins they make, and there are so many ways for post-transcriptional modification that we can't begin to figure all of them out.
> 
> Finally, to answer:
> 
> It is very difficult to find reliable data comparing the human genome to animal genome. The principal reason is that few animals have had their full genome sequenced. Even those that have cannot be easily compared in terms of percentages because the genomic length and chromosomal division can vary greatly from one species to another.
> 
> Scouring the Web, here is what I have found so far.
> 
> - Genome-wide variation from one *human being* to another can be up to 0.5% (99.5% similarity)
> 
> - *Chimpanzees* are 96% to 98% similar to humans, depending on how it is calculated.
> 
> - *Cats *have 90% of homologous genes with humans, 82% with dogs, 80% with cows, 79% with chimpanzees, 69% with rats and 67% with mice.
> 
> - *Cows *(_Bos taurus_) are 80% genetically similar to humans
> 
> - 75% of *mouse* genes have equivalents in humans (source), 90% of the mouse genome could be lined up with a region on the human genome 99% of mouse genes turn out to have analogues in humans
> 
> - The *fruit fly* (_Drosophila_) shares about 60% of its DNA with humans.
> 
> - About 60% of *chicken* genes correspond to a similar human gene.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, we're all related due to evolution!
> 
> Had God Created Spontaneous Creation, we would not share those similar genetic traits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  Why not?  What rock-solid evidence, or any evidence, do you have that says that Creation would require everything to be 100% genetically different?  We all have to exist on the same planet.  Why wouldn't He use similar traits, in different combinations, to fit us to live in the same place?
> 
> A master artist's work, no matter what the subject matter, can be identified by the similarity of brush strokes, after all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 100% genetically different is impossible, unless it's a different origin. We are all related due to evolution and therefore share very many similar genes.
> 
> If all organisms were instantaneously "created" by a "God", all organisms wouldn't share such a similar gene pool.
> 
> The similarity of the gene pool, from bacteria to humans, shows that is was a gradual thing that took billions of years, of evolution....
Click to expand...


More assertions of personal opinion as fact.

Didn't I ask you before why creation necessitated 100% difference?  Interesting that instead of answering the question, you simply skipped it and went on with repeating it as settled.

The similarity of the gene pool shows relation.  You ASSUME it shows relation from evolution, but you have no proof it is not relation from the same Creator, because of the same biosphere requirements.


----------



## ChesBayJJ

Cecilie1200 said:


> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some of the Bible addresses history - the early state of Israel as an example. But Genesis and the story of creation is mythology.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought this way before, but found the Bible is a non-fiction book.  After investigating and comparing with evolution, I thought creation was true instead of evo.  For example, last year, we found the chicken came before the egg.  That's a fact.  What parts do you think is myth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Finally answered! Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
> _Basically, many, many moons ago there was a chicken-like bird. It was genetically close to a chicken but wasn't a full-blown chicken yet. The video calls it a proto-chicken. So proto-hen laid an egg, and proto-rooster fertilized it. But when the genes from ma and pa almost-chicken fused, they combined in a new way, creating a mutation that accidentally made the baby different from its parents. Although it would take millennia for the difference to be noticed, that egg was different enough to become the official progenitor of a new species, now known as... the chicken! So in a nutshell (or an eggshell, if you like), two birds that weren't really chickens created a chicken egg, and hence, we have an answer: The egg came first, and then it hatched a chicken._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Syriusly you believe in myths.
> 
> There's also the problem of infinite regression.  If there was a proto-chicken and proto-rooster, then where did they come from?  The proto-proto-chicken?  And where did the proto-proto-chicken come from?  The proto-proto-proto-chicken?  Ha ha.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The proto-chicken and proto-rooster evolved from egg laying reptiles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a very definitive assertion, for someone who wasn't there.
> 
> And where did the reptiles come from?
Click to expand...


Older reptiles. And amphibians. Which previously had evolved from transitional species that had come from the ocean. And so on and so on and so on.


----------



## ChesBayJJ

Cecilie1200 said:


> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> _The Earth is a little over 4.5 billion years old, its oldest materials being 4.3 billion-year-old zircon crystals. Its earliest times were geologically violent, and it suffered constant bombardment from meteorites. When this ended, the Earth cooled and its surface solidified to a crust - the first solid rocks. There were no continents as yet, just a global ocean peppered with small islands. Erosion, sedimentation and volcanic activity - possibly assisted by more meteor impacts - eventually created small proto-continents which grew until they reached roughly their current size 2.5 billion years ago. The continents have since repeatedly collided and been torn apart, so maps of Earth in the distant past are quite different to today's.
> 
> 
> The history of life on Earth began about 3.8 billion years ago, initially with single-celled prokaryotic cells, such as bacteria. Multicellular life evolved over a billion years later and it's only in the last 570 million years that the kind of life forms we are familiar with began to evolve, starting with arthropods, followed by fish 530 million years ago (Ma), land plants 475Ma and forests 385Ma. Mammals didn't evolve until 200Ma and our own species, Homo sapiens, only 200,000 years ago. So humans have been around for a mere 0.004% of the Earth's history._
> 
> BBC Nature - History of life on Earth
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where is the evidence for as you state?  What I have is the Earth is 4.5 billion years old.  Do you even know who came up with the Earth being 4.5 billions years old?  Evolution has been getting longer and longer and the Earth getting older and older as the years roll by.  In Darwin's time, he estimated Earth was around 300 millions years old.
> 
> Next, single cells do not just form from primordial soup.  We've had hypotheses of spotaneous generation, chemical evolution and abiogenesis and still not one singe cell.  All of it is pseudoscience.  You mention a single cell, but how does it evolve into a multicell and a cell that has reproduces via sexual union?  All you did was added billions of years.  Darwin didn't have that kind of luxury.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The web is full of answers to your questions. Do some research on your own. Educate yourself, dingbat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In other words, you can't answer his question.  You just ASSume that it has been answered, by someone, somewhere, because you want to believe.
> 
> That's an awful lot of blind faith for someone deriding others for their faith.
Click to expand...


My blind faith is backed up by lots of DNA and fossil evidence. What evidence is there for the Book of Genesis?


----------



## Cecilie1200

ChesBayJJ said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought this way before, but found the Bible is a non-fiction book.  After investigating and comparing with evolution, I thought creation was true instead of evo.  For example, last year, we found the chicken came before the egg.  That's a fact.  What parts do you think is myth?
> 
> 
> 
> Finally answered! Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
> _Basically, many, many moons ago there was a chicken-like bird. It was genetically close to a chicken but wasn't a full-blown chicken yet. The video calls it a proto-chicken. So proto-hen laid an egg, and proto-rooster fertilized it. But when the genes from ma and pa almost-chicken fused, they combined in a new way, creating a mutation that accidentally made the baby different from its parents. Although it would take millennia for the difference to be noticed, that egg was different enough to become the official progenitor of a new species, now known as... the chicken! So in a nutshell (or an eggshell, if you like), two birds that weren't really chickens created a chicken egg, and hence, we have an answer: The egg came first, and then it hatched a chicken._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Syriusly you believe in myths.
> 
> There's also the problem of infinite regression.  If there was a proto-chicken and proto-rooster, then where did they come from?  The proto-proto-chicken?  And where did the proto-proto-chicken come from?  The proto-proto-proto-chicken?  Ha ha.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The proto-chicken and proto-rooster evolved from egg laying reptiles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a very definitive assertion, for someone who wasn't there.
> 
> And where did the reptiles come from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Older reptiles. And amphibians. Which previously had evolved from transitional species that had come from the ocean. And so on and so on and so on.
Click to expand...


So basically, you have "it must have evolved from something else, which must have evolved from something else, which must have evolved from something else" _ad infinitum_.

Cut to the chase.  Where did it start, and how, and what's your proof?


----------



## ChesBayJJ

Cecilie1200 said:


> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Finally answered! Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
> _Basically, many, many moons ago there was a chicken-like bird. It was genetically close to a chicken but wasn't a full-blown chicken yet. The video calls it a proto-chicken. So proto-hen laid an egg, and proto-rooster fertilized it. But when the genes from ma and pa almost-chicken fused, they combined in a new way, creating a mutation that accidentally made the baby different from its parents. Although it would take millennia for the difference to be noticed, that egg was different enough to become the official progenitor of a new species, now known as... the chicken! So in a nutshell (or an eggshell, if you like), two birds that weren't really chickens created a chicken egg, and hence, we have an answer: The egg came first, and then it hatched a chicken._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly you believe in myths.
> 
> There's also the problem of infinite regression.  If there was a proto-chicken and proto-rooster, then where did they come from?  The proto-proto-chicken?  And where did the proto-proto-chicken come from?  The proto-proto-proto-chicken?  Ha ha.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The proto-chicken and proto-rooster evolved from egg laying reptiles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a very definitive assertion, for someone who wasn't there.
> 
> And where did the reptiles come from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Older reptiles. And amphibians. Which previously had evolved from transitional species that had come from the ocean. And so on and so on and so on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So basically, you have "it must have evolved from something else, which must have evolved from something else, which must have evolved from something else" _ad infinitum_.
> 
> Cut to the chase.  Where did it start, and how, and what's your proof?
Click to expand...


Don't  have any proof other than the fact we and millions of other species exist here on earth. How it started? A number of theories, none proven.

7 Theories on the Origin of Life


----------



## Cecilie1200

ChesBayJJ said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> _The Earth is a little over 4.5 billion years old, its oldest materials being 4.3 billion-year-old zircon crystals. Its earliest times were geologically violent, and it suffered constant bombardment from meteorites. When this ended, the Earth cooled and its surface solidified to a crust - the first solid rocks. There were no continents as yet, just a global ocean peppered with small islands. Erosion, sedimentation and volcanic activity - possibly assisted by more meteor impacts - eventually created small proto-continents which grew until they reached roughly their current size 2.5 billion years ago. The continents have since repeatedly collided and been torn apart, so maps of Earth in the distant past are quite different to today's.
> 
> 
> The history of life on Earth began about 3.8 billion years ago, initially with single-celled prokaryotic cells, such as bacteria. Multicellular life evolved over a billion years later and it's only in the last 570 million years that the kind of life forms we are familiar with began to evolve, starting with arthropods, followed by fish 530 million years ago (Ma), land plants 475Ma and forests 385Ma. Mammals didn't evolve until 200Ma and our own species, Homo sapiens, only 200,000 years ago. So humans have been around for a mere 0.004% of the Earth's history._
> 
> BBC Nature - History of life on Earth
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where is the evidence for as you state?  What I have is the Earth is 4.5 billion years old.  Do you even know who came up with the Earth being 4.5 billions years old?  Evolution has been getting longer and longer and the Earth getting older and older as the years roll by.  In Darwin's time, he estimated Earth was around 300 millions years old.
> 
> Next, single cells do not just form from primordial soup.  We've had hypotheses of spotaneous generation, chemical evolution and abiogenesis and still not one singe cell.  All of it is pseudoscience.  You mention a single cell, but how does it evolve into a multicell and a cell that has reproduces via sexual union?  All you did was added billions of years.  Darwin didn't have that kind of luxury.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The web is full of answers to your questions. Do some research on your own. Educate yourself, dingbat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In other words, you can't answer his question.  You just ASSume that it has been answered, by someone, somewhere, because you want to believe.
> 
> That's an awful lot of blind faith for someone deriding others for their faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My blind faith is backed up by lots of DNA and fossil evidence. What evidence is there for the Book of Genesis?
Click to expand...


No, your blind faith is backed up by ASSUMPTIONS about the DNA and fossil evidence.  The fossil record CANNOT prove evolution, unless you simply nip out the parts that don't suit you. Likewise with DNA.  Both are "proof" only if you really, REALLY want to think they are.

There are a number of assertions about the way things work which the Bible makes, and which scientists rejected and derided for centuries, but which now appear to be validated, at least in part.

The Bible claims that the universe had a specific beginning. 

What Is the Big Bang Theory?

You yourself have admitted that there is sufficient evidence, scientific and otherwise, to indicate that Noah's flood is based in reality.  And the oldest writings archaeologists have found reference it.

_Thus says the Lord, who gives the sun for light by day and the fixed order of the moon and the stars for light by night, who stirs up the sea so that its waves roar— Jeremiah 31:35_

I assume I don't have to prove to you that the moon and the stars have fixed, predictable paths.

And let's look at archaeology, shall we?  A hundred years ago, Bible critics were telling us that the Hittites were a Biblical fiction, a made-up group of people who existed only in stories.  And then archaeologists in Turkey discovered the ruins of Hattusas, and historical records showing an empire in the second millennium BC . . . about where the Bible said they were.

The Code of Hammurabi and the Nuzi tablets both show remarkable resemblances to the Semitic laws given in the first five books of the Bible.

The various peoples mentioned in the Bible have turned up in other archaeological references.  The Philistines are on the Temple of Rameses III at Thebes, c. 1150 BC.  Their five cities mentioned in the Bible -  Ashkelon, Ashdod, Gaza, Gath, and Ekron - have all been excavated or even exist as cities today.


----------



## Cecilie1200

ChesBayJJ said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly you believe in myths.
> 
> There's also the problem of infinite regression.  If there was a proto-chicken and proto-rooster, then where did they come from?  The proto-proto-chicken?  And where did the proto-proto-chicken come from?  The proto-proto-proto-chicken?  Ha ha.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The proto-chicken and proto-rooster evolved from egg laying reptiles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a very definitive assertion, for someone who wasn't there.
> 
> And where did the reptiles come from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Older reptiles. And amphibians. Which previously had evolved from transitional species that had come from the ocean. And so on and so on and so on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So basically, you have "it must have evolved from something else, which must have evolved from something else, which must have evolved from something else" _ad infinitum_.
> 
> Cut to the chase.  Where did it start, and how, and what's your proof?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't  have any proof other than the fact we and millions of other species exist here on earth. How it started? A number of theories, none proven.
> 
> 7 Theories on the Origin of Life
Click to expand...


So basically, you have the same proof of your belief that I do of mine:  we exist, therefore . . .  But somehow, yours is more valid than mine, presumably because you use scientific words to dress it up.

I didn't ask you for proof that your theories exist, or that they ARE theories.  That's actually been my point the whole time:  they're _theories_, so stop waving them around as proven fact.  And stop telling other people that they're stupid and uneducated for daring to question them.  Being questioned is the _purpose _of a theory.


----------



## Likkmee

Please define: "WE"


----------



## ChesBayJJ

Cecilie1200 said:


> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> The proto-chicken and proto-rooster evolved from egg laying reptiles.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a very definitive assertion, for someone who wasn't there.
> 
> And where did the reptiles come from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Older reptiles. And amphibians. Which previously had evolved from transitional species that had come from the ocean. And so on and so on and so on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So basically, you have "it must have evolved from something else, which must have evolved from something else, which must have evolved from something else" _ad infinitum_.
> 
> Cut to the chase.  Where did it start, and how, and what's your proof?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't  have any proof other than the fact we and millions of other species exist here on earth. How it started? A number of theories, none proven.
> 
> 7 Theories on the Origin of Life
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So basically, you have the same proof of your belief that I do of mine:  we exist, therefore . . .  But somehow, yours is more valid than mine, presumably because you use scientific words to dress it up.
> 
> I didn't ask you for proof that your theories exist, or that they ARE theories.  That's actually been my point the whole time:  they're _theories_, so stop waving them around as proven fact.  And stop telling other people that they're stupid and uneducated for daring to question them.  Being questioned is the _purpose _of a theory.
Click to expand...


There is a great deal more scientific evidence than there is evidence to support the story of Genesis. I think the Bible is a wonderful book and has a great deal of good in it about caring and charity and living a good life. But I don't take Genesis literally. I'm a science geek and I believe the science. And I don't believe I've ever claimed anything as fact.


----------



## Cecilie1200

ChesBayJJ said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's a very definitive assertion, for someone who wasn't there.
> 
> And where did the reptiles come from?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Older reptiles. And amphibians. Which previously had evolved from transitional species that had come from the ocean. And so on and so on and so on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So basically, you have "it must have evolved from something else, which must have evolved from something else, which must have evolved from something else" _ad infinitum_.
> 
> Cut to the chase.  Where did it start, and how, and what's your proof?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't  have any proof other than the fact we and millions of other species exist here on earth. How it started? A number of theories, none proven.
> 
> 7 Theories on the Origin of Life
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So basically, you have the same proof of your belief that I do of mine:  we exist, therefore . . .  But somehow, yours is more valid than mine, presumably because you use scientific words to dress it up.
> 
> I didn't ask you for proof that your theories exist, or that they ARE theories.  That's actually been my point the whole time:  they're _theories_, so stop waving them around as proven fact.  And stop telling other people that they're stupid and uneducated for daring to question them.  Being questioned is the _purpose _of a theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is a great deal more scientific evidence than there is evidence to support the story of Genesis. I think the Bible is a wonderful book and has a great deal of good in it about caring and charity and living a good life. But I don't take Genesis literally. I'm a science geek and I believe the science. And I don't believe I've ever claimed anything as fact.
Click to expand...


Okay, let me start from the end, and work my way back.

"I don't believe I've ever claimed anything as fact."

"They won't. We _homo sapiens_ are the result of a different evolutionary path, not taken by our fellow simians. We evolved bipedalism, opposable thumbs, and larger brains." - Post #15 of this thread

"Sure it does. Eventually, species will evolve and become so different they no longer interbreed and they are then considered different species." - Post #19 of this thread

"Cats and seals both evolved from a common ancestor, a very early mammal, which quite likely had whiskers." - Post #712 of this thread

So yes, you HAVE claimed things as fact.  That's what one is doing when one makes declarative statements such as these, absent any temporizing, such as "It is believed" or "it is theorized".

Working backward, you say, "I don't take Genesis literally.  I believe in science."  Is it scientific to simply assume the two are mutually exclusive, and dismiss one entirely?  How much time have you actually spent trying to learn about the Bible from a scientific standpoint?

"There is a great deal more scientific evidence than there is evidence to support the story of Genesis."  Is there?  Then why haven't you shown us?  Unless I missed something, all you've given us is a bunch of vague, one-offs like "the fossil evidence and DNA say so" and links to other people stating theory as settled fact, which proves no more than YOUR statements of theory as settled facts.

I have actually listed instances where scientists started out deriding the Bible, until advancing science proved it true.  Now it's your turn.


----------



## MikeK

LTCArmyRet said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're primates that developed from a common ancestor 5-7 million years ago that yes was an ape.
> 
> That is a fact....The evidence is very strong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not a fact, it is a theory, big difference.   And if we descended from an ape, why are there still apes?
Click to expand...

_The Origin Of Species,_ by Charles Darwin.
Explains it all.


----------



## Syriusly

Cecilie1200 said:


> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> _The Earth is a little over 4.5 billion years old, its oldest materials being 4.3 billion-year-old zircon crystals. Its earliest times were geologically violent, and it suffered constant bombardment from meteorites. When this ended, the Earth cooled and its surface solidified to a crust - the first solid rocks. There were no continents as yet, just a global ocean peppered with small islands. Erosion, sedimentation and volcanic activity - possibly assisted by more meteor impacts - eventually created small proto-continents which grew until they reached roughly their current size 2.5 billion years ago. The continents have since repeatedly collided and been torn apart, so maps of Earth in the distant past are quite different to today's.
> 
> 
> The history of life on Earth began about 3.8 billion years ago, initially with single-celled prokaryotic cells, such as bacteria. Multicellular life evolved over a billion years later and it's only in the last 570 million years that the kind of life forms we are familiar with began to evolve, starting with arthropods, followed by fish 530 million years ago (Ma), land plants 475Ma and forests 385Ma. Mammals didn't evolve until 200Ma and our own species, Homo sapiens, only 200,000 years ago. So humans have been around for a mere 0.004% of the Earth's history._
> 
> BBC Nature - History of life on Earth
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where is the evidence for as you state?  What I have is the Earth is 4.5 billion years old.  Do you even know who came up with the Earth being 4.5 billions years old?  Evolution has been getting longer and longer and the Earth getting older and older as the years roll by.  In Darwin's time, he estimated Earth was around 300 millions years old.
> 
> Next, single cells do not just form from primordial soup.  We've had hypotheses of spotaneous generation, chemical evolution and abiogenesis and still not one singe cell.  All of it is pseudoscience.  You mention a single cell, but how does it evolve into a multicell and a cell that has reproduces via sexual union?  All you did was added billions of years.  Darwin didn't have that kind of luxury.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The web is full of answers to your questions. Do some research on your own. Educate yourself, dingbat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In other words, you can't answer his question.  You just ASSume that it has been answered, by someone, somewhere, because you want to believe.
> 
> That's an awful lot of blind faith for someone deriding others for their faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My blind faith is backed up by lots of DNA and fossil evidence. What evidence is there for the Book of Genesis?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, your blind faith is backed up by ASSUMPTIONS about the DNA and fossil evidence.  The fossil record CANNOT prove evolution,.
Click to expand...


Nothing about 'blind faith' when it comes to looking at the evidence and making a decision based upon the evidence we have.

Evolution is the theory that best fits the actual evidence we have.

The Bible is a book that calls for blind faith and a rejection of most of the evidence.


----------



## Cecilie1200

MikeK said:


> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're primates that developed from a common ancestor 5-7 million years ago that yes was an ape.
> 
> That is a fact....The evidence is very strong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not a fact, it is a theory, big difference.   And if we descended from an ape, why are there still apes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _The Origin Of Species,_ by Charles Darwin.
> Explains it all.
Click to expand...


Yeeeaaahh . . . no.


----------



## Syriusly

Cecilie1200 said:


> [ctable paths.
> 
> And let's look at archaeology, shall we?  A hundred years ago, Bible critics were telling us that the Hittites were a Biblical fiction, a made-up group of people who existed only in stories.  And then archaeologists in Turkey discovered the ruins of Hattusas, and historical records showing an empire in the second millennium BC . . . about where the Bible said they were.
> 
> The Code of Hammurabi and the Nuzi tablets both show remarkable resemblances to the Semitic laws given in the first five books of the Bible.
> 
> The various peoples mentioned in the Bible have turned up in other archaeological references.  The Philistines are on the Temple of Rameses III at Thebes, c. 1150 BC.  Their five cities mentioned in the Bible -  Ashkelon, Ashdod, Gaza, Gath, and Ekron - have all been excavated or even exist as cities today.



_And then archaeologists in Turkey discovered the ruins of Hattusas, and historical records showing an empire in the second millennium BC . . . about where the Bible said they were.
_
I like the 'about' part. 

The difference between science and a literal interpretation of the Bible is that science expects to wrong some of the time- because science depends on looking for the correct answers- and whatever is shown to fit the known facts is considered correct- and if new information comes along- science will use the new information- even though it disproves previous assumptions.

The Bible? When science shows there is no evidence of a flood that covers every Mountain on earth at the same time- the literal interpretation crowd do not consider change their interpretation of the Bible- they rationalize about how the science must be wrong.

No one has argued that the Bible may have some historical facts correct- certainly I don't- there are some things which have been either well connected or very loosely connected. But there is no evidence at all to support the Biblical story of Noah and flood- and that some 4,000 years ago every animal on earth was dumped off on Mt. Ararat and then somehow dispersed to their new island homes on the Galapagos and New Zealand and Australia and Madagascar- but nowhere else.


----------



## ChesBayJJ

Best book about evolution I ever read


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> This study goes to show that our MRCA live a couple thousand years ago.  Doesn't it fit the Bible timeline of Noah's ancestors?
> 
> 'Most recent common ancestor' of all living humans surprisingly recent
> 
> RWS where is your MRCA timeline?


http://www.stat.yale.edu/~jtc5/papers/CommonAncestors/NatureCommonAncestors-Article.pdf

What does this study mean? 

Not what you think. In particular it doesn't say that human beings came into being a few thousand years ago- noting:

. A more recent MRCA would not arise until
the groups were once again well integrated. In the case of Tasmania,
which may have been completely isolated from mainland Australia
between the flooding of the Bass Strait, 9,000–12,000 years ago, and
the European colonization of the island, starting in 1803 (ref. 13),
the IA date for all living humans must fall before the start of
isolation. However, the MRCA date would be unaffected, because
today there are no remaining native Tasmanians without some
European or mainland Australian ancestry


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> _The Earth is a little over 4.5 billion years old, its oldest materials being 4.3 billion-year-old zircon crystals. Its earliest times were geologically violent, and it suffered constant bombardment from meteorites. When this ended, the Earth cooled and its surface solidified to a crust - the first solid rocks. There were no continents as yet, just a global ocean peppered with small islands. Erosion, sedimentation and volcanic activity - possibly assisted by more meteor impacts - eventually created small proto-continents which grew until they reached roughly their current size 2.5 billion years ago. The continents have since repeatedly collided and been torn apart, so maps of Earth in the distant past are quite different to today's.
> 
> 
> The history of life on Earth began about 3.8 billion years ago, initially with single-celled prokaryotic cells, such as bacteria. Multicellular life evolved over a billion years later and it's only in the last 570 million years that the kind of life forms we are familiar with began to evolve, starting with arthropods, followed by fish 530 million years ago (Ma), land plants 475Ma and forests 385Ma. Mammals didn't evolve until 200Ma and our own species, Homo sapiens, only 200,000 years ago. So humans have been around for a mere 0.004% of the Earth's history._
> 
> BBC Nature - History of life on Earth
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where is the evidence for as you state?  What I have is the Earth is 4.5 billion years old.  Do you even know who came up with the Earth being 4.5 billions years old?  Evolution has been getting longer and longer and the Earth getting older and older as the years roll by.  In Darwin's time, he estimated Earth was around 300 millions years old..
Click to expand...


Any evidence that the earth is less than say 1 million years old? Christians have argued for hundreds of years that the Bible indicates that the earth is some 6,000 year old. There is no evidence- none- to support that. 

You want to know his evidence? Read the article he cites.


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> _The Earth is a little over 4.5 billion years old, its oldest materials being 4.3 billion-year-old zircon crystals. Its earliest times were geologically violent, and it suffered constant bombardment from meteorites. When this ended, the Earth cooled and its surface solidified to a crust - the first solid rocks. There were no continents as yet, just a global ocean peppered with small islands. Erosion, sedimentation and volcanic activity - possibly assisted by more meteor impacts - eventually created small proto-continents which grew until they reached roughly their current size 2.5 billion years ago. The continents have since repeatedly collided and been torn apart, so maps of Earth in the distant past are quite different to today's.
> 
> 
> The history of life on Earth began about 3.8 billion years ago, initially with single-celled prokaryotic cells, such as bacteria. Multicellular life evolved over a billion years later and it's only in the last 570 million years that the kind of life forms we are familiar with began to evolve, starting with arthropods, followed by fish 530 million years ago (Ma), land plants 475Ma and forests 385Ma. Mammals didn't evolve until 200Ma and our own species, Homo sapiens, only 200,000 years ago. So humans have been around for a mere 0.004% of the Earth's history._
> 
> BBC Nature - History of life on Earth
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where is the evidence for as you state?  What I have is the Earth is 4.5 billion years old.  Do you even know who came up with the Earth being 4.5 billions years old?  Evolution has been getting longer and longer and the Earth getting older and older as the years roll by.  In Darwin's time, he estimated Earth was around 300 millions years old.
> 
> Next, single cells do not just form from primordial soup.  We've had hypotheses of spotaneous generation, chemical evolution and abiogenesis and still not one singe cell.  All of it is pseudoscience.  You mention a single cell, but how does it evolve into a multicell and a cell that has reproduces via sexual union?  All you did was added billions of years.  Darwin didn't have that kind of luxury.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The web is full of answers to your questions. Do some research on your own. Educate yourself, dingbat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not the web, but the Bible that has the answers. .
Click to expand...


Tell us about where the Bible tells us the answer to the structure of DNA? 
How about where the Bible explains to us why humans and chimpanzees are both physiologically similar- but also genetically almost identical? 
Tell us about how the Bible tells us that giant Galapagos tortoises got from Mt. Ararat to the Galapagos- but nowhere else? And how the kangaroo got to Australia from Mt. Ararat- but nowhere else. Matter of fact- tells where the bible even mentions the kangaroo. 

Do I think that the Bible has the answers for your own issues of faith- sure. But it doesn't have the answers to scientific questions.


----------



## Cecilie1200

ChesBayJJ said:


> Best book about evolution I ever read



You realize this is intended to be a conversation, not a cut-rate version of _The New York Times Book Review_?


----------



## Syriusly

Cecilie1200 said:


> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> _The Earth is a little over 4.5 billion years old, its oldest materials being 4.3 billion-year-old zircon crystals. Its earliest times were geologically violent, and it suffered constant bombardment from meteorites. When this ended, the Earth cooled and its surface solidified to a crust - the first solid rocks. There were no continents as yet, just a global ocean peppered with small islands. Erosion, sedimentation and volcanic activity - possibly assisted by more meteor impacts - eventually created small proto-continents which grew until they reached roughly their current size 2.5 billion years ago. The continents have since repeatedly collided and been torn apart, so maps of Earth in the distant past are quite different to today's.
> 
> 
> The history of life on Earth began about 3.8 billion years ago, initially with single-celled prokaryotic cells, such as bacteria. Multicellular life evolved over a billion years later and it's only in the last 570 million years that the kind of life forms we are familiar with began to evolve, starting with arthropods, followed by fish 530 million years ago (Ma), land plants 475Ma and forests 385Ma. Mammals didn't evolve until 200Ma and our own species, Homo sapiens, only 200,000 years ago. So humans have been around for a mere 0.004% of the Earth's history._
> 
> BBC Nature - History of life on Earth
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where is the evidence for as you state?  What I have is the Earth is 4.5 billion years old.  Do you even know who came up with the Earth being 4.5 billions years old?  Evolution has been getting longer and longer and the Earth getting older and older as the years roll by.  In Darwin's time, he estimated Earth was around 300 millions years old.
> 
> Next, single cells do not just form from primordial soup.  We've had hypotheses of spotaneous generation, chemical evolution and abiogenesis and still not one singe cell.  All of it is pseudoscience.  You mention a single cell, but how does it evolve into a multicell and a cell that has reproduces via sexual union?  All you did was added billions of years.  Darwin didn't have that kind of luxury.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The web is full of answers to your questions. Do some research on your own. Educate yourself, dingbat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In other words, you can't answer his question.  You just ASSume that it has been answered, by someone, somewhere, because you want to believe.
> 
> That's an awful lot of blind faith for someone deriding others for their faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My blind faith is backed up by lots of DNA and fossil evidence. What evidence is there for the Book of Genesis?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, your blind faith is backed up by ASSUMPTIONS about the DNA and fossil evidence.  The fossil record CANNOT prove evolution, unless you simply nip out the parts that don't suit you. Likewise with DNA.  Both are "proof" only if you really, REALLY want to think they are.
> 
> There are a number of assertions about the way things work which the Bible makes, and which scientists rejected and derided for centuries, but which now appear to be validated, at least in part.
> 
> The Bible claims that the universe had a specific beginning.
> 
> What Is the Big Bang Theory?
> 
> You yourself have admitted that there is sufficient evidence, scientific and otherwise, to indicate that Noah's flood is based in reality.  And the oldest writings archaeologists have found reference it.
> 
> _Thus says the Lord, who gives the sun for light by day and the fixed order of the moon and the stars for light by night, who stirs up the sea so that its waves roar— Jeremiah 31:35_
> 
> I assume I don't have to prove to you that the moon and the stars have fixed, predictable paths.
Click to expand...


Really want to go with the Bible and the sun and the moon and the stars?
_
And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day. 

So according to the Bible- God created earth- and light- the first day- where did that light come from? _

6 And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” 7 So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the vault “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.

_And I guess God created the atmosphere on the second day_

9 And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground “land,” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” And God saw that it was good.

_And apparently when the earth was first created there was no sea or ground- but on the third day he created 'land and 'seas'_

11 Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.

_And here is where it gets really interesting- on the third day he created all of the plants of the world- and evening and morning_

14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.

Okay on the fourth day God created the Sun and the Moon. - and the stars. 
So the order is:
a) Earth
b) Day/Night
c) Vegetation
d) Sun/moon

So- how did we have a day and night without a sun? How did the vegetation survives the absolute zero temperatures on earth without any sun being in existence?


----------



## Syriusly

Cecilie1200 said:


> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Best book about evolution I ever read
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You realize this is intended to be a conversation, not a cut-rate version of _The New York Times Book Review_?
Click to expand...


How many times have you referred to the Bible in this thread?


----------



## Political Junky

Syriusly said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where is the evidence for as you state?  What I have is the Earth is 4.5 billion years old.  Do you even know who came up with the Earth being 4.5 billions years old?  Evolution has been getting longer and longer and the Earth getting older and older as the years roll by.  In Darwin's time, he estimated Earth was around 300 millions years old.
> 
> Next, single cells do not just form from primordial soup.  We've had hypotheses of spotaneous generation, chemical evolution and abiogenesis and still not one singe cell.  All of it is pseudoscience.  You mention a single cell, but how does it evolve into a multicell and a cell that has reproduces via sexual union?  All you did was added billions of years.  Darwin didn't have that kind of luxury.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The web is full of answers to your questions. Do some research on your own. Educate yourself, dingbat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In other words, you can't answer his question.  You just ASSume that it has been answered, by someone, somewhere, because you want to believe.
> 
> That's an awful lot of blind faith for someone deriding others for their faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My blind faith is backed up by lots of DNA and fossil evidence. What evidence is there for the Book of Genesis?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, your blind faith is backed up by ASSUMPTIONS about the DNA and fossil evidence.  The fossil record CANNOT prove evolution, unless you simply nip out the parts that don't suit you. Likewise with DNA.  Both are "proof" only if you really, REALLY want to think they are.
> 
> There are a number of assertions about the way things work which the Bible makes, and which scientists rejected and derided for centuries, but which now appear to be validated, at least in part.
> 
> The Bible claims that the universe had a specific beginning.
> 
> What Is the Big Bang Theory?
> 
> You yourself have admitted that there is sufficient evidence, scientific and otherwise, to indicate that Noah's flood is based in reality.  And the oldest writings archaeologists have found reference it.
> 
> _Thus says the Lord, who gives the sun for light by day and the fixed order of the moon and the stars for light by night, who stirs up the sea so that its waves roar— Jeremiah 31:35_
> 
> I assume I don't have to prove to you that the moon and the stars have fixed, predictable paths.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really want to go with the Bible and the sun and the moon and the stars?
> _
> And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.
> 
> So according to the Bible- God created earth- and light- the first day- where did that light come from? _
> 
> 6 And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” 7 So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the vault “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.
> 
> _And I guess God created the atmosphere on the second day_
> 
> 9 And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground “land,” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” And God saw that it was good.
> 
> _And apparently when the earth was first created there was no sea or ground- but on the third day he created 'land and 'seas'_
> 
> 11 Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.
> 
> _And here is where it gets really interesting- on the third day he created all of the plants of the world- and evening and morning_
> 
> 14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.
> 
> Okay on the fourth day God created the Sun and the Moon. - and the stars.
> So the order is:
> a) Earth
> b) Day/Night
> c) Vegetation
> d) Sun/moon
> 
> So- how did we have a day and night without a sun? How did the vegetation survives the absolute zero temperatures on earth without any sun being in existence?
Click to expand...

Christians burned folks at the stake for suggesting the earth goes around the sun. That was just a few hundred years ago.


----------



## WheelieAddict

Monkeys? Think back farther about the first simple forms of life on early planet Earth, later dinosaurs and mammals, now us. Humans are obviously not the same and much more advanced than any other life forms on Earth, yet the core guts of our bodies are much like all the other mammals. It is very easy to see that the human body is part of the evolution of life on Earth. 

The mystery is the human spirit and advanced (compared to other forms of life on Earth) intelligence. It could be we are simply the highest form of evolution on this planet to this point and that it was inevitable that with the right conditions a mammal would develop into us. It could also be that the human mammal body is just a convenient vessel for the human spirit that is beyond having to have a body to exist. 

You don't need to discount evolution or science to believe in God or religion, and shouldn't be dismayed that we are closely related to monkeys physically.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Political Junky said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> The web is full of answers to your questions. Do some research on your own. Educate yourself, dingbat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, you can't answer his question.  You just ASSume that it has been answered, by someone, somewhere, because you want to believe.
> 
> That's an awful lot of blind faith for someone deriding others for their faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My blind faith is backed up by lots of DNA and fossil evidence. What evidence is there for the Book of Genesis?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, your blind faith is backed up by ASSUMPTIONS about the DNA and fossil evidence.  The fossil record CANNOT prove evolution, unless you simply nip out the parts that don't suit you. Likewise with DNA.  Both are "proof" only if you really, REALLY want to think they are.
> 
> There are a number of assertions about the way things work which the Bible makes, and which scientists rejected and derided for centuries, but which now appear to be validated, at least in part.
> 
> The Bible claims that the universe had a specific beginning.
> 
> What Is the Big Bang Theory?
> 
> You yourself have admitted that there is sufficient evidence, scientific and otherwise, to indicate that Noah's flood is based in reality.  And the oldest writings archaeologists have found reference it.
> 
> _Thus says the Lord, who gives the sun for light by day and the fixed order of the moon and the stars for light by night, who stirs up the sea so that its waves roar— Jeremiah 31:35_
> 
> I assume I don't have to prove to you that the moon and the stars have fixed, predictable paths.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really want to go with the Bible and the sun and the moon and the stars?
> _
> And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.
> 
> So according to the Bible- God created earth- and light- the first day- where did that light come from? _
> 
> 6 And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” 7 So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the vault “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.
> 
> _And I guess God created the atmosphere on the second day_
> 
> 9 And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground “land,” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” And God saw that it was good.
> 
> _And apparently when the earth was first created there was no sea or ground- but on the third day he created 'land and 'seas'_
> 
> 11 Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.
> 
> _And here is where it gets really interesting- on the third day he created all of the plants of the world- and evening and morning_
> 
> 14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.
> 
> Okay on the fourth day God created the Sun and the Moon. - and the stars.
> So the order is:
> a) Earth
> b) Day/Night
> c) Vegetation
> d) Sun/moon
> 
> So- how did we have a day and night without a sun? How did the vegetation survives the absolute zero temperatures on earth without any sun being in existence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Christians burned folks at the stake for suggesting the earth goes around the sun. That was just a few hundred years ago.
Click to expand...


Yeah?  Can you name any?


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't it fit the Bible timeline of Noah's ancestors?
> 
> 
> 
> No, it doesn't. Like, not at all. You clearly do not understand any of this.  The world would still have been populated , worlwide, with humans. In fact, the research depends on it.
> 
> As it clearly states in the study -- which you clearly regurgitated from some goofy YEC site, and of which you clearly did not read a single word, -- that the results are dependent upon the data of all the people that lived in the last 20,000 years. It also says that the same methods can be used to work backwards, that is, into the future. What this means is that all of the people 2000 or 3000 years from now will be descended from most of us. But but but look around! No flood, no Noah, no population bottleneck.
> 
> So, no, the study does not imply anything like what you are saying at all. In fact, it implies exactly the opposite. Just stop.
Click to expand...


You're one of the most f*cking dumb*ss posters I've ever witnessed.  You are one who does not understand the Bible nor science.  There is a lesson to be taught here..

First, it fits the timeline because science backs up the Bible.

One of the concerns of creationists is that we notice evolution is making regular people stupider.  People make up any sort of wild theory and think it's science.  The belief that humans evolved from apes to ape-humans is one of them.

Here is one anecdote told to me by a fellow believer:

"I’ve been amazed at *all the ridiculous speculation in the supermarket science tabloids* about *ghost species*, the formation of stars and planets, characteristics and composition of planets orbiting stars many light-years away from us, and past levels of oxygen in the atmospheres of Earth and Mars (and their temperatures) over the past hundreds of millions of years, *based on nothing more than computer simulations.*

Yes, I believe Armstrong, Collins, and Aldrin really did fly Apollo 11 to the Moon and back.  I’m not a kook who doesn’t believe in space travel.  Despite my belief in space travel, I don’t believe Han Solo shortened the 20 parsec Kessel run to less than 12 parsecs, despite the fact that graphics showing how Solo shortened the distance (by taking the Millennium Falcon through the Akkadese Maelstrom) are much better quality than the TV pictures I watched when Apollo 11 went to the Moon."

Science Insanity


----------



## james bond

ChesBayJJ said:


> There is a great deal more scientific evidence than there is evidence to support the story of Genesis. I think the Bible is a wonderful book and has a great deal of good in it about caring and charity and living a good life. But I don't take Genesis literally. I'm a science geek and I believe the science. And I don't believe I've ever claimed anything as fact.



I think people have a misconception of science.  What is fact is the evidence (unless it's been doctored or is misinterpreted as evidence).  We derive science based on our observations, beliefs and worldviews.  In other words, science and religion are both sides of the same coin.  It's about what is the truth.

One can argue there is a lot of wrong religion the same as one can argue there is a lot of wrong science.  This is part of seeking out the truth.  There will always be disagreements.  For example, if you state your hypothesis that humans evolved from apes, then someone else may state that apes evolved from humans.  The latter is what Professor Owen Lovejoy, the person who put Lucy together believes.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Cecilie1200 said:


> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> _The Earth is a little over 4.5 billion years old, its oldest materials being 4.3 billion-year-old zircon crystals. Its earliest times were geologically violent, and it suffered constant bombardment from meteorites. When this ended, the Earth cooled and its surface solidified to a crust - the first solid rocks. There were no continents as yet, just a global ocean peppered with small islands. Erosion, sedimentation and volcanic activity - possibly assisted by more meteor impacts - eventually created small proto-continents which grew until they reached roughly their current size 2.5 billion years ago. The continents have since repeatedly collided and been torn apart, so maps of Earth in the distant past are quite different to today's.
> 
> 
> The history of life on Earth began about 3.8 billion years ago, initially with single-celled prokaryotic cells, such as bacteria. Multicellular life evolved over a billion years later and it's only in the last 570 million years that the kind of life forms we are familiar with began to evolve, starting with arthropods, followed by fish 530 million years ago (Ma), land plants 475Ma and forests 385Ma. Mammals didn't evolve until 200Ma and our own species, Homo sapiens, only 200,000 years ago. So humans have been around for a mere 0.004% of the Earth's history._
> 
> BBC Nature - History of life on Earth
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where is the evidence for as you state?  What I have is the Earth is 4.5 billion years old.  Do you even know who came up with the Earth being 4.5 billions years old?  Evolution has been getting longer and longer and the Earth getting older and older as the years roll by.  In Darwin's time, he estimated Earth was around 300 millions years old.
> 
> Next, single cells do not just form from primordial soup.  We've had hypotheses of spotaneous generation, chemical evolution and abiogenesis and still not one singe cell.  All of it is pseudoscience.  You mention a single cell, but how does it evolve into a multicell and a cell that has reproduces via sexual union?  All you did was added billions of years.  Darwin didn't have that kind of luxury.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The web is full of answers to your questions. Do some research on your own. Educate yourself, dingbat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In other words, you can't answer his question.  You just ASSume that it has been answered, by someone, somewhere, because you want to believe.
> 
> That's an awful lot of blind faith for someone deriding others for their faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My blind faith is backed up by lots of DNA and fossil evidence. What evidence is there for the Book of Genesis?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, your blind faith is backed up by ASSUMPTIONS about the DNA and fossil evidence.  The fossil record CANNOT prove evolution, unless you simply nip out the parts that don't suit you. Likewise with DNA.  Both are "proof" only if you really, REALLY want to think they are.
> 
> There are a number of assertions about the way things work which the Bible makes, and which scientists rejected and derided for centuries, but which now appear to be validated, at least in part.
> 
> The Bible claims that the universe had a specific beginning.
> 
> What Is the Big Bang Theory?
> 
> You yourself have admitted that there is sufficient evidence, scientific and otherwise, to indicate that Noah's flood is based in reality.  And the oldest writings archaeologists have found reference it.
> 
> _Thus says the Lord, who gives the sun for light by day and the fixed order of the moon and the stars for light by night, who stirs up the sea so that its waves roar— Jeremiah 31:35_
> 
> I assume I don't have to prove to you that the moon and the stars have fixed, predictable paths.
> 
> And let's look at archaeology, shall we?  A hundred years ago, Bible critics were telling us that the Hittites were a Biblical fiction, a made-up group of people who existed only in stories.  And then archaeologists in Turkey discovered the ruins of Hattusas, and historical records showing an empire in the second millennium BC . . . about where the Bible said they were.
> 
> The Code of Hammurabi and the Nuzi tablets both show remarkable resemblances to the Semitic laws given in the first five books of the Bible.
> 
> The various peoples mentioned in the Bible have turned up in other archaeological references.  The Philistines are on the Temple of Rameses III at Thebes, c. 1150 BC.  Their five cities mentioned in the Bible -  Ashkelon, Ashdod, Gaza, Gath, and Ekron - have all been excavated or even exist as cities today.
Click to expand...

Ah yes...the "Alamo" of magical thinkers like you:

Lacking any good argument of evidence for any of your magical bullshit, and lacking any good evidence or argument to counter scientific knowledge whochjndermines your magical bullshit, you are left with only one option:

You attempt to drag scientific knowledge down into the muck of your magical bullshit by labelling it "faith".

What an embarrassing display....


----------



## Syriusly

Cecilie1200 said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, you can't answer his question.  You just ASSume that it has been answered, by someone, somewhere, because you want to believe.
> 
> That's an awful lot of blind faith for someone deriding others for their faith.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My blind faith is backed up by lots of DNA and fossil evidence. What evidence is there for the Book of Genesis?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, your blind faith is backed up by ASSUMPTIONS about the DNA and fossil evidence.  The fossil record CANNOT prove evolution, unless you simply nip out the parts that don't suit you. Likewise with DNA.  Both are "proof" only if you really, REALLY want to think they are.
> 
> There are a number of assertions about the way things work which the Bible makes, and which scientists rejected and derided for centuries, but which now appear to be validated, at least in part.
> 
> The Bible claims that the universe had a specific beginning.
> 
> What Is the Big Bang Theory?
> 
> You yourself have admitted that there is sufficient evidence, scientific and otherwise, to indicate that Noah's flood is based in reality.  And the oldest writings archaeologists have found reference it.
> 
> _Thus says the Lord, who gives the sun for light by day and the fixed order of the moon and the stars for light by night, who stirs up the sea so that its waves roar— Jeremiah 31:35_
> 
> I assume I don't have to prove to you that the moon and the stars have fixed, predictable paths.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really want to go with the Bible and the sun and the moon and the stars?
> _
> And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.
> 
> So according to the Bible- God created earth- and light- the first day- where did that light come from? _
> 
> 6 And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” 7 So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the vault “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.
> 
> _And I guess God created the atmosphere on the second day_
> 
> 9 And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground “land,” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” And God saw that it was good.
> 
> _And apparently when the earth was first created there was no sea or ground- but on the third day he created 'land and 'seas'_
> 
> 11 Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.
> 
> _And here is where it gets really interesting- on the third day he created all of the plants of the world- and evening and morning_
> 
> 14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.
> 
> Okay on the fourth day God created the Sun and the Moon. - and the stars.
> So the order is:
> a) Earth
> b) Day/Night
> c) Vegetation
> d) Sun/moon
> 
> So- how did we have a day and night without a sun? How did the vegetation survives the absolute zero temperatures on earth without any sun being in existence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Christians burned folks at the stake for suggesting the earth goes around the sun. That was just a few hundred years ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah?  Can you name any?
Click to expand...

Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake for- among other things- suggesting that the universe was infinite- and that stars might be suns with planets of their own.

As far as persecution for the publishing the concept that the earth goes around the sun- that would be Galleleo of course. 

The truth about Galileo and his conflict with the Catholic Church

Accused and convicted of 'heresy' for publishing a book that concluded that the Earth rotated around the Sun rather than the other way- Galleleo was actually under Catholic law to be tortured so his 'private views' could be examined- but the Pope prevented that. 

Not that changed the fate of others who were tortured by the inquisition.


----------



## Syriusly

Syriusly said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where is the evidence for as you state?  What I have is the Earth is 4.5 billion years old.  Do you even know who came up with the Earth being 4.5 billions years old?  Evolution has been getting longer and longer and the Earth getting older and older as the years roll by.  In Darwin's time, he estimated Earth was around 300 millions years old.
> 
> Next, single cells do not just form from primordial soup.  We've had hypotheses of spotaneous generation, chemical evolution and abiogenesis and still not one singe cell.  All of it is pseudoscience.  You mention a single cell, but how does it evolve into a multicell and a cell that has reproduces via sexual union?  All you did was added billions of years.  Darwin didn't have that kind of luxury.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The web is full of answers to your questions. Do some research on your own. Educate yourself, dingbat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In other words, you can't answer his question.  You just ASSume that it has been answered, by someone, somewhere, because you want to believe.
> 
> That's an awful lot of blind faith for someone deriding others for their faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My blind faith is backed up by lots of DNA and fossil evidence. What evidence is there for the Book of Genesis?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, your blind faith is backed up by ASSUMPTIONS about the DNA and fossil evidence.  The fossil record CANNOT prove evolution, unless you simply nip out the parts that don't suit you. Likewise with DNA.  Both are "proof" only if you really, REALLY want to think they are.
> 
> There are a number of assertions about the way things work which the Bible makes, and which scientists rejected and derided for centuries, but which now appear to be validated, at least in part.
> 
> The Bible claims that the universe had a specific beginning.
> 
> What Is the Big Bang Theory?
> 
> You yourself have admitted that there is sufficient evidence, scientific and otherwise, to indicate that Noah's flood is based in reality.  And the oldest writings archaeologists have found reference it.
> 
> _Thus says the Lord, who gives the sun for light by day and the fixed order of the moon and the stars for light by night, who stirs up the sea so that its waves roar— Jeremiah 31:35_
> 
> I assume I don't have to prove to you that the moon and the stars have fixed, predictable paths.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really want to go with the Bible and the sun and the moon and the stars?
> _
> And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.
> 
> So according to the Bible- God created earth- and light- the first day- where did that light come from? _
> 
> 6 And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” 7 So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the vault “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.
> 
> _And I guess God created the atmosphere on the second day_
> 
> 9 And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground “land,” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” And God saw that it was good.
> 
> _And apparently when the earth was first created there was no sea or ground- but on the third day he created 'land and 'seas'_
> 
> 11 Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.
> 
> _And here is where it gets really interesting- on the third day he created all of the plants of the world- and evening and morning_
> 
> 14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.
> 
> Okay on the fourth day God created the Sun and the Moon. - and the stars.
> So the order is:
> a) Earth
> b) Day/Night
> c) Vegetation
> d) Sun/moon
> 
> So- how did we have a day and night without a sun? How did the vegetation survives the absolute zero temperatures on earth without any sun being in existence?
Click to expand...


Nothing but crickets from our 'Creationists'.

lol


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't it fit the Bible timeline of Noah's ancestors?
> 
> 
> 
> No, it doesn't. Like, not at all. You clearly do not understand any of this.  The world would still have been populated , worlwide, with humans. In fact, the research depends on it.
> 
> As it clearly states in the study -- which you clearly regurgitated from some goofy YEC site, and of which you clearly did not read a single word, -- that the results are dependent upon the data of all the people that lived in the last 20,000 years. It also says that the same methods can be used to work backwards, that is, into the future. What this means is that all of the people 2000 or 3000 years from now will be descended from most of us. But but but look around! No flood, no Noah, no population bottleneck.
> 
> So, no, the study does not imply anything like what you are saying at all. In fact, it implies exactly the opposite. Just stop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're one of the most f*cking dumb*ss posters I've ever witnessed.  You are one who does not understand the Bible nor science.  There is a lesson to be taught here..
> 
> First, it fits the timeline because science backs up the Bible.
Click to expand...


The lesson is that you have no idea what the study says- or what science is- all you have are insults to those who point out your idiocy. 

There is nothing- absolutely nothing- about that study which supports anything in the Bible. 

Nor is there any 'science' which supports the Biblical myth of the creation of earth, or the either of the Biblical myths about the creation of mankind.


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is a great deal more scientific evidence than there is evidence to support the story of Genesis. I think the Bible is a wonderful book and has a great deal of good in it about caring and charity and living a good life. But I don't take Genesis literally. I'm a science geek and I believe the science. And I don't believe I've ever claimed anything as fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think people have a misconception of science.  What is fact is the evidence (unless it's been doctored or is misinterpreted as evidence).  We derive science based on our observations, beliefs and worldviews.  In other words, science and religion are both sides of the same coin.  It's about what is the truth..
Click to expand...


We derive science from our observations, from experimentation and from the facts.

The difference between science and 'religion'- by which you really mean Christianity- and not just Christianity but that bizarre branch of Christianity which insists that the Bible must be literally true- is that science starts from a position that we do not know everything- and will never know everything, but we can continually learn from everything.

Creationists like yourself believe that everything in the Bible must be correct- and look to 'science' just as a tool to justify your beliefs. 

The difference between yourself and myself- is if 'science' tomorrow came up with strong evidence that the world was indeed formed in less than a week- and that earth actually was created before the sun- I would go with the evidence. 

You will always go with the Bible- not the evidence.


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is a great deal more scientific evidence than there is evidence to support the story of Genesis. I think the Bible is a wonderful book and has a great deal of good in it about caring and charity and living a good life. But I don't take Genesis literally. I'm a science geek and I believe the science. And I don't believe I've ever claimed anything as fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .  For example, if you state your hypothesis that humans evolved from apes, then someone else may state that apes evolved from humans.  The latter is what Professor Owen Lovejoy, the person who put Lucy together believes.
Click to expand...


Does he really? I remember you making that claim before and chasing it down- let us do that again.
_Professor: Man Did Not Evolve From Chimpanzee-like Apes | Kent State University
"People often think we evolved from ancestors that look like apes, but no, apes in some ways evolved from ancestors that look like us," Lovejoy said. "It has been a popular idea to think humans are modified chimpanzees. From studying Ardipithecus ramidus, or 'Ardi,' we learn that we cannot understand or model human evolution from chimps and gorillas."_

Does Lovejoy say that apes evolved from humans? Absolutely not. 

Do you know what Lovejoy 'believes'? 

That article was from 2009- 9 years ago- what does Lovejoy 'believe' now?


----------



## Cecilie1200

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where is the evidence for as you state?  What I have is the Earth is 4.5 billion years old.  Do you even know who came up with the Earth being 4.5 billions years old?  Evolution has been getting longer and longer and the Earth getting older and older as the years roll by.  In Darwin's time, he estimated Earth was around 300 millions years old.
> 
> Next, single cells do not just form from primordial soup.  We've had hypotheses of spotaneous generation, chemical evolution and abiogenesis and still not one singe cell.  All of it is pseudoscience.  You mention a single cell, but how does it evolve into a multicell and a cell that has reproduces via sexual union?  All you did was added billions of years.  Darwin didn't have that kind of luxury.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The web is full of answers to your questions. Do some research on your own. Educate yourself, dingbat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In other words, you can't answer his question.  You just ASSume that it has been answered, by someone, somewhere, because you want to believe.
> 
> That's an awful lot of blind faith for someone deriding others for their faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My blind faith is backed up by lots of DNA and fossil evidence. What evidence is there for the Book of Genesis?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, your blind faith is backed up by ASSUMPTIONS about the DNA and fossil evidence.  The fossil record CANNOT prove evolution, unless you simply nip out the parts that don't suit you. Likewise with DNA.  Both are "proof" only if you really, REALLY want to think they are.
> 
> There are a number of assertions about the way things work which the Bible makes, and which scientists rejected and derided for centuries, but which now appear to be validated, at least in part.
> 
> The Bible claims that the universe had a specific beginning.
> 
> What Is the Big Bang Theory?
> 
> You yourself have admitted that there is sufficient evidence, scientific and otherwise, to indicate that Noah's flood is based in reality.  And the oldest writings archaeologists have found reference it.
> 
> _Thus says the Lord, who gives the sun for light by day and the fixed order of the moon and the stars for light by night, who stirs up the sea so that its waves roar— Jeremiah 31:35_
> 
> I assume I don't have to prove to you that the moon and the stars have fixed, predictable paths.
> 
> And let's look at archaeology, shall we?  A hundred years ago, Bible critics were telling us that the Hittites were a Biblical fiction, a made-up group of people who existed only in stories.  And then archaeologists in Turkey discovered the ruins of Hattusas, and historical records showing an empire in the second millennium BC . . . about where the Bible said they were.
> 
> The Code of Hammurabi and the Nuzi tablets both show remarkable resemblances to the Semitic laws given in the first five books of the Bible.
> 
> The various peoples mentioned in the Bible have turned up in other archaeological references.  The Philistines are on the Temple of Rameses III at Thebes, c. 1150 BC.  Their five cities mentioned in the Bible -  Ashkelon, Ashdod, Gaza, Gath, and Ekron - have all been excavated or even exist as cities today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah yes...the "Alamo" of magical thinkers like you:
> 
> Lacking any good argument of evidence for any of your magical bullshit, and lacking any good evidence or argument to counter scientific knowledge whochjndermines your magical bullshit, you are left with only one option:
> 
> You attempt to drag scientific knowledge down into the muck of your magical bullshit by labelling it "faith".
> 
> What an embarrassing display....
Click to expand...


Ah yes.  The last resort of magical thinkers like you.

Lacking any argument AT ALL to refute what you're told, you simply dismiss it entirely and hope your lofty tone will fool everyone and keep them from seeing that you just can't answer.

It would be a humiliating display . . . if you were intelligent enough OR honest enough to have any sense of shame.

Your surrender is duly noted.  When you have something REAL to say, perhaps you'll try again.  For now, you may complete your ritual "running away, tail between legs".


----------



## Shazoomx4

RWS said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shazoomx4 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jewish is not only religion...
> I born as Jewish..
> 
> 
> 
> "Jewish" is not a race, it's a religion. Your parents are Jewish and because of that, you are Jewish as well.
> 
> You never had a choice. You were born into your religion and brainwashed from birth. Same with Christian and Muslim religions.
> 
> They usually don't have a choice.
> 
> I had a choice. because I never got brainwashed. And I studied many religions and their history. And my findings were that the big three were all corrupt and wrong. There is no need to believe in a religion if you are a righteous person. Just be a righteous person, and don't follow corruption.
> 
> And then the world would be fine...sans religion....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have to disagree. I know people who where raised in a "Christian" home and believed that being born into a faith was all there was. The Lord doesn't care who your parents are! He wants a one on one. And I came to know the Lord when I was 12. I know Jews who felt the same way, even to the point that it was better to be a Jew and atheistic then become "Messianic" and have faith in GOD...  Religion is not what true "Christianity " is all about. It's a relationship. Relationships for the most part are free; however, they do involve interaction and that is where prayer and research/study come into play.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you were born into a Muslim family, would you still be Jewish/Christian?
> Wrong, if you were borne intoHin , let's say,
> Is it the religion that is right? Or the birthright that is right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is the truth and fact that is right. And I know Muslims and Hindus and Buddhists and Jews who have awakened to the truth of Our LORD JESUS  the Messiah and have become CHRISTIANS (followers of Christ). Only the TRUTH shall set you free!
> 
> Acts 8:26-40
> 
> 26 But as for Philip, an angel of the Lord said to him, “Go over to the road that runs from Jerusalem through the Gaza Desert, arriving around noon.” 27 So he did, and who should be coming down the road but the Treasurer of Ethiopia, a eunuch of great authority under Candace the queen. He had gone to Jerusalem to worship 28 and was now returning in his chariot, reading aloud from the book of the prophet Isaiah.
> 
> 29 The Holy Spirit said to Philip, “Go over and walk along beside the chariot.”
> 
> 30 Philip ran over and heard what he was reading and asked, “Do you understand it?”
> 
> 31 “Of course not!” the man replied. “How can I when there is no one to instruct me?” And he begged Philip to come up into the chariot and sit with him.
> 
> 32 The passage of Scripture he had been reading from was this:
> 
> “He was led as a sheep to the slaughter, and as a lamb is silent before the shearers, so he opened not his mouth; 33 in his humiliation, justice was denied him; and who can express the wickedness of the people of his generation? For his life is taken from the earth.”
> 
> 34 The eunuch asked Philip, “Was Isaiah talking about himself or someone else?”
> 
> 35 So Philip began with this same Scripture and then used many others to tell him about Jesus.
> 
> 36 As they rode along, they came to a small body of water, and the eunuch said, “Look! Water! Why can’t I be baptized?”
> 
> 37 “You can,” Philip answered, “if you believe with all your heart.”
> 
> And the eunuch replied, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.”
> 
> 38 He stopped the chariot, and they went down into the water and Philip baptized him. 39 And when they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, and the eunuch never saw him again, but went on his way rejoicing. 40 Meanwhile, Philip found himself at Azotus! He preached the Good News there and in every city along the way, as he traveled to Caesarea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you were borne into a different religion, you would not be quoting those things. You would be quoting different things.
> 
> It's about brainwashing. And the best way to do it is at birth...
Click to expand...

Jewish is a nation, not a race... and not only religion, for example, I am Jewish Because my parents are Jewish. but I have no religion and, I an atheist


----------



## Wyatt earp

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where is the evidence for as you state?  What I have is the Earth is 4.5 billion years old.  Do you even know who came up with the Earth being 4.5 billions years old?  Evolution has been getting longer and longer and the Earth getting older and older as the years roll by.  In Darwin's time, he estimated Earth was around 300 millions years old.
> 
> Next, single cells do not just form from primordial soup.  We've had hypotheses of spotaneous generation, chemical evolution and abiogenesis and still not one singe cell.  All of it is pseudoscience.  You mention a single cell, but how does it evolve into a multicell and a cell that has reproduces via sexual union?  All you did was added billions of years.  Darwin didn't have that kind of luxury.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The web is full of answers to your questions. Do some research on your own. Educate yourself, dingbat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In other words, you can't answer his question.  You just ASSume that it has been answered, by someone, somewhere, because you want to believe.
> 
> That's an awful lot of blind faith for someone deriding others for their faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My blind faith is backed up by lots of DNA and fossil evidence. What evidence is there for the Book of Genesis?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, your blind faith is backed up by ASSUMPTIONS about the DNA and fossil evidence.  The fossil record CANNOT prove evolution, unless you simply nip out the parts that don't suit you. Likewise with DNA.  Both are "proof" only if you really, REALLY want to think they are.
> 
> There are a number of assertions about the way things work which the Bible makes, and which scientists rejected and derided for centuries, but which now appear to be validated, at least in part.
> 
> The Bible claims that the universe had a specific beginning.
> 
> What Is the Big Bang Theory?
> 
> You yourself have admitted that there is sufficient evidence, scientific and otherwise, to indicate that Noah's flood is based in reality.  And the oldest writings archaeologists have found reference it.
> 
> _Thus says the Lord, who gives the sun for light by day and the fixed order of the moon and the stars for light by night, who stirs up the sea so that its waves roar— Jeremiah 31:35_
> 
> I assume I don't have to prove to you that the moon and the stars have fixed, predictable paths.
> 
> And let's look at archaeology, shall we?  A hundred years ago, Bible critics were telling us that the Hittites were a Biblical fiction, a made-up group of people who existed only in stories.  And then archaeologists in Turkey discovered the ruins of Hattusas, and historical records showing an empire in the second millennium BC . . . about where the Bible said they were.
> 
> The Code of Hammurabi and the Nuzi tablets both show remarkable resemblances to the Semitic laws given in the first five books of the Bible.
> 
> The various peoples mentioned in the Bible have turned up in other archaeological references.  The Philistines are on the Temple of Rameses III at Thebes, c. 1150 BC.  Their five cities mentioned in the Bible -  Ashkelon, Ashdod, Gaza, Gath, and Ekron - have all been excavated or even exist as cities today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah yes...the "Alamo" of magical thinkers like you:
> 
> Lacking any good argument of evidence for any of your magical bullshit, and lacking any good evidence or argument to counter scientific knowledge whochjndermines your magical bullshit, you are left with only one option:
> 
> You attempt to drag scientific knowledge down into the muck of your magical bullshit by labelling it "faith".
> 
> What an embarrassing display....
Click to expand...


Great post , yet you want to ignore the obvious ..


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Cecilie1200 said:


> Lacking any argument AT ALL to refute what you're told,


 hey dummy... I don't need to spend any energy refuting what you are saying because you are wrong as shown by all of science.

What kind of moron thinks he can just make up stupid shit and it's everyone else's job to prove him wrong?

A religious idiot, that's what kind of moron.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Look at the embarrassing religious fools in this thread. Every one of these dumbasses would fail 6th grade science class. They are embarrassing themselves, and we embarrass ourselves to legitimize their embarrassing magical bullshit


----------



## GreenBean

ScienceRocks said:


> We're primates that developed from a common ancestor 5-7 million years ago that yes was an ape.
> 
> That is a fact....The evidence is very strong.


There is an alternative theory from Pseudo Science that states apes are devolved from humans.  Evolution doesn't allways move in a progressive fashion in this dimension of thought. ... not saying I agree with it, but if you look at some of the 'progressives' around nowadays they certainly do have the characteristics of other hominids


----------



## GreenBean

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Look at the embarrassing religious fools in this thread. Every one of these dumbasses would fail 6th grade science class. They are embarrassing themselves, and we embarrass ourselves to legitimize their embarrassing magical bullshit


Your avatar - Robert Johnson, Delta Blues King - I like that.  Legend has it he sold his soul to the devil ...  or


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Cecilie1200 said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, you can't answer his question.  You just ASSume that it has been answered, by someone, somewhere, because you want to believe.
> 
> That's an awful lot of blind faith for someone deriding others for their faith.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My blind faith is backed up by lots of DNA and fossil evidence. What evidence is there for the Book of Genesis?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, your blind faith is backed up by ASSUMPTIONS about the DNA and fossil evidence.  The fossil record CANNOT prove evolution, unless you simply nip out the parts that don't suit you. Likewise with DNA.  Both are "proof" only if you really, REALLY want to think they are.
> 
> There are a number of assertions about the way things work which the Bible makes, and which scientists rejected and derided for centuries, but which now appear to be validated, at least in part.
> 
> The Bible claims that the universe had a specific beginning.
> 
> What Is the Big Bang Theory?
> 
> You yourself have admitted that there is sufficient evidence, scientific and otherwise, to indicate that Noah's flood is based in reality.  And the oldest writings archaeologists have found reference it.
> 
> _Thus says the Lord, who gives the sun for light by day and the fixed order of the moon and the stars for light by night, who stirs up the sea so that its waves roar— Jeremiah 31:35_
> 
> I assume I don't have to prove to you that the moon and the stars have fixed, predictable paths.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really want to go with the Bible and the sun and the moon and the stars?
> _
> And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.
> 
> So according to the Bible- God created earth- and light- the first day- where did that light come from? _
> 
> 6 And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” 7 So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the vault “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.
> 
> _And I guess God created the atmosphere on the second day_
> 
> 9 And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground “land,” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” And God saw that it was good.
> 
> _And apparently when the earth was first created there was no sea or ground- but on the third day he created 'land and 'seas'_
> 
> 11 Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.
> 
> _And here is where it gets really interesting- on the third day he created all of the plants of the world- and evening and morning_
> 
> 14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.
> 
> Okay on the fourth day God created the Sun and the Moon. - and the stars.
> So the order is:
> a) Earth
> b) Day/Night
> c) Vegetation
> d) Sun/moon
> 
> So- how did we have a day and night without a sun? How did the vegetation survives the absolute zero temperatures on earth without any sun being in existence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Christians burned folks at the stake for suggesting the earth goes around the sun. That was just a few hundred years ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah?  Can you name any?
Click to expand...

You would be one of the people burning infidels at the stake, too, if not for secular enlightenment.

That's right...the only thing separating your dumb ass from the genocidal religious maniacs of a few hundred years ago is scinentific enlightenment, classical liberalism, and secular government.

Did your instruction book of magival nonsense change?nope...it's the same, embarrassing nugget of shit it was 300 years ago.

What changed is that the secular ideas dragged you fools out of the muck of your immoral garbage.

You're welcome.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

GreenBean said:


> but if you look at some of the 'progressives' around nowadays they certainly do have the characteristics of other hominids


Like empathy, morality, sympathy, etc...


----------



## GreenBean

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> but if you look at some of the 'progressives' around nowadays they certainly do have the characteristics of other hominids
> 
> 
> 
> Like empathy, morality, sympathy, etc...
Click to expand...

 Self serving primitive instinctual would be more apropos ... in human terms we would define it as immature or childish


----------



## Syriusly

GreenBean said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> but if you look at some of the 'progressives' around nowadays they certainly do have the characteristics of other hominids
> 
> 
> 
> Like empathy, morality, sympathy, etc...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Self serving primitive instinctual would be more apropos ... in human terms we would define it as immature or childish
Click to expand...


Please don't compare us to Donald Trump and his childish, immature, self serving primitive instinctual motives.


----------



## Syriusly

GreenBean said:


> ScienceRocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're primates that developed from a common ancestor 5-7 million years ago that yes was an ape.
> 
> That is a fact....The evidence is very strong.
> 
> 
> 
> There is an alternative theory from Pseudo Science that states apes are devolved from humans.  Evolution doesn't allways move in a progressive fashion in this dimension of thought. ... not saying I agree with it, but if you look at some of the 'progressives' around nowadays they certainly do have the characteristics of other hominids
Click to expand...


Not surprised that a contard would bring up pseudo science in a thread about evolution.

We all have some characteristics of other hominids- since we are all hominids.


----------



## Syriusly

Syriusly said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> The web is full of answers to your questions. Do some research on your own. Educate yourself, dingbat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, you can't answer his question.  You just ASSume that it has been answered, by someone, somewhere, because you want to believe.
> 
> That's an awful lot of blind faith for someone deriding others for their faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My blind faith is backed up by lots of DNA and fossil evidence. What evidence is there for the Book of Genesis?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, your blind faith is backed up by ASSUMPTIONS about the DNA and fossil evidence.  The fossil record CANNOT prove evolution, unless you simply nip out the parts that don't suit you. Likewise with DNA.  Both are "proof" only if you really, REALLY want to think they are.
> 
> There are a number of assertions about the way things work which the Bible makes, and which scientists rejected and derided for centuries, but which now appear to be validated, at least in part.
> 
> The Bible claims that the universe had a specific beginning.
> 
> What Is the Big Bang Theory?
> 
> You yourself have admitted that there is sufficient evidence, scientific and otherwise, to indicate that Noah's flood is based in reality.  And the oldest writings archaeologists have found reference it.
> 
> _Thus says the Lord, who gives the sun for light by day and the fixed order of the moon and the stars for light by night, who stirs up the sea so that its waves roar— Jeremiah 31:35_
> 
> I assume I don't have to prove to you that the moon and the stars have fixed, predictable paths.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really want to go with the Bible and the sun and the moon and the stars?
> _
> And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.
> 
> So according to the Bible- God created earth- and light- the first day- where did that light come from? _
> 
> 6 And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” 7 So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the vault “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.
> 
> _And I guess God created the atmosphere on the second day_
> 
> 9 And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground “land,” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” And God saw that it was good.
> 
> _And apparently when the earth was first created there was no sea or ground- but on the third day he created 'land and 'seas'_
> 
> 11 Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.
> 
> _And here is where it gets really interesting- on the third day he created all of the plants of the world- and evening and morning_
> 
> 14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.
> 
> Okay on the fourth day God created the Sun and the Moon. - and the stars.
> So the order is:
> a) Earth
> b) Day/Night
> c) Vegetation
> d) Sun/moon
> 
> So- how did we have a day and night without a sun? How did the vegetation survives the absolute zero temperatures on earth without any sun being in existence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing but crickets from our 'Creationists'.
> 
> lol
Click to expand...


And still nothing but crickets from our 'Creationists' who proudly proclaim that the Bible is science.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where is the evidence for as you state?  What I have is the Earth is 4.5 billion years old.  Do you even know who came up with the Earth being 4.5 billions years old?  Evolution has been getting longer and longer and the Earth getting older and older as the years roll by.  In Darwin's time, he estimated Earth was around 300 millions years old.
> 
> Next, single cells do not just form from primordial soup.  We've had hypotheses of spotaneous generation, chemical evolution and abiogenesis and still not one singe cell.  All of it is pseudoscience.  You mention a single cell, but how does it evolve into a multicell and a cell that has reproduces via sexual union?  All you did was added billions of years.  Darwin didn't have that kind of luxury.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The web is full of answers to your questions. Do some research on your own. Educate yourself, dingbat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In other words, you can't answer his question.  You just ASSume that it has been answered, by someone, somewhere, because you want to believe.
> 
> That's an awful lot of blind faith for someone deriding others for their faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My blind faith is backed up by lots of DNA and fossil evidence. What evidence is there for the Book of Genesis?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, your blind faith is backed up by ASSUMPTIONS about the DNA and fossil evidence.  The fossil record CANNOT prove evolution, unless you simply nip out the parts that don't suit you. Likewise with DNA.  Both are "proof" only if you really, REALLY want to think they are.
> 
> There are a number of assertions about the way things work which the Bible makes, and which scientists rejected and derided for centuries, but which now appear to be validated, at least in part.
> 
> The Bible claims that the universe had a specific beginning.
> 
> What Is the Big Bang Theory?
> 
> You yourself have admitted that there is sufficient evidence, scientific and otherwise, to indicate that Noah's flood is based in reality.  And the oldest writings archaeologists have found reference it.
> 
> _Thus says the Lord, who gives the sun for light by day and the fixed order of the moon and the stars for light by night, who stirs up the sea so that its waves roar— Jeremiah 31:35_
> 
> I assume I don't have to prove to you that the moon and the stars have fixed, predictable paths.
> 
> And let's look at archaeology, shall we?  A hundred years ago, Bible critics were telling us that the Hittites were a Biblical fiction, a made-up group of people who existed only in stories.  And then archaeologists in Turkey discovered the ruins of Hattusas, and historical records showing an empire in the second millennium BC . . . about where the Bible said they were.
> 
> The Code of Hammurabi and the Nuzi tablets both show remarkable resemblances to the Semitic laws given in the first five books of the Bible.
> 
> The various peoples mentioned in the Bible have turned up in other archaeological references.  The Philistines are on the Temple of Rameses III at Thebes, c. 1150 BC.  Their five cities mentioned in the Bible -  Ashkelon, Ashdod, Gaza, Gath, and Ekron - have all been excavated or even exist as cities today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah yes...the "Alamo" of magical thinkers like you:
> 
> Lacking any good argument of evidence for any of your magical bullshit, and lacking any good evidence or argument to counter scientific knowledge whochjndermines your magical bullshit, you are left with only one option:
> 
> You attempt to drag scientific knowledge down into the muck of your magical bullshit by labelling it "faith".
> 
> What an embarrassing display....
Click to expand...


If there was any BS, then the Bible would be disproven.  The Resurrection would've been disproven.  It has withstood the test of time.  The Bible is inerrant, accurate, authoritative, true and complete.  Perhaps you should read what it has on ignorance.

Ephesians 4:18
"being darkened in their understanding, excluded from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, because of the hardness of their heart;"

1 Peter 1:14
"As obedient children, do not be conformed to the former lusts which were yours in your ignorance,"

Romans 1:28
"And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper,"

And more
12 Bible verses about Ignorance Towards God, Leads To

To the contrary, here, I argue what creation science and sometimes use secular science against evolution.


----------



## james bond

Syriusly said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> The web is full of answers to your questions. Do some research on your own. Educate yourself, dingbat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, you can't answer his question.  You just ASSume that it has been answered, by someone, somewhere, because you want to believe.
> 
> That's an awful lot of blind faith for someone deriding others for their faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My blind faith is backed up by lots of DNA and fossil evidence. What evidence is there for the Book of Genesis?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, your blind faith is backed up by ASSUMPTIONS about the DNA and fossil evidence.  The fossil record CANNOT prove evolution, unless you simply nip out the parts that don't suit you. Likewise with DNA.  Both are "proof" only if you really, REALLY want to think they are.
> 
> There are a number of assertions about the way things work which the Bible makes, and which scientists rejected and derided for centuries, but which now appear to be validated, at least in part.
> 
> The Bible claims that the universe had a specific beginning.
> 
> What Is the Big Bang Theory?
> 
> You yourself have admitted that there is sufficient evidence, scientific and otherwise, to indicate that Noah's flood is based in reality.  And the oldest writings archaeologists have found reference it.
> 
> _Thus says the Lord, who gives the sun for light by day and the fixed order of the moon and the stars for light by night, who stirs up the sea so that its waves roar— Jeremiah 31:35_
> 
> I assume I don't have to prove to you that the moon and the stars have fixed, predictable paths.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really want to go with the Bible and the sun and the moon and the stars?
> _
> And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.
> 
> So according to the Bible- God created earth- and light- the first day- where did that light come from? _
> 
> 6 And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” 7 So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the vault “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.
> 
> _And I guess God created the atmosphere on the second day_
> 
> 9 And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground “land,” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” And God saw that it was good.
> 
> _And apparently when the earth was first created there was no sea or ground- but on the third day he created 'land and 'seas'_
> 
> 11 Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.
> 
> _And here is where it gets really interesting- on the third day he created all of the plants of the world- and evening and morning_
> 
> 14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.
> 
> Okay on the fourth day God created the Sun and the Moon. - and the stars.
> So the order is:
> a) Earth
> b) Day/Night
> c) Vegetation
> d) Sun/moon
> 
> So- how did we have a day and night without a sun? How did the vegetation survives the absolute zero temperatures on earth without any sun being in existence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing but crickets from our 'Creationists'.
> 
> lol
Click to expand...


_So according to the Bible- God created earth- and light- the first day- where did that light come from? _

First day light came from EMS.

_And I guess God created the atmosphere on the second day
_
Correct.

_And apparently when the earth was first created there was no sea or ground- but on the third day he created 'land and 'seas'_

The Earth was covered with water vapor and water.  This was the first day.  He pulled the water back to have dry land and plants and seas on the third day.

_And here is where it gets really interesting- on the third day he created all of the plants of the world- and evening and morning _

Day and night was created on the first day.  Plants was on the third day.


----------



## james bond

Syriusly said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't it fit the Bible timeline of Noah's ancestors?
> 
> 
> 
> No, it doesn't. Like, not at all. You clearly do not understand any of this.  The world would still have been populated , worlwide, with humans. In fact, the research depends on it.
> 
> As it clearly states in the study -- which you clearly regurgitated from some goofy YEC site, and of which you clearly did not read a single word, -- that the results are dependent upon the data of all the people that lived in the last 20,000 years. It also says that the same methods can be used to work backwards, that is, into the future. What this means is that all of the people 2000 or 3000 years from now will be descended from most of us. But but but look around! No flood, no Noah, no population bottleneck.
> 
> So, no, the study does not imply anything like what you are saying at all. In fact, it implies exactly the opposite. Just stop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're one of the most f*cking dumb*ss posters I've ever witnessed.  You are one who does not understand the Bible nor science.  There is a lesson to be taught here..
> 
> First, it fits the timeline because science backs up the Bible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The lesson is that you have no idea what the study says- or what science is- all you have are insults to those who point out your idiocy.
> 
> There is nothing- absolutely nothing- about that study which supports anything in the Bible.
> 
> Nor is there any 'science' which supports the Biblical myth of the creation of earth, or the either of the Biblical myths about the creation of mankind.
Click to expand...


Why don't you criticize Fort Fun Indiana?  I've known him longer than you so he gets my usual wrath and substance.  He usually just has wrath and no substance.

As for the study, Fort Fun Indiana does not explain in his own words.  He just dances around it.  Who knows what he is talking about?  Can you do better and explain it in your own words?


----------



## james bond

Syriusly said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is a great deal more scientific evidence than there is evidence to support the story of Genesis. I think the Bible is a wonderful book and has a great deal of good in it about caring and charity and living a good life. But I don't take Genesis literally. I'm a science geek and I believe the science. And I don't believe I've ever claimed anything as fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think people have a misconception of science.  What is fact is the evidence (unless it's been doctored or is misinterpreted as evidence).  We derive science based on our observations, beliefs and worldviews.  In other words, science and religion are both sides of the same coin.  It's about what is the truth..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We derive science from our observations, from experimentation and from the facts.
> 
> The difference between science and 'religion'- by which you really mean Christianity- and not just Christianity but that bizarre branch of Christianity which insists that the Bible must be literally true- is that science starts from a position that we do not know everything- and will never know everything, but we can continually learn from everything.
> 
> Creationists like yourself believe that everything in the Bible must be correct- and look to 'science' just as a tool to justify your beliefs.
> 
> The difference between yourself and myself- is if 'science' tomorrow came up with strong evidence that the world was indeed formed in less than a week- and that earth actually was created before the sun- I would go with the evidence.
> 
> You will always go with the Bible- not the evidence.
Click to expand...


No we do not look to science to justify our beliefs.  To the contrary, we find science honors the work of God.  If you could have an open mind and see how great God's works is, then you'd have faith.  Faith is the first step to understanding.  Not the other way around.  We see that science backs up the Bible, and thus we build faith upon the inerrancy of the Bible.

As for going by the evidence, evolution is based on fitting the evidence to the theory.  Not the other way around.  Today, it has evolved into not accepting anything to do with God, creation and having intelligence behind the design of nature and science.  It just leads to fallacious theories such as multiverses and dark energy.  Why not multiple dimensions and the power of the God.  I've already stated that discovering there is an edge to the universe, i.e. a bounded universe and find that it curves like a scroll would mean that science backs up the Bible once more.


----------



## james bond

Syriusly said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is a great deal more scientific evidence than there is evidence to support the story of Genesis. I think the Bible is a wonderful book and has a great deal of good in it about caring and charity and living a good life. But I don't take Genesis literally. I'm a science geek and I believe the science. And I don't believe I've ever claimed anything as fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .  For example, if you state your hypothesis that humans evolved from apes, then someone else may state that apes evolved from humans.  The latter is what Professor Owen Lovejoy, the person who put Lucy together believes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does he really? I remember you making that claim before and chasing it down- let us do that again.
> _Professor: Man Did Not Evolve From Chimpanzee-like Apes | Kent State University
> "People often think we evolved from ancestors that look like apes, but no, apes in some ways evolved from ancestors that look like us," Lovejoy said. "It has been a popular idea to think humans are modified chimpanzees. From studying Ardipithecus ramidus, or 'Ardi,' we learn that we cannot understand or model human evolution from chimps and gorillas."_
> 
> Does Lovejoy say that apes evolved from humans? Absolutely not.
> 
> Do you know what Lovejoy 'believes'?
> 
> That article was from 2009- 9 years ago- what does Lovejoy 'believe' now?
Click to expand...


Let's look at what he said.  He thinks Ardi is better than australopithecines and that we can't model human evolution from chimps and gorillas.  That's pretty clear.

And its still there
Professor: Man Did Not Evolve From Chimpanzee-like Apes | Kent State University


----------



## LittleNipper

Man devolved from Adam and Eve.


----------



## Political Junky

LittleNipper said:


> Man devolved from Adam and Eve.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

GreenBean said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> but if you look at some of the 'progressives' around nowadays they certainly do have the characteristics of other hominids
> 
> 
> 
> Like empathy, morality, sympathy, etc...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Self serving primitive instinctual would be more apropos ... in human terms we would define it as immature or childish
Click to expand...

Not we, just you. I don't share your irrational, crybaby fetish,sorry.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> If there was any BS, then the Bible would be disproven.


It has been. Literally every single detail of its moronic creation myth has been disproven, as much as anything can possibly be disproven.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

LittleNipper said:


> Man devolved from Adam and Eve.


Sorry ...there was no Adam and Eve.


----------



## LittleNipper

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> If there was any BS, then the Bible would be disproven.
> 
> 
> 
> It has been. Literally every single detail of its moronic creation myth has been disproven, as much as anything can possibly be disproven.
Click to expand...

I don't know what rock you've been hiding under but you obviously never read anything but comic books and watch Japanese Anime. The Bible has never been disproven in any way. Disputed maybe, but that is true of anything.


----------



## LittleNipper

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Man devolved from Adam and Eve.
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry ...there was no Adam and Eve.
Click to expand...

Yes, there was. In fact they are presently waiting for eternity to kick in.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

LittleNipper said:


> The Bible has never been disproven in any way


You are embarrassing yourself.


----------



## Political Junky

LittleNipper said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> If there was any BS, then the Bible would be disproven.
> 
> 
> 
> It has been. Literally every single detail of its moronic creation myth has been disproven, as much as anything can possibly be disproven.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't know what rock you've been hiding under but you obviously never read anything but comic books and watch Japanese Anime. The Bible has never been disproven in any way. Disputed maybe, but that is true of anything.
Click to expand...

OMG


----------



## LittleNipper

Political Junky said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> If there was any BS, then the Bible would be disproven.
> 
> 
> 
> It has been. Literally every single detail of its moronic creation myth has been disproven, as much as anything can possibly be disproven.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't know what rock you've been hiding under but you obviously never read anything but comic books and watch Japanese Anime. The Bible has never been disproven in any way. Disputed maybe, but that is true of anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OMG
Click to expand...

Sorry, but I'm merely a disciple of Christ and not GOD.


----------



## LittleNipper

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Bible has never been disproven in any way
> 
> 
> 
> You are embarrassing yourself.
Click to expand...

Has Science Disproved God?


----------



## Political Junky

LittleNipper said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Bible has never been disproven in any way
> 
> 
> 
> You are embarrassing yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Has Science Disproved God?
Click to expand...

Has science proved God?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

LittleNipper said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Bible has never been disproven in any way
> 
> 
> 
> You are embarrassing yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Has Science Disproved God?
Click to expand...

Stop trying to change the subject. Those charlatan tactics are for fooling people in church and for fooling children. They won't work here.


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> The web is full of answers to your questions. Do some research on your own. Educate yourself, dingbat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, you can't answer his question.  You just ASSume that it has been answered, by someone, somewhere, because you want to believe.
> 
> That's an awful lot of blind faith for someone deriding others for their faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My blind faith is backed up by lots of DNA and fossil evidence. What evidence is there for the Book of Genesis?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, your blind faith is backed up by ASSUMPTIONS about the DNA and fossil evidence.  The fossil record CANNOT prove evolution, unless you simply nip out the parts that don't suit you. Likewise with DNA.  Both are "proof" only if you really, REALLY want to think they are.
> 
> There are a number of assertions about the way things work which the Bible makes, and which scientists rejected and derided for centuries, but which now appear to be validated, at least in part.
> 
> The Bible claims that the universe had a specific beginning.
> 
> What Is the Big Bang Theory?
> 
> You yourself have admitted that there is sufficient evidence, scientific and otherwise, to indicate that Noah's flood is based in reality.  And the oldest writings archaeologists have found reference it.
> 
> _Thus says the Lord, who gives the sun for light by day and the fixed order of the moon and the stars for light by night, who stirs up the sea so that its waves roar— Jeremiah 31:35_
> 
> I assume I don't have to prove to you that the moon and the stars have fixed, predictable paths.
> 
> And let's look at archaeology, shall we?  A hundred years ago, Bible critics were telling us that the Hittites were a Biblical fiction, a made-up group of people who existed only in stories.  And then archaeologists in Turkey discovered the ruins of Hattusas, and historical records showing an empire in the second millennium BC . . . about where the Bible said they were.
> 
> The Code of Hammurabi and the Nuzi tablets both show remarkable resemblances to the Semitic laws given in the first five books of the Bible.
> 
> The various peoples mentioned in the Bible have turned up in other archaeological references.  The Philistines are on the Temple of Rameses III at Thebes, c. 1150 BC.  Their five cities mentioned in the Bible -  Ashkelon, Ashdod, Gaza, Gath, and Ekron - have all been excavated or even exist as cities today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah yes...the "Alamo" of magical thinkers like you:
> 
> Lacking any good argument of evidence for any of your magical bullshit, and lacking any good evidence or argument to counter scientific knowledge whochjndermines your magical bullshit, you are left with only one option:
> 
> You attempt to drag scientific knowledge down into the muck of your magical bullshit by labelling it "faith".
> 
> What an embarrassing display....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If there was any BS, then the Bible would be disproven.  The Resurrection would've been disproven.  It has withstood the test of time.  The Bible is inerrant, accurate, authoritative, true and complete.
Click to expand...


LOL- how can you 'disprove' a book of fairy tales? How can I disprove Aesops fables?

How can I disprove Jesus's resurrection any more than i can disprove that that Athena was not born from the head of Zeus?

I am certain that the Bible is 'authoritative' to you- but certainly isn't to billions of other human beings. 

As far as 'accurate'- there are some accuracies- hell bound to get something right- but plenty of inaccuracies. 

I find it fascinating to watch the Christian cultists who insist that every word in the Bible is correct dance to rationalize around what is clearly just flat out false.

_All flying insects that walk on all fours are to be detestable to you. There are, however, some winged creatures that walk on all fours that you may eat: those that have jointed legs for hopping on the ground. Of these you may eat any kind of locust, katydid, cricket or grasshopper. But all other winged creatures that have four legs you are to detest_

Insects have 6 legs


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, you can't answer his question.  You just ASSume that it has been answered, by someone, somewhere, because you want to believe.
> 
> That's an awful lot of blind faith for someone deriding others for their faith.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My blind faith is backed up by lots of DNA and fossil evidence. What evidence is there for the Book of Genesis?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, your blind faith is backed up by ASSUMPTIONS about the DNA and fossil evidence.  The fossil record CANNOT prove evolution, unless you simply nip out the parts that don't suit you. Likewise with DNA.  Both are "proof" only if you really, REALLY want to think they are.
> 
> There are a number of assertions about the way things work which the Bible makes, and which scientists rejected and derided for centuries, but which now appear to be validated, at least in part.
> 
> The Bible claims that the universe had a specific beginning.
> 
> What Is the Big Bang Theory?
> 
> You yourself have admitted that there is sufficient evidence, scientific and otherwise, to indicate that Noah's flood is based in reality.  And the oldest writings archaeologists have found reference it.
> 
> _Thus says the Lord, who gives the sun for light by day and the fixed order of the moon and the stars for light by night, who stirs up the sea so that its waves roar— Jeremiah 31:35_
> 
> I assume I don't have to prove to you that the moon and the stars have fixed, predictable paths.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really want to go with the Bible and the sun and the moon and the stars?
> _
> And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.
> 
> So according to the Bible- God created earth- and light- the first day- where did that light come from? _
> 
> 6 And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” 7 So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the vault “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.
> 
> _And I guess God created the atmosphere on the second day_
> 
> 9 And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground “land,” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” And God saw that it was good.
> 
> _And apparently when the earth was first created there was no sea or ground- but on the third day he created 'land and 'seas'_
> 
> 11 Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.
> 
> _And here is where it gets really interesting- on the third day he created all of the plants of the world- and evening and morning_
> 
> 14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.
> 
> Okay on the fourth day God created the Sun and the Moon. - and the stars.
> So the order is:
> a) Earth
> b) Day/Night
> c) Vegetation
> d) Sun/moon
> 
> So- how did we have a day and night without a sun? How did the vegetation survives the absolute zero temperatures on earth without any sun being in existence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing but crickets from our 'Creationists'.
> 
> lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _So according to the Bible- God created earth- and light- the first day- where did that light come from? _
> 
> First day light came from EMS..
Click to expand...


EMS? Emergency Medical System?


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, you can't answer his question.  You just ASSume that it has been answered, by someone, somewhere, because you want to believe.
> 
> That's an awful lot of blind faith for someone deriding others for their faith.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My blind faith is backed up by lots of DNA and fossil evidence. What evidence is there for the Book of Genesis?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, your blind faith is backed up by ASSUMPTIONS about the DNA and fossil evidence.  The fossil record CANNOT prove evolution, unless you simply nip out the parts that don't suit you. Likewise with DNA.  Both are "proof" only if you really, REALLY want to think they are.
> 
> There are a number of assertions about the way things work which the Bible makes, and which scientists rejected and derided for centuries, but which now appear to be validated, at least in part.
> 
> The Bible claims that the universe had a specific beginning.
> 
> What Is the Big Bang Theory?
> 
> You yourself have admitted that there is sufficient evidence, scientific and otherwise, to indicate that Noah's flood is based in reality.  And the oldest writings archaeologists have found reference it.
> 
> _Thus says the Lord, who gives the sun for light by day and the fixed order of the moon and the stars for light by night, who stirs up the sea so that its waves roar— Jeremiah 31:35_
> 
> I assume I don't have to prove to you that the moon and the stars have fixed, predictable paths.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really want to go with the Bible and the sun and the moon and the stars?
> _
> And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.
> 
> So according to the Bible- God created earth- and light- the first day- where did that light come from? _
> 
> 6 And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” 7 So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the vault “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.
> 
> _And I guess God created the atmosphere on the second day_
> 
> 9 And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground “land,” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” And God saw that it was good.
> 
> _And apparently when the earth was first created there was no sea or ground- but on the third day he created 'land and 'seas'_
> 
> 11 Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.
> 
> _And here is where it gets really interesting- on the third day he created all of the plants of the world- and evening and morning_
> 
> 14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.
> 
> Okay on the fourth day God created the Sun and the Moon. - and the stars.
> So the order is:
> a) Earth
> b) Day/Night
> c) Vegetation
> d) Sun/moon
> 
> So- how did we have a day and night without a sun? How did the vegetation survives the absolute zero temperatures on earth without any sun being in existence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing but crickets from our 'Creationists'.
> 
> lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _So according to the Bible- God created earth- and light- the first day- where did that light come from? _
> 
> First day light came from EMS.
> 
> _And I guess God created the atmosphere on the second day
> _
> Correct.
> 
> _And apparently when the earth was first created there was no sea or ground- but on the third day he created 'land and 'seas'_
> 
> The Earth was covered with water vapor and water.  This was the first day.  He pulled the water back to have dry land and plants and seas on the third day..
Click to expand...


I went back and checked- Here is the quote again- where is the reference to 'water vapor'?

_ In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. 


3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.


6 And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” 7 So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the vault “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.


9 And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground “land,” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” And God saw that it was good._


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, you can't answer his question.  You just ASSume that it has been answered, by someone, somewhere, because you want to believe.
> 
> That's an awful lot of blind faith for someone deriding others for their faith.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My blind faith is backed up by lots of DNA and fossil evidence. What evidence is there for the Book of Genesis?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, your blind faith is backed up by ASSUMPTIONS about the DNA and fossil evidence.  The fossil record CANNOT prove evolution, unless you simply nip out the parts that don't suit you. Likewise with DNA.  Both are "proof" only if you really, REALLY want to think they are.
> 
> There are a number of assertions about the way things work which the Bible makes, and which scientists rejected and derided for centuries, but which now appear to be validated, at least in part.
> 
> The Bible claims that the universe had a specific beginning.
> 
> What Is the Big Bang Theory?
> 
> You yourself have admitted that there is sufficient evidence, scientific and otherwise, to indicate that Noah's flood is based in reality.  And the oldest writings archaeologists have found reference it.
> 
> _Thus says the Lord, who gives the sun for light by day and the fixed order of the moon and the stars for light by night, who stirs up the sea so that its waves roar— Jeremiah 31:35_
> 
> I assume I don't have to prove to you that the moon and the stars have fixed, predictable paths.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really want to go with the Bible and the sun and the moon and the stars?
> _
> And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.
> 
> So according to the Bible- God created earth- and light- the first day- where did that light come from? _
> 
> 6 And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” 7 So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the vault “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.
> 
> _And I guess God created the atmosphere on the second day_
> 
> 9 And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground “land,” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” And God saw that it was good.
> 
> _And apparently when the earth was first created there was no sea or ground- but on the third day he created 'land and 'seas'_
> 
> 11 Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.
> 
> _And here is where it gets really interesting- on the third day he created all of the plants of the world- and evening and morning_
> 
> 14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.
> 
> Okay on the fourth day God created the Sun and the Moon. - and the stars.
> So the order is:
> a) Earth
> b) Day/Night
> c) Vegetation
> d) Sun/moon
> 
> So- how did we have a day and night without a sun? How did the vegetation survives the absolute zero temperatures on earth without any sun being in existence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing but crickets from our 'Creationists'.
> 
> lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _So according to the Bible- God created earth- and light- the first day- where did that light come from? _
> 
> First day light came from EMS.
> 
> _And I guess God created the atmosphere on the second day
> _
> Correct.
> 
> _And apparently when the earth was first created there was no sea or ground- but on the third day he created 'land and 'seas'_
> 
> The Earth was covered with water vapor and water.  This was the first day.  He pulled the water back to have dry land and plants and seas on the third day.
> 
> _And here is where it gets really interesting- on the third day he created all of the plants of the world- and evening and morning _
> 
> Day and night was created on the first day.  Plants was on the third day.
Click to expand...

Okay on the fourth day God created the Sun and the Moon. - and the stars.
So the order is:
a) Earth
b) Day/Night
c) Vegetation
d) Sun/moon

So- how did we have a day and night without a sun? How did the vegetation survives the absolute zero temperatures on earth without any sun being in existence?


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't it fit the Bible timeline of Noah's ancestors?
> 
> 
> 
> No, it doesn't. Like, not at all. You clearly do not understand any of this.  The world would still have been populated , worlwide, with humans. In fact, the research depends on it.
> 
> As it clearly states in the study -- which you clearly regurgitated from some goofy YEC site, and of which you clearly did not read a single word, -- that the results are dependent upon the data of all the people that lived in the last 20,000 years. It also says that the same methods can be used to work backwards, that is, into the future. What this means is that all of the people 2000 or 3000 years from now will be descended from most of us. But but but look around! No flood, no Noah, no population bottleneck.
> 
> So, no, the study does not imply anything like what you are saying at all. In fact, it implies exactly the opposite. Just stop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're one of the most f*cking dumb*ss posters I've ever witnessed.  You are one who does not understand the Bible nor science.  There is a lesson to be taught here..
> 
> First, it fits the timeline because science backs up the Bible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The lesson is that you have no idea what the study says- or what science is- all you have are insults to those who point out your idiocy.
> 
> There is nothing- absolutely nothing- about that study which supports anything in the Bible.
> 
> Nor is there any 'science' which supports the Biblical myth of the creation of earth, or the either of the Biblical myths about the creation of mankind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why don't you criticize Fort Fun Indiana?  I've known him longer than you so he gets my usual wrath and substance.  He usually just has wrath and no substance.
> 
> As for the study, Fort Fun Indiana does not explain in his own words.  He just dances around it.  Who knows what he is talking about?  Can you do better and explain it in your own words?
Click to expand...


Why should I criticize him?


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is a great deal more scientific evidence than there is evidence to support the story of Genesis. I think the Bible is a wonderful book and has a great deal of good in it about caring and charity and living a good life. But I don't take Genesis literally. I'm a science geek and I believe the science. And I don't believe I've ever claimed anything as fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think people have a misconception of science.  What is fact is the evidence (unless it's been doctored or is misinterpreted as evidence).  We derive science based on our observations, beliefs and worldviews.  In other words, science and religion are both sides of the same coin.  It's about what is the truth..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We derive science from our observations, from experimentation and from the facts.
> 
> The difference between science and 'religion'- by which you really mean Christianity- and not just Christianity but that bizarre branch of Christianity which insists that the Bible must be literally true- is that science starts from a position that we do not know everything- and will never know everything, but we can continually learn from everything.
> 
> Creationists like yourself believe that everything in the Bible must be correct- and look to 'science' just as a tool to justify your beliefs.
> 
> The difference between yourself and myself- is if 'science' tomorrow came up with strong evidence that the world was indeed formed in less than a week- and that earth actually was created before the sun- I would go with the evidence.
> 
> You will always go with the Bible- not the evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No we do not look to science to justify our beliefs.  To the contrary, we find science honors the work of God.  If you could have an open mind and see how great God's works is, then you'd have faith.  Faith is the first step to understanding.  Not the other way around.  We see that science backs up the Bible, and thus we build faith upon the inerrancy of the Bible.
> 
> As for going by the evidence, evolution is based on fitting the evidence to the theory.  Not the other way around.  .
Click to expand...


Sigh- doesn't your Bible say something disapproving about bearing false witness?

In Darwin's first publication about 'evolution', he based the theory on the evidence he had observed. 

Since then science has tested the theory he proposed- and mostly it has been correct- but sure- Darwin got some stuff wrong- and guess what- when the evidence doesn't fit the theory- then the theory then has to be corrected- and is.

The difference between science and your belief in the Bible is conveyed by your own words:

_The Bible is inerrant, accurate, authoritative, true and complete._

No scientists will ever say that about any scientific theory or anything else about science- because science assumes that we do not know everything about science- while you presume that the Bible is inerrant, accurate, auuthoritative, true and complete.

Since it is 'complete'- you look only for what validates what you consider to be 'Biblical'- not for answers.


----------



## LittleNipper

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Bible has never been disproven in any way
> 
> 
> 
> You are embarrassing yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Has Science Disproved God?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Stop trying to change the subject. Those charlatan tactics are for fooling people in church and for fooling children. They won't work here.
Click to expand...

I'm Not... I trying to point out that you are neither the son of a monkey or an ape --- even if you maybe look and act the part. The biggest fool is the one who doesn't see GOD in anything --- including himself.


----------



## LittleNipper

Syriusly said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is a great deal more scientific evidence than there is evidence to support the story of Genesis. I think the Bible is a wonderful book and has a great deal of good in it about caring and charity and living a good life. But I don't take Genesis literally. I'm a science geek and I believe the science. And I don't believe I've ever claimed anything as fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think people have a misconception of science.  What is fact is the evidence (unless it's been doctored or is misinterpreted as evidence).  We derive science based on our observations, beliefs and worldviews.  In other words, science and religion are both sides of the same coin.  It's about what is the truth..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We derive science from our observations, from experimentation and from the facts.
> 
> The difference between science and 'religion'- by which you really mean Christianity- and not just Christianity but that bizarre branch of Christianity which insists that the Bible must be literally true- is that science starts from a position that we do not know everything- and will never know everything, but we can continually learn from everything.
> 
> Creationists like yourself believe that everything in the Bible must be correct- and look to 'science' just as a tool to justify your beliefs.
> 
> The difference between yourself and myself- is if 'science' tomorrow came up with strong evidence that the world was indeed formed in less than a week- and that earth actually was created before the sun- I would go with the evidence.
> 
> You will always go with the Bible- not the evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No we do not look to science to justify our beliefs.  To the contrary, we find science honors the work of God.  If you could have an open mind and see how great God's works is, then you'd have faith.  Faith is the first step to understanding.  Not the other way around.  We see that science backs up the Bible, and thus we build faith upon the inerrancy of the Bible.
> 
> As for going by the evidence, evolution is based on fitting the evidence to the theory.  Not the other way around.  .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sigh- doesn't your Bible say something disapproving about bearing false witness?
> 
> In Darwin's first publication about 'evolution', he based the theory on the evidence he had observed.
> 
> Since then science has tested the theory he proposed- and mostly it has been correct- but sure- Darwin got some stuff wrong- and guess what- when the evidence doesn't fit the theory- then the theory then has to be corrected- and is.
> 
> The difference between science and your belief in the Bible is conveyed by your own words:
> 
> _The Bible is inerrant, accurate, authoritative, true and complete._
> 
> No scientists will ever say that about any scientific theory or anything else about science- because science assumes that we do not know everything about science- while you presume that the Bible is inerrant, accurate, auuthoritative, true and complete.
> 
> Since it is 'complete'- you look only for what validates what you consider to be 'Biblical'- not for answers.
Click to expand...

A scientist doesn't consider himself GOD --------------- HOPEFULLY. The problem is that evolutionists do not try to validate that GOD doesn't exist and they seem incapable of generating a new species. Seriously, they believe all the species developed randomly on their own ---- but with thoughtful prodding and tinkering over many decades, they have nothing ---- no new separate species...  Dogs remain dogs. Cats remain cats. And even woolly mammoths and saber tooth tigers seem superior to what we now have. But the tiger is still a tiger. Or could a tiger become a saber tooth if he lived 400 years or 600 years... Can you prove that they wouldn't? The sad issue is that I don't imagine you even care..................


----------



## LittleNipper

Is Darwinism indeed scientific fact or a belief based on naturalism    9 Scientific Facts Prove the "Theory of Evolution" is False | Humans Are Free


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> If there was any BS, then the Bible would be disproven.
> 
> 
> 
> It has been. Literally every single detail of its moronic creation myth has been disproven, as much as anything can possibly be disproven.
Click to expand...


Then you lie.  You are so far from what Jesus taught.  Remember that people had these same reactions during his time as you do now.  We had evolution back then, too, in terms of Epicureans and the Stoics.


----------



## james bond

Political Junky said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> If there was any BS, then the Bible would be disproven.
> 
> 
> 
> It has been. Literally every single detail of its moronic creation myth has been disproven, as much as anything can possibly be disproven.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't know what rock you've been hiding under but you obviously never read anything but comic books and watch Japanese Anime. The Bible has never been disproven in any way. Disputed maybe, but that is true of anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OMG
Click to expand...


It's not just OMG, but about the afterlife.  I think what's been strongly argued against is that humans evolved from monkeys.

This isn't all there is and all there will be.  It's kinda silly to work all your life to attain your rewards and not be able to take it with you when you die.


----------



## james bond

Political Junky said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Bible has never been disproven in any way
> 
> 
> 
> You are embarrassing yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Has Science Disproved God?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Has science proved God?
Click to expand...


Science just has best theories.  Not proofs.  Creation science has some great theories about God.


----------



## james bond

Syriusly said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, you can't answer his question.  You just ASSume that it has been answered, by someone, somewhere, because you want to believe.
> 
> That's an awful lot of blind faith for someone deriding others for their faith.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My blind faith is backed up by lots of DNA and fossil evidence. What evidence is there for the Book of Genesis?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, your blind faith is backed up by ASSUMPTIONS about the DNA and fossil evidence.  The fossil record CANNOT prove evolution, unless you simply nip out the parts that don't suit you. Likewise with DNA.  Both are "proof" only if you really, REALLY want to think they are.
> 
> There are a number of assertions about the way things work which the Bible makes, and which scientists rejected and derided for centuries, but which now appear to be validated, at least in part.
> 
> The Bible claims that the universe had a specific beginning.
> 
> What Is the Big Bang Theory?
> 
> You yourself have admitted that there is sufficient evidence, scientific and otherwise, to indicate that Noah's flood is based in reality.  And the oldest writings archaeologists have found reference it.
> 
> _Thus says the Lord, who gives the sun for light by day and the fixed order of the moon and the stars for light by night, who stirs up the sea so that its waves roar— Jeremiah 31:35_
> 
> I assume I don't have to prove to you that the moon and the stars have fixed, predictable paths.
> 
> And let's look at archaeology, shall we?  A hundred years ago, Bible critics were telling us that the Hittites were a Biblical fiction, a made-up group of people who existed only in stories.  And then archaeologists in Turkey discovered the ruins of Hattusas, and historical records showing an empire in the second millennium BC . . . about where the Bible said they were.
> 
> The Code of Hammurabi and the Nuzi tablets both show remarkable resemblances to the Semitic laws given in the first five books of the Bible.
> 
> The various peoples mentioned in the Bible have turned up in other archaeological references.  The Philistines are on the Temple of Rameses III at Thebes, c. 1150 BC.  Their five cities mentioned in the Bible -  Ashkelon, Ashdod, Gaza, Gath, and Ekron - have all been excavated or even exist as cities today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah yes...the "Alamo" of magical thinkers like you:
> 
> Lacking any good argument of evidence for any of your magical bullshit, and lacking any good evidence or argument to counter scientific knowledge whochjndermines your magical bullshit, you are left with only one option:
> 
> You attempt to drag scientific knowledge down into the muck of your magical bullshit by labelling it "faith".
> 
> What an embarrassing display....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If there was any BS, then the Bible would be disproven.  The Resurrection would've been disproven.  It has withstood the test of time.  The Bible is inerrant, accurate, authoritative, true and complete.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL- how can you 'disprove' a book of fairy tales? How can I disprove Aesops fables?
> 
> How can I disprove Jesus's resurrection any more than i can disprove that that Athena was not born from the head of Zeus?
> 
> I am certain that the Bible is 'authoritative' to you- but certainly isn't to billions of other human beings.
> 
> As far as 'accurate'- there are some accuracies- hell bound to get something right- but plenty of inaccuracies.
> 
> I find it fascinating to watch the Christian cultists who insist that every word in the Bible is correct dance to rationalize around what is clearly just flat out false.
> 
> _All flying insects that walk on all fours are to be detestable to you. There are, however, some winged creatures that walk on all fours that you may eat: those that have jointed legs for hopping on the ground. Of these you may eat any kind of locust, katydid, cricket or grasshopper. But all other winged creatures that have four legs you are to detest_
> 
> Insects have 6 legs
Click to expand...


We're not talking about Aesop's fables, but the Bible.  What historical event which you consider "story" from there do want to discuss?  There are parables in there that Christ Jesus used to teach which are stories.

You're referring to Leviticus 11:20-21 "_All flying insects that walk on all fours are to be detestable to you. There are, however, some winged creatures that walk on all fours that you may eat: those that have jointed legs for hopping on the ground. Of these you may eat any kind of locust, katydid, cricket or grasshopper. But all other winged creatures that have four legs you are to detest_."
Flying insects that walk on all fours would refer to for example the grasshopper as stated.


We see that it has six legs, but the two hind legs aren't considered for walking but hopping as stated.  It walks on the four front  legs.


----------



## Political Junky

james bond said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Bible has never been disproven in any way
> 
> 
> 
> You are embarrassing yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Has Science Disproved God?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Has science proved God?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Science just has best theories.  Not proofs.  Creation science has some great theories about God.
Click to expand...

LOL, the Bible offers no proof of anything.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

LittleNipper said:


> I trying to point out that you are neither the son of a monkey or an ape ---


Which is moronic of you to say in a discussion of evolution, since nobody claimed or believes that. So, basically, you have absolutely nothing of value to add.


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> My blind faith is backed up by lots of DNA and fossil evidence. What evidence is there for the Book of Genesis?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, your blind faith is backed up by ASSUMPTIONS about the DNA and fossil evidence.  The fossil record CANNOT prove evolution, unless you simply nip out the parts that don't suit you. Likewise with DNA.  Both are "proof" only if you really, REALLY want to think they are.
> 
> There are a number of assertions about the way things work which the Bible makes, and which scientists rejected and derided for centuries, but which now appear to be validated, at least in part.
> 
> The Bible claims that the universe had a specific beginning.
> 
> What Is the Big Bang Theory?
> 
> You yourself have admitted that there is sufficient evidence, scientific and otherwise, to indicate that Noah's flood is based in reality.  And the oldest writings archaeologists have found reference it.
> 
> _Thus says the Lord, who gives the sun for light by day and the fixed order of the moon and the stars for light by night, who stirs up the sea so that its waves roar— Jeremiah 31:35_
> 
> I assume I don't have to prove to you that the moon and the stars have fixed, predictable paths.
> 
> And let's look at archaeology, shall we?  A hundred years ago, Bible critics were telling us that the Hittites were a Biblical fiction, a made-up group of people who existed only in stories.  And then archaeologists in Turkey discovered the ruins of Hattusas, and historical records showing an empire in the second millennium BC . . . about where the Bible said they were.
> 
> The Code of Hammurabi and the Nuzi tablets both show remarkable resemblances to the Semitic laws given in the first five books of the Bible.
> 
> The various peoples mentioned in the Bible have turned up in other archaeological references.  The Philistines are on the Temple of Rameses III at Thebes, c. 1150 BC.  Their five cities mentioned in the Bible -  Ashkelon, Ashdod, Gaza, Gath, and Ekron - have all been excavated or even exist as cities today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah yes...the "Alamo" of magical thinkers like you:
> 
> Lacking any good argument of evidence for any of your magical bullshit, and lacking any good evidence or argument to counter scientific knowledge whochjndermines your magical bullshit, you are left with only one option:
> 
> You attempt to drag scientific knowledge down into the muck of your magical bullshit by labelling it "faith".
> 
> What an embarrassing display....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If there was any BS, then the Bible would be disproven.  The Resurrection would've been disproven.  It has withstood the test of time.  The Bible is inerrant, accurate, authoritative, true and complete.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL- how can you 'disprove' a book of fairy tales? How can I disprove Aesops fables?
> 
> How can I disprove Jesus's resurrection any more than i can disprove that that Athena was not born from the head of Zeus?
> 
> I am certain that the Bible is 'authoritative' to you- but certainly isn't to billions of other human beings.
> 
> As far as 'accurate'- there are some accuracies- hell bound to get something right- but plenty of inaccuracies.
> 
> I find it fascinating to watch the Christian cultists who insist that every word in the Bible is correct dance to rationalize around what is clearly just flat out false.
> 
> _All flying insects that walk on all fours are to be detestable to you. There are, however, some winged creatures that walk on all fours that you may eat: those that have jointed legs for hopping on the ground. Of these you may eat any kind of locust, katydid, cricket or grasshopper. But all other winged creatures that have four legs you are to detest_
> 
> Insects have 6 legs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We're not talking about Aesop's fables, but the Bible.  What historical event which you consider "story" from there do want to discuss?  There are parables in there that Christ Jesus used to teach which are stories..
Click to expand...


You were the one who claimed that if 'there was any BS the Bible would have been disproven'- then disprove Aesop's Fables. Go for it. 

If you can't disprove Aesop's Fables- then by your bizarre logic- that means Aesops Fables must be true.


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> My blind faith is backed up by lots of DNA and fossil evidence. What evidence is there for the Book of Genesis?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, your blind faith is backed up by ASSUMPTIONS about the DNA and fossil evidence.  The fossil record CANNOT prove evolution, unless you simply nip out the parts that don't suit you. Likewise with DNA.  Both are "proof" only if you really, REALLY want to think they are.
> 
> There are a number of assertions about the way things work which the Bible makes, and which scientists rejected and derided for centuries, but which now appear to be validated, at least in part.
> 
> The Bible claims that the universe had a specific beginning.
> 
> What Is the Big Bang Theory?
> 
> You yourself have admitted that there is sufficient evidence, scientific and otherwise, to indicate that Noah's flood is based in reality.  And the oldest writings archaeologists have found reference it.
> 
> _Thus says the Lord, who gives the sun for light by day and the fixed order of the moon and the stars for light by night, who stirs up the sea so that its waves roar— Jeremiah 31:35_
> 
> I assume I don't have to prove to you that the moon and the stars have fixed, predictable paths.
> 
> And let's look at archaeology, shall we?  A hundred years ago, Bible critics were telling us that the Hittites were a Biblical fiction, a made-up group of people who existed only in stories.  And then archaeologists in Turkey discovered the ruins of Hattusas, and historical records showing an empire in the second millennium BC . . . about where the Bible said they were.
> 
> The Code of Hammurabi and the Nuzi tablets both show remarkable resemblances to the Semitic laws given in the first five books of the Bible.
> 
> The various peoples mentioned in the Bible have turned up in other archaeological references.  The Philistines are on the Temple of Rameses III at Thebes, c. 1150 BC.  Their five cities mentioned in the Bible -  Ashkelon, Ashdod, Gaza, Gath, and Ekron - have all been excavated or even exist as cities today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah yes...the "Alamo" of magical thinkers like you:
> 
> Lacking any good argument of evidence for any of your magical bullshit, and lacking any good evidence or argument to counter scientific knowledge whochjndermines your magical bullshit, you are left with only one option:
> 
> You attempt to drag scientific knowledge down into the muck of your magical bullshit by labelling it "faith".
> 
> What an embarrassing display....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If there was any BS, then the Bible would be disproven.  The Resurrection would've been disproven.  It has withstood the test of time.  The Bible is inerrant, accurate, authoritative, true and complete.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL- how can you 'disprove' a book of fairy tales? How can I disprove Aesops fables?
> 
> How can I disprove Jesus's resurrection any more than i can disprove that that Athena was not born from the head of Zeus?
> 
> I am certain that the Bible is 'authoritative' to you- but certainly isn't to billions of other human beings.
> 
> As far as 'accurate'- there are some accuracies- hell bound to get something right- but plenty of inaccuracies.
> 
> I find it fascinating to watch the Christian cultists who insist that every word in the Bible is correct dance to rationalize around what is clearly just flat out false.
> 
> _All flying insects that walk on all fours are to be detestable to you. There are, however, some winged creatures that walk on all fours that you may eat: those that have jointed legs for hopping on the ground. Of these you may eat any kind of locust, katydid, cricket or grasshopper. But all other winged creatures that have four legs you are to detest_
> 
> Insects have 6 legs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We're not talking about Aesop's fables, but the Bible.  What historical event which you consider "story" from there do want to discuss?  There are parables in there that Christ Jesus used to teach which are stories.
> 
> You're referring to Leviticus 11:20-21 "_All flying insects that walk on all fours are to be detestable to you. There are, however, some winged creatures that walk on all fours that you may eat: those that have jointed legs for hopping on the ground. Of these you may eat any kind of locust, katydid, cricket or grasshopper. _
> Flying insects that walk on all fours would refer to for example the grasshopper as stated.
> 
> 
> We see that it has six legs, but the two hind legs aren't considered for walking but hopping as stated.  It walks on the four front  legs.
Click to expand...

Tell me all about these:
_But all other winged creatures that have four legs you are to detest
_
What are the winged creatures that have four legs?
Bats? 2 legs
Birds? 2 legs
Insects? 6 legs


----------



## Syriusly

LittleNipper said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Bible has never been disproven in any way
> 
> 
> 
> You are embarrassing yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Has Science Disproved God?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Stop trying to change the subject. Those charlatan tactics are for fooling people in church and for fooling children. They won't work here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm Not... I trying to point out that you are neither the son of a monkey or an ape --- even if you maybe look and act the part. The biggest fool is the one who doesn't see GOD in anything --- including himself.
Click to expand...


And you are not the son of god even though you seem to think yourself so. 

Only anti-evo cultists keep shouting 'we are not descended from monkeys' and all of us who support science go 'duh- of course we aren't- that is as stupid as claiming that everything on earth was created in 6 days'


----------



## Syriusly

LittleNipper said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is a great deal more scientific evidence than there is evidence to support the story of Genesis. I think the Bible is a wonderful book and has a great deal of good in it about caring and charity and living a good life. But I don't take Genesis literally. I'm a science geek and I believe the science. And I don't believe I've ever claimed anything as fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think people have a misconception of science.  What is fact is the evidence (unless it's been doctored or is misinterpreted as evidence).  We derive science based on our observations, beliefs and worldviews.  In other words, science and religion are both sides of the same coin.  It's about what is the truth..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We derive science from our observations, from experimentation and from the facts.
> 
> The difference between science and 'religion'- by which you really mean Christianity- and not just Christianity but that bizarre branch of Christianity which insists that the Bible must be literally true- is that science starts from a position that we do not know everything- and will never know everything, but we can continually learn from everything.
> 
> Creationists like yourself believe that everything in the Bible must be correct- and look to 'science' just as a tool to justify your beliefs.
> 
> The difference between yourself and myself- is if 'science' tomorrow came up with strong evidence that the world was indeed formed in less than a week- and that earth actually was created before the sun- I would go with the evidence.
> 
> You will always go with the Bible- not the evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No we do not look to science to justify our beliefs.  To the contrary, we find science honors the work of God.  If you could have an open mind and see how great God's works is, then you'd have faith.  Faith is the first step to understanding.  Not the other way around.  We see that science backs up the Bible, and thus we build faith upon the inerrancy of the Bible.
> 
> As for going by the evidence, evolution is based on fitting the evidence to the theory.  Not the other way around.  .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sigh- doesn't your Bible say something disapproving about bearing false witness?
> 
> In Darwin's first publication about 'evolution', he based the theory on the evidence he had observed.
> 
> Since then science has tested the theory he proposed- and mostly it has been correct- but sure- Darwin got some stuff wrong- and guess what- when the evidence doesn't fit the theory- then the theory then has to be corrected- and is.
> 
> The difference between science and your belief in the Bible is conveyed by your own words:
> 
> _The Bible is inerrant, accurate, authoritative, true and complete._
> 
> No scientists will ever say that about any scientific theory or anything else about science- because science assumes that we do not know everything about science- while you presume that the Bible is inerrant, accurate, auuthoritative, true and complete.
> 
> Since it is 'complete'- you look only for what validates what you consider to be 'Biblical'- not for answers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A scientist doesn't consider himself GOD --------------- HOPEFULLY. The problem is that evolutionists do not try to validate that GOD doesn't exist and they seem incapable of generating a new species. Seriously, they believe all the species developed randomly on their own ---- but with thoughtful prodding and tinkering over many decades, they have nothing ---- no new separate species...  Dogs remain dogs. Cats remain cats. And even woolly mammoths and saber tooth tigers seem superior to what we now have. But the tiger is still a tiger. Or could a tiger become a saber tooth if he lived 400 years or 600 years... Can you prove that they wouldn't? The sad issue is that I don't imagine you even care..................
Click to expand...


The sad part is your absolute ignorance about evolution.

Why would a tiger become a saber tooth cat? Saber tooth cats are extinct- their genes gone forever- possibly descendants of tigers could evolve eventually into species similar to saber tooth cats- or not.

No- I don't really care about why you can't understand why a Tiger will not make a saber tooth cat in 400 years.


----------



## Syriusly

LittleNipper said:


> Is Darwinism indeed scientific fact or a belief based on naturalism    9 Scientific Facts Prove the "Theory of Evolution" is False | Humans Are Free



'Darwinism'? LOL

The Theory of Evolution is a theory that best fits the evidence we have.

Christian creation beliefs are myths that do not fit any of the evidence we have.


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> If there was any BS, then the Bible would be disproven.
> 
> 
> 
> It has been. Literally every single detail of its moronic creation myth has been disproven, as much as anything can possibly be disproven.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't know what rock you've been hiding under but you obviously never read anything but comic books and watch Japanese Anime. The Bible has never been disproven in any way. Disputed maybe, but that is true of anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OMG
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not just OMG, but about the afterlife.  I think what's been strongly argued against is that humans evolved from monkeys.].
Click to expand...


Feel free to believe in an afterlife.  I certainly don't care- science will never be able to 'disprove' that it exists- but it isn't science to believe in it- it is faith.

Everyone argues against humans evolving from monkeys- both you CreatoChristian cultists- and those who believe in science.

No one- no one is arguing that humans evolved from monkeys.


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Bible has never been disproven in any way
> 
> 
> 
> You are embarrassing yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Has Science Disproved God?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Has science proved God?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Science just has best theories.  Not proofs.  Creation science has some great theories about God.
Click to expand...


'Creation science' lol

like 'holistic car mechanics'


----------



## Syriusly

Syriusly said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> My blind faith is backed up by lots of DNA and fossil evidence. What evidence is there for the Book of Genesis?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, your blind faith is backed up by ASSUMPTIONS about the DNA and fossil evidence.  The fossil record CANNOT prove evolution, unless you simply nip out the parts that don't suit you. Likewise with DNA.  Both are "proof" only if you really, REALLY want to think they are.
> 
> There are a number of assertions about the way things work which the Bible makes, and which scientists rejected and derided for centuries, but which now appear to be validated, at least in part.
> 
> The Bible claims that the universe had a specific beginning.
> 
> What Is the Big Bang Theory?
> 
> You yourself have admitted that there is sufficient evidence, scientific and otherwise, to indicate that Noah's flood is based in reality.  And the oldest writings archaeologists have found reference it.
> 
> _Thus says the Lord, who gives the sun for light by day and the fixed order of the moon and the stars for light by night, who stirs up the sea so that its waves roar— Jeremiah 31:35_
> 
> I assume I don't have to prove to you that the moon and the stars have fixed, predictable paths.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really want to go with the Bible and the sun and the moon and the stars?
> _
> And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.
> 
> So according to the Bible- God created earth- and light- the first day- where did that light come from? _
> 
> 6 And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” 7 So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the vault “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.
> 
> _And I guess God created the atmosphere on the second day_
> 
> 9 And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground “land,” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” And God saw that it was good.
> 
> _And apparently when the earth was first created there was no sea or ground- but on the third day he created 'land and 'seas'_
> 
> 11 Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.
> 
> _And here is where it gets really interesting- on the third day he created all of the plants of the world- and evening and morning_
> 
> 14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.
> 
> Okay on the fourth day God created the Sun and the Moon. - and the stars.
> So the order is:
> a) Earth
> b) Day/Night
> c) Vegetation
> d) Sun/moon
> 
> So- how did we have a day and night without a sun? How did the vegetation survives the absolute zero temperatures on earth without any sun being in existence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing but crickets from our 'Creationists'.
> 
> lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _So according to the Bible- God created earth- and light- the first day- where did that light come from? _
> 
> First day light came from EMS.
> 
> _And I guess God created the atmosphere on the second day
> _
> Correct.
> 
> _And apparently when the earth was first created there was no sea or ground- but on the third day he created 'land and 'seas'_
> 
> The Earth was covered with water vapor and water.  This was the first day.  He pulled the water back to have dry land and plants and seas on the third day..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I went back and checked- Here is the quote again- where is the reference to 'water vapor'?
> 
> _ In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
> 
> 
> 3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.
> 
> 
> 6 And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” 7 So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the vault “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.
> 
> 
> 9 And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground “land,” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” And God saw that it was good._
Click to expand...


Nothing but crickets from the CreatoChristian cultists.


----------



## Syriusly

Syriusly said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> My blind faith is backed up by lots of DNA and fossil evidence. What evidence is there for the Book of Genesis?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, your blind faith is backed up by ASSUMPTIONS about the DNA and fossil evidence.  The fossil record CANNOT prove evolution, unless you simply nip out the parts that don't suit you. Likewise with DNA.  Both are "proof" only if you really, REALLY want to think they are.
> 
> There are a number of assertions about the way things work which the Bible makes, and which scientists rejected and derided for centuries, but which now appear to be validated, at least in part.
> 
> The Bible claims that the universe had a specific beginning.
> 
> What Is the Big Bang Theory?
> 
> You yourself have admitted that there is sufficient evidence, scientific and otherwise, to indicate that Noah's flood is based in reality.  And the oldest writings archaeologists have found reference it.
> 
> _Thus says the Lord, who gives the sun for light by day and the fixed order of the moon and the stars for light by night, who stirs up the sea so that its waves roar— Jeremiah 31:35_
> 
> I assume I don't have to prove to you that the moon and the stars have fixed, predictable paths.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really want to go with the Bible and the sun and the moon and the stars?
> _
> And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.
> 
> So according to the Bible- God created earth- and light- the first day- where did that light come from? _
> 
> 6 And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” 7 So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the vault “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.
> 
> _And I guess God created the atmosphere on the second day_
> 
> 9 And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground “land,” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” And God saw that it was good.
> 
> _And apparently when the earth was first created there was no sea or ground- but on the third day he created 'land and 'seas'_
> 
> 11 Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.
> 
> _And here is where it gets really interesting- on the third day he created all of the plants of the world- and evening and morning_
> 
> 14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.
> 
> Okay on the fourth day God created the Sun and the Moon. - and the stars.
> So the order is:
> a) Earth
> b) Day/Night
> c) Vegetation
> d) Sun/moon
> 
> So- how did we have a day and night without a sun? How did the vegetation survives the absolute zero temperatures on earth without any sun being in existence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing but crickets from our 'Creationists'.
> 
> lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _So according to the Bible- God created earth- and light- the first day- where did that light come from? _
> 
> First day light came from EMS.
> 
> _And I guess God created the atmosphere on the second day
> _
> Correct.
> 
> _And apparently when the earth was first created there was no sea or ground- but on the third day he created 'land and 'seas'_
> 
> The Earth was covered with water vapor and water.  This was the first day.  He pulled the water back to have dry land and plants and seas on the third day.
> 
> _And here is where it gets really interesting- on the third day he created all of the plants of the world- and evening and morning _
> 
> Day and night was created on the first day.  Plants was on the third day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Okay on the fourth day God created the Sun and the Moon. - and the stars.
> So the order is:
> a) Earth
> b) Day/Night
> c) Vegetation
> d) Sun/moon
> 
> So- how did we have a day and night without a sun? How did the vegetation survives the absolute zero temperatures on earth without any sun being in existence?
Click to expand...


Nothing but crickets. Not surprised.

There is absolutely no evidence to support the conclusion that the earth formed before the sun- let alone 3 days before the sun- or even how you would know what a day is without a sun with an earth in orbit around it.

There is absolutely no evidence that any life existed before the sun existed- yet the Bible claims vegetation did. 

It is one thing for the Creato-Cultists to claim that their Bible is inerrant and infallible- and then point to mistakes science has made- but they studiously avoid how Genesis 1 violates everything that science has taught us about the solar system, life on earth and physics.


----------



## james bond

Syriusly said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, your blind faith is backed up by ASSUMPTIONS about the DNA and fossil evidence.  The fossil record CANNOT prove evolution, unless you simply nip out the parts that don't suit you. Likewise with DNA.  Both are "proof" only if you really, REALLY want to think they are.
> 
> There are a number of assertions about the way things work which the Bible makes, and which scientists rejected and derided for centuries, but which now appear to be validated, at least in part.
> 
> The Bible claims that the universe had a specific beginning.
> 
> What Is the Big Bang Theory?
> 
> You yourself have admitted that there is sufficient evidence, scientific and otherwise, to indicate that Noah's flood is based in reality.  And the oldest writings archaeologists have found reference it.
> 
> _Thus says the Lord, who gives the sun for light by day and the fixed order of the moon and the stars for light by night, who stirs up the sea so that its waves roar— Jeremiah 31:35_
> 
> I assume I don't have to prove to you that the moon and the stars have fixed, predictable paths.
> 
> And let's look at archaeology, shall we?  A hundred years ago, Bible critics were telling us that the Hittites were a Biblical fiction, a made-up group of people who existed only in stories.  And then archaeologists in Turkey discovered the ruins of Hattusas, and historical records showing an empire in the second millennium BC . . . about where the Bible said they were.
> 
> The Code of Hammurabi and the Nuzi tablets both show remarkable resemblances to the Semitic laws given in the first five books of the Bible.
> 
> The various peoples mentioned in the Bible have turned up in other archaeological references.  The Philistines are on the Temple of Rameses III at Thebes, c. 1150 BC.  Their five cities mentioned in the Bible -  Ashkelon, Ashdod, Gaza, Gath, and Ekron - have all been excavated or even exist as cities today.
> 
> 
> 
> Ah yes...the "Alamo" of magical thinkers like you:
> 
> Lacking any good argument of evidence for any of your magical bullshit, and lacking any good evidence or argument to counter scientific knowledge whochjndermines your magical bullshit, you are left with only one option:
> 
> You attempt to drag scientific knowledge down into the muck of your magical bullshit by labelling it "faith".
> 
> What an embarrassing display....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If there was any BS, then the Bible would be disproven.  The Resurrection would've been disproven.  It has withstood the test of time.  The Bible is inerrant, accurate, authoritative, true and complete.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL- how can you 'disprove' a book of fairy tales? How can I disprove Aesops fables?
> 
> How can I disprove Jesus's resurrection any more than i can disprove that that Athena was not born from the head of Zeus?
> 
> I am certain that the Bible is 'authoritative' to you- but certainly isn't to billions of other human beings.
> 
> As far as 'accurate'- there are some accuracies- hell bound to get something right- but plenty of inaccuracies.
> 
> I find it fascinating to watch the Christian cultists who insist that every word in the Bible is correct dance to rationalize around what is clearly just flat out false.
> 
> _All flying insects that walk on all fours are to be detestable to you. There are, however, some winged creatures that walk on all fours that you may eat: those that have jointed legs for hopping on the ground. Of these you may eat any kind of locust, katydid, cricket or grasshopper. But all other winged creatures that have four legs you are to detest_
> 
> Insects have 6 legs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We're not talking about Aesop's fables, but the Bible.  What historical event which you consider "story" from there do want to discuss?  There are parables in there that Christ Jesus used to teach which are stories..
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You were the one who claimed that if 'there was any BS the Bible would have been disproven'- then disprove Aesop's Fables. Go for it.
> 
> If you can't disprove Aesop's Fables- then by your bizarre logic- that means Aesops Fables must be true.
Click to expand...


Let's bet something then like you going to hell after death.  If I disprove Aesop's Fables, then you agree to go to hell.

It's like you do not lose anything of value to you, but it gives me a hoot to see you sweat.


----------



## LittleNipper

Political Junky said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Bible has never been disproven in any way
> 
> 
> 
> You are embarrassing yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Has Science Disproved God?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Has science proved God?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Science just has best theories.  Not proofs.  Creation science has some great theories about God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL, the Bible offers no proof of anything.
Click to expand...

You're wrong. So very blindly wrong. The Bible clearly demonstrates with examples that various kinds of behavior bring about specific repercussions. Over and over and over the Bible clearly shows to anyone who will read it, that if you do this there is the strong likelihood that this will happen. And if one does that there is the strong likelihood that that will happen. It's not sometimes it happens or in this one case it happened. It will happen That should prove GOD exists. Random meaningless possibilities would indicate chance. Mere chance is proof that the is no GOD. But destiny is the revelation that GOD is a reality. There can be no destiny without HIM!


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah yes...the "Alamo" of magical thinkers like you:
> 
> Lacking any good argument of evidence for any of your magical bullshit, and lacking any good evidence or argument to counter scientific knowledge whochjndermines your magical bullshit, you are left with only one option:
> 
> You attempt to drag scientific knowledge down into the muck of your magical bullshit by labelling it "faith".
> 
> What an embarrassing display....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If there was any BS, then the Bible would be disproven.  The Resurrection would've been disproven.  It has withstood the test of time.  The Bible is inerrant, accurate, authoritative, true and complete.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL- how can you 'disprove' a book of fairy tales? How can I disprove Aesops fables?
> 
> How can I disprove Jesus's resurrection any more than i can disprove that that Athena was not born from the head of Zeus?
> 
> I am certain that the Bible is 'authoritative' to you- but certainly isn't to billions of other human beings.
> 
> As far as 'accurate'- there are some accuracies- hell bound to get something right- but plenty of inaccuracies.
> 
> I find it fascinating to watch the Christian cultists who insist that every word in the Bible is correct dance to rationalize around what is clearly just flat out false.
> 
> _All flying insects that walk on all fours are to be detestable to you. There are, however, some winged creatures that walk on all fours that you may eat: those that have jointed legs for hopping on the ground. Of these you may eat any kind of locust, katydid, cricket or grasshopper. But all other winged creatures that have four legs you are to detest_
> 
> Insects have 6 legs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We're not talking about Aesop's fables, but the Bible.  What historical event which you consider "story" from there do want to discuss?  There are parables in there that Christ Jesus used to teach which are stories..
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You were the one who claimed that if 'there was any BS the Bible would have been disproven'- then disprove Aesop's Fables. Go for it.
> 
> If you can't disprove Aesop's Fables- then by your bizarre logic- that means Aesops Fables must be true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's bet something then like you going to hell after death.  If I disprove Aesop's Fables, then you agree to go to hell.
> 
> It's like you do not lose anything of value to you, but it gives me a hoot to see you sweat.
Click to expand...


LOL- according to your Holy Book- I am going to hell after I die because I don't believe in your book of fairy tales or the magical virgin birth. 

What i would lose if I pretended to believe in your fairy tales would be my own self respect.

You want to disprove Aesops Fairy tales and believe that would mean I would go to hell- fine with me.

I would prefer you actually answer my questions on Genesis- but I know not to expect real answer from you.


----------



## Syriusly

LittleNipper said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are embarrassing yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> Has Science Disproved God?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Has science proved God?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Science just has best theories.  Not proofs.  Creation science has some great theories about God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL, the Bible offers no proof of anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're wrong. So very blindly wrong. The Bible clearly demonstrates with examples that various kinds of behavior bring about specific repercussions. Over and over and over the Bible clearly shows to anyone who will read it, that if you do this there is the strong likelihood that this will happen. And if one does that there is the strong likelihood that that will happen. It's not sometimes it happens or in this one case it happened. It will happen That should prove GOD exists. Random meaningless possibilities would indicate chance. Mere chance is proof that the is no GOD. But destiny is the revelation that GOD is a reality. There can be no destiny without HIM!
Click to expand...


LOL- you are welcome to believe your fairy tales- but nothing there has anything to do with science or facts.


----------



## LittleNipper

Syriusly said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is Darwinism indeed scientific fact or a belief based on naturalism    9 Scientific Facts Prove the "Theory of Evolution" is False | Humans Are Free
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 'Darwinism'? LOL
> 
> The Theory of Evolution is a theory that best fits the evidence we have.
> 
> Christian creation beliefs are myths that do not fit any of the evidence we have.
Click to expand...

The FLOOD is not a myth. Sodom and Gomorrah is not a Myth. Nebekenezer is not a myth. Joseph in Egypt is not a myth.The birth of Jesus is not a myth. GOD is not a myth. He is very real. Evolution doesn't fit who we are and what we are.


----------



## LittleNipper

Syriusly said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Has Science Disproved God?
> 
> 
> 
> Has science proved God?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Science just has best theories.  Not proofs.  Creation science has some great theories about God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL, the Bible offers no proof of anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're wrong. So very blindly wrong. The Bible clearly demonstrates with examples that various kinds of behavior bring about specific repercussions. Over and over and over the Bible clearly shows to anyone who will read it, that if you do this there is the strong likelihood that this will happen. And if one does that there is the strong likelihood that that will happen. It's not sometimes it happens or in this one case it happened. It will happen That should prove GOD exists. Random meaningless possibilities would indicate chance. Mere chance is proof that the is no GOD. But destiny is the revelation that GOD is a reality. There can be no destiny without HIM!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL- you are welcome to believe your fairy tales- but nothing there has anything to do with science or facts.
Click to expand...

Nothing to laugh at. More people today are choosing suicide and mass shootings because they are in despair. Despair is the result of rejecting GOD.


----------



## james bond

Syriusly said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, your blind faith is backed up by ASSUMPTIONS about the DNA and fossil evidence.  The fossil record CANNOT prove evolution, unless you simply nip out the parts that don't suit you. Likewise with DNA.  Both are "proof" only if you really, REALLY want to think they are.
> 
> There are a number of assertions about the way things work which the Bible makes, and which scientists rejected and derided for centuries, but which now appear to be validated, at least in part.
> 
> The Bible claims that the universe had a specific beginning.
> 
> What Is the Big Bang Theory?
> 
> You yourself have admitted that there is sufficient evidence, scientific and otherwise, to indicate that Noah's flood is based in reality.  And the oldest writings archaeologists have found reference it.
> 
> _Thus says the Lord, who gives the sun for light by day and the fixed order of the moon and the stars for light by night, who stirs up the sea so that its waves roar— Jeremiah 31:35_
> 
> I assume I don't have to prove to you that the moon and the stars have fixed, predictable paths.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really want to go with the Bible and the sun and the moon and the stars?
> _
> And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.
> 
> So according to the Bible- God created earth- and light- the first day- where did that light come from? _
> 
> 6 And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” 7 So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the vault “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.
> 
> _And I guess God created the atmosphere on the second day_
> 
> 9 And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground “land,” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” And God saw that it was good.
> 
> _And apparently when the earth was first created there was no sea or ground- but on the third day he created 'land and 'seas'_
> 
> 11 Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.
> 
> _And here is where it gets really interesting- on the third day he created all of the plants of the world- and evening and morning_
> 
> 14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.
> 
> Okay on the fourth day God created the Sun and the Moon. - and the stars.
> So the order is:
> a) Earth
> b) Day/Night
> c) Vegetation
> d) Sun/moon
> 
> So- how did we have a day and night without a sun? How did the vegetation survives the absolute zero temperatures on earth without any sun being in existence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing but crickets from our 'Creationists'.
> 
> lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _So according to the Bible- God created earth- and light- the first day- where did that light come from? _
> 
> First day light came from EMS.
> 
> _And I guess God created the atmosphere on the second day
> _
> Correct.
> 
> _And apparently when the earth was first created there was no sea or ground- but on the third day he created 'land and 'seas'_
> 
> The Earth was covered with water vapor and water.  This was the first day.  He pulled the water back to have dry land and plants and seas on the third day..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I went back and checked- Here is the quote again- where is the reference to 'water vapor'?
> 
> _ In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
> 
> 
> 3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.
> 
> 
> 6 And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” 7 So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the vault “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.
> 
> 
> 9 And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground “land,” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” And God saw that it was good._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing but crickets from the CreatoChristian cultists.
Click to expand...


What is your point?  The description is right under your nose.


----------



## james bond

Syriusly said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> If there was any BS, then the Bible would be disproven.
> 
> 
> 
> It has been. Literally every single detail of its moronic creation myth has been disproven, as much as anything can possibly be disproven.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't know what rock you've been hiding under but you obviously never read anything but comic books and watch Japanese Anime. The Bible has never been disproven in any way. Disputed maybe, but that is true of anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OMG
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not just OMG, but about the afterlife.  I think what's been strongly argued against is that humans evolved from monkeys.].
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Feel free to believe in an afterlife.  I certainly don't care- science will never be able to 'disprove' that it exists- but it isn't science to believe in it- it is faith.
> 
> Everyone argues against humans evolving from monkeys- both you CreatoChristian cultists- and those who believe in science.
> 
> No one- no one is arguing that humans evolved from monkeys.
Click to expand...


I already talked about consciousness, neurology, people returning from the dead and telling us about their experience.  They saw things that the people in the room backed up.  You keep missing information or does it go into one ear and out the other?

And you believe that we came from monkeys based on faith.  The fossil evidence doesn't back it up.  It's sadly lacking.  Also, your DNA stats do not support anything of the kind.


----------



## LittleNipper

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> I trying to point out that you are neither the son of a monkey or an ape ---
> 
> 
> 
> Which is moronic of you to say in a discussion of evolution, since nobody claimed or believes that. So, basically, you have absolutely nothing of value to add.
Click to expand...

They are saying exactly that. YOU are the end product of evolution up from the slime.Your grandfather 50,75,100, 100 times removed was some animal. You are an animal. Don't play naive on me. You believe you are the end product of apes in you past linage..What you value has no value.


----------



## TomParks

I can’t believe human beings think they came from apes and monkeys haha.....God made the heavens and the earth, all the creatures on the earth, and man period.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> If there was any BS, then the Bible would be disproven.
> 
> 
> 
> It has been. Literally every single detail of its moronic creation myth has been disproven, as much as anything can possibly be disproven.
Click to expand...


Of course, by "disproven" you mean "derided and insulted by atheist twits with no actual evidence involved".


----------



## Cecilie1200

Political Junky said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Bible has never been disproven in any way
> 
> 
> 
> You are embarrassing yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Has Science Disproved God?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Has science proved God?
Click to expand...


Do things not exist prior to "being proven by science"?


----------



## Cecilie1200

Political Junky said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Bible has never been disproven in any way
> 
> 
> 
> You are embarrassing yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Has Science Disproved God?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Has science proved God?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Science just has best theories.  Not proofs.  Creation science has some great theories about God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL, the Bible offers no proof of anything.
Click to expand...


Probably because it's not a textbook, and "offering proof" is not its job.  Is it your position that anything which is NOT a textbook and tasked specifically with "offering proof" is, by definition, false?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Syriusly said:


> Tell me all about these:
> _But all other winged creatures that have four legs you are to detest
> _
> What are the winged creatures that have four legs?
> Bats? 2 legs
> Birds? 2 legs
> Insects? 6 legs


This is what we should expect from a bunch of illterate, science-ignorant people.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

LittleNipper said:


> They are saying exactly that


You are a shameless little liar. They are not, and you know that they arent.


----------



## Syriusly

LittleNipper said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> I trying to point out that you are neither the son of a monkey or an ape ---
> 
> 
> 
> Which is moronic of you to say in a discussion of evolution, since nobody claimed or believes that. So, basically, you have absolutely nothing of value to add.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are saying exactly that. YOU are the end product of evolution up from the slime.Your grandfather 50,75,100, 100 times removed was some animal. You are an animal. Don't play naive on me. You believe you are the end product of apes in you past linage..What you value has no value.
Click to expand...


You believe you were created by some fairy in the sky.

What you value are fairy tales.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Cecilie1200 said:


> Probably because it's not a textbook, and "offering proof" is not its job


This is so weird. Sometimes, you freely admit that what you have is faith. Other times, you act embarrassed of your faith and you do that goofy thing where you try to equate it to actual knowledge.


----------



## Syriusly

LittleNipper said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is Darwinism indeed scientific fact or a belief based on naturalism    9 Scientific Facts Prove the "Theory of Evolution" is False | Humans Are Free
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 'Darwinism'? LOL
> 
> The Theory of Evolution is a theory that best fits the evidence we have.
> 
> Christian creation beliefs are myths that do not fit any of the evidence we have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The FLOOD is not a myth. Sodom and Gomorrah is not a Myth. Nebekenezer is not a myth. Joseph in Egypt is not a myth.The birth of Jesus is not a myth. GOD is not a myth. He is very real. Evolution doesn't fit who we are and what we are.
Click to expand...


Floods are not a myth. 

A flood that covered the Himilayas and the entire earth 4,000 years ago is a myth. 
Sodom and Gomorrah might have existed as towns- but their is no evidence that any god murdered all of the men, women and children of Sodom and Gomorroah as in your myth. 
Likely there were many Jesus's born in Palestine and surrounding areas- but there is no evidence that any of them performed any miracles or came back to life. 

But most importantly of all- for you literalists- everything about Genesis one is contradicted by what we know from science. 

Which is why you want to stay away from Genesis 1


----------



## Syriusly

LittleNipper said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> 
> Has science proved God?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Science just has best theories.  Not proofs.  Creation science has some great theories about God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL, the Bible offers no proof of anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're wrong. So very blindly wrong. The Bible clearly demonstrates with examples that various kinds of behavior bring about specific repercussions. Over and over and over the Bible clearly shows to anyone who will read it, that if you do this there is the strong likelihood that this will happen. And if one does that there is the strong likelihood that that will happen. It's not sometimes it happens or in this one case it happened. It will happen That should prove GOD exists. Random meaningless possibilities would indicate chance. Mere chance is proof that the is no GOD. But destiny is the revelation that GOD is a reality. There can be no destiny without HIM!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL- you are welcome to believe your fairy tales- but nothing there has anything to do with science or facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing to laugh at. More people today are choosing suicide and mass shootings because they are in despair. Despair is the result of rejecting GOD.
Click to expand...


If your faith brings you comfort and prevents you from committing suicide- then obviously your faith is right for you. 

Just don't tell me that it has anything to do with science.


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really want to go with the Bible and the sun and the moon and the stars?
> _
> And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.
> 
> So according to the Bible- God created earth- and light- the first day- where did that light come from? _
> 
> 6 And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” 7 So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the vault “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.
> 
> _And I guess God created the atmosphere on the second day_
> 
> 9 And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground “land,” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” And God saw that it was good.
> 
> _And apparently when the earth was first created there was no sea or ground- but on the third day he created 'land and 'seas'_
> 
> 11 Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.
> 
> _And here is where it gets really interesting- on the third day he created all of the plants of the world- and evening and morning_
> 
> 14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.
> 
> Okay on the fourth day God created the Sun and the Moon. - and the stars.
> So the order is:
> a) Earth
> b) Day/Night
> c) Vegetation
> d) Sun/moon
> 
> So- how did we have a day and night without a sun? How did the vegetation survives the absolute zero temperatures on earth without any sun being in existence?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing but crickets from our 'Creationists'.
> 
> lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _So according to the Bible- God created earth- and light- the first day- where did that light come from? _
> 
> First day light came from EMS.
> 
> _And I guess God created the atmosphere on the second day
> _
> Correct.
> 
> _And apparently when the earth was first created there was no sea or ground- but on the third day he created 'land and 'seas'_
> 
> The Earth was covered with water vapor and water.  This was the first day.  He pulled the water back to have dry land and plants and seas on the third day..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I went back and checked- Here is the quote again- where is the reference to 'water vapor'?
> 
> _ In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
> 
> 
> 3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.
> 
> 
> 6 And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” 7 So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the vault “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.
> 
> 
> 9 And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground “land,” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” And God saw that it was good._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing but crickets from the CreatoChristian cultists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is your point?  The description is right under your nose.
Click to expand...


My point is that nowhere in Genesis does it mention 'water vapor'


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> It has been. Literally every single detail of its moronic creation myth has been disproven, as much as anything can possibly be disproven.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know what rock you've been hiding under but you obviously never read anything but comic books and watch Japanese Anime. The Bible has never been disproven in any way. Disputed maybe, but that is true of anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OMG
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not just OMG, but about the afterlife.  I think what's been strongly argued against is that humans evolved from monkeys.].
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Feel free to believe in an afterlife.  I certainly don't care- science will never be able to 'disprove' that it exists- but it isn't science to believe in it- it is faith.
> 
> Everyone argues against humans evolving from monkeys- both you CreatoChristian cultists- and those who believe in science.
> 
> No one- no one is arguing that humans evolved from monkeys.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And you believe that we came from monkeys based on faith.  .
Click to expand...


Since I just said that no one is arguing that 'we' - humans came from monkeys- I guess you are going to hell for lying now.....oh wait- your loving god will forgive you your lies since you do so to glorify him......


----------



## LittleNipper

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me all about these:
> _But all other winged creatures that have four legs you are to detest
> _
> What are the winged creatures that have four legs?
> Bats? 2 legs
> Birds? 2 legs
> Insects? 6 legs
> 
> 
> 
> This is what we should expect from a bunch of illterate, science-ignorant people.
Click to expand...

Do you have 4 legs or 2? Some seemingly unobservant scientist trying to oversimplify things said, "It's only an insect, all its appendages can be called legs." However, have you ever watched a common housefly grooming itself? It uses its 2 front appendages as you would your arms and hands. Look at the Praying Manius. Use your common sense. The Biblical insight is far more ancient and is far more accurately descriptive. I had some person one time badger me that dinosaur is not mentioned in the Bible. Well that word wasn't invented until nearly the middle of the 19th century. Behemoth and Leviathan are in the Bible... And so is dragon.


----------



## james bond

Syriusly said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> My blind faith is backed up by lots of DNA and fossil evidence. What evidence is there for the Book of Genesis?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, your blind faith is backed up by ASSUMPTIONS about the DNA and fossil evidence.  The fossil record CANNOT prove evolution, unless you simply nip out the parts that don't suit you. Likewise with DNA.  Both are "proof" only if you really, REALLY want to think they are.
> 
> There are a number of assertions about the way things work which the Bible makes, and which scientists rejected and derided for centuries, but which now appear to be validated, at least in part.
> 
> The Bible claims that the universe had a specific beginning.
> 
> What Is the Big Bang Theory?
> 
> You yourself have admitted that there is sufficient evidence, scientific and otherwise, to indicate that Noah's flood is based in reality.  And the oldest writings archaeologists have found reference it.
> 
> _Thus says the Lord, who gives the sun for light by day and the fixed order of the moon and the stars for light by night, who stirs up the sea so that its waves roar— Jeremiah 31:35_
> 
> I assume I don't have to prove to you that the moon and the stars have fixed, predictable paths.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really want to go with the Bible and the sun and the moon and the stars?
> _
> And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.
> 
> So according to the Bible- God created earth- and light- the first day- where did that light come from? _
> 
> 6 And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” 7 So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the vault “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.
> 
> _And I guess God created the atmosphere on the second day_
> 
> 9 And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground “land,” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” And God saw that it was good.
> 
> _And apparently when the earth was first created there was no sea or ground- but on the third day he created 'land and 'seas'_
> 
> 11 Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.
> 
> _And here is where it gets really interesting- on the third day he created all of the plants of the world- and evening and morning_
> 
> 14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.
> 
> Okay on the fourth day God created the Sun and the Moon. - and the stars.
> So the order is:
> a) Earth
> b) Day/Night
> c) Vegetation
> d) Sun/moon
> 
> So- how did we have a day and night without a sun? How did the vegetation survives the absolute zero temperatures on earth without any sun being in existence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing but crickets from our 'Creationists'.
> 
> lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _So according to the Bible- God created earth- and light- the first day- where did that light come from? _
> 
> First day light came from EMS.
> 
> _And I guess God created the atmosphere on the second day
> _
> Correct.
> 
> _And apparently when the earth was first created there was no sea or ground- but on the third day he created 'land and 'seas'_
> 
> The Earth was covered with water vapor and water.  This was the first day.  He pulled the water back to have dry land and plants and seas on the third day.
> 
> _And here is where it gets really interesting- on the third day he created all of the plants of the world- and evening and morning _
> 
> Day and night was created on the first day.  Plants was on the third day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Okay on the fourth day God created the Sun and the Moon. - and the stars.
> So the order is:
> a) Earth
> b) Day/Night
> c) Vegetation
> d) Sun/moon
> 
> So- how did we have a day and night without a sun? How did the vegetation survives the absolute zero temperatures on earth without any sun being in existence?
Click to expand...


You're using uniformitarianism.  We had separation of light and dark.  The way you envision night and day didn't happen until the sun, moon, stars and planets were created.  Which is more believable?  Evolutionary processes, the Big Bang, formed the universe from invisible particles and all these stars, suns, moons and planets just expanded out.  And there was no intelligent design involved with the Earth just being in the right place and distance away from the sun or else it wouldn't thrive.  And all the fine tuning facts had to be met.


----------



## james bond

Syriusly said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, your blind faith is backed up by ASSUMPTIONS about the DNA and fossil evidence.  The fossil record CANNOT prove evolution, unless you simply nip out the parts that don't suit you. Likewise with DNA.  Both are "proof" only if you really, REALLY want to think they are.
> 
> There are a number of assertions about the way things work which the Bible makes, and which scientists rejected and derided for centuries, but which now appear to be validated, at least in part.
> 
> The Bible claims that the universe had a specific beginning.
> 
> What Is the Big Bang Theory?
> 
> You yourself have admitted that there is sufficient evidence, scientific and otherwise, to indicate that Noah's flood is based in reality.  And the oldest writings archaeologists have found reference it.
> 
> _Thus says the Lord, who gives the sun for light by day and the fixed order of the moon and the stars for light by night, who stirs up the sea so that its waves roar— Jeremiah 31:35_
> 
> I assume I don't have to prove to you that the moon and the stars have fixed, predictable paths.
> 
> And let's look at archaeology, shall we?  A hundred years ago, Bible critics were telling us that the Hittites were a Biblical fiction, a made-up group of people who existed only in stories.  And then archaeologists in Turkey discovered the ruins of Hattusas, and historical records showing an empire in the second millennium BC . . . about where the Bible said they were.
> 
> The Code of Hammurabi and the Nuzi tablets both show remarkable resemblances to the Semitic laws given in the first five books of the Bible.
> 
> The various peoples mentioned in the Bible have turned up in other archaeological references.  The Philistines are on the Temple of Rameses III at Thebes, c. 1150 BC.  Their five cities mentioned in the Bible -  Ashkelon, Ashdod, Gaza, Gath, and Ekron - have all been excavated or even exist as cities today.
> 
> 
> 
> Ah yes...the "Alamo" of magical thinkers like you:
> 
> Lacking any good argument of evidence for any of your magical bullshit, and lacking any good evidence or argument to counter scientific knowledge whochjndermines your magical bullshit, you are left with only one option:
> 
> You attempt to drag scientific knowledge down into the muck of your magical bullshit by labelling it "faith".
> 
> What an embarrassing display....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If there was any BS, then the Bible would be disproven.  The Resurrection would've been disproven.  It has withstood the test of time.  The Bible is inerrant, accurate, authoritative, true and complete.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL- how can you 'disprove' a book of fairy tales? How can I disprove Aesops fables?
> 
> How can I disprove Jesus's resurrection any more than i can disprove that that Athena was not born from the head of Zeus?
> 
> I am certain that the Bible is 'authoritative' to you- but certainly isn't to billions of other human beings.
> 
> As far as 'accurate'- there are some accuracies- hell bound to get something right- but plenty of inaccuracies.
> 
> I find it fascinating to watch the Christian cultists who insist that every word in the Bible is correct dance to rationalize around what is clearly just flat out false.
> 
> _All flying insects that walk on all fours are to be detestable to you. There are, however, some winged creatures that walk on all fours that you may eat: those that have jointed legs for hopping on the ground. Of these you may eat any kind of locust, katydid, cricket or grasshopper. But all other winged creatures that have four legs you are to detest_
> 
> Insects have 6 legs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We're not talking about Aesop's fables, but the Bible.  What historical event which you consider "story" from there do want to discuss?  There are parables in there that Christ Jesus used to teach which are stories.
> 
> You're referring to Leviticus 11:20-21 "_All flying insects that walk on all fours are to be detestable to you. There are, however, some winged creatures that walk on all fours that you may eat: those that have jointed legs for hopping on the ground. Of these you may eat any kind of locust, katydid, cricket or grasshopper. _
> Flying insects that walk on all fours would refer to for example the grasshopper as stated.
> 
> 
> We see that it has six legs, but the two hind legs aren't considered for walking but hopping as stated.  It walks on the four front  legs.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tell me all about these:
> _But all other winged creatures that have four legs you are to detest
> _
> What are the winged creatures that have four legs?
> Bats? 2 legs
> Birds? 2 legs
> Insects? 6 legs
Click to expand...


God is warning us not to eat bats.  It walks on fours.  You learn something new every day.  I didn't know how they walked.


Are you and Fort Fun Indiana prepared to go to hell now?


----------



## james bond

Syriusly said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing but crickets from our 'Creationists'.
> 
> lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _So according to the Bible- God created earth- and light- the first day- where did that light come from? _
> 
> First day light came from EMS.
> 
> _And I guess God created the atmosphere on the second day
> _
> Correct.
> 
> _And apparently when the earth was first created there was no sea or ground- but on the third day he created 'land and 'seas'_
> 
> The Earth was covered with water vapor and water.  This was the first day.  He pulled the water back to have dry land and plants and seas on the third day..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I went back and checked- Here is the quote again- where is the reference to 'water vapor'?
> 
> _ In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
> 
> 
> 3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.
> 
> 
> 6 And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” 7 So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the vault “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.
> 
> 
> 9 And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground “land,” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” And God saw that it was good._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing but crickets from the CreatoChristian cultists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is your point?  The description is right under your nose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My point is that nowhere in Genesis does it mention 'water vapor'
Click to expand...


That's because you can't figure stuff out like I can.  Been telling you this for some time now.  I was giving you a chance to figure it out.  The EMS produces heat.  God created this watery substance and the heat liquidifies the substance and produces water vapors.  We learn the Holy Spirit helped create this.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana Let's do a game.  Since you believe the Bible is full of myths, then you should just ignore the warning the God said to NOT eat bats.  Why don't you have one for dinner tomorrow?  I'll gladly pay for it.

"Certain bats are now suspected of causing some of the world’s most feared diseases. And all the trouble started *because some people, rather than leave them alone, eat them*.

Australian researchers Lin-Fa Wang and Hugh Field have found that horseshoe bats are the likely natural reservoir of the deadly SARS virus that struck southern China in 2002, killing over 700 people and sickening thousands. Originally, a SARS-like virus was found in an animal called the palm civet (a cousin to the “source” of Luak Coffee). When this turned out to be a red herring, Wang and Field placed their bets on bats. Sure enough, SARS-like viruses and antibodies against them showed up in a whole lotta bats, and the finding has been repeated by others around the world.

The duo had good reasons to suspect our flying friends. Bats had already been found to harbor the nasty Hendra and Neepa viruses. And bats have so many disease-harboring and -spreading talents that researcher Kathryn Holmes calls them “magnificent vectors”. They’re more closely related to humans than you might think (some classify them as primates). They are relatively long lived, a potentially stable home. They huddle together during the day, sneezing and coughing on each other and spreading viruses around, even to other bat species. Then at night, they spread out for miles, potentially spreading disease far and wide. Some even think they can carry diseases without getting very sick themselves. Yikes."

The Hazards of Eating Bats


----------



## RWS

james bond said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, we're all related due to evolution!
> 
> Had God Created Spontaneous Creation, we would not share those similar genetic traits.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You and I are not related and we have 99% similar DNA and 1% difference.  The 1% is enough to show no relationship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Heck yes we are related. As much as we argue, you are me. And I am you. Had God created everything spontaneously, we would have much different variations in our DNA.
> 
> Makin me superior of course....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, my point was to show that even though we have similar DNA, out immediate families aren't related.  As for what you are referring to, God didn't create us all spontaneiously.  We came from a common ancestor of humans, Adam and Eve.  Who is the common ancestor in your explanation?
Click to expand...

I'm sorry but I have no idea what you were trying to say there.

Did God create life spontaneously or through evolution? And if evolution, did he create Adam an Eve spontaneously, and their offspring are the humans today?

And if so, why are some people different colors?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

LittleNipper said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me all about these:
> _But all other winged creatures that have four legs you are to detest
> _
> What are the winged creatures that have four legs?
> Bats? 2 legs
> Birds? 2 legs
> Insects? 6 legs
> 
> 
> 
> This is what we should expect from a bunch of illterate, science-ignorant people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you have 4 legs or 2? Some seemingly unobservant scientist trying to oversimplify things said, "It's only an insect, all its appendages can be called legs." However, have you ever watched a common housefly grooming itself? It uses its 2 front appendages as you would your arms and hands. Look at the Praying Manius. Use your common sense. The Biblical insight is far more ancient and is far more accurately descriptive. I had some person one time badger me that dinosaur is not mentioned in the Bible. Well that word wasn't invented until nearly the middle of the 19th century. Behemoth and Leviathan are in the Bible... And so is dragon.
Click to expand...

Haha, look at the mental gymnastics you are forced to perform to fit your square book of fantasy into the round hole 9f modern science. Just stop, you are embarrassing yourself.


----------



## james bond

RWS said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, we're all related due to evolution!
> 
> Had God Created Spontaneous Creation, we would not share those similar genetic traits.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You and I are not related and we have 99% similar DNA and 1% difference.  The 1% is enough to show no relationship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Heck yes we are related. As much as we argue, you are me. And I am you. Had God created everything spontaneously, we would have much different variations in our DNA.
> 
> Makin me superior of course....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, my point was to show that even though we have similar DNA, out immediate families aren't related.  As for what you are referring to, God didn't create us all spontaneiously.  We came from a common ancestor of humans, Adam and Eve.  Who is the common ancestor in your explanation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm sorry but I have no idea what you were trying to say there.
> 
> Did God create life spontaneously or through evolution? And if evolution, did he create Adam an Eve spontaneously, and their offspring are the humans today?
> 
> And if so, why are some people different colors?
Click to expand...


I think you need to clarify first because you started this subtopic.

You said, "Yes, we're all related due to evolution!

Had God Created Spontaneous Creation, we would not share those similar genetic traits."

How do you explain you and I are related through evolution?  And what is spontaneous creation?

I've heard of spontaneous generation, but it's been demonstrated to be pseudoscience.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me all about these:
> _But all other winged creatures that have four legs you are to detest
> _
> What are the winged creatures that have four legs?
> Bats? 2 legs
> Birds? 2 legs
> Insects? 6 legs
> 
> 
> 
> This is what we should expect from a bunch of illterate, science-ignorant people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you have 4 legs or 2? Some seemingly unobservant scientist trying to oversimplify things said, "It's only an insect, all its appendages can be called legs." However, have you ever watched a common housefly grooming itself? It uses its 2 front appendages as you would your arms and hands. Look at the Praying Manius. Use your common sense. The Biblical insight is far more ancient and is far more accurately descriptive. I had some person one time badger me that dinosaur is not mentioned in the Bible. Well that word wasn't invented until nearly the middle of the 19th century. Behemoth and Leviathan are in the Bible... And so is dragon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Haha, look at the mental gymnastics you are forced to perform to fit your square book of fantasy into the round hole 9f modern science. Just stop, you are embarrassing yourself.
Click to expand...


Ha ha.  You are embarrassing yourself with stupidity and ignorance.  You do not have a reply to science backing up what is stated in the Bible.  Birds and fowl such as chickens have wings as limbs just like you have four limbs.  With apes, we consider them to have four legs.  You guys haven't explained how an ape that walks on four legs became bipedal?


----------



## james bond

Here's the thing.  Creationists here have been able to back up their creation science with actual evidence of what is explained in the Bible.  OTOH, evolutionists here have not been able to provide any evidence.  We still see that apes still walk on four legs and that we still have low intelligent humans such as Fort Fun Indiana.  He's close to a monkey in intelligence, but it doesn't mean that he evolved from a monkey.


----------



## Syriusly

LittleNipper said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me all about these:
> _But all other winged creatures that have four legs you are to detest
> _
> What are the winged creatures that have four legs?
> Bats? 2 legs
> Birds? 2 legs
> Insects? 6 legs
> 
> 
> 
> This is what we should expect from a bunch of illterate, science-ignorant people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you have 4 legs or 2? Some seemingly unobservant scientist trying to oversimplify things said, "It's only an insect, all its appendages can be called legs." However, have you ever watched a common housefly grooming itself? It uses its 2 front appendages as you would your arms and hands. Look at the Praying Manius. Use your common sense. The Biblical insight is far more ancient and is far more accurately descriptive. I had some person one time badger me that dinosaur is not mentioned in the Bible. Well that word wasn't invented until nearly the middle of the 19th century. Behemoth and Leviathan are in the Bible... And so is dragon.
Click to expand...


How many legs does an insect have?

Really you think that flies have hands?

LOL


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, your blind faith is backed up by ASSUMPTIONS about the DNA and fossil evidence.  The fossil record CANNOT prove evolution, unless you simply nip out the parts that don't suit you. Likewise with DNA.  Both are "proof" only if you really, REALLY want to think they are.
> 
> There are a number of assertions about the way things work which the Bible makes, and which scientists rejected and derided for centuries, but which now appear to be validated, at least in part.
> 
> The Bible claims that the universe had a specific beginning.
> 
> What Is the Big Bang Theory?
> 
> You yourself have admitted that there is sufficient evidence, scientific and otherwise, to indicate that Noah's flood is based in reality.  And the oldest writings archaeologists have found reference it.
> 
> _Thus says the Lord, who gives the sun for light by day and the fixed order of the moon and the stars for light by night, who stirs up the sea so that its waves roar— Jeremiah 31:35_
> 
> I assume I don't have to prove to you that the moon and the stars have fixed, predictable paths.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really want to go with the Bible and the sun and the moon and the stars?
> _
> And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.
> 
> So according to the Bible- God created earth- and light- the first day- where did that light come from? _
> 
> 6 And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” 7 So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the vault “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.
> 
> _And I guess God created the atmosphere on the second day_
> 
> 9 And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground “land,” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” And God saw that it was good.
> 
> _And apparently when the earth was first created there was no sea or ground- but on the third day he created 'land and 'seas'_
> 
> 11 Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.
> 
> _And here is where it gets really interesting- on the third day he created all of the plants of the world- and evening and morning_
> 
> 14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.
> 
> Okay on the fourth day God created the Sun and the Moon. - and the stars.
> So the order is:
> a) Earth
> b) Day/Night
> c) Vegetation
> d) Sun/moon
> 
> So- how did we have a day and night without a sun? How did the vegetation survives the absolute zero temperatures on earth without any sun being in existence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing but crickets from our 'Creationists'.
> 
> lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _So according to the Bible- God created earth- and light- the first day- where did that light come from? _
> 
> First day light came from EMS.
> 
> _And I guess God created the atmosphere on the second day
> _
> Correct.
> 
> _And apparently when the earth was first created there was no sea or ground- but on the third day he created 'land and 'seas'_
> 
> The Earth was covered with water vapor and water.  This was the first day.  He pulled the water back to have dry land and plants and seas on the third day.
> 
> _And here is where it gets really interesting- on the third day he created all of the plants of the world- and evening and morning _
> 
> Day and night was created on the first day.  Plants was on the third day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Okay on the fourth day God created the Sun and the Moon. - and the stars.
> So the order is:
> a) Earth
> b) Day/Night
> c) Vegetation
> d) Sun/moon
> 
> So- how did we have a day and night without a sun? How did the vegetation survives the absolute zero temperatures on earth without any sun being in existence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're using uniformitarianism.  We had separation of light and dark.  The way you envision night and day didn't happen until the sun, moon, stars and planets were created.  Which is more believable?  Evolutionary processes, the Big Bang, formed the universe from invisible particles and all these stars, suns, moons and planets just expanded out.  And there was no intelligent design involved with the Earth just being in the right place and distance away from the sun or else it wouldn't thrive.  And all the fine tuning facts had to be met.
Click to expand...


No- I am using the actual words of Genesis. 

But hey I get it- when the actual words of Genesis don't fit the scientific facts- you make up new definitions for words.

What is more believable? The theories that are supported by scientific evidence- not a book of fairy tales whose first chapter can't stand up to scientific scrutiny.

So- how did we have a day and night without a sun? How did the vegetation survive the absolute zero temperatures on earth without any sun being in existence?


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah yes...the "Alamo" of magical thinkers like you:
> 
> Lacking any good argument of evidence for any of your magical bullshit, and lacking any good evidence or argument to counter scientific knowledge whochjndermines your magical bullshit, you are left with only one option:
> 
> You attempt to drag scientific knowledge down into the muck of your magical bullshit by labelling it "faith".
> 
> What an embarrassing display....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If there was any BS, then the Bible would be disproven.  The Resurrection would've been disproven.  It has withstood the test of time.  The Bible is inerrant, accurate, authoritative, true and complete.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL- how can you 'disprove' a book of fairy tales? How can I disprove Aesops fables?
> 
> How can I disprove Jesus's resurrection any more than i can disprove that that Athena was not born from the head of Zeus?
> 
> I am certain that the Bible is 'authoritative' to you- but certainly isn't to billions of other human beings.
> 
> As far as 'accurate'- there are some accuracies- hell bound to get something right- but plenty of inaccuracies.
> 
> I find it fascinating to watch the Christian cultists who insist that every word in the Bible is correct dance to rationalize around what is clearly just flat out false.
> 
> _All flying insects that walk on all fours are to be detestable to you. There are, however, some winged creatures that walk on all fours that you may eat: those that have jointed legs for hopping on the ground. Of these you may eat any kind of locust, katydid, cricket or grasshopper. But all other winged creatures that have four legs you are to detest_
> 
> Insects have 6 legs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We're not talking about Aesop's fables, but the Bible.  What historical event which you consider "story" from there do want to discuss?  There are parables in there that Christ Jesus used to teach which are stories.
> 
> You're referring to Leviticus 11:20-21 "_All flying insects that walk on all fours are to be detestable to you. There are, however, some winged creatures that walk on all fours that you may eat: those that have jointed legs for hopping on the ground. Of these you may eat any kind of locust, katydid, cricket or grasshopper. _
> Flying insects that walk on all fours would refer to for example the grasshopper as stated.
> 
> 
> We see that it has six legs, but the two hind legs aren't considered for walking but hopping as stated.  It walks on the four front  legs.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tell me all about these:
> _But all other winged creatures that have four legs you are to detest
> _
> What are the winged creatures that have four legs?
> Bats? 2 legs
> Birds? 2 legs
> Insects? 6 legs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God is warning us not to eat bats.  It walks on fours.  You learn something new every day.  I didn't know how they walked.
> 
> 
> Are you and Fort Fun Indiana prepared to go to hell now?
Click to expand...


So Bats don't have 2 legs and 2 wings- you are saying that Bats have 4 legs?

Fascinating.


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> _So according to the Bible- God created earth- and light- the first day- where did that light come from? _
> 
> First day light came from EMS.
> 
> _And I guess God created the atmosphere on the second day
> _
> Correct.
> 
> _And apparently when the earth was first created there was no sea or ground- but on the third day he created 'land and 'seas'_
> 
> The Earth was covered with water vapor and water.  This was the first day.  He pulled the water back to have dry land and plants and seas on the third day..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I went back and checked- Here is the quote again- where is the reference to 'water vapor'?
> 
> _ In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
> 
> 
> 3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.
> 
> 
> 6 And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” 7 So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the vault “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.
> 
> 
> 9 And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground “land,” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” And God saw that it was good._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing but crickets from the CreatoChristian cultists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is your point?  The description is right under your nose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My point is that nowhere in Genesis does it mention 'water vapor'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The EMS produces heat.  .
Click to expand...


Emergency Medical Services produced the heat for earth?

Fascinating.

Where is water vapor mentioned in Genesis 1?


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me all about these:
> _But all other winged creatures that have four legs you are to detest
> _
> What are the winged creatures that have four legs?
> Bats? 2 legs
> Birds? 2 legs
> Insects? 6 legs
> 
> 
> 
> This is what we should expect from a bunch of illterate, science-ignorant people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you have 4 legs or 2? Some seemingly unobservant scientist trying to oversimplify things said, "It's only an insect, all its appendages can be called legs." However, have you ever watched a common housefly grooming itself? It uses its 2 front appendages as you would your arms and hands. Look at the Praying Manius. Use your common sense. The Biblical insight is far more ancient and is far more accurately descriptive. I had some person one time badger me that dinosaur is not mentioned in the Bible. Well that word wasn't invented until nearly the middle of the 19th century. Behemoth and Leviathan are in the Bible... And so is dragon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Haha, look at the mental gymnastics you are forced to perform to fit your square book of fantasy into the round hole 9f modern science. Just stop, you are embarrassing yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ha ha.  You are embarrassing yourself with stupidity and ignorance.  You do not have a reply to science backing up what is stated in the Bible.  Birds and fowl such as chickens have wings as limbs just like you have four limbs.  With apes, we consider them to have four legs.  You guys haven't explained how an ape that walks on four legs became bipedal?
Click to expand...



Birds have 2 legs and 2 wings.
Apes have 2 legs and 2 arms- and are not considered bipedal. 
Cows have 4 legs.
Insects have 6 legs


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> Here's the thing.  Creationists here have been able to back up their creation science with actual evidence of what is explained in the Bible. .



Here is the thing- you Christians keep saying that 'christian science' like it means anything more than 'faith healing' or 'talking in tongues'.

There is no science that supports the story of Genesis 1. 
There is no science that supports a global flood that covered the entire earth with water.
There is no science that supports every animal on earth being dropped off at Mt. Ararat and taking Uber to each of its destinations around the earth. 

There is as much science to support creation as there is science which shows that a car repairman can repair cars with homeopathy.


----------



## LittleNipper

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me all about these:
> _But all other winged creatures that have four legs you are to detest
> _
> What are the winged creatures that have four legs?
> Bats? 2 legs
> Birds? 2 legs
> Insects? 6 legs
> 
> 
> 
> This is what we should expect from a bunch of illterate, science-ignorant people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you have 4 legs or 2? Some seemingly unobservant scientist trying to oversimplify things said, "It's only an insect, all its appendages can be called legs." However, have you ever watched a common housefly grooming itself? It uses its 2 front appendages as you would your arms and hands. Look at the Praying Manius. Use your common sense. The Biblical insight is far more ancient and is far more accurately descriptive. I had some person one time badger me that dinosaur is not mentioned in the Bible. Well that word wasn't invented until nearly the middle of the 19th century. Behemoth and Leviathan are in the Bible... And so is dragon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Haha, look at the mental gymnastics you are forced to perform to fit your square book of fantasy into the round hole 9f modern science. Just stop, you are embarrassing yourself.
Click to expand...




Syriusly said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me all about these:
> _But all other winged creatures that have four legs you are to detest
> _
> What are the winged creatures that have four legs?
> Bats? 2 legs
> Birds? 2 legs
> Insects? 6 legs
> 
> 
> 
> This is what we should expect from a bunch of illterate, science-ignorant people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you have 4 legs or 2? Some seemingly unobservant scientist trying to oversimplify things said, "It's only an insect, all its appendages can be called legs." However, have you ever watched a common housefly grooming itself? It uses its 2 front appendages as you would your arms and hands. Look at the Praying Manius. Use your common sense. The Biblical insight is far more ancient and is far more accurately descriptive. I had some person one time badger me that dinosaur is not mentioned in the Bible. Well that word wasn't invented until nearly the middle of the 19th century. Behemoth and Leviathan are in the Bible... And so is dragon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many legs does an insect have?
> 
> Really you think that flies have hands?
> 
> LOL
Click to expand...


How many legs does a baby have?


----------



## Cecilie1200

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Probably because it's not a textbook, and "offering proof" is not its job
> 
> 
> 
> This is so weird. Sometimes, you freely admit that what you have is faith. Other times, you act embarrassed of your faith and you do that goofy thing where you try to equate it to actual knowledge.
Click to expand...


The only thing that's weird is that you think your inability to understand what you're told is evidence that other people are wrong, or "embarrassed", or anything other than your own stupidity.


----------



## Cecilie1200

james bond said:


> Here's the thing.  Creationists here have been able to back up their creation science with actual evidence of what is explained in the Bible.  OTOH, evolutionists here have not been able to provide any evidence.  We still see that apes still walk on four legs and that we still have low intelligent humans such as Fort Fun Indiana.  He's close to a monkey in intelligence, but it doesn't mean that he evolved from a monkey.



I dispute the claim that he evolved, at all.


----------



## Syriusly

LittleNipper said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me all about these:
> _But all other winged creatures that have four legs you are to detest
> _
> What are the winged creatures that have four legs?
> Bats? 2 legs
> Birds? 2 legs
> Insects? 6 legs
> 
> 
> 
> This is what we should expect from a bunch of illterate, science-ignorant people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you have 4 legs or 2? Some seemingly unobservant scientist trying to oversimplify things said, "It's only an insect, all its appendages can be called legs." However, have you ever watched a common housefly grooming itself? It uses its 2 front appendages as you would your arms and hands. Look at the Praying Manius. Use your common sense. The Biblical insight is far more ancient and is far more accurately descriptive. I had some person one time badger me that dinosaur is not mentioned in the Bible. Well that word wasn't invented until nearly the middle of the 19th century. Behemoth and Leviathan are in the Bible... And so is dragon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Haha, look at the mental gymnastics you are forced to perform to fit your square book of fantasy into the round hole 9f modern science. Just stop, you are embarrassing yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me all about these:
> _But all other winged creatures that have four legs you are to detest
> _
> What are the winged creatures that have four legs?
> Bats? 2 legs
> Birds? 2 legs
> Insects? 6 legs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is what we should expect from a bunch of illterate, science-ignorant people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you have 4 legs or 2? Some seemingly unobservant scientist trying to oversimplify things said, "It's only an insect, all its appendages can be called legs." However, have you ever watched a common housefly grooming itself? It uses its 2 front appendages as you would your arms and hands. Look at the Praying Manius. Use your common sense. The Biblical insight is far more ancient and is far more accurately descriptive. I had some person one time badger me that dinosaur is not mentioned in the Bible. Well that word wasn't invented until nearly the middle of the 19th century. Behemoth and Leviathan are in the Bible... And so is dragon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many legs does an insect have?
> 
> Really you think that flies have hands?
> 
> LOL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many legs does a baby have?
Click to expand...


A baby has two legs. 

Do you need some basic human anatomy lessons?


----------



## LittleNipper

Syriusly said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me all about these:
> _But all other winged creatures that have four legs you are to detest
> _
> What are the winged creatures that have four legs?
> Bats? 2 legs
> Birds? 2 legs
> Insects? 6 legs
> 
> 
> 
> This is what we should expect from a bunch of illterate, science-ignorant people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you have 4 legs or 2? Some seemingly unobservant scientist trying to oversimplify things said, "It's only an insect, all its appendages can be called legs." However, have you ever watched a common housefly grooming itself? It uses its 2 front appendages as you would your arms and hands. Look at the Praying Manius. Use your common sense. The Biblical insight is far more ancient and is far more accurately descriptive. I had some person one time badger me that dinosaur is not mentioned in the Bible. Well that word wasn't invented until nearly the middle of the 19th century. Behemoth and Leviathan are in the Bible... And so is dragon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Haha, look at the mental gymnastics you are forced to perform to fit your square book of fantasy into the round hole 9f modern science. Just stop, you are embarrassing yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me all about these:
> _But all other winged creatures that have four legs you are to detest
> _
> What are the winged creatures that have four legs?
> Bats? 2 legs
> Birds? 2 legs
> Insects? 6 legs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is what we should expect from a bunch of illterate, science-ignorant people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you have 4 legs or 2? Some seemingly unobservant scientist trying to oversimplify things said, "It's only an insect, all its appendages can be called legs." However, have you ever watched a common housefly grooming itself? It uses its 2 front appendages as you would your arms and hands. Look at the Praying Manius. Use your common sense. The Biblical insight is far more ancient and is far more accurately descriptive. I had some person one time badger me that dinosaur is not mentioned in the Bible. Well that word wasn't invented until nearly the middle of the 19th century. Behemoth and Leviathan are in the Bible... And so is dragon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many legs does an insect have?
> 
> Really you think that flies have hands?
> 
> LOL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many legs does a baby have?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A baby has two legs.
> 
> Do you need some basic human anatomy lessons?
Click to expand...

So then you have to honestly say that many insects (while having 6 appendages) often use 2 of them in the very same way humans use their appendages --- and visa versa. What we may unquestionably accept as "correct" scientific titles are not necessarily profoundly accurate nor are they written in stone.


----------



## Syriusly

LittleNipper said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is what we should expect from a bunch of illterate, science-ignorant people.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have 4 legs or 2? Some seemingly unobservant scientist trying to oversimplify things said, "It's only an insect, all its appendages can be called legs." However, have you ever watched a common housefly grooming itself? It uses its 2 front appendages as you would your arms and hands. Look at the Praying Manius. Use your common sense. The Biblical insight is far more ancient and is far more accurately descriptive. I had some person one time badger me that dinosaur is not mentioned in the Bible. Well that word wasn't invented until nearly the middle of the 19th century. Behemoth and Leviathan are in the Bible... And so is dragon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Haha, look at the mental gymnastics you are forced to perform to fit your square book of fantasy into the round hole 9f modern science. Just stop, you are embarrassing yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is what we should expect from a bunch of illterate, science-ignorant people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you have 4 legs or 2? Some seemingly unobservant scientist trying to oversimplify things said, "It's only an insect, all its appendages can be called legs." However, have you ever watched a common housefly grooming itself? It uses its 2 front appendages as you would your arms and hands. Look at the Praying Manius. Use your common sense. The Biblical insight is far more ancient and is far more accurately descriptive. I had some person one time badger me that dinosaur is not mentioned in the Bible. Well that word wasn't invented until nearly the middle of the 19th century. Behemoth and Leviathan are in the Bible... And so is dragon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many legs does an insect have?
> 
> Really you think that flies have hands?
> 
> LOL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many legs does a baby have?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A baby has two legs.
> 
> Do you need some basic human anatomy lessons?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So then you have to honestly say that many insects (while having 6 appendages) often use 2 of them in the very same way humans use their appendages --- and visa versa. What we may unquestionably accept as "correct" scientific titles are not necessarily profoundly accurate nor are they written in stone.
Click to expand...


So in other words- what was written in the Bible was not profoundly accurate- or written in stone.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> You do not have a reply to science backing up what is stated in the Bible.


Again dumbass -- you really are not getting this -- nobody needs to reply to that nonsense. It is nobody's job to dispel the magical bullshit you are peddling. Say any stupid thing you like....


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Cecilie1200 said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Probably because it's not a textbook, and "offering proof" is not its job
> 
> 
> 
> This is so weird. Sometimes, you freely admit that what you have is faith. Other times, you act embarrassed of your faith and you do that goofy thing where you try to equate it to actual knowledge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only thing that's weird is that you think your inability to understand what you're told is evidence that other people are wrong, or "embarrassed", or anything other than your own stupidity.
Click to expand...

That's nice. Go on crybaby, get it all out of your system. Then have a look at the scoreboard, and realize that you magical thinkers have nothing hut each other. You have no evidence, not a single shred of published science or accepted theory, and none of you are even trying to produce any.

As such, I remain unmoved by your emotional little display.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Probably because it's not a textbook, and "offering proof" is not its job
> 
> 
> 
> This is so weird. Sometimes, you freely admit that what you have is faith. Other times, you act embarrassed of your faith and you do that goofy thing where you try to equate it to actual knowledge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only thing that's weird is that you think your inability to understand what you're told is evidence that other people are wrong, or "embarrassed", or anything other than your own stupidity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's nice. Go on crybaby, get it all out of your system. Then have a look at the scoreboard, and realize that you magical thinkers have nothing hut each other. You have no evidence, not a single shred of published science or accepted theory, and none of you are even trying to produce any.
> 
> As such, I remain unmoved by your emotional little display.
Click to expand...


You talk, and my mind boggles at how rich you would make some therapist.


----------



## LittleNipper

Syriusly said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have 4 legs or 2? Some seemingly unobservant scientist trying to oversimplify things said, "It's only an insect, all its appendages can be called legs." However, have you ever watched a common housefly grooming itself? It uses its 2 front appendages as you would your arms and hands. Look at the Praying Manius. Use your common sense. The Biblical insight is far more ancient and is far more accurately descriptive. I had some person one time badger me that dinosaur is not mentioned in the Bible. Well that word wasn't invented until nearly the middle of the 19th century. Behemoth and Leviathan are in the Bible... And so is dragon.
> 
> 
> 
> Haha, look at the mental gymnastics you are forced to perform to fit your square book of fantasy into the round hole 9f modern science. Just stop, you are embarrassing yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have 4 legs or 2? Some seemingly unobservant scientist trying to oversimplify things said, "It's only an insect, all its appendages can be called legs." However, have you ever watched a common housefly grooming itself? It uses its 2 front appendages as you would your arms and hands. Look at the Praying Manius. Use your common sense. The Biblical insight is far more ancient and is far more accurately descriptive. I had some person one time badger me that dinosaur is not mentioned in the Bible. Well that word wasn't invented until nearly the middle of the 19th century. Behemoth and Leviathan are in the Bible... And so is dragon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many legs does an insect have?
> 
> Really you think that flies have hands?
> 
> LOL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many legs does a baby have?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A baby has two legs.
> 
> Do you need some basic human anatomy lessons?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So then you have to honestly say that many insects (while having 6 appendages) often use 2 of them in the very same way humans use their appendages --- and visa versa. What we may unquestionably accept as "correct" scientific titles are not necessarily profoundly accurate nor are they written in stone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So in other words- what was written in the Bible was not profoundly accurate- or written in stone.
Click to expand...

I didn't say that flies have hands; however, they do use their front appendages in much the same way humans do. The Bible is without error (has never been proven wrong) and is well thought out. What we presently accept as "correct" isn't always "correct, complete, or better."  And it is presumptuous for you to think so.


----------



## james bond

Syriusly said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really want to go with the Bible and the sun and the moon and the stars?
> _
> And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.
> 
> So according to the Bible- God created earth- and light- the first day- where did that light come from? _
> 
> 6 And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” 7 So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the vault “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.
> 
> _And I guess God created the atmosphere on the second day_
> 
> 9 And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground “land,” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” And God saw that it was good.
> 
> _And apparently when the earth was first created there was no sea or ground- but on the third day he created 'land and 'seas'_
> 
> 11 Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.
> 
> _And here is where it gets really interesting- on the third day he created all of the plants of the world- and evening and morning_
> 
> 14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.
> 
> Okay on the fourth day God created the Sun and the Moon. - and the stars.
> So the order is:
> a) Earth
> b) Day/Night
> c) Vegetation
> d) Sun/moon
> 
> So- how did we have a day and night without a sun? How did the vegetation survives the absolute zero temperatures on earth without any sun being in existence?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing but crickets from our 'Creationists'.
> 
> lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _So according to the Bible- God created earth- and light- the first day- where did that light come from? _
> 
> First day light came from EMS.
> 
> _And I guess God created the atmosphere on the second day
> _
> Correct.
> 
> _And apparently when the earth was first created there was no sea or ground- but on the third day he created 'land and 'seas'_
> 
> The Earth was covered with water vapor and water.  This was the first day.  He pulled the water back to have dry land and plants and seas on the third day.
> 
> _And here is where it gets really interesting- on the third day he created all of the plants of the world- and evening and morning _
> 
> Day and night was created on the first day.  Plants was on the third day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Okay on the fourth day God created the Sun and the Moon. - and the stars.
> So the order is:
> a) Earth
> b) Day/Night
> c) Vegetation
> d) Sun/moon
> 
> So- how did we have a day and night without a sun? How did the vegetation survives the absolute zero temperatures on earth without any sun being in existence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're using uniformitarianism.  We had separation of light and dark.  The way you envision night and day didn't happen until the sun, moon, stars and planets were created.  Which is more believable?  Evolutionary processes, the Big Bang, formed the universe from invisible particles and all these stars, suns, moons and planets just expanded out.  And there was no intelligent design involved with the Earth just being in the right place and distance away from the sun or else it wouldn't thrive.  And all the fine tuning facts had to be met.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No- I am using the actual words of Genesis.
> 
> But hey I get it- when the actual words of Genesis don't fit the scientific facts- you make up new definitions for words.
> 
> What is more believable? The theories that are supported by scientific evidence- not a book of fairy tales whose first chapter can't stand up to scientific scrutiny.
> 
> So- how did we have a day and night without a sun? How did the vegetation survive the absolute zero temperatures on earth without any sun being in existence?
Click to expand...


At least, you're reading the Bible.  That's a positive.  Now, you want to understand it.  

Genesis 1:3-5
3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.

Explanation (ICR, Answers in Genesis and gotquestions.org are good)
Sunlight Before the Sun


----------



## james bond

Syriusly said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> If there was any BS, then the Bible would be disproven.  The Resurrection would've been disproven.  It has withstood the test of time.  The Bible is inerrant, accurate, authoritative, true and complete.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL- how can you 'disprove' a book of fairy tales? How can I disprove Aesops fables?
> 
> How can I disprove Jesus's resurrection any more than i can disprove that that Athena was not born from the head of Zeus?
> 
> I am certain that the Bible is 'authoritative' to you- but certainly isn't to billions of other human beings.
> 
> As far as 'accurate'- there are some accuracies- hell bound to get something right- but plenty of inaccuracies.
> 
> I find it fascinating to watch the Christian cultists who insist that every word in the Bible is correct dance to rationalize around what is clearly just flat out false.
> 
> _All flying insects that walk on all fours are to be detestable to you. There are, however, some winged creatures that walk on all fours that you may eat: those that have jointed legs for hopping on the ground. Of these you may eat any kind of locust, katydid, cricket or grasshopper. But all other winged creatures that have four legs you are to detest_
> 
> Insects have 6 legs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We're not talking about Aesop's fables, but the Bible.  What historical event which you consider "story" from there do want to discuss?  There are parables in there that Christ Jesus used to teach which are stories.
> 
> You're referring to Leviticus 11:20-21 "_All flying insects that walk on all fours are to be detestable to you. There are, however, some winged creatures that walk on all fours that you may eat: those that have jointed legs for hopping on the ground. Of these you may eat any kind of locust, katydid, cricket or grasshopper. _
> Flying insects that walk on all fours would refer to for example the grasshopper as stated.
> 
> 
> We see that it has six legs, but the two hind legs aren't considered for walking but hopping as stated.  It walks on the four front  legs.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tell me all about these:
> _But all other winged creatures that have four legs you are to detest
> _
> What are the winged creatures that have four legs?
> Bats? 2 legs
> Birds? 2 legs
> Insects? 6 legs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God is warning us not to eat bats.  It walks on fours.  You learn something new every day.  I didn't know how they walked.
> 
> 
> Are you and Fort Fun Indiana prepared to go to hell now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So Bats don't have 2 legs and 2 wings- you are saying that Bats have 4 legs?
> 
> Fascinating.
Click to expand...


You said a bat had 2 legs, but you are wrong.  It's walking on fours, so the bat's wings are legs.  Contrast it to the ostrich which has four limbs, but two legs just like us.  Do you consider the wings of fowl arms?  Are there any in that category that you cannot eat?  If a bat has 2 legs like you said, then it's safe to eat but it isn't safe because it has four legs.  Look up bats to see if they are safe to eat.  Are there any other winged creatures that have four legs?  What about a pteranodon?  They would not be safe to eat as it walks on fours.


----------



## james bond

Cecilie1200 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the thing.  Creationists here have been able to back up their creation science with actual evidence of what is explained in the Bible.  OTOH, evolutionists here have not been able to provide any evidence.  We still see that apes still walk on four legs and that we still have low intelligent humans such as Fort Fun Indiana.  He's close to a monkey in intelligence, but it doesn't mean that he evolved from a monkey.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I dispute the claim that he evolved, at all.
Click to expand...


Yup.  I am waiting to see if he'll be willing to eat a bat to prove us wrong .


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do not have a reply to science backing up what is stated in the Bible.
> 
> 
> 
> Again dumbass -- you really are not getting this -- nobody needs to reply to that nonsense. It is nobody's job to dispel the magical bullshit you are peddling. Say any stupid thing you like....
Click to expand...


No, the creationist here have demonstrated that they are true, right and just.  The evos have not demonstrated anything, but their theories that have big assumptions and involve circular logic.  And no one can demonstrate how long a billion years is and what happens during that time.  I get the feeling that you will know how long billions of years are in the afterlife, but that you won't like it.  I can wait several years for that.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Cecilie1200 said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Probably because it's not a textbook, and "offering proof" is not its job
> 
> 
> 
> This is so weird. Sometimes, you freely admit that what you have is faith. Other times, you act embarrassed of your faith and you do that goofy thing where you try to equate it to actual knowledge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only thing that's weird is that you think your inability to understand what you're told is evidence that other people are wrong, or "embarrassed", or anything other than your own stupidity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's nice. Go on crybaby, get it all out of your system. Then have a look at the scoreboard, and realize that you magical thinkers have nothing hut each other. You have no evidence, not a single shred of published science or accepted theory, and none of you are even trying to produce any.
> 
> As such, I remain unmoved by your emotional little display.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You talk, and my mind boggles at how rich you would make some therapist.
Click to expand...

Yes go ahead, religious nut ball, keep soothing and deluding yourself. It's what you're best at.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> No, the creationist here have demonstrated that they are true, right and just.


No, you retards have done nothing but embarrass yourselves. You would get laughed out of a 6th grade science class. At the same time, you have been dancing and prancing and declaring victory. That is fucking embarrassing.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Probably because it's not a textbook, and "offering proof" is not its job
> 
> 
> 
> This is so weird. Sometimes, you freely admit that what you have is faith. Other times, you act embarrassed of your faith and you do that goofy thing where you try to equate it to actual knowledge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only thing that's weird is that you think your inability to understand what you're told is evidence that other people are wrong, or "embarrassed", or anything other than your own stupidity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's nice. Go on crybaby, get it all out of your system. Then have a look at the scoreboard, and realize that you magical thinkers have nothing hut each other. You have no evidence, not a single shred of published science or accepted theory, and none of you are even trying to produce any.
> 
> As such, I remain unmoved by your emotional little display.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You talk, and my mind boggles at how rich you would make some therapist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes go ahead, religious nut ball, keep soothing and deluding yourself. It's what you're best at.
Click to expand...


Only a nut ball would think believers to be nut balls just because they're believers.  We don't think non-believers to be nut balls, but just ignorant.  Until shown different.  In your case, you have shown to be a nut ball of the supermax kind.


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL- how can you 'disprove' a book of fairy tales? How can I disprove Aesops fables?
> 
> How can I disprove Jesus's resurrection any more than i can disprove that that Athena was not born from the head of Zeus?
> 
> I am certain that the Bible is 'authoritative' to you- but certainly isn't to billions of other human beings.
> 
> As far as 'accurate'- there are some accuracies- hell bound to get something right- but plenty of inaccuracies.
> 
> I find it fascinating to watch the Christian cultists who insist that every word in the Bible is correct dance to rationalize around what is clearly just flat out false.
> 
> _All flying insects that walk on all fours are to be detestable to you. There are, however, some winged creatures that walk on all fours that you may eat: those that have jointed legs for hopping on the ground. Of these you may eat any kind of locust, katydid, cricket or grasshopper. But all other winged creatures that have four legs you are to detest_
> 
> Insects have 6 legs
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We're not talking about Aesop's fables, but the Bible.  What historical event which you consider "story" from there do want to discuss?  There are parables in there that Christ Jesus used to teach which are stories.
> 
> You're referring to Leviticus 11:20-21 "_All flying insects that walk on all fours are to be detestable to you. There are, however, some winged creatures that walk on all fours that you may eat: those that have jointed legs for hopping on the ground. Of these you may eat any kind of locust, katydid, cricket or grasshopper. _
> Flying insects that walk on all fours would refer to for example the grasshopper as stated.
> 
> 
> We see that it has six legs, but the two hind legs aren't considered for walking but hopping as stated.  It walks on the four front  legs.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tell me all about these:
> _But all other winged creatures that have four legs you are to detest
> _
> What are the winged creatures that have four legs?
> Bats? 2 legs
> Birds? 2 legs
> Insects? 6 legs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God is warning us not to eat bats.  It walks on fours.  You learn something new every day.  I didn't know how they walked.
> 
> 
> Are you and Fort Fun Indiana prepared to go to hell now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So Bats don't have 2 legs and 2 wings- you are saying that Bats have 4 legs?
> 
> Fascinating.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You said a bat had 2 legs, but you are wrong.  It's walking on fours, so the bat's wings are legs. .
Click to expand...


Does a bat have  2 wings and 2 legs or 4 legs?







Ah the dance the literalists must dance in order to rationalize how the Bible cannot be fallible.


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL- how can you 'disprove' a book of fairy tales? How can I disprove Aesops fables?
> 
> How can I disprove Jesus's resurrection any more than i can disprove that that Athena was not born from the head of Zeus?
> 
> I am certain that the Bible is 'authoritative' to you- but certainly isn't to billions of other human beings.
> 
> As far as 'accurate'- there are some accuracies- hell bound to get something right- but plenty of inaccuracies.
> 
> I find it fascinating to watch the Christian cultists who insist that every word in the Bible is correct dance to rationalize around what is clearly just flat out false.
> 
> _All flying insects that walk on all fours are to be detestable to you. There are, however, some winged creatures that walk on all fours that you may eat: those that have jointed legs for hopping on the ground. Of these you may eat any kind of locust, katydid, cricket or grasshopper. But all other winged creatures that have four legs you are to detest_
> 
> Insects have 6 legs
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We're not talking about Aesop's fables, but the Bible.  What historical event which you consider "story" from there do want to discuss?  There are parables in there that Christ Jesus used to teach which are stories.
> 
> You're referring to Leviticus 11:20-21 "_All flying insects that walk on all fours are to be detestable to you. There are, however, some winged creatures that walk on all fours that you may eat: those that have jointed legs for hopping on the ground. Of these you may eat any kind of locust, katydid, cricket or grasshopper. _
> Flying insects that walk on all fours would refer to for example the grasshopper as stated.
> 
> 
> We see that it has six legs, but the two hind legs aren't considered for walking but hopping as stated.  It walks on the four front  legs.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tell me all about these:
> _But all other winged creatures that have four legs you are to detest
> _
> What are the winged creatures that have four legs?
> Bats? 2 legs
> Birds? 2 legs
> Insects? 6 legs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God is warning us not to eat bats.  It walks on fours.  You learn something new every day.  I didn't know how they walked.
> 
> 
> Are you and Fort Fun Indiana prepared to go to hell now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So Bats don't have 2 legs and 2 wings- you are saying that Bats have 4 legs?
> 
> Fascinating.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Contrast it to the ostrich which has four limbs, but two legs just like us.  Do you consider the wings of fowl arms?  Are there any in that category that you cannot eat?  If a bat has 2 legs like you said, then it's safe to eat but it isn't safe because it has four legs.  Look up bats to see if they are safe to eat.  Are there any other winged creatures that have four legs?  What about a pteranodon?  They would not be safe to eat as it walks on fours.
Click to expand...


I don't know why you are prattling on about what creatures are safe to eat. The Bible doesn't talk about that and neither am I.

_All flying insects that walk on all fours are to be detestable to you. There are, however, some winged creatures that walk on all fours that you may eat: those that have jointed legs for hopping on the ground. Of these you may eat any kind of locust, katydid, cricket or grasshopper. But all other winged creatures that have four legs you are to detest_

Tell me what those other winged creatures that have 4 legs are.


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do not have a reply to science backing up what is stated in the Bible.
> 
> 
> 
> Again dumbass -- you really are not getting this -- nobody needs to reply to that nonsense. It is nobody's job to dispel the magical bullshit you are peddling. Say any stupid thing you like....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, the creationist here have demonstrated that they are true, right and just. .
Click to expand...


Just like homeopathic carpenters have demonstrated that they are true, right and just.


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing but crickets from our 'Creationists'.
> 
> lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _So according to the Bible- God created earth- and light- the first day- where did that light come from? _
> 
> First day light came from EMS.
> 
> _And I guess God created the atmosphere on the second day
> _
> Correct.
> 
> _And apparently when the earth was first created there was no sea or ground- but on the third day he created 'land and 'seas'_
> 
> The Earth was covered with water vapor and water.  This was the first day.  He pulled the water back to have dry land and plants and seas on the third day.
> 
> _And here is where it gets really interesting- on the third day he created all of the plants of the world- and evening and morning _
> 
> Day and night was created on the first day.  Plants was on the third day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Okay on the fourth day God created the Sun and the Moon. - and the stars.
> So the order is:
> a) Earth
> b) Day/Night
> c) Vegetation
> d) Sun/moon
> 
> So- how did we have a day and night without a sun? How did the vegetation survives the absolute zero temperatures on earth without any sun being in existence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're using uniformitarianism.  We had separation of light and dark.  The way you envision night and day didn't happen until the sun, moon, stars and planets were created.  Which is more believable?  Evolutionary processes, the Big Bang, formed the universe from invisible particles and all these stars, suns, moons and planets just expanded out.  And there was no intelligent design involved with the Earth just being in the right place and distance away from the sun or else it wouldn't thrive.  And all the fine tuning facts had to be met.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No- I am using the actual words of Genesis.
> 
> But hey I get it- when the actual words of Genesis don't fit the scientific facts- you make up new definitions for words.
> 
> What is more believable? The theories that are supported by scientific evidence- not a book of fairy tales whose first chapter can't stand up to scientific scrutiny.
> 
> So- how did we have a day and night without a sun? How did the vegetation survive the absolute zero temperatures on earth without any sun being in existence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At least, you're reading the Bible.  That's a positive.  Now, you want to understand it.
> 
> Genesis 1:3-5
> 3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.
> 
> Explanation (ICR, Answers in Genesis and gotquestions.org are good)
> Sunlight Before the Sun
Click to expand...

And again:

So- how did we have a day and night without a sun? How did the vegetation survive the absolute zero temperatures on earth without any sun being in existence?


----------



## Syriusly

LittleNipper said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> Haha, look at the mental gymnastics you are forced to perform to fit your square book of fantasy into the round hole 9f modern science. Just stop, you are embarrassing yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many legs does an insect have?
> 
> Really you think that flies have hands?
> 
> LOL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many legs does a baby have?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A baby has two legs.
> 
> Do you need some basic human anatomy lessons?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So then you have to honestly say that many insects (while having 6 appendages) often use 2 of them in the very same way humans use their appendages --- and visa versa. What we may unquestionably accept as "correct" scientific titles are not necessarily profoundly accurate nor are they written in stone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So in other words- what was written in the Bible was not profoundly accurate- or written in stone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't say that flies have hands; however, they do use their front appendages in much the same way humans do. The Bible is without error (has never been proven wrong) .
Click to expand...


I just showed one of the many errors in the Bible. You true believers will always rationalize why something that literally is factually incorrect is of course not incorrect- like flies with 'arms' not legs. And babies with 4 legs.


----------



## Syriusly

More from the 'infallible' Bible


Matthew 13:31 Another parable put he [Jesus] forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed, which a man took, and sowed in his field:

Matthew 13:32:1 Which indeed is the least of all seeds: but when it is grown, it is the greatest among herbs, and becometh a tree, so that the birds of the air come and lodge in the branches thereof.[4].

Except of course- the mustard is not the smallest of all seeds- and it doesn't grow into a tree. 

Except for that of course.


----------



## Syriusly

*Pi*



Visualization.
The Bible mentions a circle whose dimensions would make pi equal to 3. This has been a source of humor for skeptics and consternation for literalist Christians and Jews.

The cauldron is first mentioned in 1 Kings 7:23-26 (KJV):

And *he made a molten sea [cauldron], ten cubits from the one brim to the other*: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and *a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about*. And under the brim of it round about there were knops compassing it, ten in a cubit, compassing the sea round about: the knops were cast in two rows, when it was cast. It stood upon twelve oxen, three looking toward the north, and three looking toward the west, and three looking toward the south, and three looking toward the east: and the sea was set above upon them, and all their hinder parts were inward. And it was an hand breadth thick, and the brim thereof was wrought like the brim of a cup, with flowers of lilies: it contained two thousand baths.


----------



## LittleNipper

Syriusly said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many legs does a baby have?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A baby has two legs.
> 
> Do you need some basic human anatomy lessons?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So then you have to honestly say that many insects (while having 6 appendages) often use 2 of them in the very same way humans use their appendages --- and visa versa. What we may unquestionably accept as "correct" scientific titles are not necessarily profoundly accurate nor are they written in stone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So in other words- what was written in the Bible was not profoundly accurate- or written in stone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't say that flies have hands; however, they do use their front appendages in much the same way humans do. The Bible is without error (has never been proven wrong) .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just showed one of the many errors in the Bible. You true believers will always rationalize why something that literally is factually incorrect is of course not incorrect- like flies with 'arms' not legs. And babies with 4 legs.
Click to expand...

What gives you the right to label and designate what is "correct" and what isn't? I have demonstrated that scientists who insist that the Bible is wrong when it says that various insects have four legs are ignoring obvious considerations all for the sake of supposed "scientific" correctness. The Bible isn't wrong in this regard. It is a matter of semantics --- get over yourself. I believe the term appendage is rather simplistic and doesn't indicate use or application --- if you like the generic. But the reality would then be that flies have 6 appendages and humans have 4. The Bible didn't use the term appendage and I can plainly see how flies use their appendages in various ways very similar to humans. I really don't imagine scientist really care one way or another... They have bigger concerns.


----------



## LittleNipper

Syriusly said:


> More from the 'infallible' Bible
> 
> 
> Matthew 13:31 Another parable put he [Jesus] forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed, which a man took, and sowed in his field:
> 
> Matthew 13:32:1 Which indeed is the least of all seeds: but when it is grown, it is the greatest among herbs, and becometh a tree, so that the birds of the air come and lodge in the branches thereof.[4].
> 
> Except of course- the mustard is not the smallest of all seeds- and it doesn't grow into a tree.
> 
> Except for that of course.


----------



## LittleNipper

Syriusly said:


> *Pi*
> 
> 
> 
> Visualization.
> The Bible mentions a circle whose dimensions would make pi equal to 3. This has been a source of humor for skeptics and consternation for literalist Christians and Jews.
> 
> The cauldron is first mentioned in 1 Kings 7:23-26 (KJV):
> 
> And *he made a molten sea [cauldron], ten cubits from the one brim to the other*: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and *a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about*. And under the brim of it round about there were knops compassing it, ten in a cubit, compassing the sea round about: the knops were cast in two rows, when it was cast. It stood upon twelve oxen, three looking toward the north, and three looking toward the west, and three looking toward the south, and three looking toward the east: and the sea was set above upon them, and all their hinder parts were inward. And it was an hand breadth thick, and the brim thereof was wrought like the brim of a cup, with flowers of lilies: it contained two thousand baths.


Contradictions: As Easy as Pi


----------



## LittleNipper

*John 8:12 English Standard Version (ESV)*
*I Am the Light of the World*
12 Again Jesus spoke to them, saying, “I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.”

Revelation 21:23 
The city does not need the sun or the moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gives it light, and the Lamb is its lamp.


----------



## james bond

Syriusly said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're not talking about Aesop's fables, but the Bible.  What historical event which you consider "story" from there do want to discuss?  There are parables in there that Christ Jesus used to teach which are stories.
> 
> You're referring to Leviticus 11:20-21 "_All flying insects that walk on all fours are to be detestable to you. There are, however, some winged creatures that walk on all fours that you may eat: those that have jointed legs for hopping on the ground. Of these you may eat any kind of locust, katydid, cricket or grasshopper. _
> Flying insects that walk on all fours would refer to for example the grasshopper as stated.
> 
> 
> We see that it has six legs, but the two hind legs aren't considered for walking but hopping as stated.  It walks on the four front  legs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me all about these:
> _But all other winged creatures that have four legs you are to detest
> _
> What are the winged creatures that have four legs?
> Bats? 2 legs
> Birds? 2 legs
> Insects? 6 legs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God is warning us not to eat bats.  It walks on fours.  You learn something new every day.  I didn't know how they walked.
> 
> 
> Are you and Fort Fun Indiana prepared to go to hell now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So Bats don't have 2 legs and 2 wings- you are saying that Bats have 4 legs?
> 
> Fascinating.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You said a bat had 2 legs, but you are wrong.  It's walking on fours, so the bat's wings are legs. .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does a bat have  2 wings and 2 legs or 4 legs?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah the dance the literalists must dance in order to rationalize how the Bible cannot be fallible.
Click to expand...


I've already explained this.  The bat walks on fours, so it's one of the flying creatures with four legs.

I already posted a nice 4 min vid to show bats walking and other interesting traits they have.  Others are pteranodon, pterodactyl and others that God warned not to eat.  Most of the others are fowl which have four limbs and two legs for walking.  These are safe to eat.

I'm going to pass on your other questions because they are too tedious.  I end up answering questions and you just ignore and insult.  OTOH, you never answer my questions or ignore.

God warns YOU that you will reap what we sow.

Galatians 6:7
"Do not be deceived, *God is not mocked*; for whatever a man sows, this he will also reap."

My advice is to stop the mockery and continue reading the Bible with an open mind.

I can find video evidence of how God's Words are true.  However, you can't provide any evidence of apes becoming bipedal nor becoming ape-human.  We discussed which came first the chicken or the egg and you or some other non-believer said proto-chicken.  We have no video of a proto-chicken living today.  It just goes to show why intelligent people do not believe and question evolution today.


----------



## Syriusly

LittleNipper said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> A baby has two legs.
> 
> Do you need some basic human anatomy lessons?
> 
> 
> 
> So then you have to honestly say that many insects (while having 6 appendages) often use 2 of them in the very same way humans use their appendages --- and visa versa. What we may unquestionably accept as "correct" scientific titles are not necessarily profoundly accurate nor are they written in stone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So in other words- what was written in the Bible was not profoundly accurate- or written in stone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't say that flies have hands; however, they do use their front appendages in much the same way humans do. The Bible is without error (has never been proven wrong) .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just showed one of the many errors in the Bible. You true believers will always rationalize why something that literally is factually incorrect is of course not incorrect- like flies with 'arms' not legs. And babies with 4 legs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What gives you the right to label and designate what is "correct" and what isn't? I have demonstrated that scientists who insist that the Bible is wrong when it says that various insects have four legs are ignoring obvious considerations all for the sake of supposed "scientific" correctness. The Bible isn't wrong in this regard. It is a matter of semantics --- get over yourself. I believe the term appendage is rather simplistic and doesn't indicate use or application --- if you like the generic. But the reality would then be that flies have 6 appendages and humans have 4. The Bible didn't use the term appendage and I can plainly see how flies use their appendages in various ways very similar to humans. I really don't imagine scientist really care one way or another... They have bigger concerns.
Click to expand...


You are the one who insists that the Bible is infallible- not me. 

I just pointed out an obvious mistake in the Bible. 

Because you operate on unquestioning faith in the infallibility of the Bible- you have to rationalize how the obvious error in the Bible isn't really an error- that is just your faith in action.

Not science. Not fact. Not logic.


----------



## Syriusly

LittleNipper said:


> *John 8:12 English Standard Version (ESV)*
> *I Am the Light of the World*
> 12 Again Jesus spoke to them, saying, “I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.”
> 
> Revelation 21:23
> The city does not need the sun or the moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gives it light, and the Lamb is its lamp.



Pretty quote. 

My favorite quote from the New Testament because it is such a powerful philosophical message:

* Matthew 5:43-48 New International Version (NIV)*
*Love for Enemies*
43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbora]">[a] and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47 And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.


----------



## Syriusly

LittleNipper said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> More from the 'infallible' Bible
> 
> 
> Matthew 13:31 Another parable put he [Jesus] forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed, which a man took, and sowed in his field:
> 
> Matthew 13:32:1 Which indeed is the least of all seeds: but when it is grown, it is the greatest among herbs, and becometh a tree, so that the birds of the air come and lodge in the branches thereof.[4].
> 
> Except of course- the mustard is not the smallest of all seeds- and it doesn't grow into a tree.
> 
> Except for that of course.
Click to expand...

_Matthew 13:31 Another parable put he [Jesus] forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed, which a man took, and sowed in his field:

Matthew 13:32:1 Which indeed is the least of all seeds: but when it is grown, it is the greatest among herbs, and becometh a tree, so that the birds of the air come and lodge in the branches thereof.[4].
_
Salvadora persica - Wikipedia
_Salvadora persica is a small tree or shrub with a crooked trunk, seldom more than one foot in diameter. Its bark is scabrous and cracked, whitish with pendulous extremities. The root bark of the tree is similar to sand, and the inner surfaces are an even lighter shade of brown. It has a pleasant fragrance, of cress or mustard, as well as a warm and pungent taste. The leaves break with a fine crisp crackle when trodden on. The tree grows to a maximum height of three meters
_
Can you show me any photo's of a farmer sowing his fields with the seeds of the Mustard Tree?


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me all about these:
> _But all other winged creatures that have four legs you are to detest
> _
> What are the winged creatures that have four legs?
> Bats? 2 legs
> Birds? 2 legs
> Insects? 6 legs
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God is warning us not to eat bats.  It walks on fours.  You learn something new every day.  I didn't know how they walked.
> 
> 
> Are you and Fort Fun Indiana prepared to go to hell now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So Bats don't have 2 legs and 2 wings- you are saying that Bats have 4 legs?
> 
> Fascinating.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You said a bat had 2 legs, but you are wrong.  It's walking on fours, so the bat's wings are legs. .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does a bat have  2 wings and 2 legs or 4 legs?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah the dance the literalists must dance in order to rationalize how the Bible cannot be fallible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've already explained this.  The bat walks on fours, so it's one of the flying creatures with four legs.y.
Click to expand...


You have certainly offered an 'explanation' - which requires explaining how the bat has 4 legs- and no wings?

LOL


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me all about these:
> _But all other winged creatures that have four legs you are to detest
> _
> What are the winged creatures that have four legs?
> Bats? 2 legs
> Birds? 2 legs
> Insects? 6 legs
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God is warning us not to eat bats.  It walks on fours.  You learn something new every day.  I didn't know how they walked.
> 
> 
> Are you and Fort Fun Indiana prepared to go to hell now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So Bats don't have 2 legs and 2 wings- you are saying that Bats have 4 legs?
> 
> Fascinating.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You said a bat had 2 legs, but you are wrong.  It's walking on fours, so the bat's wings are legs. .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does a bat have  2 wings and 2 legs or 4 legs?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah the dance the literalists must dance in order to rationalize how the Bible cannot be fallible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> My advice is to stop the mockery and continue reading the Bible with an open mind.
> 
> I can find video evidence of how God's Words are true. .
Click to expand...


I mock you for your rationalizations- I really don't care what your personal beliefs are- only that you want to promote a fairy tale creation story as a substitute for science. 

I am sure you can find 'video's' that are 'evidence' of anything. Youtube is a great place for hoaxters. 
But if you want to provide real evidence- not video's- sure- go for it.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Syriusly said:


> But if you want to provide real evidence- not video's- sure- go for it.


And there you have it. He has not a shred of evidence, nor is anyone producing any. All of the evidence stands against his magical nonsense...which is precisely why the accepted scientific theories do the same.


----------



## james bond

We do not want to be bored to tears, so I'll claim victory for creation science and the believers that humans and apes are separate species and never the twain will they meet.  Even if they do, the hybrid cannot survive more than one generation.  We still have monkeys, apes and gorillas who walk on fours and humans who are bipedal creatures.  These are facts, but evos want to stick to their old racist ideas and myths.  Science backs up the Bible once again and the Bible and science shows us the way.


----------



## ChesBayJJ

james bond said:


> We do not want to be bored to tears, so I'll claim victory for creation science and the believers that humans and apes are separate species and never the twain will they meet.  Even if they do, the hybrid cannot survive more than one generation.  We still have monkeys, apes and gorillas who walk on fours and humans who are bipedal creatures.  These are facts, but evos want to stick to their old racist ideas and myths.  Science backs up the Bible once again and the Bible and science shows us the way.



_Among the living primates, humans are most closely related to the apes, which include the lesser apes (gibbons) and the great apes (chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans). These so-called hominoids — that is, the gibbons, great apes and humans — emerged and diversified during the Miocene epoch, approximately 23 million to 5 million years ago. (The last common ancestor that humans had with chimpanzees lived about 6 million to 7 million years ago.)_

Fossil Reveals What Last Common Ancestor of Humans and Apes Looked Liked

Science absolutely DOES NOT back up the Bible


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> We do not want to be bored to tears, so I'll claim victory for creation science.



i don't think any of us ever doubted you would claim victory despite the facts. 

'creation science' as in 'homeopathic carpentry'


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> These are facts, but evos want to stick to their old racist ideas and myths.  .



And by 'racist ideas' of course Jimmy means the incredibly 'racist' idea that all humans are descended from a common ancestor and that races are essentially irrelevant. 

As opposed to the Christian history of racism......


----------



## james bond

ChesBayJJ said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> We do not want to be bored to tears, so I'll claim victory for creation science and the believers that humans and apes are separate species and never the twain will they meet.  Even if they do, the hybrid cannot survive more than one generation.  We still have monkeys, apes and gorillas who walk on fours and humans who are bipedal creatures.  These are facts, but evos want to stick to their old racist ideas and myths.  Science backs up the Bible once again and the Bible and science shows us the way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Among the living primates, humans are most closely related to the apes, which include the lesser apes (gibbons) and the great apes (chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans). These so-called hominoids — that is, the gibbons, great apes and humans — emerged and diversified during the Miocene epoch, approximately 23 million to 5 million years ago. (The last common ancestor that humans had with chimpanzees lived about 6 million to 7 million years ago.)_
> 
> Fossil Reveals What Last Common Ancestor of Humans and Apes Looked Liked
> 
> Science absolutely DOES NOT back up the Bible
Click to expand...


Creation science thinks those fossils were apes, not ape humans nor any common ancestor.  Besides, today's apes would have evolved the same way and we would have ape humans.  However, we can't have ape humans beyond one generation.  Evos make up stuff in order to fit their theories.  They already committed fraud in regards to apes to humans with fossils, so they lost real science cred.  Thus, science backs up the Bible in that God created adult humans, creatures and plants.  If we saw evolution like what the evos say, then it would be different but all they got is fossils they made to fit their hypothesis.


----------



## miketx

ScienceRocks said:


> We're primates that developed from a common ancestor 5-7 million years ago that yes was an ape.
> 
> That is a fact....The evidence is very strong.


So why aren't apes still evolving into people?


----------



## ChesBayJJ

james bond said:


> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> We do not want to be bored to tears, so I'll claim victory for creation science and the believers that humans and apes are separate species and never the twain will they meet.  Even if they do, the hybrid cannot survive more than one generation.  We still have monkeys, apes and gorillas who walk on fours and humans who are bipedal creatures.  These are facts, but evos want to stick to their old racist ideas and myths.  Science backs up the Bible once again and the Bible and science shows us the way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Among the living primates, humans are most closely related to the apes, which include the lesser apes (gibbons) and the great apes (chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans). These so-called hominoids — that is, the gibbons, great apes and humans — emerged and diversified during the Miocene epoch, approximately 23 million to 5 million years ago. (The last common ancestor that humans had with chimpanzees lived about 6 million to 7 million years ago.)_
> 
> Fossil Reveals What Last Common Ancestor of Humans and Apes Looked Liked
> 
> Science absolutely DOES NOT back up the Bible
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Creation science thinks those fossils were apes, not ape humans nor any common ancestor.  Besides, today's apes would have evolved the same way and we would have ape humans.  However, we can't have ape humans beyond one generation.  Evos make up stuff in order to fit their theories.  They already committed fraud in regards to apes to humans with fossils, so they lost real science cred.  Thus, science backs up the Bible in that God created adult humans, creatures and plants.  If we saw evolution like what the evos say, then it would be different but all they got is fossils they made to fit their hypothesis.
Click to expand...


Total nonsense.

Here is some reality
The emergence of humans


----------



## james bond

ChesBayJJ said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> We do not want to be bored to tears, so I'll claim victory for creation science and the believers that humans and apes are separate species and never the twain will they meet.  Even if they do, the hybrid cannot survive more than one generation.  We still have monkeys, apes and gorillas who walk on fours and humans who are bipedal creatures.  These are facts, but evos want to stick to their old racist ideas and myths.  Science backs up the Bible once again and the Bible and science shows us the way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Among the living primates, humans are most closely related to the apes, which include the lesser apes (gibbons) and the great apes (chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans). These so-called hominoids — that is, the gibbons, great apes and humans — emerged and diversified during the Miocene epoch, approximately 23 million to 5 million years ago. (The last common ancestor that humans had with chimpanzees lived about 6 million to 7 million years ago.)_
> 
> Fossil Reveals What Last Common Ancestor of Humans and Apes Looked Liked
> 
> Science absolutely DOES NOT back up the Bible
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Creation science thinks those fossils were apes, not ape humans nor any common ancestor.  Besides, today's apes would have evolved the same way and we would have ape humans.  However, we can't have ape humans beyond one generation.  Evos make up stuff in order to fit their theories.  They already committed fraud in regards to apes to humans with fossils, so they lost real science cred.  Thus, science backs up the Bible in that God created adult humans, creatures and plants.  If we saw evolution like what the evos say, then it would be different but all they got is fossils they made to fit their hypothesis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Total nonsense.
> 
> Here is some reality
> The emergence of humans
Click to expand...


Ha ha.  It not reality, but theory.  That website is where I learned evolution and is from my alma mater.  Around 2011, I started to question some of its findings such as evolving from apes.  Then I learned what the Bible stated from 2012.  And I compared the two.  The Bible version and creation science came out on top.

If it's reality, then why are apes still walking on fours?  Please answer my question in your own words instead of links and others do the work for you.


----------



## james bond

Here's a list of evolution that we have seen.  The rest you can say is pseudoscience and BS.

8 Examples of Evolution in Action - Listverse


----------



## james bond

miketx said:


> ScienceRocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're primates that developed from a common ancestor 5-7 million years ago that yes was an ape.
> 
> That is a fact....The evidence is very strong.
> 
> 
> 
> So why aren't apes still evolving into people?
Click to expand...


Their theory doesn't work.  With a banana, we see that it has evolved through artificial selection.


----------



## ChesBayJJ

james bond said:


> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> We do not want to be bored to tears, so I'll claim victory for creation science and the believers that humans and apes are separate species and never the twain will they meet.  Even if they do, the hybrid cannot survive more than one generation.  We still have monkeys, apes and gorillas who walk on fours and humans who are bipedal creatures.  These are facts, but evos want to stick to their old racist ideas and myths.  Science backs up the Bible once again and the Bible and science shows us the way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Among the living primates, humans are most closely related to the apes, which include the lesser apes (gibbons) and the great apes (chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans). These so-called hominoids — that is, the gibbons, great apes and humans — emerged and diversified during the Miocene epoch, approximately 23 million to 5 million years ago. (The last common ancestor that humans had with chimpanzees lived about 6 million to 7 million years ago.)_
> 
> Fossil Reveals What Last Common Ancestor of Humans and Apes Looked Liked
> 
> Science absolutely DOES NOT back up the Bible
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Creation science thinks those fossils were apes, not ape humans nor any common ancestor.  Besides, today's apes would have evolved the same way and we would have ape humans.  However, we can't have ape humans beyond one generation.  Evos make up stuff in order to fit their theories.  They already committed fraud in regards to apes to humans with fossils, so they lost real science cred.  Thus, science backs up the Bible in that God created adult humans, creatures and plants.  If we saw evolution like what the evos say, then it would be different but all they got is fossils they made to fit their hypothesis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Total nonsense.
> 
> Here is some reality
> The emergence of humans
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ha ha.  It not reality, but theory.  That website is where I learned evolution and is from my alma mater.  Around 2011, I started to question some of its findings such as evolving from apes.  Then I learned what the Bible stated from 2012.  And I compared the two.  The Bible version and creation science came out on top.
> 
> If it's reality, then why are apes still walking on fours?  Please answer my question in your own words instead of links and others do the work for you.
Click to expand...



_If it's reality, then why are apes still walking on fours?  Please answer my question in your own words instead of links and others do the work for you_​
Because the apes (chimps, gorillas, orangs, etc) have followed a different evolutionary path. Chimps still knuckle walk because they have remained creatures of the jungle and spend a lot of time in trees. Same for orangs. We humans left the jungle as climate changes led to loss of forests and more areas of grasslands and savannah. Natural selection favored those that adapted to the changing conditions and we evolved. A more upright posture, freed hands, larger brains, homo sapiens.

And there are lots of links available that explain it much better than I can.


----------



## LittleNipper

ChesBayJJ said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> We do not want to be bored to tears, so I'll claim victory for creation science and the believers that humans and apes are separate species and never the twain will they meet.  Even if they do, the hybrid cannot survive more than one generation.  We still have monkeys, apes and gorillas who walk on fours and humans who are bipedal creatures.  These are facts, but evos want to stick to their old racist ideas and myths.  Science backs up the Bible once again and the Bible and science shows us the way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Among the living primates, humans are most closely related to the apes, which include the lesser apes (gibbons) and the great apes (chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans). These so-called hominoids — that is, the gibbons, great apes and humans — emerged and diversified during the Miocene epoch, approximately 23 million to 5 million years ago. (The last common ancestor that humans had with chimpanzees lived about 6 million to 7 million years ago.)_
> 
> Fossil Reveals What Last Common Ancestor of Humans and Apes Looked Liked
> 
> Science absolutely DOES NOT back up the Bible
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Creation science thinks those fossils were apes, not ape humans nor any common ancestor.  Besides, today's apes would have evolved the same way and we would have ape humans.  However, we can't have ape humans beyond one generation.  Evos make up stuff in order to fit their theories.  They already committed fraud in regards to apes to humans with fossils, so they lost real science cred.  Thus, science backs up the Bible in that God created adult humans, creatures and plants.  If we saw evolution like what the evos say, then it would be different but all they got is fossils they made to fit their hypothesis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Total nonsense.
> 
> Here is some reality
> The emergence of humans
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ha ha.  It not reality, but theory.  That website is where I learned evolution and is from my alma mater.  Around 2011, I started to question some of its findings such as evolving from apes.  Then I learned what the Bible stated from 2012.  And I compared the two.  The Bible version and creation science came out on top.
> 
> If it's reality, then why are apes still walking on fours?  Please answer my question in your own words instead of links and others do the work for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> _If it's reality, then why are apes still walking on fours?  Please answer my question in your own words instead of links and others do the work for you_​
> Because the apes (chimps, gorillas, orangs, etc) have followed a different evolutionary path. Chimps still knuckle walk because they have remained creatures of the jungle and spend a lot of time in trees. Same for orangs. We humans left the jungle as climate changes led to loss of forests and more areas of grasslands and savannah. Natural selection favored those that adapted to the changing conditions and we evolved. A more upright posture, freed hands, larger brains, homo sapiens.
> 
> And there are lots of links available that explain it much better than I can.
Click to expand...

Why on earth would an animal want to remain outdoors in all sorts of weather when it could build a house and move north.


----------



## ChesBayJJ

LittleNipper said:


> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> _Among the living primates, humans are most closely related to the apes, which include the lesser apes (gibbons) and the great apes (chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans). These so-called hominoids — that is, the gibbons, great apes and humans — emerged and diversified during the Miocene epoch, approximately 23 million to 5 million years ago. (The last common ancestor that humans had with chimpanzees lived about 6 million to 7 million years ago.)_
> 
> Fossil Reveals What Last Common Ancestor of Humans and Apes Looked Liked
> 
> Science absolutely DOES NOT back up the Bible
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Creation science thinks those fossils were apes, not ape humans nor any common ancestor.  Besides, today's apes would have evolved the same way and we would have ape humans.  However, we can't have ape humans beyond one generation.  Evos make up stuff in order to fit their theories.  They already committed fraud in regards to apes to humans with fossils, so they lost real science cred.  Thus, science backs up the Bible in that God created adult humans, creatures and plants.  If we saw evolution like what the evos say, then it would be different but all they got is fossils they made to fit their hypothesis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Total nonsense.
> 
> Here is some reality
> The emergence of humans
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ha ha.  It not reality, but theory.  That website is where I learned evolution and is from my alma mater.  Around 2011, I started to question some of its findings such as evolving from apes.  Then I learned what the Bible stated from 2012.  And I compared the two.  The Bible version and creation science came out on top.
> 
> If it's reality, then why are apes still walking on fours?  Please answer my question in your own words instead of links and others do the work for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> _If it's reality, then why are apes still walking on fours?  Please answer my question in your own words instead of links and others do the work for you_​
> Because the apes (chimps, gorillas, orangs, etc) have followed a different evolutionary path. Chimps still knuckle walk because they have remained creatures of the jungle and spend a lot of time in trees. Same for orangs. We humans left the jungle as climate changes led to loss of forests and more areas of grasslands and savannah. Natural selection favored those that adapted to the changing conditions and we evolved. A more upright posture, freed hands, larger brains, homo sapiens.
> 
> And there are lots of links available that explain it much better than I can.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why on earth would an animal want to remain outdoors in all sorts of weather when it could build a house and move north.
Click to expand...


Maybe it has something to do with the availability of free fruit?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

miketx said:


> So why aren't apes still evolving into people?


Why would apes be evolving into people?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> Here's a list of evolution that we have seen.  The rest you can say is pseudoscience and BS.
> 
> 8 Examples of Evolution in Action - Listverse


Let it be known that the young earth goober gets his science knowledge form listverse.


----------



## miketx

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> So why aren't apes still evolving into people?
> 
> 
> 
> Why would apes be evolving into people?
Click to expand...

Where else would filthy liberals come from?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

miketx said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> So why aren't apes still evolving into people?
> 
> 
> 
> Why would apes be evolving into people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where else would filthy liberals come from?
Click to expand...

All humans are apes. See, if you had paid attention in 6th grade, you would have known that. How embarrassing.


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> We do not want to be bored to tears, so I'll claim victory for creation science and the believers that humans and apes are separate species and never the twain will they meet.  Even if they do, the hybrid cannot survive more than one generation.  We still have monkeys, apes and gorillas who walk on fours and humans who are bipedal creatures.  These are facts, but evos want to stick to their old racist ideas and myths.  Science backs up the Bible once again and the Bible and science shows us the way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Among the living primates, humans are most closely related to the apes, which include the lesser apes (gibbons) and the great apes (chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans). These so-called hominoids — that is, the gibbons, great apes and humans — emerged and diversified during the Miocene epoch, approximately 23 million to 5 million years ago. (The last common ancestor that humans had with chimpanzees lived about 6 million to 7 million years ago.)_
> 
> Fossil Reveals What Last Common Ancestor of Humans and Apes Looked Liked
> 
> Science absolutely DOES NOT back up the Bible
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thus, science backs up the Bible in that God created adult humans, creatures and plants. .
Click to expand...


Except of course- that no science backs up the Bible in regards to the creation of earth, the creation of life, the creation of man, plants or animals.


Except for that.

Tell us more about what 'Creation Science says'

LOL


----------



## Syriusly

miketx said:


> ScienceRocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're primates that developed from a common ancestor 5-7 million years ago that yes was an ape.
> 
> That is a fact....The evidence is very strong.
> 
> 
> 
> So why aren't apes still evolving into people?
Click to expand...


Everything is still evolving.


----------



## abu afak

posting problem - delete



`


----------



## abu afak

Ima Cat said:


> *Not a fact, it is a theory, big difference. And if we descended from an ape, why are there still apes?*


Wrong.

*15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense*
Scientific American - June 2002
John Rennie - Editor in Chief
15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
[......]
*1. 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.....

[......]
*6. If humans descended from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?*

This surprisingly common argument reflects Several Levels of Ignorance about evolution. The first mistake is that evolution does Not teach that humans descended from monkeys; it states that both have a common ancestor.

The deeper error is that this objection is tantamount to asking, _“If children descended from adults, why are there still adults?”_ New species evolve by splintering off from established ones, when populations of organisms become isolated from the main branch of their family and acquire sufficient differences to remain forever distinct. The parent species may survive indefinitely thereafter, or it may become extinct.
[......]
​


----------



## james bond

ChesBayJJ said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> We do not want to be bored to tears, so I'll claim victory for creation science and the believers that humans and apes are separate species and never the twain will they meet.  Even if they do, the hybrid cannot survive more than one generation.  We still have monkeys, apes and gorillas who walk on fours and humans who are bipedal creatures.  These are facts, but evos want to stick to their old racist ideas and myths.  Science backs up the Bible once again and the Bible and science shows us the way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Among the living primates, humans are most closely related to the apes, which include the lesser apes (gibbons) and the great apes (chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans). These so-called hominoids — that is, the gibbons, great apes and humans — emerged and diversified during the Miocene epoch, approximately 23 million to 5 million years ago. (The last common ancestor that humans had with chimpanzees lived about 6 million to 7 million years ago.)_
> 
> Fossil Reveals What Last Common Ancestor of Humans and Apes Looked Liked
> 
> Science absolutely DOES NOT back up the Bible
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Creation science thinks those fossils were apes, not ape humans nor any common ancestor.  Besides, today's apes would have evolved the same way and we would have ape humans.  However, we can't have ape humans beyond one generation.  Evos make up stuff in order to fit their theories.  They already committed fraud in regards to apes to humans with fossils, so they lost real science cred.  Thus, science backs up the Bible in that God created adult humans, creatures and plants.  If we saw evolution like what the evos say, then it would be different but all they got is fossils they made to fit their hypothesis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Total nonsense.
> 
> Here is some reality
> The emergence of humans
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ha ha.  It not reality, but theory.  That website is where I learned evolution and is from my alma mater.  Around 2011, I started to question some of its findings such as evolving from apes.  Then I learned what the Bible stated from 2012.  And I compared the two.  The Bible version and creation science came out on top.
> 
> If it's reality, then why are apes still walking on fours?  Please answer my question in your own words instead of links and others do the work for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> _If it's reality, then why are apes still walking on fours?  Please answer my question in your own words instead of links and others do the work for you_​
> Because the apes (chimps, gorillas, orangs, etc) have followed a different evolutionary path. Chimps still knuckle walk because they have remained creatures of the jungle and spend a lot of time in trees. Same for orangs. We humans left the jungle as climate changes led to loss of forests and more areas of grasslands and savannah. Natural selection favored those that adapted to the changing conditions and we evolved. A more upright posture, freed hands, larger brains, homo sapiens.
> 
> And there are lots of links available that explain it much better than I can.
Click to expand...


Thank you for your answer.  I rather read someone's own answer as it states why they believe it and shows whether someone can explain something they've read in a cogent manner.  My reply would be I do not see how the apes followed a different evo path.  In fact, the evo scientists say that apes became upright due to female apes more willing to mate with food providers and that was why they became more erect.  It is easier to gather and carry foods by walking upright.  The grasslands and savannah hypothesis has been replaced due to criticism from creation scientists and others.

Becoming Human: The Evolution of Walking Upright      |     Science | Smithsonian 

I watch nature documentaries and see the monkeys, chimps and apes are still the same from 25-years ago, and have not read any articles that say they are different.  Why wouldn't they walk upright if it makes carrying food easier and mating is important?  Moreover, we have learned that evolution happens rapidly, not over long periods of time.  We have seen species change their physiology due to urban development.  I think a good comparison to what you believe happened to apes in the past is the horse and the donkey mating to produce a mule.  The mule cannot reproduce, but can only exist through hybridization.  Same with ape humans, but our social mores forbid the existence of ape-humans.  In other words, we need more than fossil evidence to show how ape humans could exist.


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> We do not want to be bored to tears, so I'll claim victory for creation science and the believers that humans and apes are separate species and never the twain will they meet.  Even if they do, the hybrid cannot survive more than one generation.  We still have monkeys, apes and gorillas who walk on fours and humans who are bipedal creatures.  These are facts, but evos want to stick to their old racist ideas and myths.  Science backs up the Bible once again and the Bible and science shows us the way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Among the living primates, humans are most closely related to the apes, which include the lesser apes (gibbons) and the great apes (chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans). These so-called hominoids — that is, the gibbons, great apes and humans — emerged and diversified during the Miocene epoch, approximately 23 million to 5 million years ago. (The last common ancestor that humans had with chimpanzees lived about 6 million to 7 million years ago.)_
> 
> Fossil Reveals What Last Common Ancestor of Humans and Apes Looked Liked
> 
> Science absolutely DOES NOT back up the Bible
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Creation science thinks those fossils were apes, not ape humans nor any common ancestor.  Besides, today's apes would have evolved the same way and we would have ape humans.  However, we can't have ape humans beyond one generation.  Evos make up stuff in order to fit their theories.  They already committed fraud in regards to apes to humans with fossils, so they lost real science cred.  Thus, science backs up the Bible in that God created adult humans, creatures and plants.  If we saw evolution like what the evos say, then it would be different but all they got is fossils they made to fit their hypothesis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Total nonsense.
> 
> Here is some reality
> The emergence of humans
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If it's reality, then why are apes still walking on fours?  Please answer my question in your own words instead of links and others do the work for you.
Click to expand...


Why shouldn't apes still walk on all fours? The fallacy is in your question.


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> Here's a list of evolution that we have seen.  The rest you can say is pseudoscience and BS.
> 
> 8 Examples of Evolution in Action - Listverse



No that is a list an anonymous person put on the internet. Whoever the author is never says that they are the only examples we have seen. 

But certainly they are examples of evolution in action. Which demonstrates that the mechanism of evolution is an observable fact.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Syriusly said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> We do not want to be bored to tears, so I'll claim victory for creation science and the believers that humans and apes are separate species and never the twain will they meet.  Even if they do, the hybrid cannot survive more than one generation.  We still have monkeys, apes and gorillas who walk on fours and humans who are bipedal creatures.  These are facts, but evos want to stick to their old racist ideas and myths.  Science backs up the Bible once again and the Bible and science shows us the way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Among the living primates, humans are most closely related to the apes, which include the lesser apes (gibbons) and the great apes (chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans). These so-called hominoids — that is, the gibbons, great apes and humans — emerged and diversified during the Miocene epoch, approximately 23 million to 5 million years ago. (The last common ancestor that humans had with chimpanzees lived about 6 million to 7 million years ago.)_
> 
> Fossil Reveals What Last Common Ancestor of Humans and Apes Looked Liked
> 
> Science absolutely DOES NOT back up the Bible
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Creation science thinks those fossils were apes, not ape humans nor any common ancestor.  Besides, today's apes would have evolved the same way and we would have ape humans.  However, we can't have ape humans beyond one generation.  Evos make up stuff in order to fit their theories.  They already committed fraud in regards to apes to humans with fossils, so they lost real science cred.  Thus, science backs up the Bible in that God created adult humans, creatures and plants.  If we saw evolution like what the evos say, then it would be different but all they got is fossils they made to fit their hypothesis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Total nonsense.
> 
> Here is some reality
> The emergence of humans
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If it's reality, then why are apes still walking on fours?  Please answer my question in your own words instead of links and others do the work for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why shouldn't apes still walk on all fours? The fallacy is in your question.
Click to expand...

And, in reality, our backs and pelvises are still not very well suited to walking upright.


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ScienceRocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're primates that developed from a common ancestor 5-7 million years ago that yes was an ape.
> 
> That is a fact....The evidence is very strong.
> 
> 
> 
> So why aren't apes still evolving into people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Their theory doesn't work.  With a banana, we see that it has evolved through artificial selection.
Click to expand...

So bananas were developed by man from the wild species into the domestic varieties....like so many other cultivated plants.


----------



## james bond

abu afak said:


> Ima Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Not a fact, it is a theory, big difference. And if we descended from an ape, why are there still apes?*
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> *15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense*
> Scientific American - June 2002
> John Rennie - Editor in Chief
> 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
> [......]
> *1. 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.....
> 
> [......]
> *6. If humans descended from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?*
> 
> This surprisingly common argument reflects Several Levels of Ignorance about evolution. The first mistake is that evolution does Not teach that humans descended from monkeys; it states that both have a common ancestor.
> 
> The deeper error is that this objection is tantamount to asking, _“If children descended from adults, why are there still adults?”_ New species evolve by splintering off from established ones, when populations of organisms become isolated from the main branch of their family and acquire sufficient differences to remain forever distinct. The parent species may survive indefinitely thereafter, or it may become extinct.
> [......]
> ​
Click to expand...


Stupid.  I can train a monkey to copy and paste on a computer but can't train one to read and then explain what they've read in order to present an argument.  How can they have evolved into humans?


----------



## Syriusly

LittleNipper said:


> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> _Among the living primates, humans are most closely related to the apes, which include the lesser apes (gibbons) and the great apes (chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans). These so-called hominoids — that is, the gibbons, great apes and humans — emerged and diversified during the Miocene epoch, approximately 23 million to 5 million years ago. (The last common ancestor that humans had with chimpanzees lived about 6 million to 7 million years ago.)_
> 
> Fossil Reveals What Last Common Ancestor of Humans and Apes Looked Liked
> 
> Science absolutely DOES NOT back up the Bible
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Creation science thinks those fossils were apes, not ape humans nor any common ancestor.  Besides, today's apes would have evolved the same way and we would have ape humans.  However, we can't have ape humans beyond one generation.  Evos make up stuff in order to fit their theories.  They already committed fraud in regards to apes to humans with fossils, so they lost real science cred.  Thus, science backs up the Bible in that God created adult humans, creatures and plants.  If we saw evolution like what the evos say, then it would be different but all they got is fossils they made to fit their hypothesis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Total nonsense.
> 
> Here is some reality
> The emergence of humans
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ha ha.  It not reality, but theory.  That website is where I learned evolution and is from my alma mater.  Around 2011, I started to question some of its findings such as evolving from apes.  Then I learned what the Bible stated from 2012.  And I compared the two.  The Bible version and creation science came out on top.
> 
> If it's reality, then why are apes still walking on fours?  Please answer my question in your own words instead of links and others do the work for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> _If it's reality, then why are apes still walking on fours?  Please answer my question in your own words instead of links and others do the work for you_​
> Because the apes (chimps, gorillas, orangs, etc) have followed a different evolutionary path. Chimps still knuckle walk because they have remained creatures of the jungle and spend a lot of time in trees. Same for orangs. We humans left the jungle as climate changes led to loss of forests and more areas of grasslands and savannah. Natural selection favored those that adapted to the changing conditions and we evolved. A more upright posture, freed hands, larger brains, homo sapiens.
> 
> And there are lots of links available that explain it much better than I can.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why on earth would an animal want to remain outdoors in all sorts of weather when it could build a house and move north.
Click to expand...


Exactly- why don't Moose build lodges like beavers do?


----------



## miketx

james bond said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ima Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Not a fact, it is a theory, big difference. And if we descended from an ape, why are there still apes?*
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> *15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense*
> Scientific American - June 2002
> John Rennie - Editor in Chief
> 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
> [......]
> *1. 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.....
> 
> [......]
> *6. If humans descended from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?*
> 
> This surprisingly common argument reflects Several Levels of Ignorance about evolution. The first mistake is that evolution does Not teach that humans descended from monkeys; it states that both have a common ancestor.
> 
> The deeper error is that this objection is tantamount to asking, _“If children descended from adults, why are there still adults?”_ New species evolve by splintering off from established ones, when populations of organisms become isolated from the main branch of their family and acquire sufficient differences to remain forever distinct. The parent species may survive indefinitely thereafter, or it may become extinct.
> [......]
> ​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stupid.  I can train a monkey to copy and paste on a computer but can't train one to read and then explain what they've read in order to present an argument.  How can they have evolved into humans?
Click to expand...

They evolved into shit sling libwits.


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> _Among the living primates, humans are most closely related to the apes, which include the lesser apes (gibbons) and the great apes (chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans). These so-called hominoids — that is, the gibbons, great apes and humans — emerged and diversified during the Miocene epoch, approximately 23 million to 5 million years ago. (The last common ancestor that humans had with chimpanzees lived about 6 million to 7 million years ago.)_
> 
> Fossil Reveals What Last Common Ancestor of Humans and Apes Looked Liked
> 
> Science absolutely DOES NOT back up the Bible
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Creation science thinks those fossils were apes, not ape humans nor any common ancestor.  Besides, today's apes would have evolved the same way and we would have ape humans.  However, we can't have ape humans beyond one generation.  Evos make up stuff in order to fit their theories.  They already committed fraud in regards to apes to humans with fossils, so they lost real science cred.  Thus, science backs up the Bible in that God created adult humans, creatures and plants.  If we saw evolution like what the evos say, then it would be different but all they got is fossils they made to fit their hypothesis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Total nonsense.
> 
> Here is some reality
> The emergence of humans
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ha ha.  It not reality, but theory.  That website is where I learned evolution and is from my alma mater.  Around 2011, I started to question some of its findings such as evolving from apes.  Then I learned what the Bible stated from 2012.  And I compared the two.  The Bible version and creation science came out on top.
> 
> If it's reality, then why are apes still walking on fours?  Please answer my question in your own words instead of links and others do the work for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> _If it's reality, then why are apes still walking on fours?  Please answer my question in your own words instead of links and others do the work for you_​
> Because the apes (chimps, gorillas, orangs, etc) have followed a different evolutionary path. Chimps still knuckle walk because they have remained creatures of the jungle and spend a lot of time in trees. Same for orangs. We humans left the jungle as climate changes led to loss of forests and more areas of grasslands and savannah. Natural selection favored those that adapted to the changing conditions and we evolved. A more upright posture, freed hands, larger brains, homo sapiens.
> 
> And there are lots of links available that explain it much better than I can.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you for your answer.  I rather read someone's own answer as it states why they believe it and shows whether someone can explain something they've read in a cogent manner.  My reply would be I do not see how the apes followed a different evo path.  In fact, the evo scientists say that apes became upright due to female apes more willing to mate with food providers and that was why they became more erect.  It is easier to gather and carry foods by walking upright.  The grasslands and savannah hypothesis has been replaced due to criticism from creation scientists and others.
> 
> Becoming Human: The Evolution of Walking Upright      |     Science | Smithsonian
> 
> I watch nature documentaries and see the monkeys, chimps and apes are still the same from 25-years ago, and have not read any articles that say they are different.  Why wouldn't they walk upright if it makes carrying food easier and mating is important?  Moreover, we have learned that evolution happens rapidly, not over long periods of time.  We have seen species change their physiology due to urban development.  I think a good comparison to what you believe happened to apes in the past is the horse and the donkey mating to produce a mule.  The mule cannot reproduce, but can only exist through hybridization.  Same with ape humans, but our social mores forbid the existence of ape-humans.  In other words, we need more than fossil evidence to show how ape humans could exist.
Click to expand...


Hmmmm I am pretty sure humans are still walking around like we did 25 years ago too. 

Why would walking upright result in chimpanzees, for example, successfully having more surviving chimpanzees? 

Fascinating fantasy you have about human ape sex but that is only your fantasy. It isn't even in your big book of tales. 

We do have evidence that homo sapiens did successfully cross with two other homo species- DNA evidence that they did.

And your 'ape-humans'? I don't know what you are talking about other than your weird fantasy. Humans are descended from a distant common ancestor with other apes. 

And mules only happen because of human intervention.


----------



## Syriusly

miketx said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ima Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Not a fact, it is a theory, big difference. And if we descended from an ape, why are there still apes?*
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> *15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense*
> Scientific American - June 2002
> John Rennie - Editor in Chief
> 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
> [......]
> *1. 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.....
> 
> [......]
> *6. If humans descended from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?*
> 
> This surprisingly common argument reflects Several Levels of Ignorance about evolution. The first mistake is that evolution does Not teach that humans descended from monkeys; it states that both have a common ancestor.
> 
> The deeper error is that this objection is tantamount to asking, _“If children descended from adults, why are there still adults?”_ New species evolve by splintering off from established ones, when populations of organisms become isolated from the main branch of their family and acquire sufficient differences to remain forever distinct. The parent species may survive indefinitely thereafter, or it may become extinct.
> [......]
> ​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stupid.  I can train a monkey to copy and paste on a computer but can't train one to read and then explain what they've read in order to present an argument.  How can they have evolved into humans?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They evolved into shit sling libwits.
Click to expand...

Ah poor Mikey- he can't understand what evolution is- so he just  throws shit like a monkey in the zoo.


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> _Among the living primates, humans are most closely related to the apes, which include the lesser apes (gibbons) and the great apes (chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans). These so-called hominoids — that is, the gibbons, great apes and humans — emerged and diversified during the Miocene epoch, approximately 23 million to 5 million years ago. (The last common ancestor that humans had with chimpanzees lived about 6 million to 7 million years ago.)_
> 
> Fossil Reveals What Last Common Ancestor of Humans and Apes Looked Liked
> 
> Science absolutely DOES NOT back up the Bible
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Creation science thinks those fossils were apes, not ape humans nor any common ancestor.  Besides, today's apes would have evolved the same way and we would have ape humans.  However, we can't have ape humans beyond one generation.  Evos make up stuff in order to fit their theories.  They already committed fraud in regards to apes to humans with fossils, so they lost real science cred.  Thus, science backs up the Bible in that God created adult humans, creatures and plants.  If we saw evolution like what the evos say, then it would be different but all they got is fossils they made to fit their hypothesis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Total nonsense.
> 
> Here is some reality
> The emergence of humans
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ha ha.  It not reality, but theory.  That website is where I learned evolution and is from my alma mater.  Around 2011, I started to question some of its findings such as evolving from apes.  Then I learned what the Bible stated from 2012.  And I compared the two.  The Bible version and creation science came out on top.
> 
> If it's reality, then why are apes still walking on fours?  Please answer my question in your own words instead of links and others do the work for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> _If it's reality, then why are apes still walking on fours?  Please answer my question in your own words instead of links and others do the work for you_​
> Because the apes (chimps, gorillas, orangs, etc) have followed a different evolutionary path. Chimps still knuckle walk because they have remained creatures of the jungle and spend a lot of time in trees. Same for orangs. We humans left the jungle as climate changes led to loss of forests and more areas of grasslands and savannah. Natural selection favored those that adapted to the changing conditions and we evolved. A more upright posture, freed hands, larger brains, homo sapiens.
> 
> And there are lots of links available that explain it much better than I can.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .  The grasslands and savannah hypothesis has been replaced due to criticism from creation scientists and others..
Click to expand...


LOL 'creation scientists'

That is like saying that parts of the Big Bang Theory have been replaced due to criticism from chiropractors.


----------



## LittleNipper

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> So why aren't apes still evolving into people?
> 
> 
> 
> Why would apes be evolving into people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where else would filthy liberals come from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All humans are apes. See, if you had paid attention in 6th grade, you would have known that. How embarrassing.
Click to expand...

They didn't teach that to me when I was in Public school. Apes were animals and Humans were human -- though they did say that we were a form of mammal.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

LittleNipper said:


> They didn't teach that to me when I was in Public school


Of course they did. You just didn't pay attention.


----------



## LittleNipper

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> They didn't teach that to me when I was in Public school
> 
> 
> 
> Of course they did. You just didn't pay attention.
Click to expand...

I'm a lot older than you.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

LittleNipper said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> They didn't teach that to me when I was in Public school
> 
> 
> 
> Of course they did. You just didn't pay attention.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm a lot older than you.
Click to expand...

Oh, okay, that makes more sense.


----------



## abu afak

james bond said:


> Stupid.  I can train a monkey to copy and paste on a computer but can't train one to read and then explain what they've read in order to present an argument.  How can they have evolved into humans?


I completely understand what I posted, and highlighted, in various ways, the crucial parts.

*What we have here is you being your usual Disingenuous, to AVOID answering those simple passages.
Any answer? 
No.*

Let me elaborate on those points.
Science doesn't deal in "Proofs". Only math has Proofs.
Science deals in Theories, that is, NOT the same definition as the casual use of the word.
This ("only a theory") is the number One fallacy of Ignorant Creationists.
That is why an authoritative Citation was needed.
Theories, affirmed over time, are Facts. (see my last)
Any Answer?
NO.

Many other theories are also accepted FACT but not "Proven." (false burden).
Evolution was proposed 160 years ago and every new science in that technically explosive period has either been consistent with it, or outright helped confirm it. Isotopic dating, DNA Regression analysis, etc. And of course, Tens/Hundreds of thousands more fossils. Any of which if found in the wrong place could have busted it.
Any Answer?
NO.

Let me further say, and as well as you dodging the points in my last by dismissing them as copied, I will further pin you to the wall, and this will be over in no more than two more posts because I do fully understand evolution and more importantly... your semantic and disingenous/fallacious responses.

In fact, it's already over because couldn't answer what I "copied" and then explained.
You already HAD to Dodge some basic concepts that Bust your Disingenuous God-saving beliefs by dismissing them as "copied".

Now you are going to dodge my elaborations, or grenade the discussion with ie, faux indignance, because you have no answers.
I've seen hundreds of you, so I make quick work of the nonsense.
Debate is/Was not an option for you.
``


----------



## abu afak

james bond said:


> Thank you for your answer.  I rather read someone's own answer as it states why they believe it and shows whether someone can explain something they've read in a cogent manner.  My reply would be *I do not see how the apes followed a different evo path.*


So
1. You reject valid authority and try to make this an opinion contest.
2. Argument from Ignorance.
Just because you cannot or will not understand something is not valid deduction.




			
				james bond said:
			
		

> *I watch nature documentaries and see the monkeys, chimps and apes are still the same from 25-years ago, and have not read any articles that say they are different.*


No one claims monkeys, chimps and apes change in 25 years!!
Ridiculous/Preposterous argumentation.
(your personal TV observation ! ! !  is also the fallacious 'Argument by Anecdote', rather than major known facts!)

But they have changed and still are, as are ALL creatures constantly.
ie
Chimps have Two separate Species, each with 2 subspecies/races. (4)
Gorillas also have Two separate non-interbreeding Species, which include 6 or 7 subspecies/Races.
*So they ALREADY and demonstrably changed and diverged over time.*
That's how speciation starts and progresses in ALL life.

All your posts contain GIANT premise errors and/or gaping Ignorance, and/or disingenuity.

Con't for one last point.
`


----------



## abu afak

james bond said:
			
		

> *In other words, we need more than fossil evidence to show how ape humans could exist.*


How so?
It's just an assertion of yours withOut basis.
We already have that Evidence.
We already have many finds and degrees of 'Ape-Men'
The latest, of course, has features of Both.
ie

Remains of Humanlike Ancestors Found in South Africa
_Discovery of bones of previously unknown species deep in a cave raises questions about origins of ritual burial, self-awareness_
Remains of Humanlike Ancestors Found in South Africa - WSJ
By Robert Lee Hotz
Sept. 10, 2015
Slideshow and Video

...In life, these creatures were long-legged, lightweight and lithe, standing a little over five feet tall, the scientists concluded. They had surprisingly *modern hands and feet, yet a primitive flattened pelvis and a tiny brain barely one third that of a modern human*. All in all, they seemed designed for striding with a modern gait and, possessing unusually long curved fingers, perhaps adapted for rock climbing as well, the scientists said.

“We had a combination of features that we had never seen in a single species before,” said Caroline VanSickle, a biological anthropologist at the University of Wisconsin who helped analyze the bones. “It is just so weird.”

Most likely, the bones don’t belong to a direct human ancestor, but represent one of Nature’s early Experiments in the human form, experts said.

Several disputed the claim that the fossils belong to a new species. Jeffrey Schwartz, a paleo-anatomist at the University of Pittsburgh, said *the remains are probably a mix of early human varieties, including a primitive species called Homo erectus* that has been known for more than a century.

“A new species name is not adequately warranted for the Rising Star fossils,” said Tim D. White, an anthropologist at the University of California, Berkeley.
[.....]​

Also a reminder human (and other) evolution was anything but 'immaculate' creation, but trial and error/mish-mash, survival of the fittest.
So what was this with some modern human features and some Ape features which succesfully BRED, NOT a 'donkey.'


NALEDI FOSSILS | News
This Face Changes the Human Story. But How?
Scientists have discovered a new species of human ancestor deep in a South African cave, adding a baffling new branch to the family tree.
By Jamie Shreeve, National Geographic
Photographs by Robert Clark
SEPTEMBER 10, 2015






_While primitive in some respects, the face, skull, and teeth show enough modern features to justify H. naledi's placement in the genus Homo...._

A trove of bones hidden deep within a South African cave represents a new species of human ancestor, scientists announced Thursday in the journal eLife. *Homo naledi, as they call it, appears very primitive in some respects—it had a tiny brain, for instance, and Apelike shoulders for climbing. But in other ways it looks remarkably like modern humans.* When did it live? Where does it fit in the human family tree? And how did its bones get into the deepest hidden chamber of the cave—could such a primitive creature have been disposing of its dead intentionally?

This is the story of one of the greatest fossil discoveries of the past half century, and of what it might mean for our understanding of human evolution.
[........]​
Who Dat?

abu afak/mbig
`


----------



## LittleNipper

*Are We Ape-men or Were We Created in God’s Image?
By Bob Knopf*







If we ask ourselves the question: “Who Am I?” An Evolutionist must answer that they are a mutation, a happenstance, a mistake, a random descendant from primordial slime, who’s great, great granddaddy was an ape. (Can you really believe someone who claims that this is there heritage?)



However, a Bible-Believing person should answer that they are a specially created child of the Almighty God, created in God’s image, for God’s special purpose. Just imagine the impact these two different viewpoints would have on a person’s life.


*
The Bottom Line:* Ape-Men Never Existed. All archeological and fossil finds claiming to link man to apes are either 100% ape or 100% man.  There is no evidence to the contrary. There is no evidence to support that humankind evolved from apes. The ape-men names we’ve all heard about have been shown scientifically to be either pure man or pure ape.



If I said to an Evolutionist, _“The only people who may have descended from an ape, are people stupid enough to believe in Evolution.”_ – Would they get upset with me? You bet. Because deep down, we all know we didn’t descend from an ape. Our inner “truth detectors” tell us that we are something special.


Here’s just a few of the attempts to try to show that mankind evolved from apes. These have been featured in science books over the last decades, but they are not based on science, but on man’s attempt to prove a faulty theory: the theory of Evolution.


*
Nebraska Man* – Artwork of “Nebraska Man” shows Mr. and Mrs. Nebraska Man, smaller than us today with stooped shoulders, a muscular build, and with hair all over the body. Their features are illustrated as half ape/half man. They are often shown carrying a club. Their drawings, museum displays and life story was obtained from the finding of one tooth. The tooth has now been determined to be a pig’s tooth. Nebraska Man was a pig.


*
Piltdown Man* – Piltdown Man was declared the missing link even before he was studied. Then, some 30 yrs later he was found to be an outright fraud. A human skull was sanded and an ape jaw bone was fitted to it; both were treated with acid to make them look old, and then  they were “rediscovered.” Piltdown Man was a hoax.


*
“Stone Age” Neandertal Man* – The first “Neandertal Man” was found in a cave in Neander Valley, Germany in 1856. He had a curved spine. Now 300 + have been found and most of the backs are straight. The original specimen had arthritis and a vitamin D deficiency. Neandertal Man is now classified as Homo sapiens (that’s us), not as a “missing link.” Also, in archeological digs, we have now found aerodynamic spears, jewelry, and sophisticated ornaments used by Neandertal Man. They had a religion, and buried their dead with flowers. We have found stone axe blades made of carborundum, the second hardest mineral on earth. The blades had been polished by diamonds, the hardest mineral on earth. If we gave Neandertal Man a haircut and clothes, we couldn't tell them apart from ourselves. Unlike the "cavemen" guys we see on the TV commercials, they'd look exactly like us.


*
Astralopithecus (Lucy)* – This is the most recent and the most complete ancient “human” skeleton ever found. However, the skeleton is missing most of the skull, shoulders, hands, feet, and knees, which are the key identifiers that separate man compared from ape. The pelvic bone is another good indicator, but Lucy has an ape pelvic bone. After further study, Lucy has now been shown to be a true ape, an extinct type of orangutan, however, our young people today are erroneously being taught that Lucy is proof of man’s evolution from an ape.

*
Australian Aborigines* – For years Australian Aborigines were thought to be living missing links that show our ape ancestry. Thousands of Aborigines were killed for scientific study before scientists realized they were human. It was their more blockish features and primitive culture that made evolutionists believe they may be the missing link. It was also belief in a grossly misguided theory: the theory of evolution.


To date, not one fossil link showing that man descended from apes have been found. They won’t be found because each of us were created by the same Almighty God. Regardless of our color or other features, we were all created in the image of an Almighty God.


*Why is this important?* Because we need to understand that the Bible is the Holy Word of God. It's perfect and true throughout its entire content. This is important because it tells us about *God's Special Promise to Each of Us, *and how we can spend eternity with God in heaven.


----------



## james bond

Syriusly said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's a list of evolution that we have seen.  The rest you can say is pseudoscience and BS.
> 
> 8 Examples of Evolution in Action - Listverse
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No that is a list an anonymous person put on the internet. Whoever the author is never says that they are the only examples we have seen.
> 
> But certainly they are examples of evolution in action. Which demonstrates that the mechanism of evolution is an observable fact.
Click to expand...


It's examples that YOU couldn't provide.  It shows how weak your arguments and beliefs are because you have no examples of macroevolution nor ape humans.. The observable fact is you believe in fairy tales and science myths.  The fossil evidence is science myths.  All of these show natural selection which creation science came up with.

It's why I already claimed victory in this thread for creation scientists.


----------



## james bond

abu afak said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *In other words, we need more than fossil evidence to show how ape humans could exist.*
> 
> 
> 
> How so?
> It's just an assertion of yours withOut basis.
> We already have that Evidence.
> We already have many finds and degrees of 'Ape-Men'
> The latest, of course, has features of Both.
> ie
> 
> Remains of Humanlike Ancestors Found in South Africa
> _Discovery of bones of previously unknown species deep in a cave raises questions about origins of ritual burial, self-awareness_
> Remains of Humanlike Ancestors Found in South Africa - WSJ
> By Robert Lee Hotz
> Sept. 10, 2015
> Slideshow and Video
> 
> ...In life, these creatures were long-legged, lightweight and lithe, standing a little over five feet tall, the scientists concluded. They had surprisingly *modern hands and feet, yet a primitive flattened pelvis and a tiny brain barely one third that of a modern human*. All in all, they seemed designed for striding with a modern gait and, possessing unusually long curved fingers, perhaps adapted for rock climbing as well, the scientists said.
> 
> “We had a combination of features that we had never seen in a single species before,” said Caroline VanSickle, a biological anthropologist at the University of Wisconsin who helped analyze the bones. “It is just so weird.”
> 
> Most likely, the bones don’t belong to a direct human ancestor, but represent one of Nature’s early Experiments in the human form, experts said.
> 
> Several disputed the claim that the fossils belong to a new species. Jeffrey Schwartz, a paleo-anatomist at the University of Pittsburgh, said *the remains are probably a mix of early human varieties, including a primitive species called Homo erectus* that has been known for more than a century.
> 
> “A new species name is not adequately warranted for the Rising Star fossils,” said Tim D. White, an anthropologist at the University of California, Berkeley.
> [.....]​
> 
> Also a reminder human (and other) evolution was anything but 'immaculate' creation, but trial and error/mish-mash, survival of the fittest.
> So what was this with some modern human features and some Ape features which succesfully BRED, NOT a 'donkey.'
> 
> 
> NALEDI FOSSILS | News
> This Face Changes the Human Story. But How?
> Scientists have discovered a new species of human ancestor deep in a South African cave, adding a baffling new branch to the family tree.
> By Jamie Shreeve, National Geographic
> Photographs by Robert Clark
> SEPTEMBER 10, 2015
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _While primitive in some respects, the face, skull, and teeth show enough modern features to justify H. naledi's placement in the genus Homo...._
> 
> A trove of bones hidden deep within a South African cave represents a new species of human ancestor, scientists announced Thursday in the journal eLife. *Homo naledi, as they call it, appears very primitive in some respects—it had a tiny brain, for instance, and Apelike shoulders for climbing. But in other ways it looks remarkably like modern humans.* When did it live? Where does it fit in the human family tree? And how did its bones get into the deepest hidden chamber of the cave—could such a primitive creature have been disposing of its dead intentionally?
> 
> This is the story of one of the greatest fossil discoveries of the past half century, and of what it might mean for our understanding of human evolution.
> [........]​
> Who Dat?
> 
> abu afak/mbig
> `
Click to expand...










I presented an argument against humans evolving from monkeys (from Prof. Owen Lovejoy to wrong savannahs to no ape humans today).  An argument is a statement where propositions are made and evidence is presented in support of the proposition.  An assertion is where someone states something as fact presenting absolutely no evidence which we creationists have gotten so far.  What we usually get is artists reconstructions to make it appear that fossils represent what they are suppose to represent.  Homo naledi is one such example.  It still isn't considered homo by all including secular scientists.  Creation scientists think its an ape since the skeletons point more to an ape.  The small cranial capacity, no nose formation, stooped shoulders and body.


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's a list of evolution that we have seen.  The rest you can say is pseudoscience and BS.
> 
> 8 Examples of Evolution in Action - Listverse
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No that is a list an anonymous person put on the internet. Whoever the author is never says that they are the only examples we have seen.
> 
> But certainly they are examples of evolution in action. Which demonstrates that the mechanism of evolution is an observable fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's examples that YOU couldn't provide.  It shows how weak your arguments and beliefs are because you have no examples of macroevolution nor ape humans.. The observable fact is you believe in fairy tales and science myths.  The fossil evidence is science myths.  All of these show natural selection which creation science came up with.
> 
> It's why I already claimed victory in this thread for creation scientists.
Click to expand...


----------



## Syriusly

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> They didn't teach that to me when I was in Public school
> 
> 
> 
> Of course they did. You just didn't pay attention.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm a lot older than you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, okay, that makes more sense.
Click to expand...


In his school they learned to repair wagon wheels.....


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> _Among the living primates, humans are most closely related to the apes, which include the lesser apes (gibbons) and the great apes (chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans). These so-called hominoids — that is, the gibbons, great apes and humans — emerged and diversified during the Miocene epoch, approximately 23 million to 5 million years ago. (The last common ancestor that humans had with chimpanzees lived about 6 million to 7 million years ago.)_
> 
> Fossil Reveals What Last Common Ancestor of Humans and Apes Looked Liked
> 
> Science absolutely DOES NOT back up the Bible
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Creation science thinks those fossils were apes, not ape humans nor any common ancestor.  Besides, today's apes would have evolved the same way and we would have ape humans.  However, we can't have ape humans beyond one generation.  Evos make up stuff in order to fit their theories.  They already committed fraud in regards to apes to humans with fossils, so they lost real science cred.  Thus, science backs up the Bible in that God created adult humans, creatures and plants.  If we saw evolution like what the evos say, then it would be different but all they got is fossils they made to fit their hypothesis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Total nonsense.
> 
> Here is some reality
> The emergence of humans
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ha ha.  It not reality, but theory.  That website is where I learned evolution and is from my alma mater.  Around 2011, I started to question some of its findings such as evolving from apes.  Then I learned what the Bible stated from 2012.  And I compared the two.  The Bible version and creation science came out on top.
> 
> If it's reality, then why are apes still walking on fours?  Please answer my question in your own words instead of links and others do the work for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> _If it's reality, then why are apes still walking on fours?  Please answer my question in your own words instead of links and others do the work for you_​
> Because the apes (chimps, gorillas, orangs, etc) have followed a different evolutionary path. Chimps still knuckle walk because they have remained creatures of the jungle and spend a lot of time in trees. Same for orangs. We humans left the jungle as climate changes led to loss of forests and more areas of grasslands and savannah. Natural selection favored those that adapted to the changing conditions and we evolved. A more upright posture, freed hands, larger brains, homo sapiens.
> 
> And there are lots of links available that explain it much better than I can.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you for your answer.  I rather read someone's own answer as it states why they believe it and shows whether someone can explain something they've read in a cogent manner.  My reply would be I do not see how the apes followed a different evo path.  In fact, the evo scientists say that apes became upright due to female apes more willing to mate with food providers and that was why they became more erect.  It is easier to gather and carry foods by walking upright.  The grasslands and savannah hypothesis has been replaced due to criticism from creation scientists and others.
> 
> Becoming Human: The Evolution of Walking Upright      |     Science | Smithsonian
> 
> I watch nature documentaries and see the monkeys, chimps and apes are still the same from 25-years ago, and have not read any articles that say they are different.  Why wouldn't they walk upright if it makes carrying food easier and mating is important?  Moreover, we have learned that evolution happens rapidly, not over long periods of time.  We have seen species change their physiology due to urban development.  I think a good comparison to what you believe happened to apes in the past is the horse and the donkey mating to produce a mule.  The mule cannot reproduce, but can only exist through hybridization.  Same with ape humans, but our social mores forbid the existence of ape-humans.  In other words, we need more than fossil evidence to show how ape humans could exist.
Click to expand...


Isn't it fascinating how you can post links to something like the Smithsonian and not display the slightest hint that you either read the link or understand it?


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *In other words, we need more than fossil evidence to show how ape humans could exist.*
> 
> 
> 
> How so?
> It's just an assertion of yours withOut basis.
> We already have that Evidence.
> We already have many finds and degrees of 'Ape-Men'
> The latest, of course, has features of Both.
> ie
> 
> Remains of Humanlike Ancestors Found in South Africa
> _Discovery of bones of previously unknown species deep in a cave raises questions about origins of ritual burial, self-awareness_
> Remains of Humanlike Ancestors Found in South Africa - WSJ
> By Robert Lee Hotz
> Sept. 10, 2015
> Slideshow and Video
> 
> ...In life, these creatures were long-legged, lightweight and lithe, standing a little over five feet tall, the scientists concluded. They had surprisingly *modern hands and feet, yet a primitive flattened pelvis and a tiny brain barely one third that of a modern human*. All in all, they seemed designed for striding with a modern gait and, possessing unusually long curved fingers, perhaps adapted for rock climbing as well, the scientists said.
> 
> “We had a combination of features that we had never seen in a single species before,” said Caroline VanSickle, a biological anthropologist at the University of Wisconsin who helped analyze the bones. “It is just so weird.”
> 
> Most likely, the bones don’t belong to a direct human ancestor, but represent one of Nature’s early Experiments in the human form, experts said.
> 
> Several disputed the claim that the fossils belong to a new species. Jeffrey Schwartz, a paleo-anatomist at the University of Pittsburgh, said *the remains are probably a mix of early human varieties, including a primitive species called Homo erectus* that has been known for more than a century.
> 
> “A new species name is not adequately warranted for the Rising Star fossils,” said Tim D. White, an anthropologist at the University of California, Berkeley.
> [.....]​
> 
> Also a reminder human (and other) evolution was anything but 'immaculate' creation, but trial and error/mish-mash, survival of the fittest.
> So what was this with some modern human features and some Ape features which succesfully BRED, NOT a 'donkey.'
> 
> 
> NALEDI FOSSILS | News
> This Face Changes the Human Story. But How?
> Scientists have discovered a new species of human ancestor deep in a South African cave, adding a baffling new branch to the family tree.
> By Jamie Shreeve, National Geographic
> Photographs by Robert Clark
> SEPTEMBER 10, 2015
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _While primitive in some respects, the face, skull, and teeth show enough modern features to justify H. naledi's placement in the genus Homo...._
> 
> A trove of bones hidden deep within a South African cave represents a new species of human ancestor, scientists announced Thursday in the journal eLife. *Homo naledi, as they call it, appears very primitive in some respects—it had a tiny brain, for instance, and Apelike shoulders for climbing. But in other ways it looks remarkably like modern humans.* When did it live? Where does it fit in the human family tree? And how did its bones get into the deepest hidden chamber of the cave—could such a primitive creature have been disposing of its dead intentionally?
> 
> This is the story of one of the greatest fossil discoveries of the past half century, and of what it might mean for our understanding of human evolution.
> [........]​
> Who Dat?
> 
> abu afak/mbig
> `
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I presented an argument against humans evolving from monkeys (from Prof. Owen Lovejoy to wrong savannahs to no ape humans today).  An argument is a statement where propositions are made and evidence is presented in support of the proposition..
Click to expand...


Odd argument to present. 

That is like me presenting an argument that the Sun doesn't rise in the West. 

No one is arguing that humans descended from Monkeys.

But Creation Cultists keep talking about it.


----------



## abu afak

james bond said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *In other words, we need more than fossil evidence to show how ape humans could exist.*
> 
> 
> 
> How so?
> It's just an assertion of yours withOut basis.
> We already have that Evidence.
> We already have many finds and degrees of 'Ape-Men'
> The latest, of course, has features of Both.
> ie
> 
> Remains of Humanlike Ancestors Found in South Africa
> _Discovery of bones of previously unknown species deep in a cave raises questions about origins of ritual burial, self-awareness_
> Remains of Humanlike Ancestors Found in South Africa - WSJ
> By Robert Lee Hotz
> Sept. 10, 2015
> Slideshow and Video
> 
> ...In life, these creatures were long-legged, lightweight and lithe, standing a little over five feet tall, the scientists concluded. They had surprisingly *modern hands and feet, yet a primitive flattened pelvis and a tiny brain barely one third that of a modern human*. All in all, they seemed designed for striding with a modern gait and, possessing unusually long curved fingers, perhaps adapted for rock climbing as well, the scientists said.
> 
> “We had a combination of features that we had never seen in a single species before,” said Caroline VanSickle, a biological anthropologist at the University of Wisconsin who helped analyze the bones. “It is just so weird.”
> 
> Most likely, the bones don’t belong to a direct human ancestor, but represent one of Nature’s early Experiments in the human form, experts said.
> 
> Several disputed the claim that the fossils belong to a new species. Jeffrey Schwartz, a paleo-anatomist at the University of Pittsburgh, said *the remains are probably a mix of early human varieties, including a primitive species called Homo erectus* that has been known for more than a century.
> 
> “A new species name is not adequately warranted for the Rising Star fossils,” said Tim D. White, an anthropologist at the University of California, Berkeley.
> [.....]​
> 
> Also a reminder human (and other) evolution was anything but 'immaculate' creation, but trial and error/mish-mash, survival of the fittest.
> So what was this with some modern human features and some Ape features which succesfully BRED, NOT a 'donkey.'
> 
> 
> NALEDI FOSSILS | News
> This Face Changes the Human Story. But How?
> Scientists have discovered a new species of human ancestor deep in a South African cave, adding a baffling new branch to the family tree.
> By Jamie Shreeve, National Geographic
> Photographs by Robert Clark
> SEPTEMBER 10, 2015
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _While primitive in some respects, the face, skull, and teeth show enough modern features to justify H. naledi's placement in the genus Homo...._
> 
> A trove of bones hidden deep within a South African cave represents a new species of human ancestor, scientists announced Thursday in the journal eLife. *Homo naledi, as they call it, appears very primitive in some respects—it had a tiny brain, for instance, and Apelike shoulders for climbing. But in other ways it looks remarkably like modern humans.* When did it live? Where does it fit in the human family tree? And how did its bones get into the deepest hidden chamber of the cave—could such a primitive creature have been disposing of its dead intentionally?
> 
> This is the story of one of the greatest fossil discoveries of the past half century, and of what it might mean for our understanding of human evolution.
> [........]​
> Who Dat?
> 
> abu afak/mbig
> `
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I presented an argument against humans evolving from monkeys (from Prof. Owen Lovejoy to wrong savannahs to no ape humans today).  An argument is a statement where propositions are made and evidence is presented in support of the proposition.  An assertion is where someone states something as fact presenting absolutely no evidence which we creationists have gotten so far.  What we usually get is artists reconstructions to make it appear that fossils represent what they are suppose to represent.  Homo naledi is one such example.  It still isn't considered homo by all including secular scientists.  Creation scientists think its an ape since the skeletons point more to an ape.  The small cranial capacity, no nose formation, stooped shoulders and body.
Click to expand...

That's it!
You Filthy deluded POS.
I put up tons of material (3 posts) Debunking everything you've said on the last few pages.
You Only out up two pictures and a condensed (and alleged) hearsay (and personal) opinion on the taxonomy of Homo Naledi, with NO link/source.

Nothing on your IDIOTIC take, and one of your (and others here) main bases for rejececting evolution : that it's "only a theory".
NOTHING on the Huge difference between casual use of 'theory' (conjecture) and Scientific Theory: a well substantiated idea using facts and information tested over time.
Another source Wiki:

*....The definition of a scientific theory* (often contracted to "theory" for the sake of brevity) as used in the disciplines of science *is significantly different from the common vernacular usage of the word "theory". In everyday speech, "theory" can imply that something is an unsubstantiated and speculative guess,[4] the Opposite of its meaning in science. *These different usages are comparable to the opposing usages of "prediction" in science versus everyday speech, where it denotes a mere hope..."
​NOTHING on my rebuttal of your Idiotic (paraphrase)_ "I watch nature programs and monkeys/apes/chimps" haven't changed in 25 years"_
vs my pointing out the many separate Species and subspecies within Each.
While you expect evolution in a complex creature in less than it's average lifespan, instead of great periods of time.
You're a total Bio-illiterate and logic challenged.

What an in-denial and DISHONEST Godist DOPE you are.
You WHIFFED on everything you Dishonest POS.
Everything I took the trouble to post/educate your dumb ass on.

There is Overwhelming Evidence for Evolution, NONE for God/Dog.
`


----------



## james bond

Syriusly said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's a list of evolution that we have seen.  The rest you can say is pseudoscience and BS.
> 
> 8 Examples of Evolution in Action - Listverse
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No that is a list an anonymous person put on the internet. Whoever the author is never says that they are the only examples we have seen.
> 
> But certainly they are examples of evolution in action. Which demonstrates that the mechanism of evolution is an observable fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's examples that YOU couldn't provide.  It shows how weak your arguments and beliefs are because you have no examples of macroevolution nor ape humans.. The observable fact is you believe in fairy tales and science myths.  The fossil evidence is science myths.  All of these show natural selection which creation science came up with.
> 
> It's why I already claimed victory in this thread for creation scientists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> View attachment 200301
Click to expand...







And to raise creation science vs evolution science.


----------



## james bond

This is the kind of things atheist scientists do to apes.  Had they actually evolved into humans, then they probably would be walking among us now.


----------



## james bond

abu afak said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *In other words, we need more than fossil evidence to show how ape humans could exist.*
> 
> 
> 
> How so?
> It's just an assertion of yours withOut basis.
> We already have that Evidence.
> We already have many finds and degrees of 'Ape-Men'
> The latest, of course, has features of Both.
> ie
> 
> Remains of Humanlike Ancestors Found in South Africa
> _Discovery of bones of previously unknown species deep in a cave raises questions about origins of ritual burial, self-awareness_
> Remains of Humanlike Ancestors Found in South Africa - WSJ
> By Robert Lee Hotz
> Sept. 10, 2015
> Slideshow and Video
> 
> ...In life, these creatures were long-legged, lightweight and lithe, standing a little over five feet tall, the scientists concluded. They had surprisingly *modern hands and feet, yet a primitive flattened pelvis and a tiny brain barely one third that of a modern human*. All in all, they seemed designed for striding with a modern gait and, possessing unusually long curved fingers, perhaps adapted for rock climbing as well, the scientists said.
> 
> “We had a combination of features that we had never seen in a single species before,” said Caroline VanSickle, a biological anthropologist at the University of Wisconsin who helped analyze the bones. “It is just so weird.”
> 
> Most likely, the bones don’t belong to a direct human ancestor, but represent one of Nature’s early Experiments in the human form, experts said.
> 
> Several disputed the claim that the fossils belong to a new species. Jeffrey Schwartz, a paleo-anatomist at the University of Pittsburgh, said *the remains are probably a mix of early human varieties, including a primitive species called Homo erectus* that has been known for more than a century.
> 
> “A new species name is not adequately warranted for the Rising Star fossils,” said Tim D. White, an anthropologist at the University of California, Berkeley.
> [.....]​
> 
> Also a reminder human (and other) evolution was anything but 'immaculate' creation, but trial and error/mish-mash, survival of the fittest.
> So what was this with some modern human features and some Ape features which succesfully BRED, NOT a 'donkey.'
> 
> 
> NALEDI FOSSILS | News
> This Face Changes the Human Story. But How?
> Scientists have discovered a new species of human ancestor deep in a South African cave, adding a baffling new branch to the family tree.
> By Jamie Shreeve, National Geographic
> Photographs by Robert Clark
> SEPTEMBER 10, 2015
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _While primitive in some respects, the face, skull, and teeth show enough modern features to justify H. naledi's placement in the genus Homo...._
> 
> A trove of bones hidden deep within a South African cave represents a new species of human ancestor, scientists announced Thursday in the journal eLife. *Homo naledi, as they call it, appears very primitive in some respects—it had a tiny brain, for instance, and Apelike shoulders for climbing. But in other ways it looks remarkably like modern humans.* When did it live? Where does it fit in the human family tree? And how did its bones get into the deepest hidden chamber of the cave—could such a primitive creature have been disposing of its dead intentionally?
> 
> This is the story of one of the greatest fossil discoveries of the past half century, and of what it might mean for our understanding of human evolution.
> [........]​
> Who Dat?
> 
> abu afak/mbig
> `
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I presented an argument against humans evolving from monkeys (from Prof. Owen Lovejoy to wrong savannahs to no ape humans today).  An argument is a statement where propositions are made and evidence is presented in support of the proposition.  An assertion is where someone states something as fact presenting absolutely no evidence which we creationists have gotten so far.  What we usually get is artists reconstructions to make it appear that fossils represent what they are suppose to represent.  Homo naledi is one such example.  It still isn't considered homo by all including secular scientists.  Creation scientists think its an ape since the skeletons point more to an ape.  The small cranial capacity, no nose formation, stooped shoulders and body.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's it!
> You Filthy deluded POS.
> I put up tons of material (3 posts) Debunking everything you've said on the last few pages.
> You Only out up two pictures and a condensed (and alleged) hearsay (and personal) opinion on the taxonomy of Homo Naledi, with NO link/source.
> 
> Nothing on your IDIOTIC take, and one of your (and others here) main bases for rejececting evolution : that it's "only a theory".
> NOTHING on the Huge difference between casual use of 'theory' (conjecture) and Scientific Theory: a well substantiated idea using facts and information tested over time.
> Another source Wiki:
> 
> *....The definition of a scientific theory* (often contracted to "theory" for the sake of brevity) as used in the disciplines of science *is significantly different from the common vernacular usage of the word "theory". In everyday speech, "theory" can imply that something is an unsubstantiated and speculative guess,[4] the Opposite of its meaning in science. *These different usages are comparable to the opposing usages of "prediction" in science versus everyday speech, where it denotes a mere hope..."
> ​NOTHING on my rebuttal of your Idiotic (paraphrase)_ "I watch nature programs and monkeys/apes/chimps" haven't changed in 25 years"_
> vs my pointing out the many separate Species and subspecies within Each.
> While you expect evolution in a complex creature in less than it's average lifespan, instead of great periods of time.
> You're a total Bio-illiterate and logic challenged.
> 
> What an in-denial and DISHONEST Godist DOPE you are.
> You WHIFFED on everything you Dishonest POS.
> Everything I took the trouble to post/educate your dumb ass on.
> 
> There is Overwhelming Evidence for Evolution, NONE for God/Dog.
> `
Click to expand...


Ha ha.  It didn't take long for you to reveal your true colors and lack of science knowledge.  Just remember you'll reap what you sow..


----------



## james bond

Yesterday, Koko the Gorilla who mastered sign language and showed that animals have empathy has died.  She was 46.  No one is going to question she was a gorilla.  However, because she was a special case, she was treated differently and lived a life with humans.  What about other gorillas in the wild?  Are they revered by our atheist scientists to have the potential to do more if they are taught?  Do they respect the potential of the animal kingdom?  God used some of the same materials in their design just as other species seem similar to each other.  That's why there are similarities but also differences that separate us from apes.  Unfortunately, the very scientists who believe in evolution do not practice what they preach and treat the gorilla or other apes differently from humans.  They may not have basic intelligence or empathy for others, but can be taught.  Instead, they use them for their own purposes as God taught.  Hope it's not for inhuman purposes.  If what I and creation scientists say isn't true, then any of these evo scientists should be able to take an ape and produce a species of intelligent and bipedal apes, chimps and the like.  They would show that these trained apes would be better than some of the humans who do not have enough intelligence nor have empathy towards others of their own kind.  What separates us from apes isn't always for the good.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Just checked....


.....nope, still no such thing as "creation science".


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Just checked....
> 
> 
> .....nope, still no such thing as "creation science".



Weren't you the one who could not figure out how science backs up the Bible?  You got some bad sources and would not be able to comprehend it even if it hit you on the head.  Creation science and Gregor Mendel showed Darwin's ToE was wrong.  

There are such things as god of the world and prince of the air and sons of God.  I'm sure you'll learn when the time comes when they run wild and try to take over the planet.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> Weren't you the one who could not figure out how science backs up the Bible


Dunno... Was I? Bear in mind, your answer is pretty worthless, as you have spent this entire thread inventing hilariously stupid shit that would get you laughed out of a 6th grade classroom.


----------



## fncceo

james bond said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just checked....
> 
> 
> .....nope, still no such thing as "creation science".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weren't you the one who could not figure out how science backs up the Bible?  You got some bad sources and would not be able to comprehend it even if it hit you on the head.  Creation science and Gregor Mendel showed Darwin's ToE was wrong.
> 
> There are such things as god of the world and prince of the air and sons of God.  I'm sure you'll learn when the time comes when they run wild and try to take over the planet.
Click to expand...


Generally speaking, it’s a bad idea to attempt to reconcile religious scriptures with observed empirical data.  Any claim that literal scripture is supported by scientific data is just too easy to disprove and it makes for an unproductive discussion. 

However, there are many areas where science cannot provide a reasonable explanation - example, pre-Big Bang or reconciliation of the infinity of the universe vs the finite nature of physical space that aren’t in conflict with a metaphorical interpretation of scripture.  

At the end of the day, it’s not as important what people believe as it is to accept that people believe differently and to always engage in respectful dialogue when discussing those differences.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

fncceo said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just checked....
> 
> 
> .....nope, still no such thing as "creation science".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weren't you the one who could not figure out how science backs up the Bible?  You got some bad sources and would not be able to comprehend it even if it hit you on the head.  Creation science and Gregor Mendel showed Darwin's ToE was wrong.
> 
> There are such things as god of the world and prince of the air and sons of God.  I'm sure you'll learn when the time comes when they run wild and try to take over the planet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Generally speaking, it’s a bad idea to attempt to reconcile religious scriptures with observed empirical data.  Any claim that literal scripture is supported by scientific data is just too easy to disprove and it makes for an unproductive discussion.
> 
> However, there are many areas where science cannot provide a reasonable explanation - example, pre-Big Bang or reconciliation of the infinity of the universe vs the finite nature of physical space that aren’t in conflict with a metaphorical interpretation of scripture.
> 
> At the end of the day, it’s not as important what people believe as it is to accept that people believe differently and to always engage in respectful dialogue when discussing those differences.
Click to expand...

You are definitely pissing in the wind, there. He is a staunch, young earth creationist.


----------



## james bond

fncceo said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just checked....
> 
> 
> .....nope, still no such thing as "creation science".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weren't you the one who could not figure out how science backs up the Bible?  You got some bad sources and would not be able to comprehend it even if it hit you on the head.  Creation science and Gregor Mendel showed Darwin's ToE was wrong.
> 
> There are such things as god of the world and prince of the air and sons of God.  I'm sure you'll learn when the time comes when they run wild and try to take over the planet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Generally speaking, it’s a bad idea to attempt to reconcile religious scriptures with observed empirical data.  Any claim that literal scripture is supported by scientific data is just too easy to disprove and it makes for an unproductive discussion.
> 
> However, there are many areas where science cannot provide a reasonable explanation - example, pre-Big Bang or reconciliation of the infinity of the universe vs the finite nature of physical space that aren’t in conflict with a metaphorical interpretation of scripture.
> 
> At the end of the day, it’s not as important what people believe as it is to accept that people believe differently and to always engage in respectful dialogue when discussing those differences.
Click to expand...


I would think that it's secular scientists who try to gather data to fit their theories instead of making theories to fit the data.  For example, we find that Darwin's theories have fallen by the wayside.  His version of natural selection is slow while creationists' natural selection is rapid.  We are able to observe changes to species as scientists know what to look for.  His ToE has a tree of life and we are finding that it is more bushes of life.  Finally, his theory of change due to heritable physical or behavioral traits due to environment has been replaced by epigenetics.  ToE is now neo-Darwinism.

As for your assertion that creation scientists attempt to reconcile religious scripture, it is not correct.  Scripture is used as hypothesis for what we find in nature.  For example, gravity is considered a strong force when including distance.  OTOH, secular science usually refers to it as the weakest force because magnetic force can overcome earth's pull of gravity.  There is no place in the universe that any object can escape gravitational forces.  One can't escape it in a vacuum.  In 2017, science discovered that the chicken came before the egg.  This is because the protein OV-17 is coated on the eggshell and this protein is only produced by the chicken.  Proteins cannot be produced outside the cell due to chilarity.  The Bible states God created adult animals, plants and trees.  Secular science tries to contradict this finding, but they have no evidence to back up their revision to their hypothesis that the egg came before the chicken.  They cannot produce the protein OV-17 outside the chicken.


----------



## fncceo

james bond said:


> There is no place in the universe that any object can escape gravitational forces. One can't escape it in a vacuum.


----------



## Intolerant

Ima Cat said:


> I know there are similarities but I think they are coincidental, like cats and seals both have whiskers.  But cats didn't come from seals or vice a versa.


No I don’t.  But I do eat bananas and scratch my ass.


----------



## fncceo

Ima Cat said:


> But cats didn't come from seals or vice a versa.



They do ... but they both have to be pretty drunk...


----------



## skye

some liberals

some left wing idiots.....you know

yes they came from baboons

in fact

baboons are too intelligent  for liberals

liberals - idiots came from excrement...that's  it.


----------



## RWS

james bond said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, we're all related due to evolution!
> 
> Had God Created Spontaneous Creation, we would not share those similar genetic traits.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You and I are not related and we have 99% similar DNA and 1% difference.  The 1% is enough to show no relationship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Heck yes we are related. As much as we argue, you are me. And I am you. Had God created everything spontaneously, we would have much different variations in our DNA.
> 
> Makin me superior of course....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, my point was to show that even though we have similar DNA, out immediate families aren't related.  As for what you are referring to, God didn't create us all spontaneiously.  We came from a common ancestor of humans, Adam and Eve.  Who is the common ancestor in your explanation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm sorry but I have no idea what you were trying to say there.
> 
> Did God create life spontaneously or through evolution? And if evolution, did he create Adam an Eve spontaneously, and their offspring are the humans today?
> 
> And if so, why are some people different colors?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you need to clarify first because you started this subtopic.
> 
> You said, "Yes, we're all related due to evolution!
> 
> Had God Created Spontaneous Creation, we would not share those similar genetic traits."
> 
> How do you explain you and I are related through evolution?  And what is spontaneous creation?
> 
> I've heard of spontaneous generation, but it's been demonstrated to be pseudoscience.
Click to expand...


JB, it's what you roll with. You can't turn around and deny it now. It's either POOF we're here, or it took billions of years to evolve.


----------



## ChesBayJJ

fncceo said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no place in the universe that any object can escape gravitational forces. One can't escape it in a vacuum.
Click to expand...


What is that supposed to mean?


----------



## james bond

fncceo said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no place in the universe that any object can escape gravitational forces. One can't escape it in a vacuum.
Click to expand...


This shows lack of understanding of physics.  Being weightless in a rocket or using enough force to escape the Earth's gravitational pull does not mean you escaped gravity..


----------



## fncceo

james bond said:


> using enough force to escape the Earth's gravitational pull does not mean you escaped gravity..



Escaping gravity does not mean you escaped gravity?


----------



## james bond

fncceo said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> using enough force to escape the Earth's gravitational pull does not mean you escaped gravity..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Escaping gravity does not mean you escaped gravity?
Click to expand...


Wrong again.  One does not escape gravity.  One is weightless in space due to speed.  Without the speed...


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> using enough force to escape the Earth's gravitational pull does not mean you escaped gravity..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Escaping gravity does not mean you escaped gravity?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong again.  One does not escape gravity.  One is weightless in space due to speed.  Without the speed...
Click to expand...

Technically, velocity.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> using enough force to escape the Earth's gravitational pull does not mean you escaped gravity..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Escaping gravity does not mean you escaped gravity?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong again.  One does not escape gravity.  One is weightless in space due to speed.  Without the speed...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Technically, velocity.
Click to expand...


No.  Speed.  Velocity is a vector quantity so needs direction, Mr. Billion of Years.

Creation scientists are the ones who use experiments and observational science.  Evo scientists tells us to use observational science, but hypocritically, they use historical science which involves interpreting past events through a preconceived worldview. That's why you can get wrong hypothesis such as humans evolved from monkeys or the egg came before the chicken..


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's a list of evolution that we have seen.  The rest you can say is pseudoscience and BS.
> 
> 8 Examples of Evolution in Action - Listverse
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No that is a list an anonymous person put on the internet. Whoever the author is never says that they are the only examples we have seen.
> 
> But certainly they are examples of evolution in action. Which demonstrates that the mechanism of evolution is an observable fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's examples that YOU couldn't provide.  It shows how weak your arguments and beliefs are because you have no examples of macroevolution nor ape humans.. The observable fact is you believe in fairy tales and science myths.  The fossil evidence is science myths.  All of these show natural selection which creation science came up with.
> 
> It's why I already claimed victory in this thread for creation scientists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> View attachment 200301
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And to raise creation science vs evolution science.
Click to expand...


Creation Science= Homeopathic Astonomy


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> This is the kind of things atheist scientists do to apes.  Had they actually evolved into humans, then they probably would be walking among us now.
> ]


This is the kind of thing that that Christians do to humans. Had they actually evolved into humans, they probably would be walking among us now.


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> using enough force to escape the Earth's gravitational pull does not mean you escaped gravity..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Escaping gravity does not mean you escaped gravity?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong again.  One does not escape gravity.  One is weightless in space due to speed.  Without the speed...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Technically, velocity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Creation scientists are the ones who use experiments and observational science. ..
Click to expand...


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> using enough force to escape the Earth's gravitational pull does not mean you escaped gravity..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Escaping gravity does not mean you escaped gravity?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong again.  One does not escape gravity.  One is weightless in space due to speed.  Without the speed...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Technically, velocity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  Speed.  Velocity is a vector quantity so needs direction, Mr. Billion of Years.
> 
> Creation scientists are the ones who use experiments and observational science.  Evo scientists tells us to use observational science, but hypocritically, they use historical science which involves interpreting past events through a preconceived worldview. That's why you can get wrong hypothesis such as humans evolved from monkeys or the egg came before the chicken..
Click to expand...


LOL Creation 'scientists' believe that every animal in the world is descended from a pair of animals that all shared a boat with Noah that floated over the Himilayas and then landed on Mt. Ararat and hopped and walked to Australia, South America and the Galapagos Islands. 

And that the world is only about 6,000 years old. 

EVO 'scientists' refuse to accept science and believe blindly in a 'literal' interpretation of the their holy book even when the science contradicts it.


----------



## Syriusly




----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> Velocity is a vector quantity so needs direction, Mr. Billion of Years.


Correct genius, which is why velocity is the correct quantity to consider. Gravity has direction. That speed is no good to escape earths gravity, if you are heading toward the center of the Earth.
Duh. Your knowledge of evolution wod get you laughed out of a 6th grade science class, while your knowledge of physics would get you laughed out of a 10th grade science class.


----------



## james bond

Syriusly said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is the kind of things atheist scientists do to apes.  Had they actually evolved into humans, then they probably would be walking among us now.
> ]
> 
> 
> 
> This is the kind of thing that that Christians do to humans. Had they actually evolved into humans, they probably would be walking among us now.
Click to expand...

Ah the roots of racism in America attributed to your people the libs.  You need to provide some background since Darwin later thought these were the first ape-human humans.  Saint Augustine described slavery as being against God's intention and resulting from sin.

"God ... did not intend that His rational creature, who was made in His image, should have dominion over anything but the irrational creation - not man over man, but man over the beasts ... the condition of slavery is the result of sin ... It [slave] is a name .. introduced by sin and not by nature ... circumstances [under which men could become slaves] could never have arisen save [i.e. except] through sin ... The prime cause, then, of slavery is sin, which brings man under the dominion of his fellow [sinful man] ... But by nature, as God first created us, no one is the slave either of man or of sin."

Slavery existed in the times of Jesus and the Roman Empire.  It was one of the reasons why the RE thrived so much in addition to its superior military.  If you were homeless, then you were recruited into slavery.  In the Americas, indentured service began with white immigrants.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Velocity is a vector quantity so needs direction, Mr. Billion of Years.
> 
> 
> 
> Correct genius, which is why velocity is the correct quantity to consider. Gravity has direction. That speed is no good to escape earths gravity, if you are heading toward the center of the Earth.
> Duh. Your knowledge of evolution wod get you laughed out of a 6th grade science class, while your knowledge of physics would get you laughed out of a 10th grade science class.
Click to expand...


Yet, I was the one who had to point out to you Mr. BOY.  I do not know why I have to explain the most basic of science to you a second or even third time.  Only you have the lack of sense to point the rocket in a proper direction ha ha.  It's speed in order to get into space and then  orbit the earth which causes the weightlessness.


----------



## james bond

Syriusly said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> using enough force to escape the Earth's gravitational pull does not mean you escaped gravity..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Escaping gravity does not mean you escaped gravity?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong again.  One does not escape gravity.  One is weightless in space due to speed.  Without the speed...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Technically, velocity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  Speed.  Velocity is a vector quantity so needs direction, Mr. Billion of Years.
> 
> Creation scientists are the ones who use experiments and observational science.  Evo scientists tells us to use observational science, but hypocritically, they use historical science which involves interpreting past events through a preconceived worldview. That's why you can get wrong hypothesis such as humans evolved from monkeys or the egg came before the chicken..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL Creation 'scientists' believe that every animal in the world is descended from a pair of animals that all shared a boat with Noah that floated over the Himilayas and then landed on Mt. Ararat and hopped and walked to Australia, South America and the Galapagos Islands.
> 
> And that the world is only about 6,000 years old.
> 
> EVO 'scientists' refuse to accept science and believe blindly in a 'literal' interpretation of the their holy book even when the science contradicts it.
Click to expand...


Yes, that's the basic theory and which give atheist scientists such problems that they had to systematically eliminate it from their science.  Thus, was born today's atheist science or evo science.  It's no accident that the topic is creation vs evolution.  Again, I have to point out to you that creation science is based on observation and experiments while evo science is historical science with very little observational science.  That's why Fort Fun Indiana is Mr. BOY.  You're going to be Mr. Repetition.  You don't get creation science or real science, so it will constantly have to be repeated for you for billions of years..


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Velocity is a vector quantity so needs direction, Mr. Billion of Years.
> 
> 
> 
> Correct genius, which is why velocity is the correct quantity to consider. Gravity has direction. That speed is no good to escape earths gravity, if you are heading toward the center of the Earth.
> Duh. Your knowledge of evolution wod get you laughed out of a 6th grade science class, while your knowledge of physics would get you laughed out of a 10th grade science class.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet, I was the one who had to point out to you Mr. BOY.  I do not know why I have to explain the most basic of science to you a second or even third time.  Only you have the lack of sense to point the rocket in a proper direction ha ha.  It's speed in order to get into space and then  orbit the earth which causes the weightlessness.
Click to expand...

You don't have to point it in a particular direction, except for into the ground.

But you knew that....just kidding, you don't know what he hell you are talking about at all...


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

So, let's review our latest episode of "Juju Bond the Voodoo Shaman talks Science":

1) one cannot escape gravity. Ever.

2) but, when one DOES escape gravity, it is only speed that matters, not velocity

Won't all of the physicists calculating the *escape velocity* of the next rocket be so surprised!


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> So, let's review our latest episode of "Juju Bond the Voodoo Shaman talks Science":
> 
> 1) one cannot escape gravity. Ever.
> 
> 2) but, when one DOES escape gravity, it is only speed that matters, not velocity
> 
> Won't all of the physicists calculating the *escape velocity* of the next rocket be so surprised!



LMAO.  You still do not get it, BOY.  You do not understand what escape velocity is.  To escape earth's gravitational pull, one needs an escape velocity of 11.2 km/s.  *Please explain it since you brought it up.  It has to do with speed numb nuts.  *

If one hits escape velocity speeds in their rocket ship, then they aren't returning to earth, but still under the effect of gravity.

*What does escape velocity have to do with weightlessness?*

Again, one does not ever escape the influence of gravity.  What one escapes, in your case, is the gravitational pull of the Earth.  We still have gravity holding the planets and moons in our solar system in place.

How fast do you have to go to escape the sun's gravitational pull?  It's ginormous speeds, but God put the Earth just at the right distance so that it continues to orbit the sun and not get pulled into it.  This is observational and testable science.  Not like the irrational humans from apes and apes became bipedal assertions.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> one needs an escape velocity of 11.2 km/s


Velocity is speed and direction. In this case, this must be the component of the velocity perpendicular to the surface of the Earth.

Not that you understand component vectors of velocity, anyway.

Seriously, you are embarrassing yourself. You don't even know what the term "velocity" means. Which should come as no surprise to anyone who has read any of the other ridiculously stupid things you have said in this thread.


----------



## Pogo

LTCArmyRet said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're primates that developed from a common ancestor 5-7 million years ago that yes was an ape.
> 
> That is a fact....The evidence is very strong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not a fact, it is a theory, big difference.   And if we descended from an ape, why are there still apes?
Click to expand...



If you're on a highway and the highway splits where one side turns south and the other side proceeds east, and you choose to go east --- why are there still people going south?

Stupid question, sorry.


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is the kind of things atheist scientists do to apes.  Had they actually evolved into humans, then they probably would be walking among us now.
> ]
> 
> 
> 
> This is the kind of thing that that Christians do to humans. Had they actually evolved into humans, they probably would be walking among us now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah the roots of racism in America attributed to your people the libs. .
Click to expand...


Racism existed in America long before 'liberals'- i.e. the Founding Fathers.

You Christians imported it with you. 
Along with your instructions on how to keep your slaves.


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Escaping gravity does not mean you escaped gravity?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again.  One does not escape gravity.  One is weightless in space due to speed.  Without the speed...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Technically, velocity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  Speed.  Velocity is a vector quantity so needs direction, Mr. Billion of Years.
> 
> Creation scientists are the ones who use experiments and observational science.  Evo scientists tells us to use observational science, but hypocritically, they use historical science which involves interpreting past events through a preconceived worldview. That's why you can get wrong hypothesis such as humans evolved from monkeys or the egg came before the chicken..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL Creation 'scientists' believe that every animal in the world is descended from a pair of animals that all shared a boat with Noah that floated over the Himilayas and then landed on Mt. Ararat and hopped and walked to Australia, South America and the Galapagos Islands.
> 
> And that the world is only about 6,000 years old.
> 
> EVO 'scientists' refuse to accept science and believe blindly in a 'literal' interpretation of the their holy book even when the science contradicts it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> .  Again, I have to point out to you that creation science is based on observation and experiments while evo science is historical science with very little observational science. .
Click to expand...


Again I point out that your post is the equivalent of saying that the sun rises in the West.

Science is based upon observation, experiments and involves theories. Creationism/Christianity is based upon a big book of fairy tales that Creation Cultists blindly believe in.


----------



## LittleNipper

Syriusly said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is the kind of things atheist scientists do to apes.  Had they actually evolved into humans, then they probably would be walking among us now.
> ]
> 
> 
> 
> This is the kind of thing that that Christians do to humans. Had they actually evolved into humans, they probably would be walking among us now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah the roots of racism in America attributed to your people the libs. .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Racism existed in America long before 'liberals'- i.e. the Founding Fathers.
> 
> You Christians imported it with you.
> Along with your instructions on how to keep your slaves.
Click to expand...

I believe most fervent Christians accepted indentured servitude but were against lifetime slavery. Most slave traders were at best hedonistic and would have been among the atheists/agnostics of that day. In other words; they liked bars, brothels, binges, and brawls --- they didn't make a habit of attending church... They really had no care where the slave went when he died. A good example is Thomas Jefferson, who possessed slaves, didn't free any when he died, and cut up his own bible to reflect his own brand of irreligious considerations. I'm not happy that so many look at Jefferson's regard for separation of church and State with a feeling that he represents the "best" the Founding Father's had to offer. Sorry, he was not, and unless he accepted Christ as his personal savior, is in the same place as the pagans. Jefferson may have written the Constitution; however, he didn't dream it up all by himself. He was influenced by many others, and at least some of them were truly Christian.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> one needs an escape velocity of 11.2 km/s
> 
> 
> 
> Velocity is speed and direction. In this case, this must be the component of the velocity perpendicular to the surface of the Earth.
> 
> Not that you understand component vectors of velocity, anyway.
> 
> Seriously, you are embarrassing yourself. You don't even know what the term "velocity" means. Which should come as no surprise to anyone who has read any of the other ridiculously stupid things you have said in this thread.
Click to expand...


Just as I thought.  You do not understand escape velocity by your explanation.  I was looking for the following, 1) If one has a rocket and fuel to climb upwards, they will continue to go up, but if they do not reach near escape velocity, then they will come back down when the fuel runs out.  2) They will not be able to reach a point where their orbital speed is constant and let the space ship orbit the earth.  And it isn't a direction perpendicular to the surface of the earth they are going.  It is usually a trajectory path in order to reach orbit.  Look up orbital spaceflight to see what it entails.  3) If they just continue at 11.2 km/sec in a perpendicular direction, as stated, then they won't be returning to earth.


----------



## james bond

Syriusly said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is the kind of things atheist scientists do to apes.  Had they actually evolved into humans, then they probably would be walking among us now.
> ]
> 
> 
> 
> This is the kind of thing that that Christians do to humans. Had they actually evolved into humans, they probably would be walking among us now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah the roots of racism in America attributed to your people the libs. .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Racism existed in America long before 'liberals'- i.e. the Founding Fathers.
> 
> You Christians imported it with you.
> Along with your instructions on how to keep your slaves.
Click to expand...


You're quoting the racist preachers hired by the plantation owners to hold fake services in order to prevent them from running away.  Too much ignorance on your part.

For those who are smart enough to figure this out, the slaves had a secret religion for themselves -- real Christianity.

The Secret Religion of the Slaves

Let's get back to discussing Darwin's racism leading to the first humans coming from apes.  The *historical science* shows that it lead to social Darwinism, Eugenics and the Holocaust.  Maybe atheist scientists are racists at heart.


----------



## JBvM

*Do You Believe We Came From Monkeys? *


Ima Cat said:


> I know there are similarities but I think they are coincidental, like cats and seals both have whiskers.  But cats didn't come from seals or vice a versa.



IMACAT not sure if this works for you, but it does for me


----------



## Mousterian

JB, you're right that we cannot 'escape' gravity, but the effect does diminish very quickly with the distance between the two bodies.
And we don't need a god to set up planetary orbits. He'd be way too busy to be peering into our bedrooms, if he had to watch over the trillions of trillions of orbital systems in the observable Universe.

And, if you want to see evolution in progress, have a look at antibiotic resistance in pathogens.
When the first antibiotic (Penicillin) was put to general use, it was more than ten years before the evolution of resistance began to make new antibiotics necessary. Fast Forward to 2018, and new antiobiotics are effective for perhaps two years, before the bugs have evolved into resistant strains.

Do a bit of reading, and you won't be tempted to make such a fool of yourself defending the Bible, which, after all, was written by superstitious goat-herders.


----------



## LittleNipper

Mousterian said:


> JB, you're right that we cannot 'escape' gravity, but the effect does diminish very quickly with the distance between the two bodies.
> And we don't need a god to set up planetary orbits. He'd be way too busy to be peering into our bedrooms, if he had to watch over the trillions of trillions of orbital systems in the observable Universe.
> 
> And, if you want to see evolution in progress, have a look at antibiotic resistance in pathogens.
> When the first antibiotic (Penicillin) was put to general use, it was more than ten years before the evolution of resistance began to make new antibiotics necessary. Fast Forward to 2018, and new antiobiotics are effective for perhaps two years, before the bugs have evolved into resistant strains.
> 
> Do a bit of reading, and you won't be tempted to make such a fool of yourself defending the Bible, which, after all, was written by superstitious goat-herders.


We've heard this rumor more than once ---- and brainy philosophers wrote the Iliad and the Odyssey... Obviously, you've never read the Bible!


----------



## james bond

Mousterian said:


> JB, you're right that we cannot 'escape' gravity, but the effect does diminish very quickly with the distance between the two bodies.
> And we don't need a god to set up planetary orbits. He'd be way too busy to be peering into our bedrooms, if he had to watch over the trillions of trillions of orbital systems in the observable Universe.
> 
> And, if you want to see evolution in progress, have a look at antibiotic resistance in pathogens.
> When the first antibiotic (Penicillin) was put to general use, it was more than ten years before the evolution of resistance began to make new antibiotics necessary. Fast Forward to 2018, and new antiobiotics are effective for perhaps two years, before the bugs have evolved into resistant strains.
> 
> Do a bit of reading, and you won't be tempted to make such a fool of yourself defending the Bible, which, after all, was written by superstitious goat-herders.



It's you who should do a bit of reading as you are one with feces for brains.  Most of your post absolutely wreaks.  Then you would discover the Bible is our creator's Word, so it tells us how he created the earth, universe and all that lives within it.  This is the hypotheses of creation science, i.e. real science, instead of fake science of evolution.  So far, I have established that creation science is based on observation science and is testable with experiments and such.  As time passes, we discover that science backs up the Bible, such as the chicken coming before the egg in 2017.  On the other side is evolution with its historical science which in neither testable nor falsifiable.  Maybe a small amount.  Much of it is based on fossil evidence and filtering it through the worldview of evolution.

One of the things we need is God to set up our planetary orbits or else we would not survive.  We are at the perfect location due to gravity.  Otherwise, through observation, we know that other planets do not have what the earth has and thus no life exists.  We know that God didn't create any aliens, so there are no aliens.  We can observe this and we can observe that other planets such as Mars do not have a magnetic field like the earth.  This allows solar winds to wreak havoc with the atmosphere.  We are discovering that it's not just water that one needs to have life.  We also need the fine-tuning parameters which the atheist scientists discovered while studying the Big Bang.

We have also established that humans didn't evolve from apes because we do not observe this happening today.  Apes still walk on fours.  If Darwin was right about this, then we would have observable science, but we do not.

As for antibiotic resistance in pathogens, thank you for bringing it up.  It's probably one of the things of evolution I use to argue for the type of treatment necessary to fight against the rise of antibiotic resistance.  It's similar to the type of argument I use to fight against GMO foods; I use evolution as an argument against GMO foods.

However, this treatment isn't based on common ancestor nor how genes were handed down to us today 211 millions years later.  It isn't really based on evolution.  The type of treatment necessary to combat antibiotic resistance is based on knowing the design God used between animals and humans.  From observation science, we know that he reused some of the same parts.  Thus, we were able to find that the use of naturally occurring antimicrobial peptides, handed down to us for "thousands of years," for future drug development is the way to combat antibiotic resistance.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> one needs an escape velocity of 11.2 km/s
> 
> 
> 
> Velocity is speed and direction. In this case, this must be the component of the velocity perpendicular to the surface of the Earth.
> 
> Not that you understand component vectors of velocity, anyway.
> 
> Seriously, you are embarrassing yourself. You don't even know what the term "velocity" means. Which should come as no surprise to anyone who has read any of the other ridiculously stupid things you have said in this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just as I thought.  You do not understand escape velocity by your explanation.  I was looking for the following, 1) If one has a rocket and fuel to climb upwards, they will continue to go up, but if they do not reach near escape velocity, then they will come back down when the fuel runs out.  2) They will not be able to reach a point where their orbital speed is constant and let the space ship orbit the earth.  And it isn't a direction perpendicular to the surface of the earth they are going.  It is usually a trajectory path in order to reach orbit.  Look up orbital spaceflight to see what it entails.  3) If they just continue at 11.2 km/sec in a perpendicular direction, as stated, then they won't be returning to earth.
Click to expand...

You are embarrassing yourself.


----------



## Syriusly

LittleNipper said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is the kind of things atheist scientists do to apes.  Had they actually evolved into humans, then they probably would be walking among us now.
> ]
> 
> 
> 
> This is the kind of thing that that Christians do to humans. Had they actually evolved into humans, they probably would be walking among us now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah the roots of racism in America attributed to your people the libs. .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Racism existed in America long before 'liberals'- i.e. the Founding Fathers.
> 
> You Christians imported it with you.
> Along with your instructions on how to keep your slaves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I believe most fervent Christians accepted indentured servitude but were against lifetime slavery. Most slave traders were at best hedonistic and would have been among the atheists/agnostics of that day. In other words; they liked bars, brothels, binges, and brawls --- they didn't make a habit of attending church... They really had no care where the slave went when he died. A good example is Thomas Jefferson, who possessed slaves, didn't free any when he died, and cut up his own bible to reflect his own brand of irreligious considerations. I'm not happy that so many look at Jefferson's regard for separation of church and State with a feeling that he represents the "best" the Founding Father's had to offer. Sorry, he was not, and unless he accepted Christ as his personal savior, is in the same place as the pagans. Jefferson may have written the Constitution; however, he didn't dream it up all by himself. He was influenced by many others, and at least some of them were truly Christian.
Click to expand...


Jefferson was really a Deist not a Christian. 

Why would Christians be against lifetime slavery? Not only is there nothing against slavery in the Bible, slavery is condoned in the Bible and Paul even counsels slaves to obey their masters. 

And most of the slave owners in the America considered themselves as much a Christian as you consider yourself.


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is the kind of things atheist scientists do to apes.  Had they actually evolved into humans, then they probably would be walking among us now.
> ]
> 
> 
> 
> This is the kind of thing that that Christians do to humans. Had they actually evolved into humans, they probably would be walking among us now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah the roots of racism in America attributed to your people the libs. .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Racism existed in America long before 'liberals'- i.e. the Founding Fathers.
> 
> You Christians imported it with you.
> Along with your instructions on how to keep your slaves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're quoting the racist preachers hired by the plantation owners to hold fake services in order to prevent them from running away.  Too much ignorance on your part.
> 
> For those who are smart enough to figure this out, the slaves had a secret religion for themselves -- real Christianity.
> 
> The Secret Religion of the Slaves
> 
> Let's get back to discussing Darwin's racism leading to the first humans coming from apes.  The *historical science* shows that it lead to social Darwinism, Eugenics and the Holocaust.  Maybe atheist scientists are racists at heart.
Click to expand...


Let's get back to discussing Christianities racism regarding well everything. The historical science shows that Christianity shows that it lead to institutional racism, slavery and the Holocaust. Maybe Christians are just racists at heart.


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> Mousterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> JB, you're right that we cannot 'escape' gravity, but the effect does diminish very quickly with the distance between the two bodies.
> And we don't need a god to set up planetary orbits. He'd be way too busy to be peering into our bedrooms, if he had to watch over the trillions of trillions of orbital systems in the observable Universe.
> 
> And, if you want to see evolution in progress, have a look at antibiotic resistance in pathogens.
> When the first antibiotic (Penicillin) was put to general use, it was more than ten years before the evolution of resistance began to make new antibiotics necessary. Fast Forward to 2018, and new antiobiotics are effective for perhaps two years, before the bugs have evolved into resistant strains.
> 
> Do a bit of reading, and you won't be tempted to make such a fool of yourself defending the Bible, which, after all, was written by superstitious goat-herders.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We have also established that humans didn't evolve from apes because we do not observe this happening today.  Apes still walk on fours.  If Darwin was right about this, then we would have observable science, but we do not..
Click to expand...


That one statement just establishes that:
a) you don't understand science
b) you don't understand Darwin's theory of evolution and
c) you don't understand the modern theory of evolution.

But you do have blind faith in an infallible Bible.


----------



## james bond

Syriusly said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mousterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> JB, you're right that we cannot 'escape' gravity, but the effect does diminish very quickly with the distance between the two bodies.
> And we don't need a god to set up planetary orbits. He'd be way too busy to be peering into our bedrooms, if he had to watch over the trillions of trillions of orbital systems in the observable Universe.
> 
> And, if you want to see evolution in progress, have a look at antibiotic resistance in pathogens.
> When the first antibiotic (Penicillin) was put to general use, it was more than ten years before the evolution of resistance began to make new antibiotics necessary. Fast Forward to 2018, and new antiobiotics are effective for perhaps two years, before the bugs have evolved into resistant strains.
> 
> Do a bit of reading, and you won't be tempted to make such a fool of yourself defending the Bible, which, after all, was written by superstitious goat-herders.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We have also established that humans didn't evolve from apes because we do not observe this happening today.  Apes still walk on fours.  If Darwin was right about this, then we would have observable science, but we do not..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That one statement just establishes that:
> a) you don't understand science
> b) you don't understand Darwin's theory of evolution and
> c) you don't understand the modern theory of evolution.
> 
> But you do have blind faith in an infallible Bible.
Click to expand...


A)  I understand real science and fake science while you only believe in the fake science of evolution.  What observations do we see of ape-humans?  What observations do we see of bipedal apes?  You can't even test nor falsify either.  All you have are fossils which you claim were ape-humans from millions of years ago.  All we observe are artist renditions.  Creation scientists state they are apes, not ape-humans.  There is no such thing as ape-humans.  Why don't you glue some fur to your skin and act like a chimp who can be bipedal?

B)  Darwin's ToE was mostly wrong ha ha.

C)  Explain it to us in a paragraph.  What do you have that is observable, testable and falsifiable?

It's not blind faith when we theorize according to the Bible and then observe, test and falsify.  For example, we are predicting that we will find the universe is bounded and have edges.  We also predicted that the universe was flat and this was confirmed last year.  We also predict that the universe will curve like a scroll at the edges and lead to another dimension.  We predicted no aliens will be found and this has proven true.  What has evolution predicted that has come true?  The only thing I can think of is superweeds that are resistant to herbicides and pesticides and bacteria that antibiotics do not affect.  Creation science also predicts how earth's electromagnetic field works and it isn't due to raidioactive decay which atheist scientists claim.  Also, it's ridiculous that the poles reverse themselves over time.  It's just how magnetites are affected by magnetism in an igneous material.  You can't even predict what will happen with GM humans.


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> Mousterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> JB, you're right that we cannot 'escape' gravity, but the effect does diminish very quickly with the distance between the two bodies.
> And we don't need a god to set up planetary orbits. He'd be way too busy to be peering into our bedrooms, if he had to watch over the trillions of trillions of orbital systems in the observable Universe.
> 
> And, if you want to see evolution in progress, have a look at antibiotic resistance in pathogens.
> When the first antibiotic (Penicillin) was put to general use, it was more than ten years before the evolution of resistance began to make new antibiotics necessary. Fast Forward to 2018, and new antiobiotics are effective for perhaps two years, before the bugs have evolved into resistant strains.
> 
> Do a bit of reading, and you won't be tempted to make such a fool of yourself defending the Bible, which, after all, was written by superstitious goat-herders.
> 
> 
> 
> We are at the perfect location due to gravity.  Otherwise, through observation, we know that other planets do not have what the earth has and thus no life exists.  We know that God didn't create any aliens, so there are no aliens.  We can observe this and we can observe that other planets such as Mars do not have a magnetic field like the earth.  This allows solar winds to wreak havoc with the atmosphere.  We are discovering that it's not just water that one needs to have life.  We also need the fine-tuning parameters which the atheist scientists discovered while studying the Big Bang..
Click to expand...


We don't know that other planets don't have life. 

You believe that your god didn't create any 'aliens' because you believe your cultist version of the bible- but again there is no evidence of your god- and there is no evidence that aliens exist- or don't exist. 

Other planets don't have magnetic fields 'like' earth- they have their own magnetic fields .
_Mercury was thought to be cold and dead inside, thus having no magnetic field. However, Mariner measured a weak magnetic field, meaning Mercury must have some internal activity. Probes found that Mars and Venus do not have a significant magnetic field. 

Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune all have magnetic fields much stronger than that of the Earth. Jupiter is the champion- having the largest magnetic field. The mechanism that causes their magnetic fields is not fully understood. It is believed that in the case of Saturn and Jupiter that their magnetic fields may be caused by hydrogen conducting electricity deep within the planet. Hydrogen near the planets core may be compressed so densely by all the planetary layers above that it becomes an electrical conductor.


The planet Uranus has an interesting magnetic field. Uranus’ poles lie almost in the plane of its orbit around the Sun. The magnetic poles are fully 60 degrees away from the geographic poles, which results in a wild rotation of Uranus’ magnetic field as the planet rotates. On the other hand, Saturn’s magnetic field and rotation axes seem to be pretty much the same, making Saturn somewhat magnetically unique.
_
And I find it hilarious that you somehow believe in the "Big Bang"- but _also that the earth is 6,000 years old. 


_


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mousterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> JB, you're right that we cannot 'escape' gravity, but the effect does diminish very quickly with the distance between the two bodies.
> And we don't need a god to set up planetary orbits. He'd be way too busy to be peering into our bedrooms, if he had to watch over the trillions of trillions of orbital systems in the observable Universe.
> 
> And, if you want to see evolution in progress, have a look at antibiotic resistance in pathogens.
> When the first antibiotic (Penicillin) was put to general use, it was more than ten years before the evolution of resistance began to make new antibiotics necessary. Fast Forward to 2018, and new antiobiotics are effective for perhaps two years, before the bugs have evolved into resistant strains.
> 
> Do a bit of reading, and you won't be tempted to make such a fool of yourself defending the Bible, which, after all, was written by superstitious goat-herders.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We have also established that humans didn't evolve from apes because we do not observe this happening today.  Apes still walk on fours.  If Darwin was right about this, then we would have observable science, but we do not..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That one statement just establishes that:
> a) you don't understand science
> b) you don't understand Darwin's theory of evolution and
> c) you don't understand the modern theory of evolution.
> 
> But you do have blind faith in an infallible Bible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A)  I understand real science and fake science while you only believe in the fake science of evolution.  What observations do we see of ape-humans?  What observations do we see of bipedal apes?  You can't even test nor falsify either.  All you have are fossils which you claim were ape-humans from millions of years ago.  All we observe are artist renditions.  Creation scientists state they are apes, not ape-humans.  There is no such thing as ape-humans.  Why don't you glue some fur to your skin and act like a chimp who can be bipedal??
Click to expand...


So far you have demonstrated you don't understand science or evolution. 

What the hell are 'ape-humans'? Why are you talking about 'bipedal apes'?

Yes- Scientists do have fossils- which is a hell of a lot more scientific than a book of fairy tales. And yes we can observe the images of those fossils- and the scientific analysis of those fossils. 

Creationists say all sorts of ignorant crazy things- but that doesn't make them scientists- it just makes them ignorant and crazy. 

The difference between yourself and myself is that I read about the evidence, I read about what the scientists have deducted from the evidence and have decided that the evidence best supports the general theory of evolution. 

There is no evidence which supports either humans poofing into existence 6,000 years ago, or a flood that covered the Himalayas or that kangaroos got dropped off at Mt. Ararat and hopped to Australia- and nowhere else.


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mousterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> JB, you're right that we cannot 'escape' gravity, but the effect does diminish very quickly with the distance between the two bodies.
> And we don't need a god to set up planetary orbits. He'd be way too busy to be peering into our bedrooms, if he had to watch over the trillions of trillions of orbital systems in the observable Universe.
> 
> And, if you want to see evolution in progress, have a look at antibiotic resistance in pathogens.
> When the first antibiotic (Penicillin) was put to general use, it was more than ten years before the evolution of resistance began to make new antibiotics necessary. Fast Forward to 2018, and new antiobiotics are effective for perhaps two years, before the bugs have evolved into resistant strains.
> 
> Do a bit of reading, and you won't be tempted to make such a fool of yourself defending the Bible, which, after all, was written by superstitious goat-herders.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We have also established that humans didn't evolve from apes because we do not observe this happening today.  Apes still walk on fours.  If Darwin was right about this, then we would have observable science, but we do not..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That one statement just establishes that:
> a) you don't understand science
> b) you don't understand Darwin's theory of evolution and
> c) you don't understand the modern theory of evolution.
> 
> But you do have blind faith in an infallible Bible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> B)  Darwin's ToE was mostly wrong ha ha.
Click to expand...


Demonstrating once again that you have no clue what Darwin's Theory of Evolution actually says.


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mousterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> JB, you're right that we cannot 'escape' gravity, but the effect does diminish very quickly with the distance between the two bodies.
> And we don't need a god to set up planetary orbits. He'd be way too busy to be peering into our bedrooms, if he had to watch over the trillions of trillions of orbital systems in the observable Universe.
> 
> And, if you want to see evolution in progress, have a look at antibiotic resistance in pathogens.
> When the first antibiotic (Penicillin) was put to general use, it was more than ten years before the evolution of resistance began to make new antibiotics necessary. Fast Forward to 2018, and new antiobiotics are effective for perhaps two years, before the bugs have evolved into resistant strains.
> 
> Do a bit of reading, and you won't be tempted to make such a fool of yourself defending the Bible, which, after all, was written by superstitious goat-herders.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We have also established that humans didn't evolve from apes because we do not observe this happening today.  Apes still walk on fours.  If Darwin was right about this, then we would have observable science, but we do not..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That one statement just establishes that:
> a) you don't understand science
> b) you don't understand Darwin's theory of evolution and
> c) you don't understand the modern theory of evolution.
> 
> But you do have blind faith in an infallible Bible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> C)  Explain it to us in a paragraph.  What do you have that is observable, testable and falsifiable?
Click to expand...


I absolutely am up for that challenge. After all- aren't most scientific theories able to be explained in a paragraph?

So here is my challenge. You agree you will reciprocate and do the same for Creationism. 
If you agree to explain Creationism to us all in a paragraph- and show what is observable, testable and falsifiable- I will then step up and provide that for evolution.

But remember- one paragraph- observable, testable, and falsifiable. Creationism.


----------



## james bond

Syriusly said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mousterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> JB, you're right that we cannot 'escape' gravity, but the effect does diminish very quickly with the distance between the two bodies.
> And we don't need a god to set up planetary orbits. He'd be way too busy to be peering into our bedrooms, if he had to watch over the trillions of trillions of orbital systems in the observable Universe.
> 
> And, if you want to see evolution in progress, have a look at antibiotic resistance in pathogens.
> When the first antibiotic (Penicillin) was put to general use, it was more than ten years before the evolution of resistance began to make new antibiotics necessary. Fast Forward to 2018, and new antiobiotics are effective for perhaps two years, before the bugs have evolved into resistant strains.
> 
> Do a bit of reading, and you won't be tempted to make such a fool of yourself defending the Bible, which, after all, was written by superstitious goat-herders.
> 
> 
> 
> We are at the perfect location due to gravity.  Otherwise, through observation, we know that other planets do not have what the earth has and thus no life exists.  We know that God didn't create any aliens, so there are no aliens.  We can observe this and we can observe that other planets such as Mars do not have a magnetic field like the earth.  This allows solar winds to wreak havoc with the atmosphere.  We are discovering that it's not just water that one needs to have life.  We also need the fine-tuning parameters which the atheist scientists discovered while studying the Big Bang..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We don't know that other planets don't have life.
> 
> You believe that your god didn't create any 'aliens' because you believe your cultist version of the bible- but again there is no evidence of your god- and there is no evidence that aliens exist- or don't exist.
> 
> Other planets don't have magnetic fields 'like' earth- they have their own magnetic fields .
> _Mercury was thought to be cold and dead inside, thus having no magnetic field. However, Mariner measured a weak magnetic field, meaning Mercury must have some internal activity. Probes found that Mars and Venus do not have a significant magnetic field.
> 
> Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune all have magnetic fields much stronger than that of the Earth. Jupiter is the champion- having the largest magnetic field. The mechanism that causes their magnetic fields is not fully understood. It is believed that in the case of Saturn and Jupiter that their magnetic fields may be caused by hydrogen conducting electricity deep within the planet. Hydrogen near the planets core may be compressed so densely by all the planetary layers above that it becomes an electrical conductor.
> 
> 
> The planet Uranus has an interesting magnetic field. Uranus’ poles lie almost in the plane of its orbit around the Sun. The magnetic poles are fully 60 degrees away from the geographic poles, which results in a wild rotation of Uranus’ magnetic field as the planet rotates. On the other hand, Saturn’s magnetic field and rotation axes seem to be pretty much the same, making Saturn somewhat magnetically unique.
> _
> And I find it hilarious that you somehow believe in the "Big Bang"- but _also that the earth is 6,000 years old.
> 
> _
Click to expand...


Do you have an experiment to show how hydrogen causes a magnetic field?  What atheist scientist state is the it's due to heat convection through the earth core and mantle.  I suppose it's due to radioactive decay.  That said, I think we'll discover that it's due to gravity such as the moon's gravity affect the tides on earth.

And creation scientists do not believe in a Big Bang.  The only think BBT was good for was we know that the universe isn't eternal.  Also, we found fine-tuning parameters of the universe.  It's more evidence to show that life does not happen on other planets in the universe.


----------



## james bond

Syriusly said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mousterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> JB, you're right that we cannot 'escape' gravity, but the effect does diminish very quickly with the distance between the two bodies.
> And we don't need a god to set up planetary orbits. He'd be way too busy to be peering into our bedrooms, if he had to watch over the trillions of trillions of orbital systems in the observable Universe.
> 
> And, if you want to see evolution in progress, have a look at antibiotic resistance in pathogens.
> When the first antibiotic (Penicillin) was put to general use, it was more than ten years before the evolution of resistance began to make new antibiotics necessary. Fast Forward to 2018, and new antiobiotics are effective for perhaps two years, before the bugs have evolved into resistant strains.
> 
> Do a bit of reading, and you won't be tempted to make such a fool of yourself defending the Bible, which, after all, was written by superstitious goat-herders.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We have also established that humans didn't evolve from apes because we do not observe this happening today.  Apes still walk on fours.  If Darwin was right about this, then we would have observable science, but we do not..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That one statement just establishes that:
> a) you don't understand science
> b) you don't understand Darwin's theory of evolution and
> c) you don't understand the modern theory of evolution.
> 
> But you do have blind faith in an infallible Bible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> C)  Explain it to us in a paragraph.  What do you have that is observable, testable and falsifiable?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I absolutely am up for that challenge. After all- aren't most scientific theories able to be explained in a paragraph?
> 
> So here is my challenge. You agree you will reciprocate and do the same for Creationism.
> If you agree to explain Creationism to us all in a paragraph- and show what is observable, testable and falsifiable- I will then step up and provide that for evolution.
> 
> But remember- one paragraph- observable, testable, and falsifiable. Creationism.
Click to expand...


You go first.

Second, you do not even understand what I have been discussing.  What a boob you are!!!  I'm discussing creation science, not creationism.  I can explain creation science and how science backs up the theories of the Bible.


----------



## ChesBayJJ

james bond said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mousterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> JB, you're right that we cannot 'escape' gravity, but the effect does diminish very quickly with the distance between the two bodies.
> And we don't need a god to set up planetary orbits. He'd be way too busy to be peering into our bedrooms, if he had to watch over the trillions of trillions of orbital systems in the observable Universe.
> 
> And, if you want to see evolution in progress, have a look at antibiotic resistance in pathogens.
> When the first antibiotic (Penicillin) was put to general use, it was more than ten years before the evolution of resistance began to make new antibiotics necessary. Fast Forward to 2018, and new antiobiotics are effective for perhaps two years, before the bugs have evolved into resistant strains.
> 
> Do a bit of reading, and you won't be tempted to make such a fool of yourself defending the Bible, which, after all, was written by superstitious goat-herders.
> 
> 
> 
> We are at the perfect location due to gravity.  Otherwise, through observation, we know that other planets do not have what the earth has and thus no life exists.  We know that God didn't create any aliens, so there are no aliens.  We can observe this and we can observe that other planets such as Mars do not have a magnetic field like the earth.  This allows solar winds to wreak havoc with the atmosphere.  We are discovering that it's not just water that one needs to have life.  We also need the fine-tuning parameters which the atheist scientists discovered while studying the Big Bang..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We don't know that other planets don't have life.
> 
> You believe that your god didn't create any 'aliens' because you believe your cultist version of the bible- but again there is no evidence of your god- and there is no evidence that aliens exist- or don't exist.
> 
> Other planets don't have magnetic fields 'like' earth- they have their own magnetic fields .
> _Mercury was thought to be cold and dead inside, thus having no magnetic field. However, Mariner measured a weak magnetic field, meaning Mercury must have some internal activity. Probes found that Mars and Venus do not have a significant magnetic field.
> 
> Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune all have magnetic fields much stronger than that of the Earth. Jupiter is the champion- having the largest magnetic field. The mechanism that causes their magnetic fields is not fully understood. It is believed that in the case of Saturn and Jupiter that their magnetic fields may be caused by hydrogen conducting electricity deep within the planet. Hydrogen near the planets core may be compressed so densely by all the planetary layers above that it becomes an electrical conductor.
> 
> 
> The planet Uranus has an interesting magnetic field. Uranus’ poles lie almost in the plane of its orbit around the Sun. The magnetic poles are fully 60 degrees away from the geographic poles, which results in a wild rotation of Uranus’ magnetic field as the planet rotates. On the other hand, Saturn’s magnetic field and rotation axes seem to be pretty much the same, making Saturn somewhat magnetically unique.
> _
> And I find it hilarious that you somehow believe in the "Big Bang"- but _also that the earth is 6,000 years old.
> 
> _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have an experiment to show how hydrogen causes a magnetic field?  What atheist scientist state is the it's due to heat convection through the earth core and mantle.  I suppose it's due to radioactive decay.  That said, I think we'll discover that it's due to gravity such as the moon's gravity affect the tides on earth.
> 
> And creation scientists do not believe in a Big Bang.  The only think BBT was good for was we know that the universe isn't eternal.  Also, we found fine-tuning parameters of the universe.  It's more evidence to show that life does not happen on other planets in the universe.
Click to expand...


Read and learn

NOVA | Magnetic Storm | What Drives Earth's Magnetic Field? | PBS


----------



## sealybobo

Ima Cat said:


> I know there are similarities but I think they are coincidental, like cats and seals both have whiskers.  But cats didn't come from seals or vice a versa.


Actually I think seals are closer related to dogs not cats.

Do you believe we were once smaller humans? Cavemen who said unga bunga. Smaller brains? So we have evolved from a lesser human? Well keep going back and you’ll see a monkey like ancestor


----------



## sealybobo

james bond said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mousterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> JB, you're right that we cannot 'escape' gravity, but the effect does diminish very quickly with the distance between the two bodies.
> And we don't need a god to set up planetary orbits. He'd be way too busy to be peering into our bedrooms, if he had to watch over the trillions of trillions of orbital systems in the observable Universe.
> 
> And, if you want to see evolution in progress, have a look at antibiotic resistance in pathogens.
> When the first antibiotic (Penicillin) was put to general use, it was more than ten years before the evolution of resistance began to make new antibiotics necessary. Fast Forward to 2018, and new antiobiotics are effective for perhaps two years, before the bugs have evolved into resistant strains.
> 
> Do a bit of reading, and you won't be tempted to make such a fool of yourself defending the Bible, which, after all, was written by superstitious goat-herders.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We have also established that humans didn't evolve from apes because we do not observe this happening today.  Apes still walk on fours.  If Darwin was right about this, then we would have observable science, but we do not..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That one statement just establishes that:
> a) you don't understand science
> b) you don't understand Darwin's theory of evolution and
> c) you don't understand the modern theory of evolution.
> 
> But you do have blind faith in an infallible Bible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> C)  Explain it to us in a paragraph.  What do you have that is observable, testable and falsifiable?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I absolutely am up for that challenge. After all- aren't most scientific theories able to be explained in a paragraph?
> 
> So here is my challenge. You agree you will reciprocate and do the same for Creationism.
> If you agree to explain Creationism to us all in a paragraph- and show what is observable, testable and falsifiable- I will then step up and provide that for evolution.
> 
> But remember- one paragraph- observable, testable, and falsifiable. Creationism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You go first.
> 
> Second, you do not even understand what I have been discussing.  What a boob you are!!!  I'm discussing creation science, not creationism.  I can explain creation science and how science backs up the theories of the Bible.
Click to expand...

No you can’t. Not credibly


----------



## sealybobo

james bond said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mousterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> JB, you're right that we cannot 'escape' gravity, but the effect does diminish very quickly with the distance between the two bodies.
> And we don't need a god to set up planetary orbits. He'd be way too busy to be peering into our bedrooms, if he had to watch over the trillions of trillions of orbital systems in the observable Universe.
> 
> And, if you want to see evolution in progress, have a look at antibiotic resistance in pathogens.
> When the first antibiotic (Penicillin) was put to general use, it was more than ten years before the evolution of resistance began to make new antibiotics necessary. Fast Forward to 2018, and new antiobiotics are effective for perhaps two years, before the bugs have evolved into resistant strains.
> 
> Do a bit of reading, and you won't be tempted to make such a fool of yourself defending the Bible, which, after all, was written by superstitious goat-herders.
> 
> 
> 
> We are at the perfect location due to gravity.  Otherwise, through observation, we know that other planets do not have what the earth has and thus no life exists.  We know that God didn't create any aliens, so there are no aliens.  We can observe this and we can observe that other planets such as Mars do not have a magnetic field like the earth.  This allows solar winds to wreak havoc with the atmosphere.  We are discovering that it's not just water that one needs to have life.  We also need the fine-tuning parameters which the atheist scientists discovered while studying the Big Bang..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We don't know that other planets don't have life.
> 
> You believe that your god didn't create any 'aliens' because you believe your cultist version of the bible- but again there is no evidence of your god- and there is no evidence that aliens exist- or don't exist.
> 
> Other planets don't have magnetic fields 'like' earth- they have their own magnetic fields .
> _Mercury was thought to be cold and dead inside, thus having no magnetic field. However, Mariner measured a weak magnetic field, meaning Mercury must have some internal activity. Probes found that Mars and Venus do not have a significant magnetic field.
> 
> Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune all have magnetic fields much stronger than that of the Earth. Jupiter is the champion- having the largest magnetic field. The mechanism that causes their magnetic fields is not fully understood. It is believed that in the case of Saturn and Jupiter that their magnetic fields may be caused by hydrogen conducting electricity deep within the planet. Hydrogen near the planets core may be compressed so densely by all the planetary layers above that it becomes an electrical conductor.
> 
> 
> The planet Uranus has an interesting magnetic field. Uranus’ poles lie almost in the plane of its orbit around the Sun. The magnetic poles are fully 60 degrees away from the geographic poles, which results in a wild rotation of Uranus’ magnetic field as the planet rotates. On the other hand, Saturn’s magnetic field and rotation axes seem to be pretty much the same, making Saturn somewhat magnetically unique.
> _
> And I find it hilarious that you somehow believe in the "Big Bang"- but _also that the earth is 6,000 years old.
> 
> _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have an experiment to show how hydrogen causes a magnetic field?  What atheist scientist state is the it's due to heat convection through the earth core and mantle.  I suppose it's due to radioactive decay.  That said, I think we'll discover that it's due to gravity such as the moon's gravity affect the tides on earth.
> 
> And creation scientists do not believe in a Big Bang.  The only think BBT was good for was we know that the universe isn't eternal.  Also, we found fine-tuning parameters of the universe.  It's more evidence to show that life does not happen on other planets in the universe.
Click to expand...

No it’s not. False conclusion


----------



## Likkmee

ChesBayJJ said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's a very definitive assertion, for someone who wasn't there.
> 
> And where did the reptiles come from?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Older reptiles. And amphibians. Which previously had evolved from transitional species that had come from the ocean. And so on and so on and so on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So basically, you have "it must have evolved from something else, which must have evolved from something else, which must have evolved from something else" _ad infinitum_.
> 
> Cut to the chase.  Where did it start, and how, and what's your proof?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't  have any proof other than the fact we and millions of other species exist here on earth. How it started? A number of theories, none proven.
> 
> 7 Theories on the Origin of Life
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So basically, you have the same proof of your belief that I do of mine:  we exist, therefore . . .  But somehow, yours is more valid than mine, presumably because you use scientific words to dress it up.
> 
> I didn't ask you for proof that your theories exist, or that they ARE theories.  That's actually been my point the whole time:  they're _theories_, so stop waving them around as proven fact.  And stop telling other people that they're stupid and uneducated for daring to question them.  Being questioned is the _purpose _of a theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is a great deal more scientific evidence than there is evidence to support the story of Genesis. I think the Bible is a wonderful book and has a great deal of good in it about caring and charity and living a good life. But I don't take Genesis literally. I'm a science geek and I believe the science. And I don't believe I've ever claimed anything as fact.
Click to expand...

" Jack, he just said in 50 years he'd be able to take a little camera, make a movie and show it to the whole world in 1/2 hour. Take him to a shrink! "
My Granny....1966


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mousterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> JB, you're right that we cannot 'escape' gravity, but the effect does diminish very quickly with the distance between the two bodies.
> And we don't need a god to set up planetary orbits. He'd be way too busy to be peering into our bedrooms, if he had to watch over the trillions of trillions of orbital systems in the observable Universe.
> 
> And, if you want to see evolution in progress, have a look at antibiotic resistance in pathogens.
> When the first antibiotic (Penicillin) was put to general use, it was more than ten years before the evolution of resistance began to make new antibiotics necessary. Fast Forward to 2018, and new antiobiotics are effective for perhaps two years, before the bugs have evolved into resistant strains.
> 
> Do a bit of reading, and you won't be tempted to make such a fool of yourself defending the Bible, which, after all, was written by superstitious goat-herders.
> 
> 
> 
> We are at the perfect location due to gravity.  Otherwise, through observation, we know that other planets do not have what the earth has and thus no life exists.  We know that God didn't create any aliens, so there are no aliens.  We can observe this and we can observe that other planets such as Mars do not have a magnetic field like the earth.  This allows solar winds to wreak havoc with the atmosphere.  We are discovering that it's not just water that one needs to have life.  We also need the fine-tuning parameters which the atheist scientists discovered while studying the Big Bang..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We don't know that other planets don't have life.
> 
> You believe that your god didn't create any 'aliens' because you believe your cultist version of the bible- but again there is no evidence of your god- and there is no evidence that aliens exist- or don't exist.
> 
> Other planets don't have magnetic fields 'like' earth- they have their own magnetic fields .
> _Mercury was thought to be cold and dead inside, thus having no magnetic field. However, Mariner measured a weak magnetic field, meaning Mercury must have some internal activity. Probes found that Mars and Venus do not have a significant magnetic field.
> 
> Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune all have magnetic fields much stronger than that of the Earth. Jupiter is the champion- having the largest magnetic field. The mechanism that causes their magnetic fields is not fully understood. It is believed that in the case of Saturn and Jupiter that their magnetic fields may be caused by hydrogen conducting electricity deep within the planet. Hydrogen near the planets core may be compressed so densely by all the planetary layers above that it becomes an electrical conductor.
> 
> 
> The planet Uranus has an interesting magnetic field. Uranus’ poles lie almost in the plane of its orbit around the Sun. The magnetic poles are fully 60 degrees away from the geographic poles, which results in a wild rotation of Uranus’ magnetic field as the planet rotates. On the other hand, Saturn’s magnetic field and rotation axes seem to be pretty much the same, making Saturn somewhat magnetically unique.
> _
> And I find it hilarious that you somehow believe in the "Big Bang"- but _also that the earth is 6,000 years old.
> 
> _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have an experiment to show how hydrogen causes a magnetic field?  What atheist scientist state.
Click to expand...


What does that have to do either with evolution or 'atheist scientists'. I am pretty sure all real scientists understand and accept the Theory of Magnetism.


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mousterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> JB, you're right that we cannot 'escape' gravity, but the effect does diminish very quickly with the distance between the two bodies.
> And we don't need a god to set up planetary orbits. He'd be way too busy to be peering into our bedrooms, if he had to watch over the trillions of trillions of orbital systems in the observable Universe.
> 
> And, if you want to see evolution in progress, have a look at antibiotic resistance in pathogens.
> When the first antibiotic (Penicillin) was put to general use, it was more than ten years before the evolution of resistance began to make new antibiotics necessary. Fast Forward to 2018, and new antiobiotics are effective for perhaps two years, before the bugs have evolved into resistant strains.
> 
> Do a bit of reading, and you won't be tempted to make such a fool of yourself defending the Bible, which, after all, was written by superstitious goat-herders.
> 
> 
> 
> We are at the perfect location due to gravity.  Otherwise, through observation, we know that other planets do not have what the earth has and thus no life exists.  We know that God didn't create any aliens, so there are no aliens.  We can observe this and we can observe that other planets such as Mars do not have a magnetic field like the earth.  This allows solar winds to wreak havoc with the atmosphere.  We are discovering that it's not just water that one needs to have life.  We also need the fine-tuning parameters which the atheist scientists discovered while studying the Big Bang..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We don't know that other planets don't have life.
> 
> You believe that your god didn't create any 'aliens' because you believe your cultist version of the bible- but again there is no evidence of your god- and there is no evidence that aliens exist- or don't exist.
> 
> Other planets don't have magnetic fields 'like' earth- they have their own magnetic fields .
> _Mercury was thought to be cold and dead inside, thus having no magnetic field. However, Mariner measured a weak magnetic field, meaning Mercury must have some internal activity. Probes found that Mars and Venus do not have a significant magnetic field.
> 
> Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune all have magnetic fields much stronger than that of the Earth. Jupiter is the champion- having the largest magnetic field. The mechanism that causes their magnetic fields is not fully understood. It is believed that in the case of Saturn and Jupiter that their magnetic fields may be caused by hydrogen conducting electricity deep within the planet. Hydrogen near the planets core may be compressed so densely by all the planetary layers above that it becomes an electrical conductor.
> 
> 
> The planet Uranus has an interesting magnetic field. Uranus’ poles lie almost in the plane of its orbit around the Sun. The magnetic poles are fully 60 degrees away from the geographic poles, which results in a wild rotation of Uranus’ magnetic field as the planet rotates. On the other hand, Saturn’s magnetic field and rotation axes seem to be pretty much the same, making Saturn somewhat magnetically unique.
> _
> And I find it hilarious that you somehow believe in the "Big Bang"- but _also that the earth is 6,000 years old.
> 
> _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And creation scientists do not believe in a Big Bang.  The only think BBT was good for was we know that the universe isn't eternal.  Also, we found fine-tuning parameters of the universe.  It's more evidence to show that life does not happen on other planets in the universe.
Click to expand...


I love to watch you dance- like Fred Astaire if he was a Luddite. You don't believe in the Big Bang Theory but are glad to misuse in support of your fantasies. 

Tell us more about this 'evidence of life' not happening on other planets in the universe....lol


----------



## james bond

ChesBayJJ said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mousterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> JB, you're right that we cannot 'escape' gravity, but the effect does diminish very quickly with the distance between the two bodies.
> And we don't need a god to set up planetary orbits. He'd be way too busy to be peering into our bedrooms, if he had to watch over the trillions of trillions of orbital systems in the observable Universe.
> 
> And, if you want to see evolution in progress, have a look at antibiotic resistance in pathogens.
> When the first antibiotic (Penicillin) was put to general use, it was more than ten years before the evolution of resistance began to make new antibiotics necessary. Fast Forward to 2018, and new antiobiotics are effective for perhaps two years, before the bugs have evolved into resistant strains.
> 
> Do a bit of reading, and you won't be tempted to make such a fool of yourself defending the Bible, which, after all, was written by superstitious goat-herders.
> 
> 
> 
> We are at the perfect location due to gravity.  Otherwise, through observation, we know that other planets do not have what the earth has and thus no life exists.  We know that God didn't create any aliens, so there are no aliens.  We can observe this and we can observe that other planets such as Mars do not have a magnetic field like the earth.  This allows solar winds to wreak havoc with the atmosphere.  We are discovering that it's not just water that one needs to have life.  We also need the fine-tuning parameters which the atheist scientists discovered while studying the Big Bang..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We don't know that other planets don't have life.
> 
> You believe that your god didn't create any 'aliens' because you believe your cultist version of the bible- but again there is no evidence of your god- and there is no evidence that aliens exist- or don't exist.
> 
> Other planets don't have magnetic fields 'like' earth- they have their own magnetic fields .
> _Mercury was thought to be cold and dead inside, thus having no magnetic field. However, Mariner measured a weak magnetic field, meaning Mercury must have some internal activity. Probes found that Mars and Venus do not have a significant magnetic field.
> 
> Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune all have magnetic fields much stronger than that of the Earth. Jupiter is the champion- having the largest magnetic field. The mechanism that causes their magnetic fields is not fully understood. It is believed that in the case of Saturn and Jupiter that their magnetic fields may be caused by hydrogen conducting electricity deep within the planet. Hydrogen near the planets core may be compressed so densely by all the planetary layers above that it becomes an electrical conductor.
> 
> 
> The planet Uranus has an interesting magnetic field. Uranus’ poles lie almost in the plane of its orbit around the Sun. The magnetic poles are fully 60 degrees away from the geographic poles, which results in a wild rotation of Uranus’ magnetic field as the planet rotates. On the other hand, Saturn’s magnetic field and rotation axes seem to be pretty much the same, making Saturn somewhat magnetically unique.
> _
> And I find it hilarious that you somehow believe in the "Big Bang"- but _also that the earth is 6,000 years old.
> 
> _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have an experiment to show how hydrogen causes a magnetic field?  What atheist scientist state is the it's due to heat convection through the earth core and mantle.  I suppose it's due to radioactive decay.  That said, I think we'll discover that it's due to gravity such as the moon's gravity affect the tides on earth.
> 
> And creation scientists do not believe in a Big Bang.  The only think BBT was good for was we know that the universe isn't eternal.  Also, we found fine-tuning parameters of the universe.  It's more evidence to show that life does not happen on other planets in the universe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Read and learn
> 
> NOVA | Magnetic Storm | What Drives Earth's Magnetic Field? | PBS
Click to expand...


Yes, I've read about the dynamo.  So let's discuss.  The heat being released is from radioactive decay (nuclear fission) in the core is it not?  Something has to continue producing energy, heat in this case, for a dynamo.  What causes the dynamo?  What causes the magnetic field?

Another explanation for additional heat in the core is due to the heat when the earth formed from a supernova.  This is bull according to creation science.


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mousterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> JB, you're right that we cannot 'escape' gravity, but the effect does diminish very quickly with the distance between the two bodies.
> And we don't need a god to set up planetary orbits. He'd be way too busy to be peering into our bedrooms, if he had to watch over the trillions of trillions of orbital systems in the observable Universe.
> 
> And, if you want to see evolution in progress, have a look at antibiotic resistance in pathogens.
> When the first antibiotic (Penicillin) was put to general use, it was more than ten years before the evolution of resistance began to make new antibiotics necessary. Fast Forward to 2018, and new antiobiotics are effective for perhaps two years, before the bugs have evolved into resistant strains.
> 
> Do a bit of reading, and you won't be tempted to make such a fool of yourself defending the Bible, which, after all, was written by superstitious goat-herders.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We have also established that humans didn't evolve from apes because we do not observe this happening today.  Apes still walk on fours.  If Darwin was right about this, then we would have observable science, but we do not..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That one statement just establishes that:
> a) you don't understand science
> b) you don't understand Darwin's theory of evolution and
> c) you don't understand the modern theory of evolution.
> 
> But you do have blind faith in an infallible Bible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> C)  Explain it to us in a paragraph.  What do you have that is observable, testable and falsifiable?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I absolutely am up for that challenge. After all- aren't most scientific theories able to be explained in a paragraph?
> 
> So here is my challenge. You agree you will reciprocate and do the same for Creationism.
> If you agree to explain Creationism to us all in a paragraph- and show what is observable, testable and falsifiable- I will then step up and provide that for evolution.
> 
> But remember- one paragraph- observable, testable, and falsifiable. Creationism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You go first.
> 
> Second, you do not even understand what I have been discussing.  What a boob you are!!!  I'm discussing creation science, not creationism.  I can explain creation science and how science backs up the theories of the Bible.
Click to expand...


Oh please- do tell- what is the difference between 'Creationism' and 'Creation science'? Is that like the difference between Homeopathy and Homeopathic Science?

You explain the difference- and I will gladly step up and do a one paragraph presentation on the Theory of Evolution and show what is observable, testable, and falsifiable'


----------



## james bond

sealybobo said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mousterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> JB, you're right that we cannot 'escape' gravity, but the effect does diminish very quickly with the distance between the two bodies.
> And we don't need a god to set up planetary orbits. He'd be way too busy to be peering into our bedrooms, if he had to watch over the trillions of trillions of orbital systems in the observable Universe.
> 
> And, if you want to see evolution in progress, have a look at antibiotic resistance in pathogens.
> When the first antibiotic (Penicillin) was put to general use, it was more than ten years before the evolution of resistance began to make new antibiotics necessary. Fast Forward to 2018, and new antiobiotics are effective for perhaps two years, before the bugs have evolved into resistant strains.
> 
> Do a bit of reading, and you won't be tempted to make such a fool of yourself defending the Bible, which, after all, was written by superstitious goat-herders.
> 
> 
> 
> We are at the perfect location due to gravity.  Otherwise, through observation, we know that other planets do not have what the earth has and thus no life exists.  We know that God didn't create any aliens, so there are no aliens.  We can observe this and we can observe that other planets such as Mars do not have a magnetic field like the earth.  This allows solar winds to wreak havoc with the atmosphere.  We are discovering that it's not just water that one needs to have life.  We also need the fine-tuning parameters which the atheist scientists discovered while studying the Big Bang..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We don't know that other planets don't have life.
> 
> You believe that your god didn't create any 'aliens' because you believe your cultist version of the bible- but again there is no evidence of your god- and there is no evidence that aliens exist- or don't exist.
> 
> Other planets don't have magnetic fields 'like' earth- they have their own magnetic fields .
> _Mercury was thought to be cold and dead inside, thus having no magnetic field. However, Mariner measured a weak magnetic field, meaning Mercury must have some internal activity. Probes found that Mars and Venus do not have a significant magnetic field.
> 
> Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune all have magnetic fields much stronger than that of the Earth. Jupiter is the champion- having the largest magnetic field. The mechanism that causes their magnetic fields is not fully understood. It is believed that in the case of Saturn and Jupiter that their magnetic fields may be caused by hydrogen conducting electricity deep within the planet. Hydrogen near the planets core may be compressed so densely by all the planetary layers above that it becomes an electrical conductor.
> 
> 
> The planet Uranus has an interesting magnetic field. Uranus’ poles lie almost in the plane of its orbit around the Sun. The magnetic poles are fully 60 degrees away from the geographic poles, which results in a wild rotation of Uranus’ magnetic field as the planet rotates. On the other hand, Saturn’s magnetic field and rotation axes seem to be pretty much the same, making Saturn somewhat magnetically unique.
> _
> And I find it hilarious that you somehow believe in the "Big Bang"- but _also that the earth is 6,000 years old.
> 
> _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have an experiment to show how hydrogen causes a magnetic field?  What atheist scientist state is the it's due to heat convection through the earth core and mantle.  I suppose it's due to radioactive decay.  That said, I think we'll discover that it's due to gravity such as the moon's gravity affect the tides on earth.
> 
> And creation scientists do not believe in a Big Bang.  The only think BBT was good for was we know that the universe isn't eternal.  Also, we found fine-tuning parameters of the universe.  It's more evidence to show that life does not happen on other planets in the universe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No it’s not. False conclusion
Click to expand...


All you have are fake assertions.  And historical science to explain apes to humans.  What happened to science being able to observe, test and falsify ha ha?


----------



## james bond

Syriusly said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have also established that humans didn't evolve from apes because we do not observe this happening today.  Apes still walk on fours.  If Darwin was right about this, then we would have observable science, but we do not..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That one statement just establishes that:
> a) you don't understand science
> b) you don't understand Darwin's theory of evolution and
> c) you don't understand the modern theory of evolution.
> 
> But you do have blind faith in an infallible Bible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> C)  Explain it to us in a paragraph.  What do you have that is observable, testable and falsifiable?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I absolutely am up for that challenge. After all- aren't most scientific theories able to be explained in a paragraph?
> 
> So here is my challenge. You agree you will reciprocate and do the same for Creationism.
> If you agree to explain Creationism to us all in a paragraph- and show what is observable, testable and falsifiable- I will then step up and provide that for evolution.
> 
> But remember- one paragraph- observable, testable, and falsifiable. Creationism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You go first.
> 
> Second, you do not even understand what I have been discussing.  What a boob you are!!!  I'm discussing creation science, not creationism.  I can explain creation science and how science backs up the theories of the Bible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh please- do tell- what is the difference between 'Creationism' and 'Creation science'? Is that like the difference between Homeopathy and Homeopathic Science?
> 
> You explain the difference- and I will gladly step up and do a one paragraph presentation on the Theory of Evolution and show what is observable, testable, and falsifiable'
Click to expand...


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mousterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> JB, you're right that we cannot 'escape' gravity, but the effect does diminish very quickly with the distance between the two bodies.
> And we don't need a god to set up planetary orbits. He'd be way too busy to be peering into our bedrooms, if he had to watch over the trillions of trillions of orbital systems in the observable Universe.
> 
> And, if you want to see evolution in progress, have a look at antibiotic resistance in pathogens.
> When the first antibiotic (Penicillin) was put to general use, it was more than ten years before the evolution of resistance began to make new antibiotics necessary. Fast Forward to 2018, and new antiobiotics are effective for perhaps two years, before the bugs have evolved into resistant strains.
> 
> Do a bit of reading, and you won't be tempted to make such a fool of yourself defending the Bible, which, after all, was written by superstitious goat-herders.
> 
> 
> 
> We are at the perfect location due to gravity.  Otherwise, through observation, we know that other planets do not have what the earth has and thus no life exists.  We know that God didn't create any aliens, so there are no aliens.  We can observe this and we can observe that other planets such as Mars do not have a magnetic field like the earth.  This allows solar winds to wreak havoc with the atmosphere.  We are discovering that it's not just water that one needs to have life.  We also need the fine-tuning parameters which the atheist scientists discovered while studying the Big Bang..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We don't know that other planets don't have life.
> 
> You believe that your god didn't create any 'aliens' because you believe your cultist version of the bible- but again there is no evidence of your god- and there is no evidence that aliens exist- or don't exist.
> 
> Other planets don't have magnetic fields 'like' earth- they have their own magnetic fields .
> _Mercury was thought to be cold and dead inside, thus having no magnetic field. However, Mariner measured a weak magnetic field, meaning Mercury must have some internal activity. Probes found that Mars and Venus do not have a significant magnetic field.
> 
> Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune all have magnetic fields much stronger than that of the Earth. Jupiter is the champion- having the largest magnetic field. The mechanism that causes their magnetic fields is not fully understood. It is believed that in the case of Saturn and Jupiter that their magnetic fields may be caused by hydrogen conducting electricity deep within the planet. Hydrogen near the planets core may be compressed so densely by all the planetary layers above that it becomes an electrical conductor.
> 
> 
> The planet Uranus has an interesting magnetic field. Uranus’ poles lie almost in the plane of its orbit around the Sun. The magnetic poles are fully 60 degrees away from the geographic poles, which results in a wild rotation of Uranus’ magnetic field as the planet rotates. On the other hand, Saturn’s magnetic field and rotation axes seem to be pretty much the same, making Saturn somewhat magnetically unique.
> _
> And I find it hilarious that you somehow believe in the "Big Bang"- but _also that the earth is 6,000 years old.
> 
> _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have an experiment to show how hydrogen causes a magnetic field?  What atheist scientist state is the it's due to heat convection through the earth core and mantle.  I suppose it's due to radioactive decay.  That said, I think we'll discover that it's due to gravity such as the moon's gravity affect the tides on earth.
> 
> And creation scientists do not believe in a Big Bang.  The only think BBT was good for was we know that the universe isn't eternal.  Also, we found fine-tuning parameters of the universe.  It's more evidence to show that life does not happen on other planets in the universe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Read and learn
> 
> NOVA | Magnetic Storm | What Drives Earth's Magnetic Field? | PBS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is bull according to creation science.
Click to expand...


Every time he says 'creation science' I get a little mental giggle. 

Like saying 'homeopathic auto mechanic'


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> That one statement just establishes that:
> a) you don't understand science
> b) you don't understand Darwin's theory of evolution and
> c) you don't understand the modern theory of evolution.
> 
> But you do have blind faith in an infallible Bible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C)  Explain it to us in a paragraph.  What do you have that is observable, testable and falsifiable?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I absolutely am up for that challenge. After all- aren't most scientific theories able to be explained in a paragraph?
> 
> So here is my challenge. You agree you will reciprocate and do the same for Creationism.
> If you agree to explain Creationism to us all in a paragraph- and show what is observable, testable and falsifiable- I will then step up and provide that for evolution.
> 
> But remember- one paragraph- observable, testable, and falsifiable. Creationism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You go first.
> 
> Second, you do not even understand what I have been discussing.  What a boob you are!!!  I'm discussing creation science, not creationism.  I can explain creation science and how science backs up the theories of the Bible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh please- do tell- what is the difference between 'Creationism' and 'Creation science'? Is that like the difference between Homeopathy and Homeopathic Science?
> 
> You explain the difference- and I will gladly step up and do a one paragraph presentation on the Theory of Evolution and show what is observable, testable, and falsifiable'
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


So you aren't able to explain the difference? No shock there

Oh please- do tell- what is the difference between 'Creationism' and 'Creation science'? Is that like the difference between Homeopathy and Homeopathic Science?

You explain the difference- and I will gladly step up and do a one paragraph presentation on the Theory of Evolution and show what is observable, testable, and falsifiable'


----------



## james bond

Syriusly said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are at the perfect location due to gravity.  Otherwise, through observation, we know that other planets do not have what the earth has and thus no life exists.  We know that God didn't create any aliens, so there are no aliens.  We can observe this and we can observe that other planets such as Mars do not have a magnetic field like the earth.  This allows solar winds to wreak havoc with the atmosphere.  We are discovering that it's not just water that one needs to have life.  We also need the fine-tuning parameters which the atheist scientists discovered while studying the Big Bang..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We don't know that other planets don't have life.
> 
> You believe that your god didn't create any 'aliens' because you believe your cultist version of the bible- but again there is no evidence of your god- and there is no evidence that aliens exist- or don't exist.
> 
> Other planets don't have magnetic fields 'like' earth- they have their own magnetic fields .
> _Mercury was thought to be cold and dead inside, thus having no magnetic field. However, Mariner measured a weak magnetic field, meaning Mercury must have some internal activity. Probes found that Mars and Venus do not have a significant magnetic field.
> 
> Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune all have magnetic fields much stronger than that of the Earth. Jupiter is the champion- having the largest magnetic field. The mechanism that causes their magnetic fields is not fully understood. It is believed that in the case of Saturn and Jupiter that their magnetic fields may be caused by hydrogen conducting electricity deep within the planet. Hydrogen near the planets core may be compressed so densely by all the planetary layers above that it becomes an electrical conductor.
> 
> 
> The planet Uranus has an interesting magnetic field. Uranus’ poles lie almost in the plane of its orbit around the Sun. The magnetic poles are fully 60 degrees away from the geographic poles, which results in a wild rotation of Uranus’ magnetic field as the planet rotates. On the other hand, Saturn’s magnetic field and rotation axes seem to be pretty much the same, making Saturn somewhat magnetically unique.
> _
> And I find it hilarious that you somehow believe in the "Big Bang"- but _also that the earth is 6,000 years old.
> 
> _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have an experiment to show how hydrogen causes a magnetic field?  What atheist scientist state is the it's due to heat convection through the earth core and mantle.  I suppose it's due to radioactive decay.  That said, I think we'll discover that it's due to gravity such as the moon's gravity affect the tides on earth.
> 
> And creation scientists do not believe in a Big Bang.  The only think BBT was good for was we know that the universe isn't eternal.  Also, we found fine-tuning parameters of the universe.  It's more evidence to show that life does not happen on other planets in the universe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Read and learn
> 
> NOVA | Magnetic Storm | What Drives Earth's Magnetic Field? | PBS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is bull according to creation science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Every time he says 'creation science' I get a little mental giggle.
> 
> Like saying 'homeopathic auto mechanic'
Click to expand...


That's what I mean.  You do not understand science at all.  I explained many times that all of the past great scientists were creation scientists.  Today, they're not as well known because atheist science has shut them out systematically.  Thus, they have their own science groups.  We have forged ahead, too, and building research centers.  Eventually, creation science will be taught in schools again.


----------



## james bond

10 Reasons Creation Science Should Be Taught In Schools (It's Observable, Testable and Falsifiable)
10 Reasons Creationism Should Be Taught in School - Listverse

I don't use the term "creationism" because people think it has to do with religion (Christianity).  It's similar to my saying evolution is the evolution religion, based on human beliefs, not observable, testable and falsifiable science.


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> We don't know that other planets don't have life.
> 
> You believe that your god didn't create any 'aliens' because you believe your cultist version of the bible- but again there is no evidence of your god- and there is no evidence that aliens exist- or don't exist.
> 
> Other planets don't have magnetic fields 'like' earth- they have their own magnetic fields .
> _Mercury was thought to be cold and dead inside, thus having no magnetic field. However, Mariner measured a weak magnetic field, meaning Mercury must have some internal activity. Probes found that Mars and Venus do not have a significant magnetic field.
> 
> Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune all have magnetic fields much stronger than that of the Earth. Jupiter is the champion- having the largest magnetic field. The mechanism that causes their magnetic fields is not fully understood. It is believed that in the case of Saturn and Jupiter that their magnetic fields may be caused by hydrogen conducting electricity deep within the planet. Hydrogen near the planets core may be compressed so densely by all the planetary layers above that it becomes an electrical conductor.
> 
> 
> The planet Uranus has an interesting magnetic field. Uranus’ poles lie almost in the plane of its orbit around the Sun. The magnetic poles are fully 60 degrees away from the geographic poles, which results in a wild rotation of Uranus’ magnetic field as the planet rotates. On the other hand, Saturn’s magnetic field and rotation axes seem to be pretty much the same, making Saturn somewhat magnetically unique.
> _
> And I find it hilarious that you somehow believe in the "Big Bang"- but _also that the earth is 6,000 years old.
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have an experiment to show how hydrogen causes a magnetic field?  What atheist scientist state is the it's due to heat convection through the earth core and mantle.  I suppose it's due to radioactive decay.  That said, I think we'll discover that it's due to gravity such as the moon's gravity affect the tides on earth.
> 
> And creation scientists do not believe in a Big Bang.  The only think BBT was good for was we know that the universe isn't eternal.  Also, we found fine-tuning parameters of the universe.  It's more evidence to show that life does not happen on other planets in the universe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Read and learn
> 
> NOVA | Magnetic Storm | What Drives Earth's Magnetic Field? | PBS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is bull according to creation science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Every time he says 'creation science' I get a little mental giggle.
> 
> Like saying 'homeopathic auto mechanic'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's what I mean.  You do not understand science at all.  I explained many times that all of the past great scientists were creation scientists.
Click to expand...


You have offered you rather biased opinion many times in the past.

Many great scientists were indeed Christians- but hardly any were Creationists who believed as you do in an infallible Bible and a world that was created 6,000 years ago.


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> We don't know that other planets don't have life.
> 
> You believe that your god didn't create any 'aliens' because you believe your cultist version of the bible- but again there is no evidence of your god- and there is no evidence that aliens exist- or don't exist.
> 
> Other planets don't have magnetic fields 'like' earth- they have their own magnetic fields .
> _Mercury was thought to be cold and dead inside, thus having no magnetic field. However, Mariner measured a weak magnetic field, meaning Mercury must have some internal activity. Probes found that Mars and Venus do not have a significant magnetic field.
> 
> Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune all have magnetic fields much stronger than that of the Earth. Jupiter is the champion- having the largest magnetic field. The mechanism that causes their magnetic fields is not fully understood. It is believed that in the case of Saturn and Jupiter that their magnetic fields may be caused by hydrogen conducting electricity deep within the planet. Hydrogen near the planets core may be compressed so densely by all the planetary layers above that it becomes an electrical conductor.
> 
> 
> The planet Uranus has an interesting magnetic field. Uranus’ poles lie almost in the plane of its orbit around the Sun. The magnetic poles are fully 60 degrees away from the geographic poles, which results in a wild rotation of Uranus’ magnetic field as the planet rotates. On the other hand, Saturn’s magnetic field and rotation axes seem to be pretty much the same, making Saturn somewhat magnetically unique.
> _
> And I find it hilarious that you somehow believe in the "Big Bang"- but _also that the earth is 6,000 years old.
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have an experiment to show how hydrogen causes a magnetic field?  What atheist scientist state is the it's due to heat convection through the earth core and mantle.  I suppose it's due to radioactive decay.  That said, I think we'll discover that it's due to gravity such as the moon's gravity affect the tides on earth.
> 
> And creation scientists do not believe in a Big Bang.  The only think BBT was good for was we know that the universe isn't eternal.  Also, we found fine-tuning parameters of the universe.  It's more evidence to show that life does not happen on other planets in the universe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Read and learn
> 
> NOVA | Magnetic Storm | What Drives Earth's Magnetic Field? | PBS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is bull according to creation science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Every time he says 'creation science' I get a little mental giggle.
> 
> Like saying 'homeopathic auto mechanic'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Today, they're not as well known because atheist science has shut them out systematically.  Thus, they have their own science groups.  We have forged ahead, too, and building research centers.  Eventually, creation science will be taught in schools again.
Click to expand...


Why would you want public schools to be teaching Cultist Christian dogma? 

Once you start doing that are you going to supporting the Hindu 'Creationist' science and the Navajo 'Creationist' science being taught in the public schools too? 

Or only the 'science' invented by your particular cult?


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> We don't know that other planets don't have life.
> 
> You believe that your god didn't create any 'aliens' because you believe your cultist version of the bible- but again there is no evidence of your god- and there is no evidence that aliens exist- or don't exist.
> 
> Other planets don't have magnetic fields 'like' earth- they have their own magnetic fields .
> _Mercury was thought to be cold and dead inside, thus having no magnetic field. However, Mariner measured a weak magnetic field, meaning Mercury must have some internal activity. Probes found that Mars and Venus do not have a significant magnetic field.
> 
> Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune all have magnetic fields much stronger than that of the Earth. Jupiter is the champion- having the largest magnetic field. The mechanism that causes their magnetic fields is not fully understood. It is believed that in the case of Saturn and Jupiter that their magnetic fields may be caused by hydrogen conducting electricity deep within the planet. Hydrogen near the planets core may be compressed so densely by all the planetary layers above that it becomes an electrical conductor.
> 
> 
> The planet Uranus has an interesting magnetic field. Uranus’ poles lie almost in the plane of its orbit around the Sun. The magnetic poles are fully 60 degrees away from the geographic poles, which results in a wild rotation of Uranus’ magnetic field as the planet rotates. On the other hand, Saturn’s magnetic field and rotation axes seem to be pretty much the same, making Saturn somewhat magnetically unique.
> _
> And I find it hilarious that you somehow believe in the "Big Bang"- but _also that the earth is 6,000 years old.
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have an experiment to show how hydrogen causes a magnetic field?  What atheist scientist state is the it's due to heat convection through the earth core and mantle.  I suppose it's due to radioactive decay.  That said, I think we'll discover that it's due to gravity such as the moon's gravity affect the tides on earth.
> 
> And creation scientists do not believe in a Big Bang.  The only think BBT was good for was we know that the universe isn't eternal.  Also, we found fine-tuning parameters of the universe.  It's more evidence to show that life does not happen on other planets in the universe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Read and learn
> 
> NOVA | Magnetic Storm | What Drives Earth's Magnetic Field? | PBS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is bull according to creation science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Every time he says 'creation science' I get a little mental giggle.
> 
> Like saying 'homeopathic auto mechanic'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Today, they're not as well known because atheist science has shut them out systematically.
Click to expand...


There are lots of past scientists- and current scientists that are Christian- and Muslim- and Buddhists, etc. 

They just don't believe in your cults stories.
Scientists like Aziz Sancar
Profile of Aziz Sancar
And Peter Dodson
Origin of Birds: The Final Solution? 1  | Integrative and Comparative Biology | Oxford Academic

Lots of real scientists are not atheists- and they are not being shut out of anything. 

Now those who refuse to accept science- well they are 'shut out' by those who do accept science.


----------



## Soggy in NOLA

Ima Cat said:


> I know there are similarities but I think they are coincidental, like cats and seals both have whiskers.  But cats didn't come from seals or vice a versa.



No, because we didn't.  Most likely we evolved from some apelike primate.


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> I don't use the term "creationism" because people think it has to do with religion (Christianity). .



And again what is the difference between 'Creationism' and 'Creation Science' ? If there is no difference we can just call it Creationism. 

And of course Creationism is entirely a Christian cultist hack- it is a product of a particular branch of Christianity. It is not the product of some secular thinking, it doesn't share space with Hindus and their creation stories or Buddhists and their creation stories or Navajo's and their creation stories.


----------



## ChesBayJJ

james bond said:


> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mousterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> JB, you're right that we cannot 'escape' gravity, but the effect does diminish very quickly with the distance between the two bodies.
> And we don't need a god to set up planetary orbits. He'd be way too busy to be peering into our bedrooms, if he had to watch over the trillions of trillions of orbital systems in the observable Universe.
> 
> And, if you want to see evolution in progress, have a look at antibiotic resistance in pathogens.
> When the first antibiotic (Penicillin) was put to general use, it was more than ten years before the evolution of resistance began to make new antibiotics necessary. Fast Forward to 2018, and new antiobiotics are effective for perhaps two years, before the bugs have evolved into resistant strains.
> 
> Do a bit of reading, and you won't be tempted to make such a fool of yourself defending the Bible, which, after all, was written by superstitious goat-herders.
> 
> 
> 
> We are at the perfect location due to gravity.  Otherwise, through observation, we know that other planets do not have what the earth has and thus no life exists.  We know that God didn't create any aliens, so there are no aliens.  We can observe this and we can observe that other planets such as Mars do not have a magnetic field like the earth.  This allows solar winds to wreak havoc with the atmosphere.  We are discovering that it's not just water that one needs to have life.  We also need the fine-tuning parameters which the atheist scientists discovered while studying the Big Bang..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We don't know that other planets don't have life.
> 
> You believe that your god didn't create any 'aliens' because you believe your cultist version of the bible- but again there is no evidence of your god- and there is no evidence that aliens exist- or don't exist.
> 
> Other planets don't have magnetic fields 'like' earth- they have their own magnetic fields .
> _Mercury was thought to be cold and dead inside, thus having no magnetic field. However, Mariner measured a weak magnetic field, meaning Mercury must have some internal activity. Probes found that Mars and Venus do not have a significant magnetic field.
> 
> Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune all have magnetic fields much stronger than that of the Earth. Jupiter is the champion- having the largest magnetic field. The mechanism that causes their magnetic fields is not fully understood. It is believed that in the case of Saturn and Jupiter that their magnetic fields may be caused by hydrogen conducting electricity deep within the planet. Hydrogen near the planets core may be compressed so densely by all the planetary layers above that it becomes an electrical conductor.
> 
> 
> The planet Uranus has an interesting magnetic field. Uranus’ poles lie almost in the plane of its orbit around the Sun. The magnetic poles are fully 60 degrees away from the geographic poles, which results in a wild rotation of Uranus’ magnetic field as the planet rotates. On the other hand, Saturn’s magnetic field and rotation axes seem to be pretty much the same, making Saturn somewhat magnetically unique.
> _
> And I find it hilarious that you somehow believe in the "Big Bang"- but _also that the earth is 6,000 years old.
> 
> _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have an experiment to show how hydrogen causes a magnetic field?  What atheist scientist state is the it's due to heat convection through the earth core and mantle.  I suppose it's due to radioactive decay.  That said, I think we'll discover that it's due to gravity such as the moon's gravity affect the tides on earth.
> 
> And creation scientists do not believe in a Big Bang.  The only think BBT was good for was we know that the universe isn't eternal.  Also, we found fine-tuning parameters of the universe.  It's more evidence to show that life does not happen on other planets in the universe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Read and learn
> 
> NOVA | Magnetic Storm | What Drives Earth's Magnetic Field? | PBS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I've read about the dynamo.  So let's discuss.  The heat being released is from radioactive decay (nuclear fission) in the core is it not?  Something has to continue producing energy, heat in this case, for a dynamo.  What causes the dynamo?  What causes the magnetic field?
> 
> Another explanation for additional heat in the core is due to the heat when the earth formed from a supernova.  This is bull according to creation science.
Click to expand...


I don't know where you come up with the statement that earth formed from a supernova. That is nonsense. It is theorized that all elements above iron in the periodic table were created in supernova, so maybe that is where that comes from.

For the heat, some residual from the formation of the earth, some from radioactivity.

The dynamo effect arises from the motion of iron atoms in the molten core, driven by convection currents which result from the heat. The PBS/Nova article explains it all. You don't seem able to comprehend it.


----------



## ChesBayJJ

james bond said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> We don't know that other planets don't have life.
> 
> You believe that your god didn't create any 'aliens' because you believe your cultist version of the bible- but again there is no evidence of your god- and there is no evidence that aliens exist- or don't exist.
> 
> Other planets don't have magnetic fields 'like' earth- they have their own magnetic fields .
> _Mercury was thought to be cold and dead inside, thus having no magnetic field. However, Mariner measured a weak magnetic field, meaning Mercury must have some internal activity. Probes found that Mars and Venus do not have a significant magnetic field.
> 
> Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune all have magnetic fields much stronger than that of the Earth. Jupiter is the champion- having the largest magnetic field. The mechanism that causes their magnetic fields is not fully understood. It is believed that in the case of Saturn and Jupiter that their magnetic fields may be caused by hydrogen conducting electricity deep within the planet. Hydrogen near the planets core may be compressed so densely by all the planetary layers above that it becomes an electrical conductor.
> 
> 
> The planet Uranus has an interesting magnetic field. Uranus’ poles lie almost in the plane of its orbit around the Sun. The magnetic poles are fully 60 degrees away from the geographic poles, which results in a wild rotation of Uranus’ magnetic field as the planet rotates. On the other hand, Saturn’s magnetic field and rotation axes seem to be pretty much the same, making Saturn somewhat magnetically unique.
> _
> And I find it hilarious that you somehow believe in the "Big Bang"- but _also that the earth is 6,000 years old.
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have an experiment to show how hydrogen causes a magnetic field?  What atheist scientist state is the it's due to heat convection through the earth core and mantle.  I suppose it's due to radioactive decay.  That said, I think we'll discover that it's due to gravity such as the moon's gravity affect the tides on earth.
> 
> And creation scientists do not believe in a Big Bang.  The only think BBT was good for was we know that the universe isn't eternal.  Also, we found fine-tuning parameters of the universe.  It's more evidence to show that life does not happen on other planets in the universe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Read and learn
> 
> NOVA | Magnetic Storm | What Drives Earth's Magnetic Field? | PBS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is bull according to creation science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Every time he says 'creation science' I get a little mental giggle.
> 
> Like saying 'homeopathic auto mechanic'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's what I mean.  You do not understand science at all.  I explained many times that all of the past great scientists were creation scientists.  Today, they're not as well known because atheist science has shut them out systematically.  Thus, they have their own science groups.  We have forged ahead, too, and building research centers.  Eventually, creation science will be taught in schools again.
Click to expand...


What past great scientists were creation scientists?


----------



## ChesBayJJ

james bond said:


> 10 Reasons Creation Science Should Be Taught In Schools (It's Observable, Testable and Falsifiable)
> 10 Reasons Creationism Should Be Taught in School - Listverse
> 
> I don't use the term "creationism" because people think it has to do with religion (Christianity).  It's similar to my saying evolution is the evolution religion, based on human beliefs, not observable, testable and falsifiable science.



That list is a pile of BS. You want Creationism taught? Do it in Bible school where it belongs.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> historical science


^^

Fake concept made up by religious nutballs.


----------



## HenryBHough

Yes, I believed that humans evolved from something very much like monkeys.

Then Obama emerged and it became plain that the process, if it ever existed, has shifted into reverse.


----------



## abu afak

`






`


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

HenryBHough said:


> Yes, I believed that humans evolved from something very much like monkeys.
> 
> Then Obama emerged and it became plain that the process, if it ever existed, has shifted into reverse.


Pretty weak.


----------



## james bond

ChesBayJJ said:


> I don't know where you come up with the statement that earth formed from a supernova. That is nonsense. It is theorized that all elements above iron in the periodic table were created in supernova, so maybe that is where that comes from.
> 
> For the heat, some residual from the formation of the earth, some from radioactivity.
> 
> The dynamo effect arises from the motion of iron atoms in the molten core, driven by convection currents which result from the heat. The PBS/Nova article explains it all. You don't seem able to comprehend it.





ChesBayJJ said:


> That list is a pile of BS. You want Creationism taught? Do it in Bible school where it belongs.



ChesBayJJ I given you a chance to explain instead of posting links from NOVA and I think you're not very educated.  You're also very ignorant.

The secular scientists I know all believe earth and the solar system were formed from a supernova explosion.  Let Stephen Hawking explain.  I use him as the standard for BBT and solar system formations.


And your dynamo explanation is lacking.  It just goes to show that you're a lemming and just read basic science articles.  Most of it was debunked around 2011.  Why don't you learn about the SWARM satellites and how it was sent up to learn more about Earth's magnetic field.  They are today backing up what I stated months ago about moon's gravity causing the tidal action to generate the magnetic field.  At least, you didn't mention the pole reversal which is another error by the lemming atheist scientists.  How do I know about these things before the atheist scientists finally find out the truth?  I read the Bible, learn about creation science and am intelligent enough to figure how gravity affects us all and figure it out.

For aliens, the argument I use is Fermi's Paradox.  It still has held up and is observable science.  It's like my science is correct and true until you find life outside of earth (unless it's by panspermia).  So far, you are wrong and I think you will be until our universe comes to an end.  Sir Isaac Newton predicted it could come in 2060.  Who knows?  God stated that he's not going to tell us the beginning nor the end, so that is something we won't know until it happens.

As for the rest, you should be the one to read and learn, but I doubt you will.  Like I said, you're not very educated.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know where you come up with the statement that earth formed from a supernova. That is nonsense. It is theorized that all elements above iron in the periodic table were created in supernova, so maybe that is where that comes from.
> 
> For the heat, some residual from the formation of the earth, some from radioactivity.
> 
> The dynamo effect arises from the motion of iron atoms in the molten core, driven by convection currents which result from the heat. The PBS/Nova article explains it all. You don't seem able to comprehend it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> That list is a pile of BS. You want Creationism taught? Do it in Bible school where it belongs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ChesBayJJ I given you a chance to explain instead of posting links from NOVA and I think you're not very educated.  You're also very ignorant.
> 
> The secular scientists I know all believe earth and the solar system were formed from a supernova explosion.  Let Stephen Hawking explain.  I use him as the standard for BBT and solar system formations.
> 
> 
> And your dynamo explanation is lacking.  It just goes to show that you're a lemming and just read basic science articles.  Most of it was debunked around 2011.  Why don't you learn about the SWARM satellites and how it was sent up to learn more about Earth's magnetic field.  They are today backing up what I stated months ago about moon's gravity causing the tidal action to generate the magnetic field.  At least, you didn't mention the pole reversal which is another error by the lemming atheist scientists.  How do I know about these things before the atheist scientists finally find out the truth?  I read the Bible, learn about creation science and am intelligent enough to figure how gravity affects us all and figure it out.
> 
> For aliens, the argument I use is Fermi's Paradox.  It still has held up and is observable science.  It's like my science is correct and true until you find life outside of earth (unless it's by panspermia).  So far, you are wrong and I think you will be until our universe comes to an end.  Sir Isaac Newton predicted it could come in 2060.  Who knows?  God stated that he's not going to tell us the beginning nor the end, so that is something we won't know until it happens.
> 
> As for the rest, you should be the one to read and learn, but I doubt you will.  Like I said, you're not very educated.
Click to expand...

Fermi's paradox is not "science",ya dummy. And the hits keep coming....


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> historical science
> 
> 
> 
> ^^
> 
> Fake concept made up by religious nutballs.
Click to expand...


You're too stupid to realize what evolution is.  Historical science.  It's not observable.  It's not testable.  It's not even falsifiable until we find there was no common ancestor and the tree of life are really bushes of life, what creation scientists have been saying all along.  Most of what Darwin though has been rendered pseudoscience.

The only test is how old a layer of rock or fossils are.  And it has to fit some preconceived range or else it is wrong and the results tossed out.  That's circular reasoning as what creation scientists have been saying all along.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> Historical science.


No such thing. So fecking stupid.


----------



## LittleNipper

Massive Genetic Study Reveals 90 Percent Of Earth’s Animals Appeared At The Same Time


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Historical science.
> 
> 
> 
> No such thing. So fecking stupid.
Click to expand...


You're referring to evolution, so I agree that it's fecking stupid.

For those who want to know about historical science, one example is when we observe a planet that is one light year away through our telescopes.  We know through historical science that what we observe is not what is there today.  We are observing the planet and its surroundings where it was in the past.  The planet could have moved to another orbital position in real time.  I even have an example for fecking stupidity and Fort Fun Indiana.  He would think that one light year is a measurement of time while we know it's a measurement of distance.  There you go.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

LittleNipper said:


> Massive Genetic Study Reveals 90 Percent Of Earth’s Animals Appeared At The Same Time


I guarantee you have no idea what that study actually says.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Historical science.
> 
> 
> 
> No such thing. So fecking stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're referring to evolution, so I agree that it's fecking stupid.
> 
> For those who want to know about historical science, one example is when we observe a planet that is one light year away through our telescopes.  We know through historical science that what we observe is not what is there today.  We are observing the planet and its surroundings where it was in the past.  The planet could have moved to another orbital position in real time.  I even have an example for fecking stupidity and Fort Fun Indiana.  He would think that one light year is a measurement of time while we know it's a measurement of distance.  There you go.
Click to expand...

Historical sconece is a fake concept made up by religious nutballs. They invented this fake concept as a corollary to their moronic, boilerplate meme:

"How could we know, IF WE WERENT THERE?!?!?!"

Of course, every observation we make occurred in the past. Scientists laugh at this idiotic attempt to debase scientific method.

And that is all anyone needs to know about this desperate, failed rhetoric.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Historical science.
> 
> 
> 
> No such thing. So fecking stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're referring to evolution, so I agree that it's fecking stupid.
> 
> For those who want to know about historical science, one example is when we observe a planet that is one light year away through our telescopes.  We know through historical science that what we observe is not what is there today.  We are observing the planet and its surroundings where it was in the past.  The planet could have moved to another orbital position in real time.  I even have an example for fecking stupidity and Fort Fun Indiana.  He would think that one light year is a measurement of time while we know it's a measurement of distance.  There you go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Historical sconece is a fake concept made up by religious nutballs. They invented this fake concept as a corollary to their moronic, boilerplate meme:
> 
> "How could we know, IF WE WERENT THERE?!?!?!"
> 
> Of course, every observation we make occurred in the past. Scientists laugh at this idiotic attempt to debase scientific method.
> 
> And that is all anyone needs to know about this desperate, failed rhetoric.
Click to expand...


Nothing fake about historical science.  It's you who are fake, have feces for brains and are BOY.

I've already criticized and thoroughly rendered humans came from apes as pseudoscience using observational science.  OTOH, creation scientists study dinosaur fossils and find there is still soft tissue which can be tested.  This is part historical science and part observational.  The evo scientists are finally rethinking how to store the dinosaur fossils if they contain soft tissue.  It could lead to these historical scientists into observational science which is what the creation scientists want to happen.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Yes, historical science is a completely fake concept. "But we weren't there!"...ridiculous.

You are a desperate religious nutball. No, nobody will be reading g any of your bullshit in any scientific journal, ever. You have zero education in any science field, and you would get laughed out of a 6th grade science class.


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> historical science
> 
> 
> 
> ^^
> 
> Fake concept made up by religious nutballs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're too stupid to realize what evolution is.  Historical science.  It's not observable.  It's not testable.  It's not even falsifiable .
Click to expand...


Except of course- that is all untrue.

But then again you believe in 'Creation Science' which is basically believing in witch doctors.


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Historical science.
> 
> 
> 
> No such thing. So fecking stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're referring to evolution, so I agree that it's fecking stupid.
> 
> For those who want to know about historical science, one example is when we observe a planet that is one light year away through our telescopes.  We know through historical science that what we observe is not what is there today.  We are observing the planet and its surroundings where it was in the past.  The planet could have moved to another orbital position in real time.  I even have an example for fecking stupidity and Fort Fun Indiana.  He would think that one light year is a measurement of time while we know it's a measurement of distance.  There you go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Historical sconece is a fake concept made up by religious nutballs. They invented this fake concept as a corollary to their moronic, boilerplate meme:
> 
> "How could we know, IF WE WERENT THERE?!?!?!"
> 
> Of course, every observation we make occurred in the past. Scientists laugh at this idiotic attempt to debase scientific method.
> 
> And that is all anyone needs to know about this desperate, failed rhetoric.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OTOH, creation scientists study dinosaur fossils and find there is still soft tissue which can be tested.  This is part historical science and part observational. .
Click to expand...


Well lets talk about that. I think that the discovery of 'soft tissue' in dinosaur bones is one of the most fascinating stories of paleontology. 

Unfortunately no one has been able to replicate Mary Schweitzer's research.

And you have it sort of backwards.

Mary Schweitzer was a creationists- and didn't believe in evolution- but she learned and grew

_Over the next 6 months, Horner opened Schweitzer's eyes to the overwhelming evidence supporting evolution and Earth's antiquity. "He didn't try to convince me," Schweitzer says. "He just laid out the evidence."


She rejected many fundamentalist views, a painful conversion. "It cost me a lot: my friends, my church, my husband." But it didn't destroy her faith. She felt that she saw God's handiwork in setting evolution in motion. "It made God bigger," she says._

So Mary is a real scientist. Not one of your faith healers.


----------



## Syriusly

Syriusly said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> C)  Explain it to us in a paragraph.  What do you have that is observable, testable and falsifiable?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I absolutely am up for that challenge. After all- aren't most scientific theories able to be explained in a paragraph?
> 
> So here is my challenge. You agree you will reciprocate and do the same for Creationism.
> If you agree to explain Creationism to us all in a paragraph- and show what is observable, testable and falsifiable- I will then step up and provide that for evolution.
> 
> But remember- one paragraph- observable, testable, and falsifiable. Creationism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You go first.
> 
> Second, you do not even understand what I have been discussing.  What a boob you are!!!  I'm discussing creation science, not creationism.  I can explain creation science and how science backs up the theories of the Bible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh please- do tell- what is the difference between 'Creationism' and 'Creation science'? Is that like the difference between Homeopathy and Homeopathic Science?
> 
> You explain the difference- and I will gladly step up and do a one paragraph presentation on the Theory of Evolution and show what is observable, testable, and falsifiable'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you aren't able to explain the difference? No shock there
> 
> Oh please- do tell- what is the difference between 'Creationism' and 'Creation science'? Is that like the difference between Homeopathy and Homeopathic Science?
> 
> You explain the difference- and I will gladly step up and do a one paragraph presentation on the Theory of Evolution and show what is observable, testable, and falsifiable'
Click to expand...


Still waiting for the opportunity to respond to the challenge.

what is the difference between 'Creationism' and 'Creation science'?

If they are the same- then we can use the terms interchangeably so when you provide your evidence of Creationism we know what you mean.


----------



## DOTR

Syriusly said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Historical science.
> 
> 
> 
> No such thing. So fecking stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're referring to evolution, so I agree that it's fecking stupid.
> 
> For those who want to know about historical science, one example is when we observe a planet that is one light year away through our telescopes.  We know through historical science that what we observe is not what is there today.  We are observing the planet and its surroundings where it was in the past.  The planet could have moved to another orbital position in real time.  I even have an example for fecking stupidity and Fort Fun Indiana.  He would think that one light year is a measurement of time while we know it's a measurement of distance.  There you go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Historical sconece is a fake concept made up by religious nutballs. They invented this fake concept as a corollary to their moronic, boilerplate meme:
> 
> "How could we know, IF WE WERENT THERE?!?!?!"
> 
> Of course, every observation we make occurred in the past. Scientists laugh at this idiotic attempt to debase scientific method.
> 
> And that is all anyone needs to know about this desperate, failed rhetoric.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OTOH, creation scientists study dinosaur fossils and find there is still soft tissue which can be tested.  This is part historical science and part observational. .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well lets talk about that. I think that the discovery of 'soft tissue' in dinosaur bones is one of the most fascinating stories of paleontology.
> 
> Unfortunately no one has been able to replicate Mary Schweitzer's research.
> 
> And you have it sort of backwards.
> 
> Mary Schweitzer was a creationists- and didn't believe in evolution- but she learned and grew
> 
> _Over the next 6 months, Horner opened Schweitzer's eyes to the overwhelming evidence supporting evolution and Earth's antiquity. "He didn't try to convince me," Schweitzer says. "He just laid out the evidence."
> 
> 
> She rejected many fundamentalist views, a painful conversion. "It cost me a lot: my friends, my church, my husband." But it didn't destroy her faith. She felt that she saw God's handiwork in setting evolution in motion. "It made God bigger," she says._
> 
> So Mary is a real scientist. Not one of your faith healers.
Click to expand...


    Don’t act like that’s unusual. Christians are behind much of the science you use to bash them. And Christian evolutionists are far from rare. In fact, so far as they care or are interested, I would say they outnumber those who have a problem with evolution. But not all have even an interest.
   Would you care if a Christian didn’t accept the existence of baryons? Or doubted the Bohr Model  (yes I know but I’m just giving examples). Why is it evolution is some kind of yardstick ?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

DOTR said:


> Would you care if a Christian didn’t accept the existence of baryons? Or doubted the Bohr Model (yes I know but I’m just giving examples). Why is it evolution is some kind of yardstick ?


Silly comparison. Is there some dogma that refers to baryons? No. Evolution is A yardstick, but not the only one. And you are asking the wrong person, anyway. You should be asking the religious nutball why he accepts all of science, save for evolution.


----------



## DOTR

It’s obvious why. It’s not so obvious why it matters.


----------



## james bond

DOTR said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> No such thing. So fecking stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're referring to evolution, so I agree that it's fecking stupid.
> 
> For those who want to know about historical science, one example is when we observe a planet that is one light year away through our telescopes.  We know through historical science that what we observe is not what is there today.  We are observing the planet and its surroundings where it was in the past.  The planet could have moved to another orbital position in real time.  I even have an example for fecking stupidity and Fort Fun Indiana.  He would think that one light year is a measurement of time while we know it's a measurement of distance.  There you go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Historical sconece is a fake concept made up by religious nutballs. They invented this fake concept as a corollary to their moronic, boilerplate meme:
> 
> "How could we know, IF WE WERENT THERE?!?!?!"
> 
> Of course, every observation we make occurred in the past. Scientists laugh at this idiotic attempt to debase scientific method.
> 
> And that is all anyone needs to know about this desperate, failed rhetoric.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OTOH, creation scientists study dinosaur fossils and find there is still soft tissue which can be tested.  This is part historical science and part observational. .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well lets talk about that. I think that the discovery of 'soft tissue' in dinosaur bones is one of the most fascinating stories of paleontology.
> 
> Unfortunately no one has been able to replicate Mary Schweitzer's research.
> 
> And you have it sort of backwards.
> 
> Mary Schweitzer was a creationists- and didn't believe in evolution- but she learned and grew
> 
> _Over the next 6 months, Horner opened Schweitzer's eyes to the overwhelming evidence supporting evolution and Earth's antiquity. "He didn't try to convince me," Schweitzer says. "He just laid out the evidence."
> 
> 
> She rejected many fundamentalist views, a painful conversion. "It cost me a lot: my friends, my church, my husband." But it didn't destroy her faith. She felt that she saw God's handiwork in setting evolution in motion. "It made God bigger," she says._
> 
> So Mary is a real scientist. Not one of your faith healers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don’t act like that’s unusual. Christians are behind much of the science you use to bash them. And Christian evolutionists are far from rare. In fact, so far as they care or are interested, I would say they outnumber those who have a problem with evolution. But not all have even an interest.
> Would you care if a Christian didn’t accept the existence of baryons? Or doubted the Bohr Model  (yes I know but I’m just giving examples). Why is it evolution is some kind of yardstick ?
Click to expand...


I believe in quantum mechanics and the Bohr Model.  However, I draw the line at evolution.  Why many people believe evolution is because they were taught it.  I would think Schweitzer is one of the few who do not believe in creation.  It's more likely that a Christian would believe in an old earth model.  I just think that a young earth model fits observational science and the historical Bible.  It's not like we ignore historical science.  What gets me is these people who claim evolution and they do not understand it and state that Christians are the ones who do not understand science and believe in myths.  If they showed me what are myths, then I would tend to believe them more.  So far, it's all been assertions.


----------



## DOTR

sealybobo said:


> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're primates that developed from a common ancestor 5-7 million years ago that yes was an ape.
> 
> That is a fact....The evidence is very strong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not a fact, it is a theory, big difference.   And if we descended from an ape, why are there still apes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why are their so many species of dogs?
Click to expand...


   Dogs are a funny anomaly. They were reclassified fairly recently (by some) as Canis lupus familiaris which should hint at the difficulty in explaining them. Domestication does strange things.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would you care if a Christian didn’t accept the existence of baryons? Or doubted the Bohr Model (yes I know but I’m just giving examples). Why is it evolution is some kind of yardstick ?
> 
> 
> 
> Silly comparison. Is there some dogma that refers to baryons? No. Evolution is A yardstick, but not the only one. And you are asking the wrong person, anyway. You should be asking the religious nutball why he accepts all of science, save for evolution.
Click to expand...


I'm not speaking to you because you have sh*t for brains.  I'm pointing it out to others who have the intelligence to understand like DOTR..

Baryons are observational science.  Evolution isn't a yardstick, it's a theory.  The only thing it measures is against itself.  Today, evolutionary science is based on not accepting God, the supernatural and the Bible because it's considered religion.  The only supernatural we believe in is Genesis or origins.  We do not believe in ghosts or mediums and the like.  If you really were able to discuss evolution, then we'd have a better discussion.

I've said it many times because evolution is 1) more a religion than science and is based on "faith" that assumptions of radiometric dating is correct and that evolutionary change happens over long time, based on a family tree and common ancestor, and mutations and natural selection.  The creation scientists are actually using science except their theories are based on what the Bible tells them.  I've also said that we have the same evidence.  Those are facts.  The difference is we filter it differently. 

What do I accept about evolution?  I accept natural selection or microevolution.  What doesn't happen is macroevolution.  You believe it because of historical science and belief in common ancestry or descent with modification. 

Those for theory of evolution believe in this:

*Key points:*

Evidence for evolution comes from many different areas of biology:
*Anatomy.* Species may share similar physical features because the feature was present in a common ancestor (*homologous structures*).
*Molecular biology.* DNA and the genetic code reflect the shared ancestry of life. DNA comparisons can show how related species are.
*Biogeography.* The global distribution of organisms and the unique features of island species reflect evolution and geological change.
*Fossils.* Fossils document the existence of now-extinct past species that are related to present-day species.
*Direct observation.* We can directly observe small-scale evolution in organisms with short lifecycles (e.g., pesticide-resistant insects).

Instead, creation scientists find that God reused some of the same molecular parts such as DNA in his creation.  Similar location refers to distribution from a specific area in the Middle East and through actual human ancestors.  That's why one gets the similarities.  What we don't believe is the fossil evidence.  That's historical science based on erroneous methods.  We also know how something like DNA cannot form by itself.  It's one of the examples of how complex molecules are formed into a design with intelligence behind it.  No amount of randomness will produce something like it.  In other words, it doesn't just happen in nature from amino acids.  That said, we know that it's at the molecular level.  Thus, we would be able to create synthetic DNA and this is what has happened.  We know we can create synthetic diamonds at the molecular level.  What we will never be able to create is gold, an atomic element.  Coinicidentally, a divine element.  We won't be able the create G, T, C and A bases. 

Evolutionists think they have "created" some new species, but they haven't.  The still won't be able to create at the atomic level of DNA bases.  God has prevented humans from creating at the atomic level.  How many times have I said that we appreciate the beauty of the design behind it by God?  All of these things were meant for us to discover and marvel at his handiwork.  Instead, we give credit to ourselves.  It's like we stole the technology behind it and hand out the awards to those who use it first.  All of these things, creation scientists can do, but they've been eliminated from the scientific community.  How fair is that when they know more about real science than their counterparts?  Thus, today we are building our own research centers and scientific brand.  Eventually, I see two competing scientific groups and two foundations of scientific learning and thought.  The creation scientists are behind, but they will catch up quickly because we have the Bible and private donors.

Science just gives us reason to appreciate the work of God more.  It doesn't create God or faith for us.  That's already in place due to our own doing and it will lead us to greater accomplishments than those of atheist scientists.


----------



## LittleNipper

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Massive Genetic Study Reveals 90 Percent Of Earth’s Animals Appeared At The Same Time
> 
> 
> 
> I guarantee you have no idea what that study actually says.
Click to expand...

And I'm of a firm realization that you could care less.


----------



## Desperado

Do You Believe We Came From Monkeys?
Only certain segments of the population


----------



## ChesBayJJ

james bond said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're referring to evolution, so I agree that it's fecking stupid.
> 
> For those who want to know about historical science, one example is when we observe a planet that is one light year away through our telescopes.  We know through historical science that what we observe is not what is there today.  We are observing the planet and its surroundings where it was in the past.  The planet could have moved to another orbital position in real time.  I even have an example for fecking stupidity and Fort Fun Indiana.  He would think that one light year is a measurement of time while we know it's a measurement of distance.  There you go.
> 
> 
> 
> Historical sconece is a fake concept made up by religious nutballs. They invented this fake concept as a corollary to their moronic, boilerplate meme:
> 
> "How could we know, IF WE WERENT THERE?!?!?!"
> 
> Of course, every observation we make occurred in the past. Scientists laugh at this idiotic attempt to debase scientific method.
> 
> And that is all anyone needs to know about this desperate, failed rhetoric.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OTOH, creation scientists study dinosaur fossils and find there is still soft tissue which can be tested.  This is part historical science and part observational. .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well lets talk about that. I think that the discovery of 'soft tissue' in dinosaur bones is one of the most fascinating stories of paleontology.
> 
> Unfortunately no one has been able to replicate Mary Schweitzer's research.
> 
> And you have it sort of backwards.
> 
> Mary Schweitzer was a creationists- and didn't believe in evolution- but she learned and grew
> 
> _Over the next 6 months, Horner opened Schweitzer's eyes to the overwhelming evidence supporting evolution and Earth's antiquity. "He didn't try to convince me," Schweitzer says. "He just laid out the evidence."
> 
> 
> She rejected many fundamentalist views, a painful conversion. "It cost me a lot: my friends, my church, my husband." But it didn't destroy her faith. She felt that she saw God's handiwork in setting evolution in motion. "It made God bigger," she says._
> 
> So Mary is a real scientist. Not one of your faith healers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don’t act like that’s unusual. Christians are behind much of the science you use to bash them. And Christian evolutionists are far from rare. In fact, so far as they care or are interested, I would say they outnumber those who have a problem with evolution. But not all have even an interest.
> Would you care if a Christian didn’t accept the existence of baryons? Or doubted the Bohr Model  (yes I know but I’m just giving examples). Why is it evolution is some kind of yardstick ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I believe in quantum mechanics and the Bohr Model.  However, I draw the line at evolution.  Why many people believe evolution is because they were taught it.  I would think Schweitzer is one of the few who do not believe in creation.  It's more likely that a Christian would believe in an old earth model.  I just think that a young earth model fits observational science and the historical Bible.  It's not like we ignore historical science.  What gets me is these people who claim evolution and they do not understand it and state that Christians are the ones who do not understand science and believe in myths.  If they showed me what are myths, then I would tend to believe them more.  So far, it's all been assertions.
Click to expand...


You post some ridiculously ignorant BS.
_
  I just think that a young earth model fits observational science and the historical Bible_​
What observational science fits a young earth model? Please explain.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

LittleNipper said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Massive Genetic Study Reveals 90 Percent Of Earth’s Animals Appeared At The Same Time
> 
> 
> 
> I guarantee you have no idea what that study actually says.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And I'm of a firm realization that you could care less.
Click to expand...

of course I care about what the study actually says. I also care about your lies about it.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ChesBayJJ said:


> You post some ridiculously ignorant BS.


Yep, it's pretty hilarious. What makes it even better is that he keeps declaring Victory, repeatedly. Good stuff!


----------



## Syriusly

DOTR said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> No such thing. So fecking stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're referring to evolution, so I agree that it's fecking stupid.
> 
> For those who want to know about historical science, one example is when we observe a planet that is one light year away through our telescopes.  We know through historical science that what we observe is not what is there today.  We are observing the planet and its surroundings where it was in the past.  The planet could have moved to another orbital position in real time.  I even have an example for fecking stupidity and Fort Fun Indiana.  He would think that one light year is a measurement of time while we know it's a measurement of distance.  There you go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Historical sconece is a fake concept made up by religious nutballs. They invented this fake concept as a corollary to their moronic, boilerplate meme:
> 
> "How could we know, IF WE WERENT THERE?!?!?!"
> 
> Of course, every observation we make occurred in the past. Scientists laugh at this idiotic attempt to debase scientific method.
> 
> And that is all anyone needs to know about this desperate, failed rhetoric.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OTOH, creation scientists study dinosaur fossils and find there is still soft tissue which can be tested.  This is part historical science and part observational. .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well lets talk about that. I think that the discovery of 'soft tissue' in dinosaur bones is one of the most fascinating stories of paleontology.
> 
> Unfortunately no one has been able to replicate Mary Schweitzer's research.
> 
> And you have it sort of backwards.
> 
> Mary Schweitzer was a creationists- and didn't believe in evolution- but she learned and grew
> 
> _Over the next 6 months, Horner opened Schweitzer's eyes to the overwhelming evidence supporting evolution and Earth's antiquity. "He didn't try to convince me," Schweitzer says. "He just laid out the evidence."
> 
> 
> She rejected many fundamentalist views, a painful conversion. "It cost me a lot: my friends, my church, my husband." But it didn't destroy her faith. She felt that she saw God's handiwork in setting evolution in motion. "It made God bigger," she says._
> 
> So Mary is a real scientist. Not one of your faith healers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don’t act like that’s unusual. Christians are behind much of the science you use to bash them. And Christian evolutionists are far from rare. In fact, so far as they care or are interested, I would say they outnumber those who have a problem with evolution. But not all have even an interest.?
Click to expand...


Of course- many scientists are Christians.
However- almost no one in science- Christian or not- accepts the Creationists fairy tales. 

Remember- Creationism is only a small cult offshoot from mainstream Christianity


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're referring to evolution, so I agree that it's fecking stupid.
> 
> For those who want to know about historical science, one example is when we observe a planet that is one light year away through our telescopes.  We know through historical science that what we observe is not what is there today.  We are observing the planet and its surroundings where it was in the past.  The planet could have moved to another orbital position in real time.  I even have an example for fecking stupidity and Fort Fun Indiana.  He would think that one light year is a measurement of time while we know it's a measurement of distance.  There you go.
> 
> 
> 
> Historical sconece is a fake concept made up by religious nutballs. They invented this fake concept as a corollary to their moronic, boilerplate meme:
> 
> "How could we know, IF WE WERENT THERE?!?!?!"
> 
> Of course, every observation we make occurred in the past. Scientists laugh at this idiotic attempt to debase scientific method.
> 
> And that is all anyone needs to know about this desperate, failed rhetoric.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OTOH, creation scientists study dinosaur fossils and find there is still soft tissue which can be tested.  This is part historical science and part observational. .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well lets talk about that. I think that the discovery of 'soft tissue' in dinosaur bones is one of the most fascinating stories of paleontology.
> 
> Unfortunately no one has been able to replicate Mary Schweitzer's research.
> 
> And you have it sort of backwards.
> 
> Mary Schweitzer was a creationists- and didn't believe in evolution- but she learned and grew
> 
> _Over the next 6 months, Horner opened Schweitzer's eyes to the overwhelming evidence supporting evolution and Earth's antiquity. "He didn't try to convince me," Schweitzer says. "He just laid out the evidence."
> 
> 
> She rejected many fundamentalist views, a painful conversion. "It cost me a lot: my friends, my church, my husband." But it didn't destroy her faith. She felt that she saw God's handiwork in setting evolution in motion. "It made God bigger," she says._
> 
> So Mary is a real scientist. Not one of your faith healers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don’t act like that’s unusual. Christians are behind much of the science you use to bash them. And Christian evolutionists are far from rare. In fact, so far as they care or are interested, I would say they outnumber those who have a problem with evolution. But not all have even an interest.
> Would you care if a Christian didn’t accept the existence of baryons? Or doubted the Bohr Model  (yes I know but I’m just giving examples). Why is it evolution is some kind of yardstick ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I believe in quantum mechanics and the Bohr Model.  However, I draw the line at evolution.  Why many people believe evolution is because they were taught it.  I would think Schweitzer is one of the few who do not believe in creation.  It's more likely that a Christian would believe in an old earth model.  I just think that a young earth model fits observational science and the historical Bible.  It's not like we ignore historical science.  What gets me is these people who claim evolution and they do not understand it and state that Christians are the ones who do not understand science and believe in myths.  If they showed me what are myths, then I would tend to believe them more.  So far, it's all been assertions.
Click to expand...


What are 'myths'?

The Creation stories of all cultures- the Navajo, the Greeks, the Aztecs, the Mesopotomians, the Egyptians, the Jews.

Most Christians(and Jews) do not subscribe to a literal Bible, and are comfortable with understanding that the creation stories are essentially myths- and that is of course how most Christian scientists view them. 

It is the members of the specific cult of Creationists that reject the science of evolution and virtually every other part of physics that demonstrates that the earth was not created in 6 days.


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would you care if a Christian didn’t accept the existence of baryons? Or doubted the Bohr Model (yes I know but I’m just giving examples). Why is it evolution is some kind of yardstick ?
> 
> 
> 
> Silly comparison. Is there some dogma that refers to baryons? No. Evolution is A yardstick, but not the only one. And you are asking the wrong person, anyway. You should be asking the religious nutball why he accepts all of science, save for evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not speaking to you because you have sh*t for brains.  I'm pointing it out to others who have the intelligence to understand like DOTR..
> 
> Today, evolutionary science is based on not accepting God, the supernatural and the Bible because it's considered religion.  The only supernatural we believe in is Genesis or origins.  We do not believe in ghosts or mediums and the like. .
Click to expand...


Again- false. Many scientists are persons of faith- Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindi- who just consider evolution to be the best answer to the question of the origin of the species. 

If you reject the supernatural in the rest of the Bible other than Genesis.....why do you accept Genesis?


----------



## Syriusly

DOTR said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're primates that developed from a common ancestor 5-7 million years ago that yes was an ape.
> 
> That is a fact....The evidence is very strong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not a fact, it is a theory, big difference.   And if we descended from an ape, why are there still apes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why are their so many species of dogs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dogs are a funny anomaly. They were reclassified fairly recently (by some) as Canis lupus familiaris which should hint at the difficulty in explaining them. Domestication does strange things.
Click to expand...


Of course the poster asked why there are so many species of dogs- and I think he was speaking of the many breeds rather than the few other species of wild dogs.

Domestication does indeed do strange things- have you read about the experiments with breeding domesticated foxes? If you haven't you should read about them.


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would you care if a Christian didn’t accept the existence of baryons? Or doubted the Bohr Model (yes I know but I’m just giving examples). Why is it evolution is some kind of yardstick ?
> 
> 
> 
> Silly comparison. Is there some dogma that refers to baryons? No. Evolution is A yardstick, but not the only one. And you are asking the wrong person, anyway. You should be asking the religious nutball why he accepts all of science, save for
> What do I accept about evolution?  I accept natural selection or microevolution.  What doesn't happen is macroevolution. .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except of course the only difference between the two is scale.
> 
> Both operate on exactly the same mechanisms
Click to expand...


----------



## DOTR

Syriusly said:


> Of course- many scientists are Christians.
> However- almost no one in science- Christian or not- accepts the Creationists fairy tales.
> 
> Remember- Creationism is only a small cult offshoot from mainstream Christianity



  Yes decidedly in the minority...so far as they even care. More influential in the US but then again even the atheists in the US spend a lot of time bible thumping. 
  So why attempt to define Christianity with it? And why the desperate desire to stamp it out?


----------



## DOTR

Syriusly said:


> Domestication does indeed do strange things- have you read about the experiments with breeding domesticated foxes? If you haven't you should read about them.



  I have! Fascinating. Soviet science suffered as disastrously from the ideas of Lysenko as their economic, social and religious lives did from the ideas of Marx. Belyayev chose an out of the way place and avoided any mention of genes or inheritance to avoid being sent to a gulag. (Kurschev had once remarked that hopefully all "those geneticists" had been taken care of and would be no more bother.)
  And he still succeeded in breaking new ground. Whats interesting is the common characteristics of domestication though Foxes are not closely related to wolves. Floppy ears, tail wagging, piebald coats, neoteny...
  Amazing stuff. And people need to realize that domesticated species are not just tamed wild animals but new, man made species entirely. I despise the practice of breeding wolves with dogs. It undoes ten thousand years of effort AND it is dangerous. Dogs are not tamed wolves.


----------



## Syriusly

DOTR said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course- many scientists are Christians.
> However- almost no one in science- Christian or not- accepts the Creationists fairy tales.
> 
> Remember- Creationism is only a small cult offshoot from mainstream Christianity
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes decidedly in the minority...so far as they even care. More influential in the US but then again even the atheists in the US spend a lot of time bible thumping.
> So why attempt to define Christianity with it? And why the desperate desire to stamp it out?
Click to expand...


The Creationist cult are Christians who believe that the Bible should be taught in school- among other things. Creationists are without exception Christians. So to ignore their Christian roots is like ignoring the Islamic roots of Islamist terrorists. Of course most Christians are not Creationists, just as most Muslims are not Islamists. 

I have no desire to 'stamp' out Christianity- nor do I even have a desire to 'stamp out' Creationists- I just confront the attack on science.


----------



## Syriusly

DOTR said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Domestication does indeed do strange things- have you read about the experiments with breeding domesticated foxes? If you haven't you should read about them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have! Fascinating. Soviet science suffered as disastrously from the ideas of Lysenko as their economic, social and religious lives did from the ideas of Marx. Belyayev chose an out of the way place and avoided any mention of genes or inheritance to avoid being sent to a gulag. (Kurschev had once remarked that hopefully all "those geneticists" had been taken care of and would be no more bother.)
> And he still succeeded in breaking new ground. Whats interesting is the common characteristics of domestication though Foxes are not closely related to wolves. Floppy ears, tail wagging, piebald coats, neoteny...
> Amazing stuff. And people need to realize that domesticated species are not just tamed wild animals but new, man made species entirely. I despise the practice of breeding wolves with dogs. It undoes ten thousand years of effort AND it is dangerous. Dogs are not tamed wolves.
Click to expand...


I agree with you completely. Fascinating stuff too.


----------



## DOTR

Syriusly said:


> What are 'myths'?
> 
> The Creation stories of all cultures- the Navajo, the Greeks, the Aztecs, the Mesopotomians, the Egyptians, the Jews.
> 
> Most Christians(and Jews) do not subscribe to a literal Bible, and are comfortable with understanding that the creation stories are essentially myths- and that is of course how most Christian scientists view them.
> 
> It is the members of the specific cult of Creationists that reject the science of evolution and virtually every other part of physics that demonstrates that the earth was not created in 6 days.



  In this context "myth" is not necessarily the pejorative synonym for "false". "Myth" can be similar to "parable" or "analogy".  And it shouldnt be defined by non-Christians for Christians.
  I am not commenting on Genesis specifically here but making more of a general comment. 

  For example..."Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto a merchant man, seeking goodly pearls: Who, when he had found one pearl of great price, went and sold all that he had, and bought it."— Matthew 13:45-46 or "A certain man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and he fell among robbers..." Luke 10

   If it were proven to me beyond doubt that no merchant ever sold all he had to buy a pearl or that no man was ever beaten and left on the side of the road for the Samaritan to help it wouldn't have any effect on my religious beliefs at all. I understand the reason and the meaning and,more importantly, the genre of the parable.

 Speaking of Genesis... it is not true that proving dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago disproves Christianity as some uneducated louts think. There are a multitude of ways to reconcile it...assuming there is a need for reconciliation at all.

  As I said earlier...the worst Bible thumpers around are the atheists. Pearls before swine.


----------



## DOTR

Syriusly said:


> The Creationist cult are Christians who believe that the Bible should be taught in school- among other things. Creationists are without exception Christians. So to ignore their Christian roots is like ignoring the Islamic roots of Islamist terrorists. Of course most Christians are not Creationists, just as most Muslims are not Islamists.
> 
> I have no desire to 'stamp' out Christianity- nor do I even have a desire to 'stamp out' Creationists- I just confront the attack on science.



 Of course "Creationism", with a capital "c", is Christian in our context. But Islam has a creation story as well (a very similar one). Dont tell me you cant find vast swathes of Muslims who believe Allah created the world then "sat back on his throne and was not tired". But out culture is Christian based.
   Schools are local. I'd like to leave it to the locals to teach as they see fit. Generations of Americans were taught in schools which answered to parents rather than the Federal government and their Bible time and prayers didnt preclude them sending out future scientists and political leaders who created the greatest nation on Earth.
  And they didnt have to hide under desks from school shooters while they studied. Creationists are not who you should be fearing. They arent the ones who destroyed a culture.


----------



## james bond

Syriusly said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> Historical sconece is a fake concept made up by religious nutballs. They invented this fake concept as a corollary to their moronic, boilerplate meme:
> 
> "How could we know, IF WE WERENT THERE?!?!?!"
> 
> Of course, every observation we make occurred in the past. Scientists laugh at this idiotic attempt to debase scientific method.
> 
> And that is all anyone needs to know about this desperate, failed rhetoric.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OTOH, creation scientists study dinosaur fossils and find there is still soft tissue which can be tested.  This is part historical science and part observational. .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well lets talk about that. I think that the discovery of 'soft tissue' in dinosaur bones is one of the most fascinating stories of paleontology.
> 
> Unfortunately no one has been able to replicate Mary Schweitzer's research.
> 
> And you have it sort of backwards.
> 
> Mary Schweitzer was a creationists- and didn't believe in evolution- but she learned and grew
> 
> _Over the next 6 months, Horner opened Schweitzer's eyes to the overwhelming evidence supporting evolution and Earth's antiquity. "He didn't try to convince me," Schweitzer says. "He just laid out the evidence."
> 
> 
> She rejected many fundamentalist views, a painful conversion. "It cost me a lot: my friends, my church, my husband." But it didn't destroy her faith. She felt that she saw God's handiwork in setting evolution in motion. "It made God bigger," she says._
> 
> So Mary is a real scientist. Not one of your faith healers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don’t act like that’s unusual. Christians are behind much of the science you use to bash them. And Christian evolutionists are far from rare. In fact, so far as they care or are interested, I would say they outnumber those who have a problem with evolution. But not all have even an interest.
> Would you care if a Christian didn’t accept the existence of baryons? Or doubted the Bohr Model  (yes I know but I’m just giving examples). Why is it evolution is some kind of yardstick ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I believe in quantum mechanics and the Bohr Model.  However, I draw the line at evolution.  Why many people believe evolution is because they were taught it.  I would think Schweitzer is one of the few who do not believe in creation.  It's more likely that a Christian would believe in an old earth model.  I just think that a young earth model fits observational science and the historical Bible.  It's not like we ignore historical science.  What gets me is these people who claim evolution and they do not understand it and state that Christians are the ones who do not understand science and believe in myths.  If they showed me what are myths, then I would tend to believe them more.  So far, it's all been assertions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What are 'myths'?
> 
> The Creation stories of all cultures- the Navajo, the Greeks, the Aztecs, the Mesopotomians, the Egyptians, the Jews.
> 
> Most Christians(and Jews) do not subscribe to a literal Bible, and are comfortable with understanding that the creation stories are essentially myths- and that is of course how most Christian scientists view them.
> 
> It is the members of the specific cult of Creationists that reject the science of evolution and virtually every other part of physics that demonstrates that the earth was not created in 6 days.
Click to expand...


LOL, myths are pseudoscience, too, like humans from apes.  Or a single-cell creature from primordial soup via lightening.  Or much of what Darwin said which led to social Darwinism, eugenics or genocide, Hitler and the Holocaust and Planned Parenthood.  You need to take responsibility for that.

Do you believe in the Bohr model?  You do not mention much science in your posts and I can see why.  It's weak, so very weak.  What's the weakness with the Bohr model?
What's good about it?

And I'm tired of repeating myself about your false creation stories while I tell the true story which the rest are based on.  You need to have your eyes or ears checked.  And I do not belong to a cult, but a scientific movement to teach creation science because today's atheist scientists have rejected real science for a pseudoscientific one.  I have listed all of evolutions warts such as design with intelligence behind God's creation.  Even the single-cell is a complex organism which no human can create.  Evo cannot conduct an experiemtn where protein is formed from amino acids outside the cell.  I even talked about population and how it matches the 6,000 year old theory vs the 200,000 year one.  And what we are discussing now under historical science with fossils of ape-humans.  We have no transitional evidence of apes becoming humans through the fossil record, nor any other creature for that matter transforming into some completely different creature like a fish to a tetrapod.  There should be plenty of evidence even though fossilization is rare.  We have atheist scientists who are able to create synthetic DNA, so why can't they turn a fish into a tetrapod?  When it comes to observational science, evolution is very weak, indeed, like your posts.


----------



## LittleNipper

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Massive Genetic Study Reveals 90 Percent Of Earth’s Animals Appeared At The Same Time
> 
> 
> 
> I guarantee you have no idea what that study actually says.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And I'm of a firm realization that you could care less.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> of course I care about what the study actually says. I also care about your lies about it.
Click to expand...

You don't know what lies are?


----------



## james bond

ChesBayJJ said:


> What observational science fits a young earth model? Please explain.



We have radiocarbon still left in diamonds.  These are diamonds that your own evo scientists claim are one to two billion years old based on the layer they were found.  All of the carbon-14 should be gone if this is correct since carbon-14 decays rapidly compare to uranium or other radioactive elements.  However, this is not the case and RATE scientists dated them as much earlier around 55K years.

Or what about the recession of the moon?  Moon's gravity affects the tides of the earth.  It is observed that the moon travels further away each year due to this effect.  If the earth was 4.5 B years old, then it should be much further out and we'd be SOL.  Instead, a young earth better fits how far the moon is from the earth now.

Tidal acceleration - Wikipedia

Finally, the one I've been investigation currently.  The earth's decaying magnetic field.  If the earth is a dynamo, then this should not happen, but it has been decaying as predicted by Thomas Barnes and Russell Humphreys.  In 2013, the ESA launched several satellites to study the earth magnetic field and decay called SWARM.  If the earth were not around 6,000 years old, then there would be no magnetic field left and earth would be subject to excess cosmic radiation, solar winds and eventual extinction. 

Honeywell Helps “Swarm” Study Earth’s Magnetic Field


----------



## james bond

Syriusly said:


> If you reject the supernatural in the rest of the Bible other than Genesis.....why do you accept Genesis?



You misunderstand.  The supernatural in Genesis is the science that creation scientists want to teach in public schools and what they theorize versus today's secular scientists.  It includes Noah's Ark and Tower of Babel.  The other supernatural events such as Jesus' miracles and Resurrection, while of supreme importance, would fall under religion than science.  Maybe historical science.  Perhaps, it can be included if we find more scientific evidence of the afterlife through neurology and personal anecdotes.  I was thinking that would be more historical science since much of what is known is through witness accounts and forensic evidence.

ETA:






Remember this?  Around 4200 YA, there was Tower of Babel.  I'd include that, but probably some creationists do not want to include it even though it's in Genesis.  I've seen in it this exact past timeline; It appears to have been removed.  As for Jesus' Birth, I'm not sure if that would be included even though it's of supreme importance and he is a historical figure..


----------



## james bond

What about Giant human beings like in the story of David vs. Goliath?  This is historical science, but it doesn't fit the evolution myth.  Skeletons of giant humans have been found which atheist scientists seem to ignore or have covered up.  What it means is the controversial hypothesis that earth's gravity was different, i.e. weaker, in the past.  This would also explain dinosaurs being so large.  In fact, atheist scientists cannot explain how the pterosaurs were able to fly.

Welcome to 6000years.org | Amazing Bible Discoveries | Proof the Bible is True

This is one of the more controversial Christian websites.  The giant humans were real and observable, and the weaker gravity hypothesis has some credibility, but it's not observable science.  It would be historical science.  However, I have followed it up and found that it could explain earth's magetic field.  But, I haven't been able to get credible scientific backing.  This is why I post this, as an example of historical science and that Christians such as Ron Wyatt have been found to be wrong, even accused of fraud by atheist scientists and creation scientists.  Ron Wyatt wasn't and educated man, but self-taught archaeologist.  He did learn how to be a part-time nurse anesthetist.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

LittleNipper said:


> You don't know what lies are?


Uh...okay!


----------



## ChesBayJJ

james bond said:


> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> What observational science fits a young earth model? Please explain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We have radiocarbon still left in diamonds.  These are diamonds that your own evo scientists claim are one to two billion years old based on the layer they were found.  All of the carbon-14 should be gone if this is correct since carbon-14 decays rapidly compare to uranium or other radioactive elements.  However, this is not the case and RATE scientists dated them as much earlier around 55K years.
> 
> Or what about the recession of the moon?  Moon's gravity affects the tides of the earth.  It is observed that the moon travels further away each year due to this effect.  If the earth was 4.5 B years old, then it should be much further out and we'd be SOL.  Instead, a young earth better fits how far the moon is from the earth now.
> 
> Tidal acceleration - Wikipedia
> 
> Finally, the one I've been investigation currently.  The earth's decaying magnetic field.  If the earth is a dynamo, then this should not happen, but it has been decaying as predicted by Thomas Barnes and Russell Humphreys.  In 2013, the ESA launched several satellites to study the earth magnetic field and decay called SWARM.  If the earth were not around 6,000 years old, then there would be no magnetic field left and earth would be subject to excess cosmic radiation, solar winds and eventual extinction.
> 
> Honeywell Helps “Swarm” Study Earth’s Magnetic Field
Click to expand...


Let me get this straight. You actually believe the world is about 6000 years old?

Another question. Do you believe the theory of plate tectonics is valid?

I don't know about the diamond issue. Something is wrong with the analysis or your understanding of it. Do you have a link?

As far as your moon orbit theory, you are not correct. Recession is about 4cm a year. Over four billion years, that works out to about 100,000 miles. The moon's orbit is OK with a 4.5 billion year old earth.

Is the Moon moving away from the Earth? When was this discovered? (Intermediate) - Curious About Astronomy? Ask an Astronomer

As far as the dynamo and magnetic field - the earth's core is constantly in flux. The polarity of the magnetic field has flipped many times and there are periods where the field drops to near zero as this happens.


----------



## james bond

ChesBayJJ said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> What observational science fits a young earth model? Please explain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We have radiocarbon still left in diamonds.  These are diamonds that your own evo scientists claim are one to two billion years old based on the layer they were found.  All of the carbon-14 should be gone if this is correct since carbon-14 decays rapidly compare to uranium or other radioactive elements.  However, this is not the case and RATE scientists dated them as much earlier around 55K years.
> 
> Or what about the recession of the moon?  Moon's gravity affects the tides of the earth.  It is observed that the moon travels further away each year due to this effect.  If the earth was 4.5 B years old, then it should be much further out and we'd be SOL.  Instead, a young earth better fits how far the moon is from the earth now.
> 
> Tidal acceleration - Wikipedia
> 
> Finally, the one I've been investigation currently.  The earth's decaying magnetic field.  If the earth is a dynamo, then this should not happen, but it has been decaying as predicted by Thomas Barnes and Russell Humphreys.  In 2013, the ESA launched several satellites to study the earth magnetic field and decay called SWARM.  If the earth were not around 6,000 years old, then there would be no magnetic field left and earth would be subject to excess cosmic radiation, solar winds and eventual extinction.
> 
> Honeywell Helps “Swarm” Study Earth’s Magnetic Field
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me get this straight. You actually believe the world is about 6000 years old?
> 
> Another question. Do you believe the theory of plate tectonics is valid?
> 
> I don't know about the diamond issue. Something is wrong with the analysis or your understanding of it. Do you have a link?
> 
> As far as your moon orbit theory, you are not correct. Recession is about 4cm a year. Over four billion years, that works out to about 100,000 miles. The moon's orbit is OK with a 4.5 billion year old earth.
> 
> Is the Moon moving away from the Earth? When was this discovered? (Intermediate) - Curious About Astronomy? Ask an Astronomer
> 
> As far as the dynamo and magnetic field - the earth's core is constantly in flux. The polarity of the magnetic field has flipped many times and there are periods where the field drops to near zero as this happens.
Click to expand...


So many misconceptions and you suggest that I'm ignorant and do not understand science.. Evolution has mucked up your brain.

The moon's recession is 3.8 cm/yr, but it would have had to be kissing the earth around 1.2 billion years ago to be where it is now.  Thus, how do you explain what happened in 4.5 billion years?  If the earth and moon were together, then it should be further away.  Are you going to tell me that rate isn't constant while rate of decay of radioactive elements are?

The magnetic field flip is hypothesis based on studying magnetite in igneous material from Bernard Brunhes and Motonori Matuyama.  However, if we look at how magnetism affects magnetite in liquid materials, then we find proximity affects it the most and it lines up either in a NSNS or NSSN direction due to its polarity.  This is demonstrated in the vid below and shows the earth's poles did not reverse polarity.  It's how magnetism works.  You can buy actual magnetite and do this experiment.  I do admit that creation scientist, Dr. Russel Humphreys, believes the same as you.  That said, I have not seen the reverse polarity data and what patterns is seen such as NSSN and NSNS patterns.  If it's the NSSN and NSNS patterns, then it's like based on proximity and magnetism principles.  It's curious because what the geophysicists based it on was the seafloor spread and in the igneous materials below. 


What do you have to back up that the polarity of the earth's poles flipped many times and the field drops to near zero?

The earth being 6,000 years old is based on those things I've already mentioned and more.  This is based on observational science that is observable, testable and falsifiable.

You believe it isn't because it is what was taught you in school and the myriads of news and articles that state the earth and and fossils found are billions and millions of years old.  The age of the earth is based on radiometric dating used by blank-blank.  It finally gave the evos enough time to work their voodoo magic.  You can't even name who this person was.

The basic assumption of evo scientists is that *the rate of radioactive decay has remained constant over time*.  The rate of decay using half-life is pretty accurate.  However, it may or may not be applicable.  As I have been pointing out the rate of bombardment is based on our magnetic field.  If the magnetic field is weakening, then rate of cosmic bombardment goes up and we would get differing results.  Furthermore, I have been pointing out that our atmosphere was different in the past than it is today.  Vastly different.

The other assumption is knowing the initial conditions of the rock sample.  How do you know what it was in the past?  The analogy creation scientists use to understand radiometric dating assumptions is the hourglass.  We enter a room and see that an hourglass is set on the table.  We see that it has more sand in the bottom than on top.  Based on the rate of sand we see falling to the bottom, we can figure out when the hourglass was turned over and calculate how long it has been running.  The problem is we do not know how much sand was at the bottom before turning over.  It could have been some or none.  Second, we do not know if the rate of sand falling has been constant as we only observed that it was constant after it was running.  It could have tipped over and someone righted it again.  Thus, we make assumptions in order to ascertain how long it has been running in order to calculate when it was first turned over.

Yet, evos have maintained that the rate of decay has remained constant over time.  This is part of their uniformitarianism beliefs.  Not facts, theories, but *beliefs*.  Uniformitarianism is more *faith-based* than actual science.  This belief also affects their evolution science.  The other belief they have is that of an old earth.  This is necessary for evolution to occur over long time.  There is few observational science, but mostly historical science.  The above two faith-based beliefs are necessary for evolution to exist and supplant a creator.  There is no question this is at the heart of creation science vs evolution science.


----------



## ChesBayJJ

james bond said:


> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> What observational science fits a young earth model? Please explain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We have radiocarbon still left in diamonds.  These are diamonds that your own evo scientists claim are one to two billion years old based on the layer they were found.  All of the carbon-14 should be gone if this is correct since carbon-14 decays rapidly compare to uranium or other radioactive elements.  However, this is not the case and RATE scientists dated them as much earlier around 55K years.
> 
> Or what about the recession of the moon?  Moon's gravity affects the tides of the earth.  It is observed that the moon travels further away each year due to this effect.  If the earth was 4.5 B years old, then it should be much further out and we'd be SOL.  Instead, a young earth better fits how far the moon is from the earth now.
> 
> Tidal acceleration - Wikipedia
> 
> Finally, the one I've been investigation currently.  The earth's decaying magnetic field.  If the earth is a dynamo, then this should not happen, but it has been decaying as predicted by Thomas Barnes and Russell Humphreys.  In 2013, the ESA launched several satellites to study the earth magnetic field and decay called SWARM.  If the earth were not around 6,000 years old, then there would be no magnetic field left and earth would be subject to excess cosmic radiation, solar winds and eventual extinction.
> 
> Honeywell Helps “Swarm” Study Earth’s Magnetic Field
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me get this straight. You actually believe the world is about 6000 years old?
> 
> Another question. Do you believe the theory of plate tectonics is valid?
> 
> I don't know about the diamond issue. Something is wrong with the analysis or your understanding of it. Do you have a link?
> 
> As far as your moon orbit theory, you are not correct. Recession is about 4cm a year. Over four billion years, that works out to about 100,000 miles. The moon's orbit is OK with a 4.5 billion year old earth.
> 
> Is the Moon moving away from the Earth? When was this discovered? (Intermediate) - Curious About Astronomy? Ask an Astronomer
> 
> As far as the dynamo and magnetic field - the earth's core is constantly in flux. The polarity of the magnetic field has flipped many times and there are periods where the field drops to near zero as this happens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So many misconceptions and you suggest that I'm ignorant and do not understand science.. Evolution has mucked up your brain.
> 
> The moon's recession is 3.8 cm/yr, but it would have had to be kissing the earth around 1.2 billion years ago to be where it is now.  Thus, how do you explain what happened in 4.5 billion years?  If the earth and moon were together, then it should be further away.  Are you going to tell me that rate isn't constant while rate of decay of radioactive elements are?
> 
> The magnetic field flip is hypothesis based on studying magnetite in igneous material from Bernard Brunhes and Motonori Matuyama.  However, if we look at how magnetism affects magnetite in liquid materials, then we find proximity affects it the most and it lines up either in a NSNS or NSSN direction due to its polarity.  This is demonstrated in the vid below and shows the earth's poles did not reverse polarity.  It's how magnetism works.  You can buy actual magnetite and do this experiment.  I do admit that creation scientist, Dr. Russel Humphreys, believes the same as you.  That said, I have not seen the reverse polarity data and what patterns is seen such as NSSN and NSNS patterns.  If it's the NSSN and NSNS patterns, then it's like based on proximity and magnetism principles.  It's curious because what the geophysicists based it on was the seafloor spread and in the igneous materials below.
> 
> 
> What do you have to back up that the polarity of the earth's poles flipped many times and the field drops to near zero?
> 
> The earth being 6,000 years old is based on those things I've already mentioned and more.  This is based on observational science that is observable, testable and falsifiable.
> 
> You believe it isn't because it is what was taught you in school and the myriads of news and articles that state the earth and and fossils found are billions and millions of years old.  The age of the earth is based on radiometric dating used by blank-blank.  It finally gave the evos enough time to work their voodoo magic.  You can't even name who this person was.
> 
> The basic assumption of evo scientists is that *the rate of radioactive decay has remained constant over time*.  The rate of decay using half-life is pretty accurate.  However, it may or may not be applicable.  As I have been pointing out the rate of bombardment is based on our magnetic field.  If the magnetic field is weakening, then rate of cosmic bombardment goes up and we would get differing results.  Furthermore, I have been pointing out that our atmosphere was different in the past than it is today.  Vastly different.
> 
> The other assumption is knowing the initial conditions of the rock sample.  How do you know what it was in the past?  The analogy creation scientists use to understand radiometric dating assumptions is the hourglass.  We enter a room and see that an hourglass is set on the table.  We see that it has more sand in the bottom than on top.  Based on the rate of sand we see falling to the bottom, we can figure out when the hourglass was turned over and calculate how long it has been running.  The problem is we do not know how much sand was at the bottom before turning over.  It could have been some or none.  Second, we do not know if the rate of sand falling has been constant as we only observed that it was constant after it was running.  It could have tipped over and someone righted it again.  Thus, we make assumptions in order to ascertain how long it has been running in order to calculate when it was first turned over.
> 
> Yet, evos have maintained that the rate of decay has remained constant over time.  This is part of their uniformitarianism beliefs.  Not facts, theories, but *beliefs*.  Uniformitarianism is more *faith-based* than actual science.  This belief also affects their evolution science.  The other belief they have is that of an old earth.  This is necessary for evolution to occur over long time.  There is few observational science, but mostly historical science.  The above two faith-based beliefs are necessary for evolution to exist and supplant a creator.  There is no question this is at the heart of creation science vs evolution science.
Click to expand...


_What do you have to back up that the polarity of the earth's poles flipped many times and the field drops to near zero?_​
Sea floor magnetic anomaly reversals paired off on either side of a spreading center

As far as the moon's distance is concerned, you have some math errors. Distance would have been about half of what it is now, 4.5 billion years ago at a 4cm/year rate. And I actually rounded up from 3.8 so it was probably further away.

And I really want you to tell me what this "observable science" is that says the world is is 6000 years old, because that is bullshit. There is just such an overwhelming amount of data that suggests a much older world that the 6000 year number is laughable.

And you say you believe the theory of quantum mechanics and the Bohr atom model, but somehow you don't accept radioactive decay, which is solid, well understood science. You are very screwed up.

And you didn't answer my question about plate tectonics. How do you square continents moving apart with your 6000 year old world?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ChesBayJJ said:


> Distance would have been about half of what it is now, 4.5 billion years ago at a 4cm/year rate


It can't be figured that way, as the recession speed of the moon from the Earth decreases over time. At the time of the moons formation, it was about 15- 20, 000 miles from earth, if memory serves.


----------



## ChesBayJJ

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Distance would have been about half of what it is now, 4.5 billion years ago at a 4cm/year rate
> 
> 
> 
> It can't be figured that way, as the recession speed of the moon from the Earth decreases over time. At the time of the moons formation, it was about 15- 20, 000 miles from earth, if memory serves.
Click to expand...


OK. I can accept that. I hadn't researched a changing recession velocity. But It still doesn't lend any weight to Bonds' silly 6000 year old earth theory.


----------



## Syriusly

DOTR said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> What are 'myths'?
> 
> The Creation stories of all cultures- the Navajo, the Greeks, the Aztecs, the Mesopotomians, the Egyptians, the Jews.
> 
> Most Christians(and Jews) do not subscribe to a literal Bible, and are comfortable with understanding that the creation stories are essentially myths- and that is of course how most Christian scientists view them.
> 
> It is the members of the specific cult of Creationists that reject the science of evolution and virtually every other part of physics that demonstrates that the earth was not created in 6 days.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In this context "myth" is not necessarily the pejorative synonym for "false". "Myth" can be similar to "parable" or "analogy".  And it shouldnt be defined by non-Christians for Christians.
> I am not commenting on Genesis specifically here but making more of a general comment.
> 
> For example..."Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto a merchant man, seeking goodly pearls: Who, when he had found one pearl of great price, went and sold all that he had, and bought it."— Matthew 13:45-46 or "A certain man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and he fell among robbers..." Luke 10
> 
> If it were proven to me beyond doubt that no merchant ever sold all he had to buy a pearl or that no man was ever beaten and left on the side of the road for the Samaritan to help it wouldn't have any effect on my religious beliefs at all. I understand the reason and the meaning and,more importantly, the genre of the parable.
> 
> Speaking of Genesis... it is not true that proving dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago disproves Christianity as some uneducated louts think. There are a multitude of ways to reconcile it...assuming there is a need for reconciliation at all.
> 
> As I said earlier...the worst Bible thumpers around are the atheists. Pearls before swine.
Click to expand...


A myth is a story understood to not be true but a story. 
And I can define what a myth is just as well as any Christian can label Greek origin stories as myths.

And most Christians do believe in dinosaurs and realize that the story of Genesis cannot be literally true- and have no problems with that. 

It is the Creationists that insist that the Bible must be read to be literally true- and twist themselves into pretzels regarding dinosaur fossils and a 6,000 year old earth. 

And I am used to being attacked by bible thumpers because I don't believe in the fairy tales.


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you reject the supernatural in the rest of the Bible other than Genesis.....why do you accept Genesis?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You misunderstand.  The supernatural in Genesis is the science that creation scientists want to teach in public schools and what they theorize versus today's secular scientists.  It includes Noah's Ark and Tower of Babel.  The other supernatural events such as Jesus' miracles and Resurrection, while of supreme importance, would fall under religion than science. .
Click to expand...


I am fascinated by how you differentiate the religion of the Creation from the religion of Jesus- and how one is science and one is supernatural.  

But thanks for admitting you want to require the teaching of Christian religion in the schools- by claiming it is science


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you reject the supernatural in the rest of the Bible other than Genesis.....why do you accept Genesis?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You misunderstand.  The supernatural in Genesis is the science that creation scientists want to teach in public schools and what they theorize versus today's secular scientists.  It includes Noah's Ark and Tower of Babel.  The other supernatural events such as Jesus' miracles and Resurrection, while of supreme importance, would fall under religion than science.  Maybe historical science.  Perhaps, it can be included if we find more scientific evidence of the afterlife through neurology and personal anecdotes.  I was thinking that would be more historical science since much of what is known is through witness accounts and forensic evidence.
> 
> ETA:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Remember this?  Around 4200 YA, there was Tower of Babel.  I'd include that, but probably some creationists do not want to include it even though it's in Genesis.  I've seen in it this exact past timeline; It appears to have been removed.  As for Jesus' Birth, I'm not sure if that would be included even though it's of supreme importance and he is a historical figure..
Click to expand...







I do enjoy how you call the 'Big Bang Theory' the Evolutionist time line. 

That you continue to believe that the world is 6,000 years old, and that there was a flood that covered Mt. Everest really just really is all that is necessary to show that you have faith in the Bible and reject science.


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> OTOH, creation scientists study dinosaur fossils and find there is still soft tissue which can be tested.  This is part historical science and part observational. .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well lets talk about that. I think that the discovery of 'soft tissue' in dinosaur bones is one of the most fascinating stories of paleontology.
> 
> Unfortunately no one has been able to replicate Mary Schweitzer's research.
> 
> And you have it sort of backwards.
> 
> Mary Schweitzer was a creationists- and didn't believe in evolution- but she learned and grew
> 
> _Over the next 6 months, Horner opened Schweitzer's eyes to the overwhelming evidence supporting evolution and Earth's antiquity. "He didn't try to convince me," Schweitzer says. "He just laid out the evidence."
> 
> 
> She rejected many fundamentalist views, a painful conversion. "It cost me a lot: my friends, my church, my husband." But it didn't destroy her faith. She felt that she saw God's handiwork in setting evolution in motion. "It made God bigger," she says._
> 
> So Mary is a real scientist. Not one of your faith healers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don’t act like that’s unusual. Christians are behind much of the science you use to bash them. And Christian evolutionists are far from rare. In fact, so far as they care or are interested, I would say they outnumber those who have a problem with evolution. But not all have even an interest.
> Would you care if a Christian didn’t accept the existence of baryons? Or doubted the Bohr Model  (yes I know but I’m just giving examples). Why is it evolution is some kind of yardstick ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I believe in quantum mechanics and the Bohr Model.  However, I draw the line at evolution.  Why many people believe evolution is because they were taught it.  I would think Schweitzer is one of the few who do not believe in creation.  It's more likely that a Christian would believe in an old earth model.  I just think that a young earth model fits observational science and the historical Bible.  It's not like we ignore historical science.  What gets me is these people who claim evolution and they do not understand it and state that Christians are the ones who do not understand science and believe in myths.  If they showed me what are myths, then I would tend to believe them more.  So far, it's all been assertions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What are 'myths'?
> 
> The Creation stories of all cultures- the Navajo, the Greeks, the Aztecs, the Mesopotomians, the Egyptians, the Jews.
> 
> Most Christians(and Jews) do not subscribe to a literal Bible, and are comfortable with understanding that the creation stories are essentially myths- and that is of course how most Christian scientists view them.
> 
> It is the members of the specific cult of Creationists that reject the science of evolution and virtually every other part of physics that demonstrates that the earth was not created in 6 days.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL, myths are pseudoscience, too, like humans from apes.  Or a single-cell creature from primordial soup via lightening.  .
Click to expand...


Myths are not 'pseudoscience' they are just religious faith. 

Now science is observing the facts and recognizing that evolution is the best theory that explains how mankind came into being, along with all of the other species.


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> OTOH, creation scientists study dinosaur fossils and find there is still soft tissue which can be tested.  This is part historical science and part observational. .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well lets talk about that. I think that the discovery of 'soft tissue' in dinosaur bones is one of the most fascinating stories of paleontology.
> 
> Unfortunately no one has been able to replicate Mary Schweitzer's research.
> 
> And you have it sort of backwards.
> 
> Mary Schweitzer was a creationists- and didn't believe in evolution- but she learned and grew
> 
> _Over the next 6 months, Horner opened Schweitzer's eyes to the overwhelming evidence supporting evolution and Earth's antiquity. "He didn't try to convince me," Schweitzer says. "He just laid out the evidence."
> 
> 
> She rejected many fundamentalist views, a painful conversion. "It cost me a lot: my friends, my church, my husband." But it didn't destroy her faith. She felt that she saw God's handiwork in setting evolution in motion. "It made God bigger," she says._
> 
> So Mary is a real scientist. Not one of your faith healers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don’t act like that’s unusual. Christians are behind much of the science you use to bash them. And Christian evolutionists are far from rare. In fact, so far as they care or are interested, I would say they outnumber those who have a problem with evolution. But not all have even an interest.
> Would you care if a Christian didn’t accept the existence of baryons? Or doubted the Bohr Model  (yes I know but I’m just giving examples). Why is it evolution is some kind of yardstick ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I believe in quantum mechanics and the Bohr Model.  However, I draw the line at evolution.  Why many people believe evolution is because they were taught it.  I would think Schweitzer is one of the few who do not believe in creation.  It's more likely that a Christian would believe in an old earth model.  I just think that a young earth model fits observational science and the historical Bible.  It's not like we ignore historical science.  What gets me is these people who claim evolution and they do not understand it and state that Christians are the ones who do not understand science and believe in myths.  If they showed me what are myths, then I would tend to believe them more.  So far, it's all been assertions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What are 'myths'?
> 
> The Creation stories of all cultures- the Navajo, the Greeks, the Aztecs, the Mesopotomians, the Egyptians, the Jews.
> 
> Most Christians(and Jews) do not subscribe to a literal Bible, and are comfortable with understanding that the creation stories are essentially myths- and that is of course how most Christian scientists view them.
> 
> It is the members of the specific cult of Creationists that reject the science of evolution and virtually every other part of physics that demonstrates that the earth was not created in 6 days.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or much of what Darwin said which led to social Darwinism, eugenics or genocide, Hitler and the Holocaust and Planned Parenthood.  You need to take responsibility for that.
Click to expand...


Do you take responsibility about what early Christians said that led to geonocide, Hitler and the Holocaust, and slavery?

Why would I be responsible for how people abused the theory of evolution for their own power- just like idiots have abused Christianity for their own power?


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> OTOH, creation scientists study dinosaur fossils and find there is still soft tissue which can be tested.  This is part historical science and part observational. .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well lets talk about that. I think that the discovery of 'soft tissue' in dinosaur bones is one of the most fascinating stories of paleontology.
> 
> Unfortunately no one has been able to replicate Mary Schweitzer's research.
> 
> And you have it sort of backwards.
> 
> Mary Schweitzer was a creationists- and didn't believe in evolution- but she learned and grew
> 
> _Over the next 6 months, Horner opened Schweitzer's eyes to the overwhelming evidence supporting evolution and Earth's antiquity. "He didn't try to convince me," Schweitzer says. "He just laid out the evidence."
> 
> 
> She rejected many fundamentalist views, a painful conversion. "It cost me a lot: my friends, my church, my husband." But it didn't destroy her faith. She felt that she saw God's handiwork in setting evolution in motion. "It made God bigger," she says._
> 
> So Mary is a real scientist. Not one of your faith healers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don’t act like that’s unusual. Christians are behind much of the science you use to bash them. And Christian evolutionists are far from rare. In fact, so far as they care or are interested, I would say they outnumber those who have a problem with evolution. But not all have even an interest.
> Would you care if a Christian didn’t accept the existence of baryons? Or doubted the Bohr Model  (yes I know but I’m just giving examples). Why is it evolution is some kind of yardstick ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I believe in quantum mechanics and the Bohr Model.  However, I draw the line at evolution.  Why many people believe evolution is because they were taught it.  I would think Schweitzer is one of the few who do not believe in creation.  It's more likely that a Christian would believe in an old earth model.  I just think that a young earth model fits observational science and the historical Bible.  It's not like we ignore historical science.  What gets me is these people who claim evolution and they do not understand it and state that Christians are the ones who do not understand science and believe in myths.  If they showed me what are myths, then I would tend to believe them more.  So far, it's all been assertions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What are 'myths'?
> 
> The Creation stories of all cultures- the Navajo, the Greeks, the Aztecs, the Mesopotomians, the Egyptians, the Jews.
> 
> Most Christians(and Jews) do not subscribe to a literal Bible, and are comfortable with understanding that the creation stories are essentially myths- and that is of course how most Christian scientists view them.
> 
> It is the members of the specific cult of Creationists that reject the science of evolution and virtually every other part of physics that demonstrates that the earth was not created in 6 days.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And I do not belong to a cult, but a scientific movement to teach creation science because today's atheist scientists have rejected real science for a pseudoscientific one. .
Click to expand...


LOL you belong to a very specific Christian cult that has nothing to do with science, and is based entirely upon a desire to find an excuse to teach Christian ideology in public schools.


----------



## Syriusly

DOTR said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Creationist cult are Christians who believe that the Bible should be taught in school- among other things. Creationists are without exception Christians. So to ignore their Christian roots is like ignoring the Islamic roots of Islamist terrorists. Of course most Christians are not Creationists, just as most Muslims are not Islamists.
> 
> I have no desire to 'stamp' out Christianity- nor do I even have a desire to 'stamp out' Creationists- I just confront the attack on science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course "Creationism", with a capital "c", is Christian in our context. But Islam has a creation story as well (a very similar one). Dont tell me you cant find vast swathes of Muslims who believe Allah created the world then "sat back on his throne and was not tired". But out culture is Christian based.
> Schools are local. I'd like to leave it to the locals to teach as they see fit. Generations of Americans were taught in schools which answered to parents rather than the Federal government and their Bible time and prayers didnt preclude them sending out future scientists and political leaders who created the greatest nation on Earth.
> And they didnt have to hide under desks from school shooters while they studied. Creationists are not who you should be fearing. They arent the ones who destroyed a culture.
Click to expand...


I have yet to see Muslims or Hindus or Buddhists or Jews demanding that their creation stories be taught as science in public schools.

I don't think that our schools should be teaching any faith as the true faith- especially not favoring the religion of whatever local community dominates the school boards.

I am not sure why you wish to conflate school shootings with Creationists or what 'culture' has been destroyed.


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> OTOH, creation scientists study dinosaur fossils and find there is still soft tissue which can be tested.  This is part historical science and part observational. .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well lets talk about that. I think that the discovery of 'soft tissue' in dinosaur bones is one of the most fascinating stories of paleontology.
> 
> Unfortunately no one has been able to replicate Mary Schweitzer's research.
> 
> And you have it sort of backwards.
> 
> Mary Schweitzer was a creationists- and didn't believe in evolution- but she learned and grew
> 
> _Over the next 6 months, Horner opened Schweitzer's eyes to the overwhelming evidence supporting evolution and Earth's antiquity. "He didn't try to convince me," Schweitzer says. "He just laid out the evidence."
> 
> 
> She rejected many fundamentalist views, a painful conversion. "It cost me a lot: my friends, my church, my husband." But it didn't destroy her faith. She felt that she saw God's handiwork in setting evolution in motion. "It made God bigger," she says._
> 
> So Mary is a real scientist. Not one of your faith healers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don’t act like that’s unusual. Christians are behind much of the science you use to bash them. And Christian evolutionists are far from rare. In fact, so far as they care or are interested, I would say they outnumber those who have a problem with evolution. But not all have even an interest.
> Would you care if a Christian didn’t accept the existence of baryons? Or doubted the Bohr Model  (yes I know but I’m just giving examples). Why is it evolution is some kind of yardstick ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I believe in quantum mechanics and the Bohr Model.  However, I draw the line at evolution.  Why many people believe evolution is because they were taught it.  I would think Schweitzer is one of the few who do not believe in creation.  It's more likely that a Christian would believe in an old earth model.  I just think that a young earth model fits observational science and the historical Bible.  It's not like we ignore historical science.  What gets me is these people who claim evolution and they do not understand it and state that Christians are the ones who do not understand science and believe in myths.  If they showed me what are myths, then I would tend to believe them more.  So far, it's all been assertions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What are 'myths'?
> 
> The Creation stories of all cultures- the Navajo, the Greeks, the Aztecs, the Mesopotomians, the Egyptians, the Jews.
> 
> Most Christians(and Jews) do not subscribe to a literal Bible, and are comfortable with understanding that the creation stories are essentially myths- and that is of course how most Christian scientists view them.
> 
> It is the members of the specific cult of Creationists that reject the science of evolution and virtually every other part of physics that demonstrates that the earth was not created in 6 days.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL, myths are pseudoscience, too, like humans from apes.  Or a single-cell creature from primordial soup via lightening.  Or much of what Darwin said which led to social Darwinism, eugenics or genocide, Hitler and the Holocaust and Planned Parenthood.  You need to take responsibility for that.
> 
> Do you believe in the Bohr model?  You do not mention much science in your posts and I can see why.  It's weak, so very weak.  What's the weakness with the Bohr model?
> What's good about it?
> 
> Even the single-cell is a complex organism which no human can create.  Evo cannot conduct an experiemtn where protein is formed from amino acids outside the cell.  I even talked about population and how it matches the 6,000 year old theory vs the 200,000 year one.  And what we are discussing now under historical science with fossils of ape-humans.  We have no transitional evidence of apes becoming humans through the fossil record, nor any other creature for that matter transforming into some completely different creature like a fish to a tetrapod.  There should be plenty of evidence even though fossilization is rare.  We have atheist scientists who are able to create synthetic DNA, so why can't they turn a fish into a tetrapod?  When it comes to observational science, evolution is very weak, indeed, like your posts.
Click to expand...

 1) _Even the single-cell is a complex organism which no human can create.-_* irrelevant to the theory of Evolution- since evolution doesn't say that humans created single cells. Of course we have no evidence that any god created any single- cell either*
2) _Evo cannot conduct an experiemtn where protein is formed from amino acids outside the cell.*i*_*rrelevant to the theory of Evolution.  Of course Creationists haven't been able to conduct any experiments to show that any god created anything. *
_3) I even talked about population and how it matches the 6,000 year old theory vs the 200,000 year one._
*You cited an article by a non-biologist citing his opinion- with nothing to support his opinion. Frankly one of your more ludicrous attempts at logic.*
_4) And what we are discussing now under historical science with fossils of ape-humans._
*What are 'ape-humans'?*
5) _We have no transitional evidence of apes becoming humans through the fossil record,_
*The fossil record shows a series of transitions from early ancestors of apes and humans to hominids to early humans. 
6) *_nor any other creature for that matter transforming into some completely different creature like a fish to a tetrapod._
You seem to think that there should be a fossil showing an individual transitioning from a fish to a wombat. 
Which is of course just ignorant of the theory of evolution. What we do have are fossil records showing a transition of forms from one species to another- such as hippos
Fossils of an Elusive Hippo Ancestor Found in Africa


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> OTOH, creation scientists study dinosaur fossils and find there is still soft tissue which can be tested.  This is part historical science and part observational. .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well lets talk about that. I think that the discovery of 'soft tissue' in dinosaur bones is one of the most fascinating stories of paleontology.
> 
> Unfortunately no one has been able to replicate Mary Schweitzer's research.
> 
> And you have it sort of backwards.
> 
> Mary Schweitzer was a creationists- and didn't believe in evolution- but she learned and grew
> 
> _Over the next 6 months, Horner opened Schweitzer's eyes to the overwhelming evidence supporting evolution and Earth's antiquity. "He didn't try to convince me," Schweitzer says. "He just laid out the evidence."
> 
> 
> She rejected many fundamentalist views, a painful conversion. "It cost me a lot: my friends, my church, my husband." But it didn't destroy her faith. She felt that she saw God's handiwork in setting evolution in motion. "It made God bigger," she says._
> 
> So Mary is a real scientist. Not one of your faith healers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don’t act like that’s unusual. Christians are behind much of the science you use to bash them. And Christian evolutionists are far from rare. In fact, so far as they care or are interested, I would say they outnumber those who have a problem with evolution. But not all have even an interest.
> Would you care if a Christian didn’t accept the existence of baryons? Or doubted the Bohr Model  (yes I know but I’m just giving examples). Why is it evolution is some kind of yardstick ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I believe in quantum mechanics and the Bohr Model.  However, I draw the line at evolution.  Why many people believe evolution is because they were taught it.  I would think Schweitzer is one of the few who do not believe in creation.  It's more likely that a Christian would believe in an old earth model.  I just think that a young earth model fits observational science and the historical Bible.  It's not like we ignore historical science.  What gets me is these people who claim evolution and they do not understand it and state that Christians are the ones who do not understand science and believe in myths.  If they showed me what are myths, then I would tend to believe them more.  So far, it's all been assertions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When it comes to observational science, evolution is very weak, indeed, like your posts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except of course- that the observational evidence supports the theory of evolution- and not some fairy poofing everything into existence 6,000 years ago.
Click to expand...



Except of course- that the observational evidence supports the theory of evolution- and not some fairy poofing everything into existence 6,000 years ago


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> What observational science fits a young earth model? Please explain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We have radiocarbon still left in diamonds.  These are diamonds that your own evo scientists claim are one to two billion years old based on the layer they were found.  All of the carbon-14 should be gone if this is correct since carbon-14 decays rapidly compare to uranium or other radioactive elements.  However, this is not the case and RATE scientists dated them as much earlier around 55K years.
Click to expand...


'RATE scientists'- lol. Institute of Creations Science. 

Once again your 'scientists' just display their vast ignorance as to actual science. 

_*Question:* A sample that is more than fifty thousand years old shouldn't have any measurable C-14. Coal, oil, and natural gas are supposed to be millions of years old; yet creationists say that some of them contain measurable amounts of C-14, enough to give them C-14 ages in the tens of thousands of years. How do you explain this?


*Answer:* Very simply. Radiocarbon dating doesn't work well on objects much older than twenty thousand years, because such objects have so little C-14 left that their beta radiation is swamped out by the background radiation of cosmic rays and potassium-40 (K-40) decay. Younger objects can easily be dated, because they still emit plenty of beta radiation, enough to be measured after the background radiation has been subtracted out of the total beta radiation. However, in either case, the background beta radiation has to be compensated for, and, in the older objects, the amount of C-14 they have left is less than the margin of error in measuring background radiation. As Hurley points out:


 Without rather special developmental work, it is not generally practicable to measure ages in excess of about twenty thousand years, because the radioactivity of the carbon becomes so slight that it is difficult to get an accurate measurement above background radiation. (p. 108)


 Cosmic rays form beta radiation all the time; this is the radiation that turns N-14 to C-14 in the first place. K-40 decay also forms plenty of beta radiation. Stearns, Carroll, and Clark point out that ". . . this isotope [K-40] accounts for a large part of the normal background radiation that can be detected on the earth's surface" (p. 84). This radiation cannot be totally eliminated from the laboratory, so one could probably get a "radiocarbon" date of fifty thousand years from a pure carbon-free piece of tin. However, you now know why this fact doesn't at all invalidate radiocarbon dates of objects younger than twenty thousand years and is certainly no evidence for the notion that coals and oils might be no older than fifty thousand years.

Answers to Creationist Attacks on Carbon-14 Dating_


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> What about Giant human beings like in the story of David vs. Goliath?  This is historical science, but it doesn't fit the evolution myth.  Skeletons of giant humans have been found which atheist scientists seem to ignore or have covered up.  What it means is the controversial hypothesis that earth's gravity was different, i.e. weaker, in the past.  This would also explain dinosaurs being so large.  In fact, atheist scientists cannot explain how the pterosaurs were able to fly.
> 
> Welcome to 6000years.org | Amazing Bible Discoveries | Proof the Bible is True
> 
> This is one of the more controversial Christian websites.  The giant humans were real and observable, and the weaker gravity hypothesis has some credibility, but it's not observable science. t.


Yeah- controversial is a polite term for this collection of BS
_One such report from a former employee of the Smithsonian (who lost his job because of his opposition to their strange policy), tells of one occasion where the Smithsonian people actually took a barge full of extraordinary artifacts out into the ocean where they dumped it.  Click here for a brief history of archaeological cover-ups.  Click here for a listing of many giant bones reports from around the world
_
Funny how you Creationists crow about the fraud of the Piltdown man- when you embrace all of the frauds in this website


----------



## Syriusly

lol
_Ron Wyatt, on one of his first trips to the Ark site, discovered Noah's house and the grave of his wife, Mrs. Noah. _
Mrs. Noah?


james bond said:


> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> What observational science fits a young earth model? Please explain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We have radiocarbon still left in diamonds.  These are diamonds that your own evo scientists claim are one to two billion years old based on the layer they were found.  All of the carbon-14 should be gone if this is correct since carbon-14 decays rapidly compare to uranium or other radioactive elements.  However, this is not the case and RATE scientists dated them as much earlier around 55K years.
> 
> Or what about the recession of the moon?  Moon's gravity affects the tides of the earth.  It is observed that the moon travels further away each year due to this effect.  If the earth was 4.5 B years old, then it should be much further out and we'd be SOL.  Instead, a young earth better fits how far the moon is from the earth now.
> 
> Tidal acceleration - Wikipedia
> 
> Finally, the one I've been investigation currently.  The earth's decaying magnetic field.  If the earth is a dynamo, then this should not happen, but it has been decaying as predicted by Thomas Barnes and Russell Humphreys.  In 2013, the ESA launched several satellites to study the earth magnetic field and decay called SWARM.  If the earth were not around 6,000 years old, then there would be no magnetic field left and earth would be subject to excess cosmic radiation, solar winds and eventual extinction.
> 
> Honeywell Helps “Swarm” Study Earth’s Magnetic Field
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me get this straight. You actually believe the world is about 6000 years old?
> 
> Another question. Do you believe the theory of plate tectonics is valid?
> 
> I don't know about the diamond issue. Something is wrong with the analysis or your understanding of it. Do you have a link?
> 
> As far as your moon orbit theory, you are not correct. Recession is about 4cm a year. Over four billion years, that works out to about 100,000 miles. The moon's orbit is OK with a 4.5 billion year old earth.
> 
> Is the Moon moving away from the Earth? When was this discovered? (Intermediate) - Curious About Astronomy? Ask an Astronomer
> 
> As far as the dynamo and magnetic field - the earth's core is constantly in flux. The polarity of the magnetic field has flipped many times and there are periods where the field drops to near zero as this happens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So many misconceptions and you suggest that I'm ignorant and do not understand science.. Evolution has mucked up your brain.
> 
> The moon's recession is 3.8 cm/yr, but it would have had to be kissing the earth around 1.2 billion years ago to be where it is now.  Thus, how do you explain what happened in 4.5 billion years?  If the earth and moon were together, then it should be further away.  Are you going to tell me that rate isn't constant while rate of decay of radioactive elements are?
> 
> _
> The earth being 6,000 years old is based on those things I've already mentioned and more.  This is based on observational science that is observable, testable and falsifiable_..
Click to expand...


Feel free to show how that is- observable, testable and falsifiable.

So far you haven't.


----------



## james bond

ChesBayJJ said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> What observational science fits a young earth model? Please explain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We have radiocarbon still left in diamonds.  These are diamonds that your own evo scientists claim are one to two billion years old based on the layer they were found.  All of the carbon-14 should be gone if this is correct since carbon-14 decays rapidly compare to uranium or other radioactive elements.  However, this is not the case and RATE scientists dated them as much earlier around 55K years.
> 
> Or what about the recession of the moon?  Moon's gravity affects the tides of the earth.  It is observed that the moon travels further away each year due to this effect.  If the earth was 4.5 B years old, then it should be much further out and we'd be SOL.  Instead, a young earth better fits how far the moon is from the earth now.
> 
> Tidal acceleration - Wikipedia
> 
> Finally, the one I've been investigation currently.  The earth's decaying magnetic field.  If the earth is a dynamo, then this should not happen, but it has been decaying as predicted by Thomas Barnes and Russell Humphreys.  In 2013, the ESA launched several satellites to study the earth magnetic field and decay called SWARM.  If the earth were not around 6,000 years old, then there would be no magnetic field left and earth would be subject to excess cosmic radiation, solar winds and eventual extinction.
> 
> Honeywell Helps “Swarm” Study Earth’s Magnetic Field
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me get this straight. You actually believe the world is about 6000 years old?
> 
> Another question. Do you believe the theory of plate tectonics is valid?
> 
> I don't know about the diamond issue. Something is wrong with the analysis or your understanding of it. Do you have a link?
> 
> As far as your moon orbit theory, you are not correct. Recession is about 4cm a year. Over four billion years, that works out to about 100,000 miles. The moon's orbit is OK with a 4.5 billion year old earth.
> 
> Is the Moon moving away from the Earth? When was this discovered? (Intermediate) - Curious About Astronomy? Ask an Astronomer
> 
> As far as the dynamo and magnetic field - the earth's core is constantly in flux. The polarity of the magnetic field has flipped many times and there are periods where the field drops to near zero as this happens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So many misconceptions and you suggest that I'm ignorant and do not understand science.. Evolution has mucked up your brain.
> 
> The moon's recession is 3.8 cm/yr, but it would have had to be kissing the earth around 1.2 billion years ago to be where it is now.  Thus, how do you explain what happened in 4.5 billion years?  If the earth and moon were together, then it should be further away.  Are you going to tell me that rate isn't constant while rate of decay of radioactive elements are?
> 
> The magnetic field flip is hypothesis based on studying magnetite in igneous material from Bernard Brunhes and Motonori Matuyama.  However, if we look at how magnetism affects magnetite in liquid materials, then we find proximity affects it the most and it lines up either in a NSNS or NSSN direction due to its polarity.  This is demonstrated in the vid below and shows the earth's poles did not reverse polarity.  It's how magnetism works.  You can buy actual magnetite and do this experiment.  I do admit that creation scientist, Dr. Russel Humphreys, believes the same as you.  That said, I have not seen the reverse polarity data and what patterns is seen such as NSSN and NSNS patterns.  If it's the NSSN and NSNS patterns, then it's like based on proximity and magnetism principles.  It's curious because what the geophysicists based it on was the seafloor spread and in the igneous materials below.
> 
> 
> What do you have to back up that the polarity of the earth's poles flipped many times and the field drops to near zero?
> 
> The earth being 6,000 years old is based on those things I've already mentioned and more.  This is based on observational science that is observable, testable and falsifiable.
> 
> You believe it isn't because it is what was taught you in school and the myriads of news and articles that state the earth and and fossils found are billions and millions of years old.  The age of the earth is based on radiometric dating used by blank-blank.  It finally gave the evos enough time to work their voodoo magic.  You can't even name who this person was.
> 
> The basic assumption of evo scientists is that *the rate of radioactive decay has remained constant over time*.  The rate of decay using half-life is pretty accurate.  However, it may or may not be applicable.  As I have been pointing out the rate of bombardment is based on our magnetic field.  If the magnetic field is weakening, then rate of cosmic bombardment goes up and we would get differing results.  Furthermore, I have been pointing out that our atmosphere was different in the past than it is today.  Vastly different.
> 
> The other assumption is knowing the initial conditions of the rock sample.  How do you know what it was in the past?  The analogy creation scientists use to understand radiometric dating assumptions is the hourglass.  We enter a room and see that an hourglass is set on the table.  We see that it has more sand in the bottom than on top.  Based on the rate of sand we see falling to the bottom, we can figure out when the hourglass was turned over and calculate how long it has been running.  The problem is we do not know how much sand was at the bottom before turning over.  It could have been some or none.  Second, we do not know if the rate of sand falling has been constant as we only observed that it was constant after it was running.  It could have tipped over and someone righted it again.  Thus, we make assumptions in order to ascertain how long it has been running in order to calculate when it was first turned over.
> 
> Yet, evos have maintained that the rate of decay has remained constant over time.  This is part of their uniformitarianism beliefs.  Not facts, theories, but *beliefs*.  Uniformitarianism is more *faith-based* than actual science.  This belief also affects their evolution science.  The other belief they have is that of an old earth.  This is necessary for evolution to occur over long time.  There is few observational science, but mostly historical science.  The above two faith-based beliefs are necessary for evolution to exist and supplant a creator.  There is no question this is at the heart of creation science vs evolution science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _What do you have to back up that the polarity of the earth's poles flipped many times and the field drops to near zero?_​
> Sea floor magnetic anomaly reversals paired off on either side of a spreading center
> 
> As far as the moon's distance is concerned, you have some math errors. Distance would have been about half of what it is now, 4.5 billion years ago at a 4cm/year rate. And I actually rounded up from 3.8 so it was probably further away.
> 
> And I really want you to tell me what this "observable science" is that says the world is is 6000 years old, because that is bullshit. There is just such an overwhelming amount of data that suggests a much older world that the 6000 year number is laughable.
> 
> And you say you believe the theory of quantum mechanics and the Bohr atom model, but somehow you don't accept radioactive decay, which is solid, well understood science. You are very screwed up.
> 
> And you didn't answer my question about plate tectonics. How do you square continents moving apart with your 6000 year old world?
Click to expand...


You present nothing concrete on seafloor magnetic anomaly.  Where is the evidence?  I am looking for patterns that they see and already in the solidified magma.  I even gave you the patterns NSSN and NSNS in the experiment vid.  If that's it, then the experiment shows that it's not pole reversals but properties of magnetism and proximity.  I provide science that works and is backed up by scientific reasoning.  You provide evo fodder talk.

Show me the errors in the math then.

I just provided you three solid pieces of evidence not based on radiometric dating.  Besides, you could not refute the big one against radiometric dating. .Already provided the weaknesses with it.  As for the diamonds, they were natural diamonds that were formed due to intense pressure.  

One evidence is diamonds found in kimberlite.  In this one case, they found an unpetrified piece of wood 300 m deep in the kimberlite.  These are like fresh pieces of wood, so the diamonds would not be millions of years old.  Secular scientists believed that the kimberlite was 53 millions years old, but if it was, then the would have not been there.  Cellulose breaks down rapidly.  

Pristine Early Eocene Wood Buried Deeply in Kimberlite from Northern Canada. 

Today, scientists can grow diamonds artificially using the same temperature and pressure and carbon in short time.  It doesn't take millions of years to form a diamond from carbon.  Thus, it wasn't surprising to find C14 still remaining in the natural diamonds.  It just goes to show that evos assume that the diamonds are millions of years old.  How can one create synthetic diamonds in months using the same temperature and pressure as natural diamonds?  

The Difference Between Natural and Synthetic Diamonds 

How to Tell If A Diamond Was Grown In A Lab

Source for RATE finding C14 in diamonds
Thousands... Not Billions: Challenging an Icon of Evolution, Questioning the Age of the Earth by Don DeYoung. Master Books, 2005, 190pp.

The evidence is overwhelming
Carbon-14 in Fossils and Diamonds


----------



## james bond

Syriusly said:


> lol
> _Ron Wyatt, on one of his first trips to the Ark site, discovered Noah's house and the grave of his wife, Mrs. Noah. _
> Mrs. Noah?



Ron Wyatt meant well, but he was off on several of his findings.  He had his moments and huge blunders, too.  I pointed him out to show that creationists who use historical science can be off, too.  It just goes to show that historical science leads to huge errors like that which evolution made ha ha.

I would compare Ron Wyatt's thinking and forensics to your evolution scientists who think humans came from apes.


----------



## LuckyDuck

Ima Cat said:


> I know there are similarities but I think they are coincidental, like cats and seals both have whiskers.  But cats didn't come from seals or vice a versa.


Actually, this post belongs in the "Religion" section.  This is the "Science and Technology" section and there is absolutely NOTHING scientific about superstition.


----------



## MaryL

Kill me now. End my suffering now. Nobody, and I mean no one in the scientific community ever said Human beings were descendants of monkeys. You pose this question seriously. I could say we came from bananas or clams. But the scientific community never said any such thing, bukko.  I won't bother arguing, because we know how that works.


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol
> _Ron Wyatt, on one of his first trips to the Ark site, discovered Noah's house and the grave of his wife, Mrs. Noah. _
> Mrs. Noah?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ron Wyatt meant well, but he was off on several of his findings.  He had his moments and huge blunders, too.  I pointed him out to show that creationists who use historical science can be off, too.  It just goes to show that historical science leads to huge errors like that which evolution made ha ha.
> 
> I would compare Ron Wyatt's thinking and forensics to your evolution scientists who think humans came from apes.
Click to expand...


I would compare Ron Wyatt's thinking to every single other creationist.


----------



## Syriusly

I am going to declare victory and bow out of this discussion.

James rejects science in favor of his faith- which is his choice.

But there is no arguing with a person who rejects all of the real science and believes in quack theories pretending to be science. 

So I will let him continue to believe his fairy tales in peace- at least in this thread.


----------



## james bond

Syriusly said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol
> _Ron Wyatt, on one of his first trips to the Ark site, discovered Noah's house and the grave of his wife, Mrs. Noah. _
> Mrs. Noah?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ron Wyatt meant well, but he was off on several of his findings.  He had his moments and huge blunders, too.  I pointed him out to show that creationists who use historical science can be off, too.  It just goes to show that historical science leads to huge errors like that which evolution made ha ha.
> 
> I would compare Ron Wyatt's thinking and forensics to your evolution scientists who think humans came from apes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would compare Ron Wyatt's thinking to every single other creationist.
Click to expand...


Nah, Wyatt was more wrong than right.  He may as well been in the evo camp.  He may have been a fraud, too, but the evos had Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man and small-brained apes as ape-humans.


----------



## james bond

Syriusly said:


> I am going to declare victory and bow out of this discussion.
> 
> James rejects science in favor of his faith- which is his choice.
> 
> But there is no arguing with a person who rejects all of the real science and believes in quack theories pretending to be science.
> 
> So I will let him continue to believe his fairy tales in peace- at least in this thread.



Ha ha.  How can you declare victory when you spewed nothing but assertions?  I provided all the evidence while you provided nothing, as usual.  For example, how can an ape-human who has the same cranial capacity as a chimp learn to walk upright?  If your ape-humans had larger cranial capacity, then it would be taken more seriously by creation scientists.  BTW, it's not just a few skulls that are small.


----------



## ChesBayJJ

james bond said:


> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> What observational science fits a young earth model? Please explain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We have radiocarbon still left in diamonds.  These are diamonds that your own evo scientists claim are one to two billion years old based on the layer they were found.  All of the carbon-14 should be gone if this is correct since carbon-14 decays rapidly compare to uranium or other radioactive elements.  However, this is not the case and RATE scientists dated them as much earlier around 55K years.
> 
> Or what about the recession of the moon?  Moon's gravity affects the tides of the earth.  It is observed that the moon travels further away each year due to this effect.  If the earth was 4.5 B years old, then it should be much further out and we'd be SOL.  Instead, a young earth better fits how far the moon is from the earth now.
> 
> Tidal acceleration - Wikipedia
> 
> Finally, the one I've been investigation currently.  The earth's decaying magnetic field.  If the earth is a dynamo, then this should not happen, but it has been decaying as predicted by Thomas Barnes and Russell Humphreys.  In 2013, the ESA launched several satellites to study the earth magnetic field and decay called SWARM.  If the earth were not around 6,000 years old, then there would be no magnetic field left and earth would be subject to excess cosmic radiation, solar winds and eventual extinction.
> 
> Honeywell Helps “Swarm” Study Earth’s Magnetic Field
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me get this straight. You actually believe the world is about 6000 years old?
> 
> Another question. Do you believe the theory of plate tectonics is valid?
> 
> I don't know about the diamond issue. Something is wrong with the analysis or your understanding of it. Do you have a link?
> 
> As far as your moon orbit theory, you are not correct. Recession is about 4cm a year. Over four billion years, that works out to about 100,000 miles. The moon's orbit is OK with a 4.5 billion year old earth.
> 
> Is the Moon moving away from the Earth? When was this discovered? (Intermediate) - Curious About Astronomy? Ask an Astronomer
> 
> As far as the dynamo and magnetic field - the earth's core is constantly in flux. The polarity of the magnetic field has flipped many times and there are periods where the field drops to near zero as this happens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So many misconceptions and you suggest that I'm ignorant and do not understand science.. Evolution has mucked up your brain.
> 
> The moon's recession is 3.8 cm/yr, but it would have had to be kissing the earth around 1.2 billion years ago to be where it is now.  Thus, how do you explain what happened in 4.5 billion years?  If the earth and moon were together, then it should be further away.  Are you going to tell me that rate isn't constant while rate of decay of radioactive elements are?
> 
> The magnetic field flip is hypothesis based on studying magnetite in igneous material from Bernard Brunhes and Motonori Matuyama.  However, if we look at how magnetism affects magnetite in liquid materials, then we find proximity affects it the most and it lines up either in a NSNS or NSSN direction due to its polarity.  This is demonstrated in the vid below and shows the earth's poles did not reverse polarity.  It's how magnetism works.  You can buy actual magnetite and do this experiment.  I do admit that creation scientist, Dr. Russel Humphreys, believes the same as you.  That said, I have not seen the reverse polarity data and what patterns is seen such as NSSN and NSNS patterns.  If it's the NSSN and NSNS patterns, then it's like based on proximity and magnetism principles.  It's curious because what the geophysicists based it on was the seafloor spread and in the igneous materials below.
> 
> 
> What do you have to back up that the polarity of the earth's poles flipped many times and the field drops to near zero?
> 
> The earth being 6,000 years old is based on those things I've already mentioned and more.  This is based on observational science that is observable, testable and falsifiable.
> 
> You believe it isn't because it is what was taught you in school and the myriads of news and articles that state the earth and and fossils found are billions and millions of years old.  The age of the earth is based on radiometric dating used by blank-blank.  It finally gave the evos enough time to work their voodoo magic.  You can't even name who this person was.
> 
> The basic assumption of evo scientists is that *the rate of radioactive decay has remained constant over time*.  The rate of decay using half-life is pretty accurate.  However, it may or may not be applicable.  As I have been pointing out the rate of bombardment is based on our magnetic field.  If the magnetic field is weakening, then rate of cosmic bombardment goes up and we would get differing results.  Furthermore, I have been pointing out that our atmosphere was different in the past than it is today.  Vastly different.
> 
> The other assumption is knowing the initial conditions of the rock sample.  How do you know what it was in the past?  The analogy creation scientists use to understand radiometric dating assumptions is the hourglass.  We enter a room and see that an hourglass is set on the table.  We see that it has more sand in the bottom than on top.  Based on the rate of sand we see falling to the bottom, we can figure out when the hourglass was turned over and calculate how long it has been running.  The problem is we do not know how much sand was at the bottom before turning over.  It could have been some or none.  Second, we do not know if the rate of sand falling has been constant as we only observed that it was constant after it was running.  It could have tipped over and someone righted it again.  Thus, we make assumptions in order to ascertain how long it has been running in order to calculate when it was first turned over.
> 
> Yet, evos have maintained that the rate of decay has remained constant over time.  This is part of their uniformitarianism beliefs.  Not facts, theories, but *beliefs*.  Uniformitarianism is more *faith-based* than actual science.  This belief also affects their evolution science.  The other belief they have is that of an old earth.  This is necessary for evolution to occur over long time.  There is few observational science, but mostly historical science.  The above two faith-based beliefs are necessary for evolution to exist and supplant a creator.  There is no question this is at the heart of creation science vs evolution science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _What do you have to back up that the polarity of the earth's poles flipped many times and the field drops to near zero?_​
> Sea floor magnetic anomaly reversals paired off on either side of a spreading center
> 
> As far as the moon's distance is concerned, you have some math errors. Distance would have been about half of what it is now, 4.5 billion years ago at a 4cm/year rate. And I actually rounded up from 3.8 so it was probably further away.
> 
> And I really want you to tell me what this "observable science" is that says the world is is 6000 years old, because that is bullshit. There is just such an overwhelming amount of data that suggests a much older world that the 6000 year number is laughable.
> 
> And you say you believe the theory of quantum mechanics and the Bohr atom model, but somehow you don't accept radioactive decay, which is solid, well understood science. You are very screwed up.
> 
> And you didn't answer my question about plate tectonics. How do you square continents moving apart with your 6000 year old world?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You present nothing concrete on seafloor magnetic anomaly.  Where is the evidence?  I am looking for patterns that they see and already in the solidified magma.  I even gave you the patterns NSSN and NSNS in the experiment vid.  If that's it, then the experiment shows that it's not pole reversals but properties of magnetism and proximity.  I provide science that works and is backed up by scientific reasoning.  You provide evo fodder talk.
> 
> Show me the errors in the math then.
> 
> I just provided you three solid pieces of evidence not based on radiometric dating.  Besides, you could not refute the big one against radiometric dating. .Already provided the weaknesses with it.  As for the diamonds, they were natural diamonds that were formed due to intense pressure.
> 
> One evidence is diamonds found in kimberlite.  In this one case, they found an unpetrified piece of wood 300 m deep in the kimberlite.  These are like fresh pieces of wood, so the diamonds would not be millions of years old.  Secular scientists believed that the kimberlite was 53 millions years old, but if it was, then the would have not been there.  Cellulose breaks down rapidly.
> 
> Pristine Early Eocene Wood Buried Deeply in Kimberlite from Northern Canada.
> 
> Today, scientists can grow diamonds artificially using the same temperature and pressure and carbon in short time.  It doesn't take millions of years to form a diamond from carbon.  Thus, it wasn't surprising to find C14 still remaining in the natural diamonds.  It just goes to show that evos assume that the diamonds are millions of years old.  How can one create synthetic diamonds in months using the same temperature and pressure as natural diamonds?
> 
> The Difference Between Natural and Synthetic Diamonds
> 
> How to Tell If A Diamond Was Grown In A Lab
> 
> Source for RATE finding C14 in diamonds
> Thousands... Not Billions: Challenging an Icon of Evolution, Questioning the Age of the Earth by Don DeYoung. Master Books, 2005, 190pp.
> 
> The evidence is overwhelming
> Carbon-14 in Fossils and Diamonds
Click to expand...


Evidence for magnetic anomalies

Plate Tectonics

They are real, detectable, measurable, whatever term you wish to use. You can see the patterns in the picture in the link. You provide nothing that negates the current geophysics theory on anomalies and their formation.

Earth to moon distance - recession now 3.8 cm/year

Moon Fact Sheet

That works out to 171000km over 4.5 billion years. Thats 106,500 miles, less than half the current distance. And as was earlier pointed out recession velocity would be higher after the moon formed, but it would in no way imply a 6000 yo earth.

You need to read your link about the wood in the kimberlite. The wood ended up in the kimberlite at the time of the eruption. The kimberlite and any diamonds therin are ancient. The wood was on the surface, very modern. They are two different things and will date very differently. And of course, the authors date the kimberlite eruption to 53 million years ago which kind of puts a hole in your 6000yo earth ytheory.

_We report exceptional preservation of* fossil wood* buried deeply in a kimberlite pipe that intruded northwestern Canada’s Slave Province *53.3±0.6 million years ago (Ma)*, revealed during excavation of diamond source rock. The wood originated from forest surrounding the eruption zone and collapsed into the diatreme before resettling in volcaniclastic kimberlite to depths >300 m, where it was mummified in a sterile environment_​
Your links do nothing to refute the validity of radiometric dating.

And the Don DeYoung book is the same type of crap you spew here.

And you still haven't answered my question. Do you believe the theory of plate tectonics is valid? Yes or no? Simple answer.


----------



## james bond

LuckyDuck said:


> Ima Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know there are similarities but I think they are coincidental, like cats and seals both have whiskers.  But cats didn't come from seals or vice a versa.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, this post belongs in the "Religion" section.  This is the "Science and Technology" section and there is absolutely NOTHING scientific about superstition.
Click to expand...


You're right about the religion and S&T section, but who is using superstition?  The secular scientists?  Evolution vs the supernatural, as relating to God's creation (origins science), are different things.

What we established is that evolutionists who believe humans descended from monkeys or apes do not have any kind of observational science that is observed, testable and falsifiable.  The creation scientists have that.  The humans from apes section believes their hypothesis based on historical or forensic science.  Forensic science is usually used in crime scene analysis, but it picks up pieces from what happened in the past to analyze and gather evidence to form an opinion of what happened.  Then it's up to a jury of peers whether to believe it or not.  Capice?

What they conclude isn't always right as observational science would override it.  In this thread, we discovered that no has been able to get an ape to walk bipedal today.  We can get it to do sign-language like Koko the Gorilla who died recently and communicate in basic sentences.  RIP Koko.  Forbidden scientists have hybridized an ape and a human and it only lived one generation.  It could not reproduce.  The observable, testable and falsifiable science disproves this evolution hypothesis.  Thus, all these silly people who believe we came from apes are wrong using their historical science.  It is what I call pseudoscience and can be dismissed.


----------



## james bond

ChesBayJJ said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have radiocarbon still left in diamonds.  These are diamonds that your own evo scientists claim are one to two billion years old based on the layer they were found.  All of the carbon-14 should be gone if this is correct since carbon-14 decays rapidly compare to uranium or other radioactive elements.  However, this is not the case and RATE scientists dated them as much earlier around 55K years.
> 
> Or what about the recession of the moon?  Moon's gravity affects the tides of the earth.  It is observed that the moon travels further away each year due to this effect.  If the earth was 4.5 B years old, then it should be much further out and we'd be SOL.  Instead, a young earth better fits how far the moon is from the earth now.
> 
> Tidal acceleration - Wikipedia
> 
> Finally, the one I've been investigation currently.  The earth's decaying magnetic field.  If the earth is a dynamo, then this should not happen, but it has been decaying as predicted by Thomas Barnes and Russell Humphreys.  In 2013, the ESA launched several satellites to study the earth magnetic field and decay called SWARM.  If the earth were not around 6,000 years old, then there would be no magnetic field left and earth would be subject to excess cosmic radiation, solar winds and eventual extinction.
> 
> Honeywell Helps “Swarm” Study Earth’s Magnetic Field
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me get this straight. You actually believe the world is about 6000 years old?
> 
> Another question. Do you believe the theory of plate tectonics is valid?
> 
> I don't know about the diamond issue. Something is wrong with the analysis or your understanding of it. Do you have a link?
> 
> As far as your moon orbit theory, you are not correct. Recession is about 4cm a year. Over four billion years, that works out to about 100,000 miles. The moon's orbit is OK with a 4.5 billion year old earth.
> 
> Is the Moon moving away from the Earth? When was this discovered? (Intermediate) - Curious About Astronomy? Ask an Astronomer
> 
> As far as the dynamo and magnetic field - the earth's core is constantly in flux. The polarity of the magnetic field has flipped many times and there are periods where the field drops to near zero as this happens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So many misconceptions and you suggest that I'm ignorant and do not understand science.. Evolution has mucked up your brain.
> 
> The moon's recession is 3.8 cm/yr, but it would have had to be kissing the earth around 1.2 billion years ago to be where it is now.  Thus, how do you explain what happened in 4.5 billion years?  If the earth and moon were together, then it should be further away.  Are you going to tell me that rate isn't constant while rate of decay of radioactive elements are?
> 
> The magnetic field flip is hypothesis based on studying magnetite in igneous material from Bernard Brunhes and Motonori Matuyama.  However, if we look at how magnetism affects magnetite in liquid materials, then we find proximity affects it the most and it lines up either in a NSNS or NSSN direction due to its polarity.  This is demonstrated in the vid below and shows the earth's poles did not reverse polarity.  It's how magnetism works.  You can buy actual magnetite and do this experiment.  I do admit that creation scientist, Dr. Russel Humphreys, believes the same as you.  That said, I have not seen the reverse polarity data and what patterns is seen such as NSSN and NSNS patterns.  If it's the NSSN and NSNS patterns, then it's like based on proximity and magnetism principles.  It's curious because what the geophysicists based it on was the seafloor spread and in the igneous materials below.
> 
> 
> What do you have to back up that the polarity of the earth's poles flipped many times and the field drops to near zero?
> 
> The earth being 6,000 years old is based on those things I've already mentioned and more.  This is based on observational science that is observable, testable and falsifiable.
> 
> You believe it isn't because it is what was taught you in school and the myriads of news and articles that state the earth and and fossils found are billions and millions of years old.  The age of the earth is based on radiometric dating used by blank-blank.  It finally gave the evos enough time to work their voodoo magic.  You can't even name who this person was.
> 
> The basic assumption of evo scientists is that *the rate of radioactive decay has remained constant over time*.  The rate of decay using half-life is pretty accurate.  However, it may or may not be applicable.  As I have been pointing out the rate of bombardment is based on our magnetic field.  If the magnetic field is weakening, then rate of cosmic bombardment goes up and we would get differing results.  Furthermore, I have been pointing out that our atmosphere was different in the past than it is today.  Vastly different.
> 
> The other assumption is knowing the initial conditions of the rock sample.  How do you know what it was in the past?  The analogy creation scientists use to understand radiometric dating assumptions is the hourglass.  We enter a room and see that an hourglass is set on the table.  We see that it has more sand in the bottom than on top.  Based on the rate of sand we see falling to the bottom, we can figure out when the hourglass was turned over and calculate how long it has been running.  The problem is we do not know how much sand was at the bottom before turning over.  It could have been some or none.  Second, we do not know if the rate of sand falling has been constant as we only observed that it was constant after it was running.  It could have tipped over and someone righted it again.  Thus, we make assumptions in order to ascertain how long it has been running in order to calculate when it was first turned over.
> 
> Yet, evos have maintained that the rate of decay has remained constant over time.  This is part of their uniformitarianism beliefs.  Not facts, theories, but *beliefs*.  Uniformitarianism is more *faith-based* than actual science.  This belief also affects their evolution science.  The other belief they have is that of an old earth.  This is necessary for evolution to occur over long time.  There is few observational science, but mostly historical science.  The above two faith-based beliefs are necessary for evolution to exist and supplant a creator.  There is no question this is at the heart of creation science vs evolution science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _What do you have to back up that the polarity of the earth's poles flipped many times and the field drops to near zero?_​
> Sea floor magnetic anomaly reversals paired off on either side of a spreading center
> 
> As far as the moon's distance is concerned, you have some math errors. Distance would have been about half of what it is now, 4.5 billion years ago at a 4cm/year rate. And I actually rounded up from 3.8 so it was probably further away.
> 
> And I really want you to tell me what this "observable science" is that says the world is is 6000 years old, because that is bullshit. There is just such an overwhelming amount of data that suggests a much older world that the 6000 year number is laughable.
> 
> And you say you believe the theory of quantum mechanics and the Bohr atom model, but somehow you don't accept radioactive decay, which is solid, well understood science. You are very screwed up.
> 
> And you didn't answer my question about plate tectonics. How do you square continents moving apart with your 6000 year old world?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You present nothing concrete on seafloor magnetic anomaly.  Where is the evidence?  I am looking for patterns that they see and already in the solidified magma.  I even gave you the patterns NSSN and NSNS in the experiment vid.  If that's it, then the experiment shows that it's not pole reversals but properties of magnetism and proximity.  I provide science that works and is backed up by scientific reasoning.  You provide evo fodder talk.
> 
> Show me the errors in the math then.
> 
> I just provided you three solid pieces of evidence not based on radiometric dating.  Besides, you could not refute the big one against radiometric dating. .Already provided the weaknesses with it.  As for the diamonds, they were natural diamonds that were formed due to intense pressure.
> 
> One evidence is diamonds found in kimberlite.  In this one case, they found an unpetrified piece of wood 300 m deep in the kimberlite.  These are like fresh pieces of wood, so the diamonds would not be millions of years old.  Secular scientists believed that the kimberlite was 53 millions years old, but if it was, then the would have not been there.  Cellulose breaks down rapidly.
> 
> Pristine Early Eocene Wood Buried Deeply in Kimberlite from Northern Canada.
> 
> Today, scientists can grow diamonds artificially using the same temperature and pressure and carbon in short time.  It doesn't take millions of years to form a diamond from carbon.  Thus, it wasn't surprising to find C14 still remaining in the natural diamonds.  It just goes to show that evos assume that the diamonds are millions of years old.  How can one create synthetic diamonds in months using the same temperature and pressure as natural diamonds?
> 
> The Difference Between Natural and Synthetic Diamonds
> 
> How to Tell If A Diamond Was Grown In A Lab
> 
> Source for RATE finding C14 in diamonds
> Thousands... Not Billions: Challenging an Icon of Evolution, Questioning the Age of the Earth by Don DeYoung. Master Books, 2005, 190pp.
> 
> The evidence is overwhelming
> Carbon-14 in Fossils and Diamonds
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Evidence for magnetic anomalies
> 
> Plate Tectonics
> 
> They are real, detectable, measurable, whatever term you wish to use. You can see the patterns in the picture in the link. You provide nothing that negates the current geophysics theory on anomalies and their formation.
> 
> Earth to moon distance - recession now 3.8 cm/year
> 
> Moon Fact Sheet
> 
> That works out to 171000km over 4.5 billion years. Thats 106,500 miles, less than half the current distance. And as was earlier pointed out recession velocity would be higher after the moon formed, but it would in no way imply a 6000 yo earth.
> 
> You need to read your link about the wood in the kimberlite. The wood ended up in the kimberlite at the time of the eruption. The kimberlite and any diamonds therin are ancient. The wood was on the surface, very modern. They are two different things and will date very differently. And of course, the authors date the kimberlite eruption to 53 million years ago which kind of puts a hole in your 6000yo earth ytheory.
> 
> _We report exceptional preservation of* fossil wood* buried deeply in a kimberlite pipe that intruded northwestern Canada’s Slave Province *53.3±0.6 million years ago (Ma)*, revealed during excavation of diamond source rock. The wood originated from forest surrounding the eruption zone and collapsed into the diatreme before resettling in volcaniclastic kimberlite to depths >300 m, where it was mummified in a sterile environment_​
> Your links do nothing to refute the validity of radiometric dating.
> 
> And the Don DeYoung book is the same type of crap you spew here.
> 
> And you still haven't answered my question. Do you believe the theory of plate tectonics is valid? Yes or no? Simple answer.
Click to expand...


I'm not going to read an argument based on links.  What does plate tectonics have to do with magnetic field in your argument?.  Why don't you explain briefly an argument that it's suppose to back up?

Okay, now we're getting somewhere.  Your argument is the moon being half the distance to the earth when it started 4.5 billion years.  I think this is impossible and would destroy the earth.  The tidal bulges would be enormous.  Creation science states that the earth and moon are in perfect distance away from each other to have gravitational effects that makes earth habitable.  The distance from the earth and moon was the same around 6,000 years ago.  This is also part of the argument why we do not find life on other planets which brings in the fine tuning parameters.

If the moon was around half the distance to where it is now, the closeness and the gravitational pull of the moon would have devastating effects.  We would not be able to survive due to the bulging tides.  Are you saying that it was catastrophic when the earth and moon was formed or when the solar system was formed?

I have a hard time believing that the wood was "mummified" as they claimed.  The wood would deteriorate quickly and wouldn't look that way after 53+ billion years or after several years even with mummification.  Also, I presented additional argument and evidence of how synthetic diamonds are grown today using temperature, pressure and carbon.  It does not take billions of years for diamonds to form.  I notice you conveniently avoid experimental evidence when it disproves your long-time theories.  The same as when confronted with how humans came from apes.  No bipedal ape exist today.  Can they even be taught to walk bipedal?

You're using assertions to back up your precious radiometric dating and I was right you do not know who estimated the earth to be 4.5 B years old.. We do not know what the initial conditions were and assumptions have to be made that we do.  Even C14 dating has its problems.  To be sure, one has to have something in which the age is known to compare it to.  Thus, in that regards, we can have known samples of trees using tree rings.  Tree rings aren't full proof either and can be misleading, but we can take a large enough sample size of them.  Even if we took the comparison rocks the radiometric analysts use, we would find that C14 still remains in rocks millions and billions of years old when it isn't suppose to.  These radiometric analysts were amazed, but were not convinced.  These are the oldest rocks on earth, but yet they have C14 remaining in them.  It's similar to finding soft tissue in dinosaurs.

Oldest Rocks on Earth Found

Don DeYoung is Chairman of the Department of Physical Science at Grace College, Winona Lake, Indiana and creation physicist.  He can only state that he is a creation physicist because he works there.  He would not be able to get a job at public universities by stating his beliefs.  How fair is that?  Today, evolution scientists have completely disregarded what real science, i.e. observational science, is because of evolution and evolutionary thinking.  You would think Satan was behind evolution.

Finally, you ask me stupid farking questions like do I believe in plate tectonics?  Ever heard of continental drift?  That started off with a Christian scientist hypothesizing that the continents weren't separated in the past.  Immediately, he was ignored.  Only when plate tectonics were discovered that his ideas were accepted.  Thus, you can take your lack of logical reasoning and stick it up where the sun don't shine you dumbarse ha ha!  Furthermore, we find that plate tectonics is one of the things necessary for life.  Other planets do not have it.  I know these things and yet you don't.  Clair Patterson was the first one who claimed the earth was 4.5 B years old.

Radiometric Dating: Clair Patterson

I think now the atheist scientists are claiming the earth is actually 4.6 billion years old.  They can't make up their mind.  I'm willing to wager the age of the earth will go up once the James Webb telescope comes online and we find universe is 15.6 billion years old.  The planets at the edge of our universe would need more time to have formed.  What's another two billion years ha ha.  A few already claim this now.

ETA:  Instead of trying to belittle creation science, it would probably be helpful to learn of it and do the comparisons yourself.  Otherwise, you could end up like Mr. Billion of Years in the next life.  He will experience drudgery for that long in order to understand and observe what his thinking entails.


----------



## ChesBayJJ

james bond said:


> I'm not going to read an argument based on links. What does plate tectonics have to do with magnetic field in your argument?. Why don't you explain briefly an argument that it's suppose to back up?



LOL You won't read an argument based on links? Yet you post links to creationist pap that supports your whacko age of the earth theory.

And I never said anything about plate tectonics having anything to do with the magnetic field. But the magnetic field reversals do show up in the oceanic crustal rocks which is confirmation of sea floor spreading. And the reason I keep asking you if you agree with the theory of plate tectonics is because it is verifiable and measurable. Continental drift is measured continuously by a network of hundreds of GPS receivers and accurate vectors of plate motions have been determined. And it all blows a huge hole in your creationist BS.

I'm done with you. You are either too ignorant or too brainwashed to understand real science. I've wasted enough time here already.


----------



## james bond

ChesBayJJ said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not going to read an argument based on links. What does plate tectonics have to do with magnetic field in your argument?. Why don't you explain briefly an argument that it's suppose to back up?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL You won't read an argument based on links? Yet you post links to creationist pap that supports your whacko age of the earth theory.
> 
> And I never said anything about plate tectonics having anything to do with the magnetic field. But the magnetic field reversals do show up in the oceanic crustal rocks which is confirmation of sea floor spreading. And the reason I keep asking you if you agree with the theory of plate tectonics is because it is verifiable and measurable. Continental drift is measured continuously by a network of hundreds of GPS receivers and accurate vectors of plate motions have been determined. And it all blows a huge hole in your creationist BS.
> 
> I'm done with you. You are either too ignorant or too brainwashed to understand real science. I've wasted enough time here already.
Click to expand...


It's not pap, but creation science.  Furthermore, you could not refute the radioactive carbon, C14, left in the diamonds nor oldest stones.  If they are billions of years old, then the C14 would be gone.  The atheist scientists just assumed they were gone and never tested.  Furthermore, I provided an housglass analogy that shows radiometric dating advocates made assumptions beyond what one can make.  Clair Patterson probably got some kind of recognition and award for his work.  Like I said, I studied evolution using my alma mater's website on it.  I also have been comparing it to what creation scientists have been saying and I decided they were more right than the atheist scientists.  What was galling was how systematically the creation scientists were eliminated from secular science.  That's why I seek to tell the truth.  There is God urging me on or providing the motivation, but I gravitated towards the science right away.  It was like opening a new worldview into my existence.  I could've just sat back and accepted Christianity without focusing on the science, but the religion is more difficult than the science.  I focused on the science parts first and put aside the people parts until later.

I think the magnetic pole reversals have been misread.  We know that magnetite in the lava is affected by proximity to other magnetite first.  Thus, they would line up in the NSNS or NSSN pattern and the weaker bond between NS-NS and NS-SN.  When the ocean's crust hardens, we see these patterns in the rocks and scientists thought the polarity had reversed.  My view is in the minority, but I can explain it.  I can't explain magnetic field dynamo based on heat convection from radioactive decay.  The decay doesn't happen rapidly enough and is uneven.  What I think how the magnetic field works is related to gravity.  Here's a couple of videos you can investigate if you're interested in this stuff.


Well, several physicists think plate tectonics help with the heat convection which powers the dynamo.  You did not explain how the magnetic field dynamo works.  I'm working on my own findings..  I'm not sure about if the dynamo is true if countries send satellites to monitor, track and study it.  They are concerned the magnetic field is weakening.

I am sure that plate tectonics help trap CO2.  That's why PT is necessary to sustain life.  Many planets do not have it like Venus.

Instead of judging my creation science, why don't you critique the atheists?  I still don't know how GPS receivers blow a hole in creation science.

Moreover, you can't explain the recession of the moon and distance between earth and the moon either.  Neither can the atheist scientists.  I understand.

At one time, I believed the earth was 4.5 B yrs old, but what bothered me was the news kept reporting this.  Why keep reporting what was a fact?  Then, I realized that some richer and higher powers wanted the masses to believe this.  Probably to sell GMO or mutations down the road.  Remember, the atheist scientists say that GMO foods and GM humans are perfectly safe.  They will want you to buy mutation products for longer and healthier life.  Wait until their cells start to react over time.  Mutations are not usually positive, but evos believe they are natural because they are the basis for macroevolution.  We do not observe macroevolution.  Otherwise, someone would have been able to produce and evolve a tetrapod from fish.

I think you should find out stuff for yourself since you seem to have an interest in science.  Don't just believe what the atheist scientists tell you like humans from apes or the earth produces its own magnetic field via dynamo and the pole reverses.  Have you ever seen a pole reverse on an electric motor?  It's not straightforward on how to do this.


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am going to declare victory and bow out of this discussion.
> 
> James rejects science in favor of his faith- which is his choice.
> 
> But there is no arguing with a person who rejects all of the real science and believes in quack theories pretending to be science.
> 
> So I will let him continue to believe his fairy tales in peace- at least in this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ha ha.  How can you declare victory when you spewed nothing but assertions?  I provided all the evidence while you provided nothing, as usual.  For example, how can an ape-human who has the same cranial capacity as a chimp learn to walk upright?  If your ape-humans had larger cranial capacity, then it would be taken more seriously by creation scientists.  BTW, it's not just a few skulls that are small.
Click to expand...


----------



## DOTR

Syriusly said:


> I am not sure why you wish to conflate school shootings with Creationists or what 'culture' has been destroyed.



  I dont conflate school shootings with creationists. I am warning you not to. When creationists held sway in our schools there were far fewer school shootings.


----------



## DOTR

I shouldnt bring this up..because the point of this post is that I *cant* back it up.

  I saw an article a few years back that listed the way the various forms of dating dovetailed with each other. it was a brilliant explanation of how everything from ice cores to tree rings to molecular clocks and dozens more dating systems all agree.

  I wish I had saved the article.


----------



## DOTR

Ima Cat said:


> I know there are similarities but I think they are coincidental, like cats and seals both have whiskers.  But cats didn't come from seals or vice a versa.



  By the way it isnt "coincidental. Both cats and seals are therian mammals with a common ancestor which did have whiskers. Some mammals, like humans, have lost them.


----------



## james bond

Syriusly said:


>



Welp, let's stick to the topic and we find no peer-reviewed paper on monkeys/chimps/apes to humans or monkeys/chimps/apes to ape-humans.  Thus, it's victory for the creation scientists.

ETA:  You haven't been listening.  Creation scientists can't get their papers reviewed by secular scientists because of prejudice and discrimination.  That isn't science.  They have to get other creation scientists to peer-review their work.  Anything that disproves evolution will not be peer-reviewed per atheist scientists.

Here is an example
More Peer-Reviewed Papers Critical of Evolution


----------



## james bond

Here's the peer-review by real scientists.  Evolution debunked.  Unfortunately, creation scientists will never be in the running for a Nobel Prize.  The dream of getting one isn't real because secular science will never peer-review or publish their papers due to prejudice and discrimination.  Somehow, I think it will work out well for them in the end.

Assessing the RATE Project
https://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2007/PSCF6-07Isaac.pdf

End of Long Age Radiometric Dating article
THE END of LONG AGE RADIOMETRIC DATING


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

That is not peer reviews science, liar. That is an opinion piece written by a charlatan, and it is an opinion rejected by the scientific community. You really are some kind of fraud.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> That is not peer reviews science, liar. Thtat is an opinion piece written by a charlatan, and it is an opinion rejected by the scientific community. You really are some kind of fraud.



First, there is no peer reviews science.  It's scientific papers that are peer reviewed or scientific peer reviews of new discoveries.  I asked for a peer review of apes to humans and no reply.  Thus, it was another victory for creation science and the thread has come to a forgone conclusion.

You should just stick to your comfort level of internet atheist, one of the lowest level of atheist there is.  They want testable and falsifiable science and when they get it, they realize that it's the Christians who have it and the evolutionists don't.  Why don't you stick with playing pigeon chess?  Join a pigion chess club.  At least, you'll get out of the basement of your parents house, get some fresh air, exercise and you may shed some of that adipose tissue.

You really can't put 2 + 2 together can you?  (Don't worry.  You'll have billion of years to figure it out.)  Not only did you not understand the link I posted, but you didn't read it.  And why are you trying to read a peer-review paper?  It will just go over your head.  It's not for uneducated internet atheists like you.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> First, there is no peer reviews science. It's scientific papers that are peer reviewed or scientific peer reviews of new discoveries


Which is peer reviews science 

Oh look, 1000 pages of verbal.masrurbation...and you're still on the worng side of history and of all the evidence. How frustrating it must be for you!


----------



## Syriusly

DOTR said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not sure why you wish to conflate school shootings with Creationists or what 'culture' has been destroyed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I dont conflate school shootings with creationists. I am warning you not to. When creationists held sway in our schools there were far fewer school shootings.
Click to expand...


And more typewriters also.


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> Here's the peer-review by real scientists.  Evolution debunked.  Unfortunately, creation scientists will never be in the running for a Nobel Prize.  The dream of getting one isn't real because secular science will never peer-review or publish their papers due to prejudice and discrimination.  Somehow, I think it will work out well for them in the end.
> 
> Assessing the RATE Project
> https://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2007/PSCF6-07Isaac.pdf
> 
> End of Long Age Radiometric Dating article
> THE END of LONG AGE RADIOMETRIC DATING



1. There is overwhelming evidence of more
than 500 million years worth of radioactive
decay.
2. Biblical interpretation and some scientific
studies indicate a young earth.
*3. Therefore, radioactive decay must have
been accelerated by approximately a factor
of one billion during the first three days of
creation and during the Flood.

LOL




*


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> First, there is no peer reviews science. It's scientific papers that are peer reviewed or scientific peer reviews of new discoveries
> 
> 
> 
> Which is peer reviews science
> 
> Oh look, 1000 pages of verbal.masrurbation...and you're still on the worng side of history and of all the evidence. How frustrating it must be for you!
Click to expand...


smh.  You are a hopeless case Mr. BOY as you do not even understand basic English.  No sense staying here I have moved on.


----------



## ChesBayJJ

*Reliability of radiometric dating*
So, are radiometric methods foolproof? Just how reliable are these dates?
As with any experimental procedure in any field of science, these measurements are subject to certain "glitches" and "anomalies," as noted in the literature. Skeptics of old-earth geology make great hay of these examples. For example, creationist writer Henry Morris [Morris2000, pg. 147] has highlighted the fact that measurements of specimens from a 1801 lava flow near a volcano in Hualalai, Hawaii gave apparent ages (using the Potassium-Argon method) ranging from 160 million to 2.96 billion years, citing a 1968 study [Funkhouser1968]. In the particular case that Morris highlighted, the lava flow was unusual because it included numerous xenoliths (typically consisting of olivine, an iron-magnesium silicate material) that are foreign to the lava, having been carried from deep within the earth but not completely melted in the lava. Also, as the authors of the 1968 article were careful to explain, xenoliths cannot be dated by the K-Ar method because of excess argon in bubbles trapped inside [Dalrymple2006]. Thus in this case, as in many others that have been raised by skeptics of old-earth geology, the "anomaly" is more imaginary than real. Other objections raised by creationists are addressed in [Dalrymple2006a].

Reliability of Geologic Dating

*Vast amounts of data overwhelmingly favor an old Earth. Several hundred laboratories around the world are active in radiometric dating. Their results consistently agree with an old Earth. Over a thousand papers on radiometric dating were published in scientifically recognized journals in the last year, and hundreds of thousands of dates have been published in the last 50 years. Essentially all of these strongly favor an old Earth.*​


----------



## james bond

Syriusly said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the peer-review by real scientists.  Evolution debunked.  Unfortunately, creation scientists will never be in the running for a Nobel Prize.  The dream of getting one isn't real because secular science will never peer-review or publish their papers due to prejudice and discrimination.  Somehow, I think it will work out well for them in the end.
> 
> Assessing the RATE Project
> https://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2007/PSCF6-07Isaac.pdf
> 
> End of Long Age Radiometric Dating article
> THE END of LONG AGE RADIOMETRIC DATING
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. There is overwhelming evidence of more
> than 500 million years worth of radioactive
> decay.
> 2. Biblical interpretation and some scientific
> studies indicate a young earth.
> *3. Therefore, radioactive decay must have
> been accelerated by approximately a factor
> of one billion during the first three days of
> creation and during the Flood.
> 
> LOL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
Click to expand...


It wasn't just dirt (carbon).  We had to have God's breath of life.  And to carbon we will return.  Isn't this hypothesis based on observation?  Can humans create just a body from carbon?  

Speaking of carbon, you could not explain why C14 remains in fossils and diamonds.which were 53+ million of years old.  I'm sure that fossils are found in older rock layers with same as stated.  Furthermore, #3 is why radiometric dating does not work as you think.  It's difficult for you to believe because as I stated many times your "faith" in uniformitarianism.  I've already pointed out rapid changes in natural selection and earth showing stratification such as Mt. St. Helens.  You're sill using the same dodgy and faulty arguments.  Even secular scientists are admitting to the power of catastrophism.  

I also observe that the atheist holding the sign has some adipose tissue.  Fort Fun Indiana didn't deny.  Are you also?  Maybe going on religious fasts will do you wonders and be a healthy endeavor for body and soul.

With this, I have moved on.


----------



## Syriusly

DOTR said:


> I shouldnt bring this up..because the point of this post is that I *cant* back it up.
> 
> I saw an article a few years back that listed the way the various forms of dating dovetailed with each other. it was a brilliant explanation of how everything from ice cores to tree rings to molecular clocks and dozens more dating systems all agree.
> 
> I wish I had saved the article.



I think that there are several articles like that.


james bond said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the peer-review by real scientists.  Evolution debunked.  Unfortunately, creation scientists will never be in the running for a Nobel Prize.  The dream of getting one isn't real because secular science will never peer-review or publish their papers due to prejudice and discrimination.  Somehow, I think it will work out well for them in the end.
> 
> Assessing the RATE Project
> https://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2007/PSCF6-07Isaac.pdf
> 
> End of Long Age Radiometric Dating article
> THE END of LONG AGE RADIOMETRIC DATING
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. There is overwhelming evidence of more
> than 500 million years worth of radioactive
> decay.
> 2. Biblical interpretation and some scientific
> studies indicate a young earth.
> *3. Therefore, radioactive decay must have
> been accelerated by approximately a factor
> of one billion during the first three days of
> creation and during the Flood.
> 
> LOL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It wasn't just dirt (carbon). .
Click to expand...


----------



## james bond

ChesBayJJ said:


> *Reliability of radiometric dating*
> So, are radiometric methods foolproof? Just how reliable are these dates?
> As with any experimental procedure in any field of science, these measurements are subject to certain "glitches" and "anomalies," as noted in the literature. Skeptics of old-earth geology make great hay of these examples. For example, creationist writer Henry Morris [Morris2000, pg. 147] has highlighted the fact that measurements of specimens from a 1801 lava flow near a volcano in Hualalai, Hawaii gave apparent ages (using the Potassium-Argon method) ranging from 160 million to 2.96 billion years, citing a 1968 study [Funkhouser1968]. In the particular case that Morris highlighted, the lava flow was unusual because it included numerous xenoliths (typically consisting of olivine, an iron-magnesium silicate material) that are foreign to the lava, having been carried from deep within the earth but not completely melted in the lava. Also, as the authors of the 1968 article were careful to explain, xenoliths cannot be dated by the K-Ar method because of excess argon in bubbles trapped inside [Dalrymple2006]. Thus in this case, as in many others that have been raised by skeptics of old-earth geology, the "anomaly" is more imaginary than real. Other objections raised by creationists are addressed in [Dalrymple2006a].
> 
> Reliability of Geologic Dating
> 
> *Vast amounts of data overwhelmingly favor an old Earth. Several hundred laboratories around the world are active in radiometric dating. Their results consistently agree with an old Earth. Over a thousand papers on radiometric dating were published in scientifically recognized journals in the last year, and hundreds of thousands of dates have been published in the last 50 years. Essentially all of these strongly favor an old Earth.*​



Again, the main argument for radiometric dating is the faith-based theory of uniformitarianism and the long, long, long ages necessary for evolution.  You admit that radiometric dating does not work in water and that it would be reset in a local flood.  Thus, why not a global flood?


----------



## james bond

Syriusly said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> I shouldnt bring this up..because the point of this post is that I *cant* back it up.
> 
> I saw an article a few years back that listed the way the various forms of dating dovetailed with each other. it was a brilliant explanation of how everything from ice cores to tree rings to molecular clocks and dozens more dating systems all agree.
> 
> I wish I had saved the article.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think that there are several articles like that.
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the peer-review by real scientists.  Evolution debunked.  Unfortunately, creation scientists will never be in the running for a Nobel Prize.  The dream of getting one isn't real because secular science will never peer-review or publish their papers due to prejudice and discrimination.  Somehow, I think it will work out well for them in the end.
> 
> Assessing the RATE Project
> https://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2007/PSCF6-07Isaac.pdf
> 
> End of Long Age Radiometric Dating article
> THE END of LONG AGE RADIOMETRIC DATING
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. There is overwhelming evidence of more
> than 500 million years worth of radioactive
> decay.
> 2. Biblical interpretation and some scientific
> studies indicate a young earth.
> *3. Therefore, radioactive decay must have
> been accelerated by approximately a factor
> of one billion during the first three days of
> creation and during the Flood.
> 
> LOL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It wasn't just dirt (carbon). .
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...







Even your memes are wrong, but it points out a teaching moment.

Creation science uses observational science where it's rarely used in evolution science.  Evos give us the conclusion and find facts to support it. 

What creationists do is use the Bible as "hypothesis," big difference from "conclusion."  We use observational science and are amazed at how God has created the earth and universe.  We even accept the discoveries of atheist scientists as science.  Just not evolution's historical science of drawing conclusions and making the facts fit it..


----------



## ChesBayJJ

james bond said:


> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Reliability of radiometric dating*
> So, are radiometric methods foolproof? Just how reliable are these dates?
> As with any experimental procedure in any field of science, these measurements are subject to certain "glitches" and "anomalies," as noted in the literature. Skeptics of old-earth geology make great hay of these examples. For example, creationist writer Henry Morris [Morris2000, pg. 147] has highlighted the fact that measurements of specimens from a 1801 lava flow near a volcano in Hualalai, Hawaii gave apparent ages (using the Potassium-Argon method) ranging from 160 million to 2.96 billion years, citing a 1968 study [Funkhouser1968]. In the particular case that Morris highlighted, the lava flow was unusual because it included numerous xenoliths (typically consisting of olivine, an iron-magnesium silicate material) that are foreign to the lava, having been carried from deep within the earth but not completely melted in the lava. Also, as the authors of the 1968 article were careful to explain, xenoliths cannot be dated by the K-Ar method because of excess argon in bubbles trapped inside [Dalrymple2006]. Thus in this case, as in many others that have been raised by skeptics of old-earth geology, the "anomaly" is more imaginary than real. Other objections raised by creationists are addressed in [Dalrymple2006a].
> 
> Reliability of Geologic Dating
> 
> *Vast amounts of data overwhelmingly favor an old Earth. Several hundred laboratories around the world are active in radiometric dating. Their results consistently agree with an old Earth. Over a thousand papers on radiometric dating were published in scientifically recognized journals in the last year, and hundreds of thousands of dates have been published in the last 50 years. Essentially all of these strongly favor an old Earth.*​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, the main argument for radiometric dating is the faith-based theory of uniformitarianism and the long, long, long ages necessary for evolution.  You admit that radiometric dating does not work in water and that it would be reset in a local flood.  Thus, why not a global flood?
Click to expand...


I admit it doesn't work in water? When did I say something like that? 

And I just showed you an excellent article that tells you the technique has been used many many times and has proven quite reliable, You dwell on a few cases where results have been erroneous and say that makes the technique invalid. Sorry, doofus. You are very very confused.


----------



## ChesBayJJ

Research Shows Radiometric Dating Still Reliable (Again)


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> I shouldnt bring this up..because the point of this post is that I *cant* back it up.
> 
> I saw an article a few years back that listed the way the various forms of dating dovetailed with each other. it was a brilliant explanation of how everything from ice cores to tree rings to molecular clocks and dozens more dating systems all agree.
> 
> I wish I had saved the article.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think that there are several articles like that.
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the peer-review by real scientists.  Evolution debunked.  Unfortunately, creation scientists will never be in the running for a Nobel Prize.  The dream of getting one isn't real because secular science will never peer-review or publish their papers due to prejudice and discrimination.  Somehow, I think it will work out well for them in the end.
> 
> Assessing the RATE Project
> https://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2007/PSCF6-07Isaac.pdf
> 
> End of Long Age Radiometric Dating article
> THE END of LONG AGE RADIOMETRIC DATING
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. There is overwhelming evidence of more
> than 500 million years worth of radioactive
> decay.
> 2. Biblical interpretation and some scientific
> studies indicate a young earth.
> *3. Therefore, radioactive decay must have
> been accelerated by approximately a factor
> of one billion during the first three days of
> creation and during the Flood.
> 
> LOL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It wasn't just dirt (carbon). .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even your memes are wrong, but it points out a teaching moment.
> 
> Creation science uses observational science where it's rarely used in evolution science.  Evos give us the conclusion and find facts to support it.
> 
> What creationists do is use the Bible as "hypothesis," big difference from "conclusion."  We use observational science and are amazed at how God has created the earth and universe.  We even accept the discoveries of atheist scientists as science.  Just not evolution's historical science of drawing conclusions and making the facts fit it..
Click to expand...


----------



## boedicca

Some people believe they came from monkey. So in this era of Self-Identification, be all means, let them self-identify as Ape-Spawn.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> First, there is no peer reviews science. It's scientific papers that are peer reviewed or scientific peer reviews of new discoveries
> 
> 
> 
> Which is peer reviews science
> 
> Oh look, 1000 pages of verbal.masrurbation...and you're still on the worng side of history and of all the evidence. How frustrating it must be for you!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> smh.  You are a hopeless case Mr. BOY as you do not even understand basic English.  No sense staying here I have moved on.
Click to expand...

You're a moron. When papers are peer reviewer, it is the methods and conclusions...i.e., the science...that are reviewed. Your queer attempt to asay otherwise is truly embarrassing.

Let's check the scoreboard again:

Golbak scientific consensus and all the evidence supports evolution. The deniers and their magical bullshit are still relegated to being laughingstocks on blogs and message boards.

Well, despite your efforts, there appears to be no change in the score.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

boedicca said:


> Some people believe they came from monkey. So in this era of Self-Identification, be all means, let them self-identify as Ape-Spawn.


What, you don't believe in evolutionary theory?

What the fuck...are you people retarded?


----------



## boedicca

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some people believe they came from monkey. So in this era of Self-Identification, be all means, let them self-identify as Ape-Spawn.
> 
> 
> 
> What, you don't believe in evolutionary theory?
> 
> What the fuck...are you people retarded?
Click to expand...



I said nothing about my beliefs bub.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

boedicca said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some people believe they came from monkey. So in this era of Self-Identification, be all means, let them self-identify as Ape-Spawn.
> 
> 
> 
> What, you don't believe in evolutionary theory?
> 
> What the fuck...are you people retarded?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I said nothing about my beliefs bub.
Click to expand...

Is that a yes or a no?


----------



## boedicca

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some people believe they came from monkey. So in this era of Self-Identification, be all means, let them self-identify as Ape-Spawn.
> 
> 
> 
> What, you don't believe in evolutionary theory?
> 
> What the fuck...are you people retarded?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I said nothing about my beliefs bub.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is that a yes or a no?
Click to expand...


I decline to answer.  Your original question was rude, so you forfeited a genuine response.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

boedicca said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some people believe they came from monkey. So in this era of Self-Identification, be all means, let them self-identify as Ape-Spawn.
> 
> 
> 
> What, you don't believe in evolutionary theory?
> 
> What the fuck...are you people retarded?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I said nothing about my beliefs bub.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is that a yes or a no?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I decline to answer.  Your original question was rude, so you forfeited a genuine response.
Click to expand...

Okay then seeya later!


----------



## Syriusly

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some people believe they came from monkey. So in this era of Self-Identification, be all means, let them self-identify as Ape-Spawn.
> 
> 
> 
> What, you don't believe in evolutionary theory?
> 
> What the fuck...are you people retarded?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I said nothing about my beliefs bub.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is that a yes or a no?
Click to expand...

he/she/it is just trolling.


----------



## james bond

ChesBayJJ said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Reliability of radiometric dating*
> So, are radiometric methods foolproof? Just how reliable are these dates?
> As with any experimental procedure in any field of science, these measurements are subject to certain "glitches" and "anomalies," as noted in the literature. Skeptics of old-earth geology make great hay of these examples. For example, creationist writer Henry Morris [Morris2000, pg. 147] has highlighted the fact that measurements of specimens from a 1801 lava flow near a volcano in Hualalai, Hawaii gave apparent ages (using the Potassium-Argon method) ranging from 160 million to 2.96 billion years, citing a 1968 study [Funkhouser1968]. In the particular case that Morris highlighted, the lava flow was unusual because it included numerous xenoliths (typically consisting of olivine, an iron-magnesium silicate material) that are foreign to the lava, having been carried from deep within the earth but not completely melted in the lava. Also, as the authors of the 1968 article were careful to explain, xenoliths cannot be dated by the K-Ar method because of excess argon in bubbles trapped inside [Dalrymple2006]. Thus in this case, as in many others that have been raised by skeptics of old-earth geology, the "anomaly" is more imaginary than real. Other objections raised by creationists are addressed in [Dalrymple2006a].
> 
> Reliability of Geologic Dating
> 
> *Vast amounts of data overwhelmingly favor an old Earth. Several hundred laboratories around the world are active in radiometric dating. Their results consistently agree with an old Earth. Over a thousand papers on radiometric dating were published in scientifically recognized journals in the last year, and hundreds of thousands of dates have been published in the last 50 years. Essentially all of these strongly favor an old Earth.*​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, the main argument for radiometric dating is the faith-based theory of uniformitarianism and the long, long, long ages necessary for evolution.  You admit that radiometric dating does not work in water and that it would be reset in a local flood.  Thus, why not a global flood?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I admit it doesn't work in water? When did I say something like that?
> 
> And I just showed you an excellent article that tells you the technique has been used many many times and has proven quite reliable, You dwell on a few cases where results have been erroneous and say that makes the technique invalid. Sorry, doofus. You are very very confused.
Click to expand...


Sure the companies who do it will find plenty of reason, as in $$$$s and other monies, because radiometric dating is expensive and profit making.  What you do is completely ignore the uniformitarianism that is it based on and that evolution needs long, long, long ages for it to work.  Since you admitted it doesn't work in water, the global flood would reset the radiometrics.  The global flood is not uniformitarianism, but catastrophism as I mentioned.  The proof is in the pudding.

Evidence 1: Fossils of sea creatures high above sea level due to the ocean waters having flooded over the continents - We find fossils of sea creatures above sea level on all the continents.

Evidence 2: Rapid burial of plants and animals - We find fossil graveyards with beautifully preserved marine life.

Evidence 3: Rapidly deposited sediment layers spread across vast areas - Its found across continents and in-between.

Evidence 4: Sediment transported long distances - Sediment from one area found across the country.

Evidence 5: Rapid or no erosion between strata - Continuous deposits of one layer over another.  This can be shown experimentally.

Evidence 6: Many strata laid down in rapid succession - The shape of the strata shows that it formed rapidly before becoming hard or else it would show breaks.

Thus, the radiometric data is over before it could start.  The global flood reset all the clocks and the relatively modern items found in millions and billions of years layers or trees vertically running through various layers show the millions and billions of years layers of evolution from radiometric dating are wrong.

Can I just put you down as a faith-based evolution believer and not someone interested in real science?  If I was a faith-based evo believer, then I would keep an open mind when presented with such contrary evidence, investigate to the best of my ability and figure it out for myself.


----------



## james bond

ChesBayJJ said:


> Research Shows Radiometric Dating Still Reliable (Again)



Ha ha.  I'm one or more steps ahead of you.  I already read the papers on the anomalies of constant decay rates and did not use that argument.  However, I did use the hourglass analogy which you had no logical or scientific counter-arg.  

I didn't mention this before, but there is circular reasoning going on when trying to validate the radiometric dates.  They refer to the layers and the acceptable date ranges in a standards chart.  These layers are dated because of the items in the date range already found in the layer.  When someone brings in a new item and after it is dated via radiometric dating, then they go to the same chart with past items and date layers.  If the item doesn't fit, then it is discarded as wrong.  if it does fit, then it is accepted and added to the layer.  When they first started doing this when there was no radiometric dating, they would do the same thing.  The verifiers would estimate the age of the item to the layer and what was found and compare it to estimated age by the finder.  The finder went to the same chart to see where they could estimate the dates and did chemical tests to see where it would fall.

If you're interested in pre-radiometric dating methods, then you can find it here.  Too many to list here.
Dating Techniques facts, information, pictures | Encyclopedia.com articles about Dating Techniques


----------



## james bond

boedicca said:


> Some people believe they came from monkey. So in this era of Self-Identification, be all means, let them self-identify as Ape-Spawn.



Just ignore Fort Fun Indiana.  He could be an example of an ape-spawn with its low brow forehead, monkey nose, lips and small cranium.  Many times, I've asked myself if a human like him walked on fours, would they put him in a zoo or sanitarium?


----------



## RWS

You believe that we got "poofed" into existence...

By the will of "God".

'nuff said


----------



## ChesBayJJ

james bond said:


> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Reliability of radiometric dating*
> So, are radiometric methods foolproof? Just how reliable are these dates?
> As with any experimental procedure in any field of science, these measurements are subject to certain "glitches" and "anomalies," as noted in the literature. Skeptics of old-earth geology make great hay of these examples. For example, creationist writer Henry Morris [Morris2000, pg. 147] has highlighted the fact that measurements of specimens from a 1801 lava flow near a volcano in Hualalai, Hawaii gave apparent ages (using the Potassium-Argon method) ranging from 160 million to 2.96 billion years, citing a 1968 study [Funkhouser1968]. In the particular case that Morris highlighted, the lava flow was unusual because it included numerous xenoliths (typically consisting of olivine, an iron-magnesium silicate material) that are foreign to the lava, having been carried from deep within the earth but not completely melted in the lava. Also, as the authors of the 1968 article were careful to explain, xenoliths cannot be dated by the K-Ar method because of excess argon in bubbles trapped inside [Dalrymple2006]. Thus in this case, as in many others that have been raised by skeptics of old-earth geology, the "anomaly" is more imaginary than real. Other objections raised by creationists are addressed in [Dalrymple2006a].
> 
> Reliability of Geologic Dating
> 
> *Vast amounts of data overwhelmingly favor an old Earth. Several hundred laboratories around the world are active in radiometric dating. Their results consistently agree with an old Earth. Over a thousand papers on radiometric dating were published in scientifically recognized journals in the last year, and hundreds of thousands of dates have been published in the last 50 years. Essentially all of these strongly favor an old Earth.*​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, the main argument for radiometric dating is the faith-based theory of uniformitarianism and the long, long, long ages necessary for evolution.  You admit that radiometric dating does not work in water and that it would be reset in a local flood.  Thus, why not a global flood?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I admit it doesn't work in water? When did I say something like that?
> 
> And I just showed you an excellent article that tells you the technique has been used many many times and has proven quite reliable, You dwell on a few cases where results have been erroneous and say that makes the technique invalid. Sorry, doofus. You are very very confused.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure the companies who do it will find plenty of reason, as in $$$$s and other monies, because radiometric dating is expensive and profit making.  What you do is completely ignore the uniformitarianism that is it based on and that evolution needs long, long, long ages for it to work.  Since you admitted it doesn't work in water, the global flood would reset the radiometrics.  The global flood is not uniformitarianism, but catastrophism as I mentioned.  The proof is in the pudding.
> 
> Evidence 1: Fossils of sea creatures high above sea level due to the ocean waters having flooded over the continents - We find fossils of sea creatures above sea level on all the continents.
> 
> Evidence 2: Rapid burial of plants and animals - We find fossil graveyards with beautifully preserved marine life.
> 
> Evidence 3: Rapidly deposited sediment layers spread across vast areas - Its found across continents and in-between.
> 
> Evidence 4: Sediment transported long distances - Sediment from one area found across the country.
> 
> Evidence 5: Rapid or no erosion between strata - Continuous deposits of one layer over another.  This can be shown experimentally.
> 
> Evidence 6: Many strata laid down in rapid succession - The shape of the strata shows that it formed rapidly before becoming hard or else it would show breaks.
> 
> Thus, the radiometric data is over before it could start.  The global flood reset all the clocks and the relatively modern items found in millions and billions of years layers or trees vertically running through various layers show the millions and billions of years layers of evolution from radiometric dating are wrong.
> 
> Can I just put you down as a faith-based evolution believer and not someone interested in real science?  If I was a faith-based evo believer, then I would keep an open mind when presented with such contrary evidence, investigate to the best of my ability and figure it out for myself.
Click to expand...


You are delusional and totally confused and post nonsense.

See ya later, Ace.


----------



## boedicca

james bond said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some people believe they came from monkey. So in this era of Self-Identification, be all means, let them self-identify as Ape-Spawn.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just ignore Fort Fun Indiana.  He could be an example of an ape-spawn with its low brow forehead, monkey nose, lips and small cranium.  Many times, I've asked myself if a human like him walked on fours, would they put him in a zoo or sanitarium?
Click to expand...



That's quite an insult to simians, bub.  They aren't to blame for FFI.


----------



## LittleNipper

ChesBayJJ said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Reliability of radiometric dating*
> So, are radiometric methods foolproof? Just how reliable are these dates?
> As with any experimental procedure in any field of science, these measurements are subject to certain "glitches" and "anomalies," as noted in the literature. Skeptics of old-earth geology make great hay of these examples. For example, creationist writer Henry Morris [Morris2000, pg. 147] has highlighted the fact that measurements of specimens from a 1801 lava flow near a volcano in Hualalai, Hawaii gave apparent ages (using the Potassium-Argon method) ranging from 160 million to 2.96 billion years, citing a 1968 study [Funkhouser1968]. In the particular case that Morris highlighted, the lava flow was unusual because it included numerous xenoliths (typically consisting of olivine, an iron-magnesium silicate material) that are foreign to the lava, having been carried from deep within the earth but not completely melted in the lava. Also, as the authors of the 1968 article were careful to explain, xenoliths cannot be dated by the K-Ar method because of excess argon in bubbles trapped inside [Dalrymple2006]. Thus in this case, as in many others that have been raised by skeptics of old-earth geology, the "anomaly" is more imaginary than real. Other objections raised by creationists are addressed in [Dalrymple2006a].
> 
> Reliability of Geologic Dating
> 
> *Vast amounts of data overwhelmingly favor an old Earth. Several hundred laboratories around the world are active in radiometric dating. Their results consistently agree with an old Earth. Over a thousand papers on radiometric dating were published in scientifically recognized journals in the last year, and hundreds of thousands of dates have been published in the last 50 years. Essentially all of these strongly favor an old Earth.*​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, the main argument for radiometric dating is the faith-based theory of uniformitarianism and the long, long, long ages necessary for evolution.  You admit that radiometric dating does not work in water and that it would be reset in a local flood.  Thus, why not a global flood?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I admit it doesn't work in water? When did I say something like that?
> 
> And I just showed you an excellent article that tells you the technique has been used many many times and has proven quite reliable, You dwell on a few cases where results have been erroneous and say that makes the technique invalid. Sorry, doofus. You are very very confused.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure the companies who do it will find plenty of reason, as in $$$$s and other monies, because radiometric dating is expensive and profit making.  What you do is completely ignore the uniformitarianism that is it based on and that evolution needs long, long, long ages for it to work.  Since you admitted it doesn't work in water, the global flood would reset the radiometrics.  The global flood is not uniformitarianism, but catastrophism as I mentioned.  The proof is in the pudding.
> 
> Evidence 1: Fossils of sea creatures high above sea level due to the ocean waters having flooded over the continents - We find fossils of sea creatures above sea level on all the continents.
> 
> Evidence 2: Rapid burial of plants and animals - We find fossil graveyards with beautifully preserved marine life.
> 
> Evidence 3: Rapidly deposited sediment layers spread across vast areas - Its found across continents and in-between.
> 
> Evidence 4: Sediment transported long distances - Sediment from one area found across the country.
> 
> Evidence 5: Rapid or no erosion between strata - Continuous deposits of one layer over another.  This can be shown experimentally.
> 
> Evidence 6: Many strata laid down in rapid succession - The shape of the strata shows that it formed rapidly before becoming hard or else it would show breaks.
> 
> Thus, the radiometric data is over before it could start.  The global flood reset all the clocks and the relatively modern items found in millions and billions of years layers or trees vertically running through various layers show the millions and billions of years layers of evolution from radiometric dating are wrong.
> 
> Can I just put you down as a faith-based evolution believer and not someone interested in real science?  If I was a faith-based evo believer, then I would keep an open mind when presented with such contrary evidence, investigate to the best of my ability and figure it out for myself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are delusional and totally confused and post nonsense.
> 
> See ya later, Ace.
Click to expand...

And you believe what exactly? How do you know? And what comfort does that give you?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

LittleNipper said:


> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Reliability of radiometric dating*
> So, are radiometric methods foolproof? Just how reliable are these dates?
> As with any experimental procedure in any field of science, these measurements are subject to certain "glitches" and "anomalies," as noted in the literature. Skeptics of old-earth geology make great hay of these examples. For example, creationist writer Henry Morris [Morris2000, pg. 147] has highlighted the fact that measurements of specimens from a 1801 lava flow near a volcano in Hualalai, Hawaii gave apparent ages (using the Potassium-Argon method) ranging from 160 million to 2.96 billion years, citing a 1968 study [Funkhouser1968]. In the particular case that Morris highlighted, the lava flow was unusual because it included numerous xenoliths (typically consisting of olivine, an iron-magnesium silicate material) that are foreign to the lava, having been carried from deep within the earth but not completely melted in the lava. Also, as the authors of the 1968 article were careful to explain, xenoliths cannot be dated by the K-Ar method because of excess argon in bubbles trapped inside [Dalrymple2006]. Thus in this case, as in many others that have been raised by skeptics of old-earth geology, the "anomaly" is more imaginary than real. Other objections raised by creationists are addressed in [Dalrymple2006a].
> 
> Reliability of Geologic Dating
> 
> *Vast amounts of data overwhelmingly favor an old Earth. Several hundred laboratories around the world are active in radiometric dating. Their results consistently agree with an old Earth. Over a thousand papers on radiometric dating were published in scientifically recognized journals in the last year, and hundreds of thousands of dates have been published in the last 50 years. Essentially all of these strongly favor an old Earth.*​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, the main argument for radiometric dating is the faith-based theory of uniformitarianism and the long, long, long ages necessary for evolution.  You admit that radiometric dating does not work in water and that it would be reset in a local flood.  Thus, why not a global flood?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I admit it doesn't work in water? When did I say something like that?
> 
> And I just showed you an excellent article that tells you the technique has been used many many times and has proven quite reliable, You dwell on a few cases where results have been erroneous and say that makes the technique invalid. Sorry, doofus. You are very very confused.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure the companies who do it will find plenty of reason, as in $$$$s and other monies, because radiometric dating is expensive and profit making.  What you do is completely ignore the uniformitarianism that is it based on and that evolution needs long, long, long ages for it to work.  Since you admitted it doesn't work in water, the global flood would reset the radiometrics.  The global flood is not uniformitarianism, but catastrophism as I mentioned.  The proof is in the pudding.
> 
> Evidence 1: Fossils of sea creatures high above sea level due to the ocean waters having flooded over the continents - We find fossils of sea creatures above sea level on all the continents.
> 
> Evidence 2: Rapid burial of plants and animals - We find fossil graveyards with beautifully preserved marine life.
> 
> Evidence 3: Rapidly deposited sediment layers spread across vast areas - Its found across continents and in-between.
> 
> Evidence 4: Sediment transported long distances - Sediment from one area found across the country.
> 
> Evidence 5: Rapid or no erosion between strata - Continuous deposits of one layer over another.  This can be shown experimentally.
> 
> Evidence 6: Many strata laid down in rapid succession - The shape of the strata shows that it formed rapidly before becoming hard or else it would show breaks.
> 
> Thus, the radiometric data is over before it could start.  The global flood reset all the clocks and the relatively modern items found in millions and billions of years layers or trees vertically running through various layers show the millions and billions of years layers of evolution from radiometric dating are wrong.
> 
> Can I just put you down as a faith-based evolution believer and not someone interested in real science?  If I was a faith-based evo believer, then I would keep an open mind when presented with such contrary evidence, investigate to the best of my ability and figure it out for myself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are delusional and totally confused and post nonsense.
> 
> See ya later, Ace.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you believe what exactly? How do you know? And what comfort does that give you?
Click to expand...

 Elieve it or not, some people do not need magical religion for comfort.


----------



## LittleNipper

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, the main argument for radiometric dating is the faith-based theory of uniformitarianism and the long, long, long ages necessary for evolution.  You admit that radiometric dating does not work in water and that it would be reset in a local flood.  Thus, why not a global flood?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I admit it doesn't work in water? When did I say something like that?
> 
> And I just showed you an excellent article that tells you the technique has been used many many times and has proven quite reliable, You dwell on a few cases where results have been erroneous and say that makes the technique invalid. Sorry, doofus. You are very very confused.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure the companies who do it will find plenty of reason, as in $$$$s and other monies, because radiometric dating is expensive and profit making.  What you do is completely ignore the uniformitarianism that is it based on and that evolution needs long, long, long ages for it to work.  Since you admitted it doesn't work in water, the global flood would reset the radiometrics.  The global flood is not uniformitarianism, but catastrophism as I mentioned.  The proof is in the pudding.
> 
> Evidence 1: Fossils of sea creatures high above sea level due to the ocean waters having flooded over the continents - We find fossils of sea creatures above sea level on all the continents.
> 
> Evidence 2: Rapid burial of plants and animals - We find fossil graveyards with beautifully preserved marine life.
> 
> Evidence 3: Rapidly deposited sediment layers spread across vast areas - Its found across continents and in-between.
> 
> Evidence 4: Sediment transported long distances - Sediment from one area found across the country.
> 
> Evidence 5: Rapid or no erosion between strata - Continuous deposits of one layer over another.  This can be shown experimentally.
> 
> Evidence 6: Many strata laid down in rapid succession - The shape of the strata shows that it formed rapidly before becoming hard or else it would show breaks.
> 
> Thus, the radiometric data is over before it could start.  The global flood reset all the clocks and the relatively modern items found in millions and billions of years layers or trees vertically running through various layers show the millions and billions of years layers of evolution from radiometric dating are wrong.
> 
> Can I just put you down as a faith-based evolution believer and not someone interested in real science?  If I was a faith-based evo believer, then I would keep an open mind when presented with such contrary evidence, investigate to the best of my ability and figure it out for myself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are delusional and totally confused and post nonsense.
> 
> See ya later, Ace.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you believe what exactly? How do you know? And what comfort does that give you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Elieve it or not, some people do not need magical religion for comfort.
Click to expand...

Yes, and they don't need sex, and tattoos, and drugs, and booze, and escapist entertainment or be the center of attention ----- if one is a Child of GOD --- one can be joyfully fulfilled...


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

LittleNipper said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I admit it doesn't work in water? When did I say something like that?
> 
> And I just showed you an excellent article that tells you the technique has been used many many times and has proven quite reliable, You dwell on a few cases where results have been erroneous and say that makes the technique invalid. Sorry, doofus. You are very very confused.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure the companies who do it will find plenty of reason, as in $$$$s and other monies, because radiometric dating is expensive and profit making.  What you do is completely ignore the uniformitarianism that is it based on and that evolution needs long, long, long ages for it to work.  Since you admitted it doesn't work in water, the global flood would reset the radiometrics.  The global flood is not uniformitarianism, but catastrophism as I mentioned.  The proof is in the pudding.
> 
> Evidence 1: Fossils of sea creatures high above sea level due to the ocean waters having flooded over the continents - We find fossils of sea creatures above sea level on all the continents.
> 
> Evidence 2: Rapid burial of plants and animals - We find fossil graveyards with beautifully preserved marine life.
> 
> Evidence 3: Rapidly deposited sediment layers spread across vast areas - Its found across continents and in-between.
> 
> Evidence 4: Sediment transported long distances - Sediment from one area found across the country.
> 
> Evidence 5: Rapid or no erosion between strata - Continuous deposits of one layer over another.  This can be shown experimentally.
> 
> Evidence 6: Many strata laid down in rapid succession - The shape of the strata shows that it formed rapidly before becoming hard or else it would show breaks.
> 
> Thus, the radiometric data is over before it could start.  The global flood reset all the clocks and the relatively modern items found in millions and billions of years layers or trees vertically running through various layers show the millions and billions of years layers of evolution from radiometric dating are wrong.
> 
> Can I just put you down as a faith-based evolution believer and not someone interested in real science?  If I was a faith-based evo believer, then I would keep an open mind when presented with such contrary evidence, investigate to the best of my ability and figure it out for myself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are delusional and totally confused and post nonsense.
> 
> See ya later, Ace.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you believe what exactly? How do you know? And what comfort does that give you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Elieve it or not, some people do not need magical religion for comfort.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, and they don't need sex, and tattoos, and drugs, and booze, and escapist entertainment or be the center of attention ----- if one is a Child of GOD --- one can be joyfully fulfilled...
Click to expand...

Did you just impky that Christian's don't partake in those things? Or that the ones who do are doing it wrong?

And if you don't like those things...hey, good for you. Amazing, you're the one person on the planet who has no vice. It is truly an honor to have met such a one of a kind.


----------



## RWS

Well, people who deny all their vices, tend to end up doing things on the secret side that shock all of us.

And they're the worst of them all.


----------



## zaangalewa

ChesBayJJ said:


> SYTFE said:
> 
> 
> 
> We didn't.  We evolved from a common ancestor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly so
Click to expand...


That's why we share 55% of our biological information with bananas.


----------



## james bond

I've discovered that bears are better bipedal than apes.  Does that mean that we came from bears now ha ha ha ha?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> I've discovered that bears are better bipedal than apes. Does that mean that we came from bears now


No, and what a ridiculous question. Scientists understand covergent evolution,even if you don't.


----------



## Asclepias

james bond said:


> I've discovered that bears are better bipedal than apes.  Does that mean that we came from bears now ha ha ha ha?


We share a common ancestor someone down the line.


----------



## zaangalewa

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've discovered that bears are better bipedal than apes. Does that mean that we came from bears now
> 
> 
> 
> No, and what a ridiculous question.
Click to expand...


Why ridiculous?



> Scientists understand covergent evolution,even if you don't.



Covergent? Who understands this? The changes in genetical information are nearly always a pure accident and cause in this way often the "death of the not-fittest". But if under millions of accidents happens an accident who produces the "survival of the fittest" then this is nothing else than the "survival of the survivor" - a tautology. Sure survives the survivor - long enough to give the new genetical information to the own breed. Do you think it will happen one day that human beings will change their genetical structure so they will be able to survive abortions? That's nonsense, isn't it? Do you think it are genetical structures which force people to do abortions? .. Good grief .. the theory of evolution has nothing to do with the daily life of human beings - nor is this theory able to replace rules and ways how to live in harmony with god. Human begins have a right to live, also a right to survive in their mothers wombs - and we should respect in general gods creation - specially all and every life of planet Earth.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

zaangalewa said:


> Why ridiculous?


Sorry, not ridiculous, for someone who knows less than nothing about the toooc. But yes, rather ridiculous for a functioning adult attempting to discuss the topic.

And yes, we understand conversation evolution.


----------



## zaangalewa

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why ridiculous?
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, not ridiculous, for someone who knows less than nothing about the toooc. But yes, rather ridiculous for a functioning adult attempting to discuss the topic.
> 
> And yes, we understand conversation evolution.
Click to expand...


You understand what? Biological evolution needs genetic structures. Everything else where someone is using the word "evolution" - 'evolution of cars' for example - the word 'evolution' has absolutely nothing to do with "Darwinism" (the biological theory of evolution). Darwinism in context with human beings (=social Darwinism) is indeed nothing else than only a pseudo-scientific form of racism.


----------



## james bond

RWS said:


> Well, people who deny all their vices, tend to end up doing things on the secret side that shock all of us.
> 
> And they're the worst of them all.



Are you hinting that Christians are the worst hypocrites of them all?  Christians probably know about Jesus as the final judge or being like Jesus, so may avoid such things as extramarital sex, drugs, gambling and sideshows.  Don't get me wrong, I'm not being a prude.  I understand vices can be pleasurable and a break from working all the time.  Yet, these situations apply to everybody.

People are usually looking for thrills and taking foolish chances.  Or indulging in hedonism.  Atheism gives its practioners a chance to do it and be the worst of them all.  What's to stop them?  They may be the ones ruled by Satan and wouldn't even know it.  It could happen to anyone, but having the right attitude and learning about these things usually helps one to avoid those types of situations and vices.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why ridiculous?
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, not ridiculous, for someone who knows less than nothing about the toooc. But yes, rather ridiculous for a functioning adult attempting to discuss the topic.
> 
> And yes, we understand conversation evolution.
Click to expand...


The similarities with apes to humans were they're mammals, primates and are bipedal.  However, it's only hypothesis that some apes became bipedal based on fossils and footprints.  That's forensics.  We do not see them as bipedal or through observational science.  Thus, I pointed out that bears are bipedal more than apes.  They're mammals although not considered primates.  However, creation science does not classify mammals as "primates" and such.  That's from ToE.  If we go strictly by bipedalism, we find other mammals and animals do a better job of being bipedal or quadripeds being bipedal.


----------



## zaangalewa

james bond said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why ridiculous?
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, not ridiculous, for someone who knows less than nothing about the toooc. But yes, rather ridiculous for a functioning adult attempting to discuss the topic.
> 
> And yes, we understand conversation evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The similarities with apes to humans were they're mammals, primates and are bipedal.
Click to expand...


Apes and human beings have a common ancestor. Bears and human beings have a common ancestor.  Bananas and human beings have a common ancestor. Saint Francis would call them just simple brother ape, sister bear and mother banana.



> However, it's only hypothesis that some apes became bipedal based on fossils and footprints.  That's forensics.  We do not see them as bipedal or through observational science.



What? The hand is a print of the trees - same our understanding of space, time and trust in physics. And we learned to go on two feet in the trees too.



> Thus, I pointed out that bears are bipedal more than apes.



Bears are beside human beings the only plantigrades. And I guess god loves as well bears and human beings.



> They're mammals although not considered primates.  However, creation science does not classify mammals as "primates" and such.



"Primates are mammals" is correct.



> That's from ToE.  If we go strictly by bipedalism, we find other mammals and animals do a better job of being bipedal or quadripeds being bipedal.



Okay. You seem to be in the lucky situation that you don't have problems. God bless you.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

zaangalewa said:


> Darwinism in context with human beings (=social Darwinism) is indeed nothing else than only a pseudo-scientific form of racism.


I don't care what your mangled definition of Darwinism is. Neither do scientists, nor does it have any bearing on the theory of evolution.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

zaangalewa said:


> Bears are beside human beings the only plantigrades


Besides: rabbits, rodents, raccoons, skunks, and more.

And besides plenty of species in the fossil record.


----------



## zaangalewa

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Darwinism in context with human beings (=social Darwinism) is indeed nothing else than only a pseudo-scientific form of racism.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't care what your mangled definition of Darwinism is. Neither do scientists, nor does it have any bearing on the theory of evolution.
Click to expand...


An what's the evolutionary reason now for your illusion you would know only a little about me and my knowledge about the theory of evolution so you have to be aggressive, because you seem to think the reality will become this what you think if you will win whatever you like to win? I say: When I tell you as a German not to do such a nonsense ('social Darwinism'), because the Nazis did this nonsense too, then I guess it came the time for you to start to think whether you take yourself serious.


----------



## zaangalewa

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bears are beside human beings the only plantigrades
> 
> 
> 
> Besides: rabbits, rodents, raccoons, skunks, and more.
> 
> And besides plenty of species in the fossil record.
Click to expand...


Perhaps I made a wrong translation of the German word "Sohlengänger". Only human beings and bears are "Sohlengänger". All others run practically on their "Zehen oder Zehenspitzen" (toes or tip toes). What we see as a "knee" (which goes in the wrong direction) is normally the heel. Example: A rabbit runs not by touching the ground with the heel. Bears and human beings are doing so.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

zaangalewa said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Darwinism in context with human beings (=social Darwinism) is indeed nothing else than only a pseudo-scientific form of racism.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't care what your mangled definition of Darwinism is. Neither do scientists, nor does it have any bearing on the theory of evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An what's the evolutionary reason now for your illusion you would know only a little about me and my knowledge about the theory of evolution so you have to be aggressive, because you seem to think the reality will become this what you think if you will win whatever you like to win? I say: When I tell you as a German not to do such a nonsense ('social Darwinism'), because the Nazis did this nonsense too, then I guess it came the time for you to start to think whether you take yourself serious.
Click to expand...

Not a word of my post spoke to anything about you. Ideas don't have feelings, so lighten up.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

zaangalewa said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bears are beside human beings the only plantigrades
> 
> 
> 
> Besides: rabbits, rodents, raccoons, skunks, and more.
> 
> And besides plenty of species in the fossil record.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps I made a wrong translation of the German word "Sohlengänger". Only human beings and bears are "Sohlengänger". All others run practically on their "Zehen oder Zehenspitzen" (toes or tip toes). What we see as a "knee" (which goes in the wrong direction) is normally the heel. Example: A rabbit runs not by touching the ground with the heel. Bears and human beings are doing so.
Click to expand...

Rabbits do, indeed, walk and stand on  the heels of their  feet. As do the other animals listed. That is why they are catagorized as plantigrade


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bears are beside human beings the only plantigrades
> 
> 
> 
> Besides: rabbits, rodents, raccoons, skunks, and more.
> 
> And besides plenty of species in the fossil record.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps I made a wrong translation of the German word "Sohlengänger". Only human beings and bears are "Sohlengänger". All others run practically on their "Zehen oder Zehenspitzen" (toes or tip toes). What we see as a "knee" (which goes in the wrong direction) is normally the heel. Example: A rabbit runs not by touching the ground with the heel. Bears and human beings are doing so.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Rabbits do, indeed, walk and stand on  the heels of their  feet. As do the other animals listed. That is why they are catagorized as plantigrade
Click to expand...


It goes to show that just because they're plantigrade doesn't mean they're related.


----------



## zaangalewa

james bond said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bears are beside human beings the only plantigrades
> 
> 
> 
> Besides: rabbits, rodents, raccoons, skunks, and more.
> 
> And besides plenty of species in the fossil record.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps I made a wrong translation of the German word "Sohlengänger". Only human beings and bears are "Sohlengänger". All others run practically on their "Zehen oder Zehenspitzen" (toes or tip toes). What we see as a "knee" (which goes in the wrong direction) is normally the heel. Example: A rabbit runs not by touching the ground with the heel. Bears and human beings are doing so.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Rabbits do, indeed, walk and stand on  the heels of their  feet. As do the other animals listed. That is why they are catagorized as plantigrade
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It goes to show that just because they're plantigrade doesn't mean they're related.
Click to expand...


The sentence "the monkeys are our ancestors" has the same quality as to say "the bears are our ancestors" or "the bananas are our ancestors".

And the problem of Darwin was by the way that he was not only a supporter of the idea of a natural "cultivation" of animals and plants (not an idea which was really new) - the problem of Darwin was that he was a typical English racist of his time too. Still today are thinking lots of people they are racial superior and others are inferior. They think "Darwinism" is a kind of moral law which allow superior people to eliminate inferior people (Mass-murder on red Indians for example). But a difference of the genetical structure between a man and a man is nearly not existing. We are good survivors because we are good in cooperating. And we are good in culture because we go to school and learn something. It's by the way also somehow funny that the people who change the world, if the world is not fitting to them, think the same time they are fit, fitter, fittest. Oh by the way: I don't know where they found it - but the oldest "cake" or "bread" is 14,000 years old. They used 95 different seeds of plants for this baked goods.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> It goes to show that just because they're plantigrade doesn't mean they're related.


No it doesn't. Of course, all those animals are related to one degree or another.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> It goes to show that just because they're plantigrade doesn't mean they're related.
> 
> 
> 
> No it doesn't. Of course, all those animals are related to one degree or another.
Click to expand...


No of course about it.  You're just throwing assertions now.

This is the part where the evos bring in their voodoo magic.  Trying to relate something that isn't related.


----------



## konradv

james bond said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, all those animals are related to one degree or another.
> 
> 
> 
> No of course about it.  You're just throwing assertions now.  This is the part where the evos bring in their voodoo magic.  Trying to relate something that isn't related.
Click to expand...

DNA isn't voodoo.  It proves the relationship.


----------



## james bond

konradv said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, all those animals are related to one degree or another.
> 
> 
> 
> No of course about it.  You're just throwing assertions now.  This is the part where the evos bring in their voodoo magic.  Trying to relate something that isn't related.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> DNA isn't voodoo.  It proves the relationship.
Click to expand...


DNA are molecules.  Molecular analysis show there is no relationship.  What evos are doing is using statistics to show a relationship.


----------



## konradv

james bond said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, all those animals are related to one degree or another.
> 
> 
> 
> No of course about it.  You're just throwing assertions now.  This is the part where the evos bring in their voodoo magic.  Trying to relate something that isn't related.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> DNA isn't voodoo.  It proves the relationship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> DNA are molecules.  Molecular analysis show there is no relationship.  What evos are doing is using statistics to show a relationship.
Click to expand...

Molecular analysis PROVES there's a relationship.  It's those who don't believe who have no proof.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> This is the part where the evos bring in their voodoo magic. Trying to relate something that isn't related.


Except for every shred of emprical evidence available, including DNA and the fossil record. But I guess that is why you are sitting here pulling your taffy, and scientists are out there, doing science.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> Molecular analysis show there is no relationship.



Shameless lie that would get you laughed out of a middle school science class.


----------



## james bond

konradv said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, all those animals are related to one degree or another.
> 
> 
> 
> No of course about it.  You're just throwing assertions now.  This is the part where the evos bring in their voodoo magic.  Trying to relate something that isn't related.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> DNA isn't voodoo.  It proves the relationship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> DNA are molecules.  Molecular analysis show there is no relationship.  What evos are doing is using statistics to show a relationship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Molecular analysis PROVES there's a relationship.  It's those who don't believe who have no proof.
Click to expand...


It's those who believe that there's a relationship.  Their argument is based on statistics which doesn't prove anything.  The molecular argument shows that on a molecular level there are more molecular differences than DNA matches.  It also shows that a small percentage of differences can cause a great deal of change.  That's why earthworms and humans have a high perecentage of the same DNA.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is the part where the evos bring in their voodoo magic. Trying to relate something that isn't related.
> 
> 
> 
> Except for every shred of emprical evidence available, including DNA and the fossil record. But I guess that is why you are sitting here pulling your taffy, and scientists are out there, doing science.
Click to expand...


Now you're saying empirical, i.e. using voodoo, when it's statistics.  If it was empirical, then we'd be observing monkeys becoming transitional forms.


----------



## Syriusly

zaangalewa said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Darwinism in context with human beings (=social Darwinism) is indeed nothing else than only a pseudo-scientific form of racism.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't care what your mangled definition of Darwinism is. Neither do scientists, nor does it have any bearing on the theory of evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I say: When I tell you as a German not to do such a nonsense ('social Darwinism'),]
Click to expand...


Social Darwinism was invented by others who abused Darwin's theories of evolution much like how the Creationists abuse Darwin's theories.


----------



## Syriusly

zaangalewa said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bears are beside human beings the only plantigrades
> 
> 
> 
> Besides: rabbits, rodents, raccoons, skunks, and more.
> 
> And besides plenty of species in the fossil record.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps I made a wrong translation of the German word "Sohlengänger". Only human beings and bears are "Sohlengänger". All others run practically on their "Zehen oder Zehenspitzen" (toes or tip toes). What we see as a "knee" (which goes in the wrong direction) is normally the heel. Example: A rabbit runs not by touching the ground with the heel. Bears and human beings are doing so.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Rabbits do, indeed, walk and stand on  the heels of their  feet. As do the other animals listed. That is why they are catagorized as plantigrade
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It goes to show that just because they're plantigrade doesn't mean they're related.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The sentence "the monkeys are our ancestors" has the same quality as to say "the bears are our ancestors" or "the bananas are our ancestors".
> 
> And the problem of Darwin was by the way that he was not only a supporter of the idea of a natural "cultivation" of animals and plants (not an idea which was really new) - the problem of Darwin was that he was a typical English racist of his time too.]
Click to expand...


Pretty sure that Darwin was a typical racist European racist of his time.

But that doesn't change the power and essential correctness of his ideas on biological evolution.


----------



## james bond

Here's the evidence for no tree of life and no common ancestor -- eukaryogenesis doesn't happen.

Archaeal ancestors of eukaryotes: not so elusive any more


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> Now you're saying empirical, i.e. using voodoo, when it's statistics.


Wrong. We have decoded entire genomes now. So..oops...there goes failed creationist talking point number 2,483,904. Time to change lanes again...


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> Here's the evidence for no tree of life and no common ancestor -- eukaryogenesis doesn't happen.
> 
> Archaeal ancestors of eukaryotes: not so elusive any more


That's not what that link says. As if you read a single word of it....


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the evidence for no tree of life and no common ancestor -- eukaryogenesis doesn't happen.
> 
> Archaeal ancestors of eukaryotes: not so elusive any more
> 
> 
> 
> That's not what that link says. As if you read a single word of it....
Click to expand...


Shouldn't you be the one to explain how this happens.  It's laid out for you in the link.

I knew you couldn't put it together.  First, we can state that both abiogenesis and its predecessor spontaneous generation have been rendered pseudoscience.

So, the hypothesis was that we came from eukaryotes.  However, arround 2010, microbiologists found the archae in addition to bacteria and eukaryotes.  With the discovery of archaea as the third major domain of life,.many microbiologists became more dubious of the single common ancestor theory.  They were already burned by thinking we came from bacteria (spontaneous generation), so questioned the research of eukaryotes.

Some claimed the discovery of complex archaea, closest living relatives of eukaryotes, is most compatible with the symbiogenetic scenario for eukaryogenesis.  Instead of bacteria, we came from archaea and eukaryotes were its predecessors like bacteria.  Where eukaryogenesis fails is thinking viruses are living organisms.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

This is merely new information that supports different hypothesis. Sorry nutball, but the study does not rule out the evolution of eukaryotic bacteria. In fact, it supports it


----------



## ChesBayJJ

james bond said:


> Here's the evidence for no tree of life and no common ancestor -- eukaryogenesis doesn't happen.
> 
> Archaeal ancestors of eukaryotes: not so elusive any more



Sorry, you are wrong again.


----------



## konradv

james bond said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> Molecular analysis PROVES there's a relationship.  It's those who don't believe who have no proof.
> 
> 
> 
> It's those who believe that there's a relationship.  Their argument is based on statistics which doesn't prove anything.  The molecular argument shows that on a molecular level there are more molecular differences than DNA matches.  It also shows that a small percentage of differences can cause a great deal of change.  That's why earthworms and humans have a high percentage of the same DNA.
Click to expand...

How can there be more molecular differences than DNA matches AND a small percentages causing large changes?  You're arguing both sides of the issue.  It's like you're throwing out all sorts of facts, just to see what sticks.  That doesn't make for a logical argument.


----------



## james bond

konradv said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> Molecular analysis PROVES there's a relationship.  It's those who don't believe who have no proof.
> 
> 
> 
> It's those who believe that there's a relationship.  Their argument is based on statistics which doesn't prove anything.  The molecular argument shows that on a molecular level there are more molecular differences than DNA matches.  It also shows that a small percentage of differences can cause a great deal of change.  That's why earthworms and humans have a high percentage of the same DNA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How can there be more molecular differences than DNA matches AND a small percentages causing large changes?  You're arguing both sides of the issue.  It's like you're throwing out all sorts of facts, just to see what sticks.  That doesn't make for a logical argument.
Click to expand...


So far, you have not been able to refute what I said.  If you took a DNA test, then would you expect to see part of it show up as ape DNA?  Evos tell us we have 96% to 98% DNA identical to chimps DNA.  It's not observable as it does not show up.  Mark Twain said, "There are lies, damned lies, and statistics."  Your DNA argument is based on statistical analysis and nothing we observe.  

My molecules argument uses the similar logic, but it is observable.  if you compare human DNA with chimp DNA, there are 35 million places where the molecules differ, and there are a total of 5 million places where the human DNA either has more or fewer bases than chimp DNA.  That's a large number of differences.  Furthermore, epigenetics shows that DNA modification is highly controlled in the genome and plays a major role in the way that many different types of genes are expressed.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> This is merely new information that supports different hypothesis. Sorry nutball, but the study does not rule out the evolution of eukaryotic bacteria. In fact, it supports it



You lost already using ad hominem attacks.  Sorry, but when one starts thinking viruses are living material, then their eukaryogenesis does not happen.  I already pointed out the other failures.

Viral eukaryogenesis - Wikipedia


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> You lost already using ad hominem attacks


Haha.....right....I lost, and you won.  Yet here you are, a fringe nutball, pulling your taffy with no science to support your magical Jaysus nonsense and nobody even trying to produce any. Boy, I think the scoreboard is broken...

You have repeatedly and shamelessly lied about scientific knowledge and the results of papers, Iike the one you are regurgitating right now.

For everyone else:

Bond regurgitates all of his talking points fron this website: Creation | Creation Ministries International


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now you're saying empirical, i.e. using voodoo, when it's statistics.
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong. We have decoded entire genomes now. So..oops...there goes failed creationist talking point number 2,483,904. Time to change lanes again...
Click to expand...


How does the entire human genome relate to eukyrogenesis ha ha?  i come up with arguments, not weak voodoo science.  You should've brought it up, but it was a fail wasn't it.  Again, you have no evidence of life from single cell.  Instead, they found irreducible complexity.  Like I said, the smart ones knew the handwriting was on the wall when they found a thrid cell.  .


----------



## james bond

ChesBayJJ said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the evidence for no tree of life and no common ancestor -- eukaryogenesis doesn't happen.
> 
> Archaeal ancestors of eukaryotes: not so elusive any more
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, you are wrong again.
Click to expand...


One has to start the tree of life or common ancestor thery somewhere.  I've pointed out the failures that have been rendered pseudoscience such as spontaneous generation, abiongenesis, chilarity of protein molecules, how amino acids exist in space, but does not form protein outside the cell and today eukaryogenesis.  Just the fact that it considers a virus to be a living organism wrong.  Don't you agree?


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> You lost already using ad hominem attacks
> 
> 
> 
> Haha.....right....I lost, and you won.  Yet here you are, a fringe nutball, pulling your taffy with no science to support your magical Jaysus nonsense and nobody even trying to produce any. Boy, I think the scoreboard is broken...
> 
> You have repeatedly and shamelessly lied about scientific knowledge and the results of papers, Iike the one you are regurgitating right now.
> 
> For everyone else:
> 
> Bond regurgitates all of his talking points fron this website: Creation | Creation Ministries International
Click to expand...


I don't use CMI usually.  Prefer to read AIG and ICR.  However, in today's case I found it from the questions that came up when discussing your voodoo science.  It's really try to answer how does life spring up from nothing?  My questions led to learning about and third single-cell archaea being found.  That meant how do the evos explain it within the tree of life concept.  They did in that article I posted, but I didn't explain about eukaryogenesis.  It gave you a chance to jump in, but you've gone off in the creationist direction.  How can secular science fail so miserably.  Another path down pseudoscience lane.

If I was agnostic, then I'd seriously question evolutionary thinking and start reading those publications.  Certainly, I'd follow Pascal's Wager.  Maybe you should start with creation.com or CMI.  How do they explain eukaryogenesis (since you found it)?


----------



## Dan Stubbs

SYTFE said:


> We didn't.  We evolved from a common ancestor.


*Sometimes it creaps into my mine that we may have do to the actions of the people at protest rallys and the way they act.  The monkeys protest like Democrats when they don't get their ways, and throw stuff when mad, scream like a crazed parrot.  Well just watch the Democrats and you will get the picture. *


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> You lost already using ad hominem attacks
> 
> 
> 
> Haha.....right....I lost, and you won.  Yet here you are, a fringe nutball, pulling your taffy with no science to support your magical Jaysus nonsense and nobody even trying to produce any. Boy, I think the scoreboard is broken...
> 
> You have repeatedly and shamelessly lied about scientific knowledge and the results of papers, Iike the one you are regurgitating right now.
> 
> For everyone else:
> 
> Bond regurgitates all of his talking points fron this website: Creation | Creation Ministries International
Click to expand...


And sure enough, when I searched for eukaryogenesis and creation, this is what I found.  It points out the link I posted earlier was wrong.  There were bacteria cells called prokaryotes

"One of the biggest problems for evolution is how animal and plant cells, _eukaryotes_, could have been derived from precursor bacteria-like cells called _prokaryotes_. Unlike prokaryotes, eukaryotic cells are highly compartmentalized and contain membrane-bound organelles such as the nucleus, mitochondria, and (in plants) chloroplasts that are not found in bacteria or archaea (non-bacterial single-celled prokaryotes). Along with numerous other genetic and molecular differences, these complex cellular organelles not found in prokaryotes, form an unbridgeable gap for evolution to somehow accomplish."

Archaea which I discovered today was found around 2000.  It caused a stir back then.  The eukaryotes were formed from bacteria and archaea according to these microbiologists who followed up on it (mentioned in the ICR article).  I guess others accepted irreducible complexity by Micheal Behe's flagellum and started following ID ha ha.

Endosymbiosis: A Theory in Crisis


----------



## zaangalewa

Syriusly said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Darwinism in context with human beings (=social Darwinism) is indeed nothing else than only a pseudo-scientific form of racism.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't care what your mangled definition of Darwinism is. Neither do scientists, nor does it have any bearing on the theory of evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I say: When I tell you as a German not to do such a nonsense ('social Darwinism'),]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Social Darwinism was invented by others who abused Darwin's theories of evolution much like how the Creationists abuse Darwin's theories.
Click to expand...


And why - for example -  learn students of economics in universities they should use their "killer instinct"? Because they are idiots on a high a level of idiocy and everyone is able to tell them nonsense?

I seldom found by the way a statement in the endless public English debate "Darwinists vs Creationists" where anything what anyone of both groups of people said made a big sense; as well in direction "natural science" nor in direction "spiritual belief".


PS: Favorite song of Stephen Hawking: Rod Stewart _„Have I Told You Lately“ _[Original from Van Morrison].

_… There's a love that's divine
And it's yours and it's mine
Like the sun
And at the end of the day ..._


----------



## zaangalewa

james bond said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is merely new information that supports different hypothesis. Sorry nutball, but the study does not rule out the evolution of eukaryotic bacteria. In fact, it supports it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You lost already using ad hominem attacks.  Sorry, but when one starts thinking viruses are living material, then their eukaryogenesis does not happen.  I already pointed out the other failures.
> 
> Viral eukaryogenesis - Wikipedia
Click to expand...


Viruses modify cells for reproduction (perhaps also on other reasons, what I don't know now) . They are parasites (but perhaps some are symbionts too, this I don't know too in the moment). They are without any doubt lifeforms with a metabolism. The modified cell is their metabolic body.


----------



## Kosh

Ima Cat said:


> I know there are similarities but I think they are coincidental, like cats and seals both have whiskers.  But cats didn't come from seals or vice a versa.



Sorry it is politically incorrect to compare anyone to monkeys..


----------



## zaangalewa

Syriusly said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> Besides: rabbits, rodents, raccoons, skunks, and more.
> 
> And besides plenty of species in the fossil record.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps I made a wrong translation of the German word "Sohlengänger". Only human beings and bears are "Sohlengänger". All others run practically on their "Zehen oder Zehenspitzen" (toes or tip toes). What we see as a "knee" (which goes in the wrong direction) is normally the heel. Example: A rabbit runs not by touching the ground with the heel. Bears and human beings are doing so.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Rabbits do, indeed, walk and stand on  the heels of their  feet. As do the other animals listed. That is why they are catagorized as plantigrade
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It goes to show that just because they're plantigrade doesn't mean they're related.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The sentence "the monkeys are our ancestors" has the same quality as to say "the bears are our ancestors" or "the bananas are our ancestors".
> 
> And the problem of Darwin was by the way that he was not only a supporter of the idea of a natural "cultivation" of animals and plants (not an idea which was really new) - the problem of Darwin was that he was a typical English racist of his time too.]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pretty sure that Darwin was a typical racist European racist of his time.
> 
> But that doesn't change the power and essential correctness of his ideas on biological evolution.
Click to expand...


I'm not sure whether it is "essential" what he said. For sure he gave wrong racial examples. And it's for sure nonsense what lots of people say about the theory of evolution today. What the people in the English world are often "discussing" is whether haphazard accidents or inevitable coincidences ("causality vs teleonomy") hammers biological matter into the form "crocodile" for example. But if there is a form and a hammer (flow and energy) then the way how to hammer is only a question of mastership and not a question of plan or no plan of the more than 350 million years lifespan of this ¿perfect? form - with lots and lots and lots of individual realizations.


----------



## RWS

Just saying, that those who preach, usually have some hidden skeletons that they're trying to hide.

God knows what is true, if it's true.

If there's a God..

Most likely there isn't, and your sins are absolved by going to church until someone comes back and fixes it.


----------



## RWS

Your sins are not forgiven, just because a hymn or a priest says that you are.

You need to be forgiven by "God" himself.

Anyone else that "forgives you", is a liar or false "god".


----------



## james bond

RWS said:


> Your sins are not forgiven, just because a hymn or a priest says that you are.
> 
> You need to be forgiven by "God" himself.
> 
> Anyone else that "forgives you", is a liar or false "god".



It's laughable you trying to use Scripture.  Christians' past, present and future sins were forgiven by Christ Jesus' atonement (read Hebrews and Leviticus).  Thus, asking to be forgiven for one's sins is granted by God.  While not a easy subject to understand, it's "once saved, always saved."  But it doesn't mean you have the green light to commit sins.  "For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins"  Hebrews 10:26-27

It is OSAS, but it means one is changed to follow Jesus and to repent for one's sins.  One will always be willful sinners for we are sinful beings.  To be forgiven for one's sins, then one has to have faith and start to believe.


----------



## RWS

Sorry dude, that sounds like a cop-out, so you can be an asshole to people, and then make yourself feel good about it later by thinking you will be forgiven... if you pray... 

You shouldn't need religion to be a good person. If you do, then you're a bad person trying to get away with it...


----------



## james bond

RWS said:


> Sorry dude, that sounds like a cop-out, so you can be an asshole to people, and then make yourself feel good about it later by thinking you will be forgiven... if you pray...
> 
> You shouldn't need religion to be a good person. If you do, then you're a bad person trying to get away with it...



Obviously, I am a sinner, so can be an a-hole, but in this case God's thinking and way out provided us with a way back to heaven.  It was a MAJOR prophecy.

The believers learned this in the OT of Jesus' atonement for our past, present and future sins.  The different chapters in the OT helps explain the OT and leads us into the NT.  This is how great Jesus is.  He had to shed blood and this took away the need for any other blood sacrifices.

You continue to see the Bible as religion when it's God's actual word.  The Creator's TRUTH.  If you have faith to accept it as such, then everything that we've discussed becomes crystal.  It will change your life and realize what I say is the truth and science backs it up.  I had trouble with the people parts in the Bible, so started with the science parts.  For example, the section where all the ages are listed.  WTF does that mean?  How can I believe this?  It doesn't make sense.  Or the stuff in Matthew NT?  Dam, I have to live this kind of life?  What Jesus teaches is too hard and painful.

My little anecdote is when I was going to Cal, I used to see a bearded street person who held a sign "John 3:16.  Repent!  The END IS NEAR."  Many people just ignore the words thinking they know what it means.  Yet, if one has faith, then these words come alive and it becomes a journey to the truth.  John 3:16 wasn't about the end for me.  It was just the beginning of a long journey.  Suddenly, life held meaning no matter how successful I became.  Life had a purpose.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Ima Cat said:


> I know there are similarities but I think they are coincidental, like cats and seals both have whiskers.  But cats didn't come from seals or vice a versa.



Seriously?  God created Adam and took a rib and made a woman?  Do you also believe in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and that Donald Trump is a leader?


----------



## RWS

Lemme say it agin...

You shouldn't need religion to be a good person. If you do, then you're a bad person trying to get away with it...


----------



## RWS

I should add that to my tagline....


----------



## james bond

RWS said:


> Lemme say it agin...
> 
> You shouldn't need religion to be a good person. If you do, then you're a bad person trying to get away with it...



You just revealed yourself.  "You're a bad person trying to get away with it."  You reap what you sow.


----------



## james bond

RWS said:


> I should add that to my tagline....



Just add it to all your other assertions as truth.


----------



## james bond

Wry Catcher said:


> Ima Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know there are similarities but I think they are coincidental, like cats and seals both have whiskers.  But cats didn't come from seals or vice a versa.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously?  God created Adam and took a rib and made a woman?  Do you also believe in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and that Donald Trump is a leader?
Click to expand...


Yes, God created Adam and Eve.  And Donald Trump.  Who  is more a leader than Obama and has kept the country out of socialism.  And if Hillary won, we would e a bankrupt country because she would've misplace/stole $6 B..

It's better than humans from apes and a universe from nothing and having multiverses.  Satan's science had to resort to all sorts of lies like Obama and the Clintons, but they still lost.

ETA:  It's not so much politics, but science that divides Christians and non-believers.  Not that politics doesn't play a part.  It's more about people arguments.


----------



## RWS

james bond said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lemme say it agin...
> 
> You shouldn't need religion to be a good person. If you do, then you're a bad person trying to get away with it...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You just revealed yourself.  "You're a bad person trying to get away with it."  You reap what you sow.
Click to expand...

No, I have been, and always will be, a good person. I don't need religious bullshit to make me do it.

And if and when i stray, maybe I'll ask for forgiveness. So far, at 50 years old, I'm kinda cool with just being a good person....


----------



## RWS

And if there is a heaven, and I'm not accepted because I don't believe....... even though I am a good person......

I will kick his ass.


----------



## Wry Catcher

james bond said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ima Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know there are similarities but I think they are coincidental, like cats and seals both have whiskers.  But cats didn't come from seals or vice a versa.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously?  God created Adam and took a rib and made a woman?  Do you also believe in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and that Donald Trump is a leader?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, God created Adam and Eve.  And Donald Trump.  Who  is more a leader than Obama and has kept the country out of socialism.  And if Hillary won, we would e a bankrupt country because she would've misplace/stole $6 B..
> 
> It's better than humans from apes and a universe from nothing and having multiverses.  Satan's science had to resort to all sorts of lies like Obama and the Clintons, but they still lost.
> 
> ETA:  It's not so much politics, but science that divides Christians and non-believers.  Not that politics doesn't play a part.  It's more about people arguments.
Click to expand...


It seems your post is mostly fantasy and wishfull thinking.  As for did God create Adam and Eve no evidence exists - though it seems Lucy was black and the mother of all of us.

As for the $6 Billion you claim HRC would steal or lose, you have the wrong amount and the wrong administration.

see:  How the US sent $12bn in cash to Iraq. And watched it vanish


----------



## james bond

RWS said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lemme say it agin...
> 
> You shouldn't need religion to be a good person. If you do, then you're a bad person trying to get away with it...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You just revealed yourself.  "You're a bad person trying to get away with it."  You reap what you sow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, I have been, and always will be, a good person. I don't need religious bullshit to make me do it.
> 
> And if and when i stray, maybe I'll ask for forgiveness. So far, at 50 years old, I'm kinda cool with just being a good person....
Click to expand...


Again, you just revealed yourself.  "You're a bad person trying to get away with it."  You will reap what you sow.

I can demonstrate because you are here making assertions as such with no evidence.  To paraphrase CS Lewis, if God is not real, then what does it matter?   It’s because you hate God!  Why does life matter?  Without God nothing makes sense.  There is no reality at all.  Atheists can’t account for morality.  Why is right right and why is wrong wrong?  Atheists can’t account for rationality, logic, and intelligence because their worldview will not allow them to. The only way they can is to take upon the Christian theistic worldview.

The fact that you are in this thread shows you know God is real, but hate God so you suppress the truth by you unrighteousness.  I don't claim to be a good person, but a sinful one.  That's not due to guilt, but the fact that we're all sinners.

"For God’s wrath is being revealed from heaven against all the ungodliness and wickedness of those who in their wickedness suppress the truth.  For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God himself has made it plain to them." Romans 1:18-19

"And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what should not be done.  They are filled with every kind of unrighteousness, wickedness, covetousness, malice.  They are rife with envy, murder, strife, deceit, hostility.  They are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, contrivers of all sorts of evil, disobedient to parents, senseless, covenant-breakers, heartless, ruthless.  Although they fully know God’s righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but also approve of those who practice them."  Romans 1:28-30


----------



## james bond

Wry Catcher said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ima Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know there are similarities but I think they are coincidental, like cats and seals both have whiskers.  But cats didn't come from seals or vice a versa.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously?  God created Adam and took a rib and made a woman?  Do you also believe in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and that Donald Trump is a leader?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, God created Adam and Eve.  And Donald Trump.  Who  is more a leader than Obama and has kept the country out of socialism.  And if Hillary won, we would e a bankrupt country because she would've misplace/stole $6 B..
> 
> It's better than humans from apes and a universe from nothing and having multiverses.  Satan's science had to resort to all sorts of lies like Obama and the Clintons, but they still lost.
> 
> ETA:  It's not so much politics, but science that divides Christians and non-believers.  Not that politics doesn't play a part.  It's more about people arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It seems your post is mostly fantasy and wishfull thinking.  As for did God create Adam and Eve no evidence exists - though it seems Lucy was black and the mother of all of us.
> 
> As for the $6 Billion you claim HRC would steal or lose, you have the wrong amount and the wrong administration.
> 
> see:  How the US sent $12bn in cash to Iraq. And watched it vanish
Click to expand...


There is no observable evidence for humans came from apes.  Apes can't even walk bipedal.  While Bill Nye “the Science Guy,” who lives, breathes and smells evolution, said it is not crazy to believe we descended from Martians.  Ha ha.  What an idiot!  There is absolutely no proof of that nor Martians.  

Yet, he thinks believing we came from Adam and Eve is not using our heads.  More wackiness from the wacktards!  

There is scientific evidence to support what the Bible says about human origins.  Genetic studies have shown there is a very small difference in the DNA of any two people -- only a tenth of a percent.  If humanity were hundreds of thousands of years old, as secular scientists claim, we would expect there to be huge differences between people groups.  Yet, there is not!  This confirms the starting population of only two people, as described in the Bible.

There is no evidence we descended from imaginary Martians ha ha.

(As for the rest, this isn't the political forum so you got your say and I got mine so will leave it at that.)


----------



## Old Rocks

You know, Bond, you are one dumb fuck. The evidence is in every cell in your body. You are a great ape. Your closed relative in the animal kingdom is a chimpanzee. However, as your posts indicate, you probably are a throwback to when the monkeys and apes diverged. LOL


----------



## james bond

Old Rocks said:


> You know, Bond, you are one dumb fuck. The evidence is in every cell in your body. You are a great ape. Your closed relative in the animal kingdom is a chimpanzee. However, as your posts indicate, you probably are a throwback to when the monkeys and apes diverged. LOL



Old Rocks You are dumb as fuck.  There is no evidence of monkey in my beautiful body nor anyone's body.  Maybe you have a monkey brain, but likely a monkey's brain will be larger than yours.  Why don't you videotape yourself and run around like a monkey for us, shit in your hands and put it in your mouth and spit.  Then we can all have some laughs and entertainment instead of the torture of reading your idiotic posts..


----------



## sparky

Old Rocks said:


> The evidence is in every cell in your body. You are a great ape. Your closed relative in the animal kingdom is a chimpanzee.



there goes my spore theory.....  ~S~


----------



## Syriusly

ChesBayJJ said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the evidence for no tree of life and no common ancestor -- eukaryogenesis doesn't happen.
> 
> Archaeal ancestors of eukaryotes: not so elusive any more
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, you are wrong again.
Click to expand...


Almost redundant to even bother to point out that he is wrong again- he is after all talking about evolution- and also believes that water once covered the entire earth- including Mt. Everest.


----------



## james bond

Syriusly said:


> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the evidence for no tree of life and no common ancestor -- eukaryogenesis doesn't happen.
> 
> Archaeal ancestors of eukaryotes: not so elusive any more
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, you are wrong again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Almost redundant to even bother to point out that he is wrong again- he is after all talking about evolution- and also believes that water once covered the entire earth- including Mt. Everest.
Click to expand...


Yet, you have no explanation for the water.  What other planet has this much water on the surface?  Hint:  Look for planets with plate tectonics.


----------



## james bond

At least, I know some basic geology of Mt. Everest unlike a couple posters here.  Science backs up the Bible.

"*Peak Formation and Fossils *
As two crustal plates collide, heavier rock is pushed back down into the earth's mantle at the point of contact. Meanwhile, lighter rock such as limestone and sandstone is pushed upward to form the towering mountains. At the tops of the highest peaks, like that of Mount Everest, it is possible to find 400-million-year-old fossils of sea creatures and shells that were deposited at the bottom of shallow tropical seas. Now the fossils are exposed at the roof of the world, over 25,000 feet above sea level.


* Marine Limestone *
The peak of Mount Everest is made up of rock that was once submerged beneath the Tethys Sea, an open waterway that existed between the Indian subcontinent and Asia over 400 million years ago. For the great nature writer John McPhee, this is the most significant fact about the mountain:


When the climbers in 1953 planted their flags on the highest mountain, they set them in snow over the skeletons of creatures that had lived in the warm clear ocean that India, moving north, blanked out. Possibly as much as twenty thousand feet below the seafloor, the skeletal remains had turned into rock. This one fact is a treatise in itself on the movements of the surface of the earth. If by some fiat I had to restrict all this writing to one sentence, this is the one I would choose: The summit of Mt. Everest is marine limestone."

The History of Mount Everest, the World's Tallest Mountain


----------



## james bond

RWS said:


> And if there is a heaven, and I'm not accepted because I don't believe....... even though I am a good person......
> 
> I will kick his ass.



Okay, I'll ask Jesus to allow me to witness that .  It may take place circa 2060 if Sir Isaac Newton was right.


----------



## ChesBayJJ

james bond said:


> At least, I know some basic geology of Mt. Everest unlike a couple posters here.  Science backs up the Bible.
> 
> "*Peak Formation and Fossils *
> As two crustal plates collide, heavier rock is pushed back down into the earth's mantle at the point of contact. Meanwhile, lighter rock such as limestone and sandstone is pushed upward to form the towering mountains. At the tops of the highest peaks, like that of Mount Everest, it is possible to find 400-million-year-old fossils of sea creatures and shells that were deposited at the bottom of shallow tropical seas. Now the fossils are exposed at the roof of the world, over 25,000 feet above sea level.
> 
> 
> * Marine Limestone *
> The peak of Mount Everest is made up of rock that was once submerged beneath the Tethys Sea, an open waterway that existed between the Indian subcontinent and Asia over 400 million years ago. For the great nature writer John McPhee, this is the most significant fact about the mountain:
> 
> 
> When the climbers in 1953 planted their flags on the highest mountain, they set them in snow over the skeletons of creatures that had lived in the warm clear ocean that India, moving north, blanked out. Possibly as much as twenty thousand feet below the seafloor, the skeletal remains had turned into rock. This one fact is a treatise in itself on the movements of the surface of the earth. If by some fiat I had to restrict all this writing to one sentence, this is the one I would choose: The summit of Mt. Everest is marine limestone."
> 
> The History of Mount Everest, the World's Tallest Mountain



And the limestone has nothing to do with a global flood 6000 years ago. As the post states, the fossils are 400 million years old and were elevated to their lofty position by the activity of plate tectonics.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> At least, I know some basic geology of Mt. Everest unlike a couple posters here.  Science backs up the Bible.
> 
> "*Peak Formation and Fossils *
> As two crustal plates collide, heavier rock is pushed back down into the earth's mantle at the point of contact. Meanwhile, lighter rock such as limestone and sandstone is pushed upward to form the towering mountains. At the tops of the highest peaks, like that of Mount Everest, it is possible to find 400-million-year-old fossils of sea creatures and shells that were deposited at the bottom of shallow tropical seas. Now the fossils are exposed at the roof of the world, over 25,000 feet above sea level.
> 
> 
> * Marine Limestone *
> The peak of Mount Everest is made up of rock that was once submerged beneath the Tethys Sea, an open waterway that existed between the Indian subcontinent and Asia over 400 million years ago. For the great nature writer John McPhee, this is the most significant fact about the mountain:
> 
> 
> When the climbers in 1953 planted their flags on the highest mountain, they set them in snow over the skeletons of creatures that had lived in the warm clear ocean that India, moving north, blanked out. Possibly as much as twenty thousand feet below the seafloor, the skeletal remains had turned into rock. This one fact is a treatise in itself on the movements of the surface of the earth. If by some fiat I had to restrict all this writing to one sentence, this is the one I would choose: The summit of Mt. Everest is marine limestone."
> 
> The History of Mount Everest, the World's Tallest Mountain


Of course, that took a long time , directly contradicting your Bronze Age Fairy Tail


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> At least, I know some basic geology of Mt. Everest unlike a couple posters here.  Science backs up the Bible.
> 
> "*Peak Formation and Fossils *
> As two crustal plates collide, heavier rock is pushed back down into the earth's mantle at the point of contact. Meanwhile, lighter rock such as limestone and sandstone is pushed upward to form the towering mountains. At the tops of the highest peaks, like that of Mount Everest, it is possible to find 400-million-year-old fossils of sea creatures and shells that were deposited at the bottom of shallow tropical seas. Now the fossils are exposed at the roof of the world, over 25,000 feet above sea level.



Absolutely- there are 400 million year old fossils over 25,000 feet above sea level.

Your answer is that means that 6,000 years ago the ark floated by......a scientists answer is that 400 million years ago Mt. Everest was not a mountain- but 6,000 years ago it was maybe a few feet shorter.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Syriusly said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> At least, I know some basic geology of Mt. Everest unlike a couple posters here.  Science backs up the Bible.
> 
> "*Peak Formation and Fossils *
> As two crustal plates collide, heavier rock is pushed back down into the earth's mantle at the point of contact. Meanwhile, lighter rock such as limestone and sandstone is pushed upward to form the towering mountains. At the tops of the highest peaks, like that of Mount Everest, it is possible to find 400-million-year-old fossils of sea creatures and shells that were deposited at the bottom of shallow tropical seas. Now the fossils are exposed at the roof of the world, over 25,000 feet above sea level.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely- there are 400 million year old fossils over 25,000 feet above sea level.
> 
> Your answer is that means that 6,000 years ago the ark floated by......a scientists answer is that 400 million years ago Mt. Everest was not a mountain- but 6,000 years ago it was maybe a few feet shorter.
Click to expand...

Nah man, you're not getting this. all science is wrong, because it contradicts the Bible. And all Science is correct, because it all supports the Bible.

Got it?


----------



## Syriusly

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> At least, I know some basic geology of Mt. Everest unlike a couple posters here.  Science backs up the Bible.
> 
> "*Peak Formation and Fossils *
> As two crustal plates collide, heavier rock is pushed back down into the earth's mantle at the point of contact. Meanwhile, lighter rock such as limestone and sandstone is pushed upward to form the towering mountains. At the tops of the highest peaks, like that of Mount Everest, it is possible to find 400-million-year-old fossils of sea creatures and shells that were deposited at the bottom of shallow tropical seas. Now the fossils are exposed at the roof of the world, over 25,000 feet above sea level.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely- there are 400 million year old fossils over 25,000 feet above sea level.
> 
> Your answer is that means that 6,000 years ago the ark floated by......a scientists answer is that 400 million years ago Mt. Everest was not a mountain- but 6,000 years ago it was maybe a few feet shorter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nah man, you're not getting this. all science is wrong, because it contradicts the Bible. And all Science is correct, because it all supports the Bible.
> 
> Got it?
Click to expand...


----------



## Syriusly




----------



## sealybobo

james bond said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the evidence for no tree of life and no common ancestor -- eukaryogenesis doesn't happen.
> 
> Archaeal ancestors of eukaryotes: not so elusive any more
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, you are wrong again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Almost redundant to even bother to point out that he is wrong again- he is after all talking about evolution- and also believes that water once covered the entire earth- including Mt. Everest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet, you have no explanation for the water.  What other planet has this much water on the surface?  Hint:  Look for planets with plate tectonics.
Click to expand...

Odds are there are dozens of planets like earth if not hundreds. That’s a very small percent.

And it’s true we haven’t found anything like us yet.


----------



## james bond

ChesBayJJ said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> At least, I know some basic geology of Mt. Everest unlike a couple posters here.  Science backs up the Bible.
> 
> "*Peak Formation and Fossils *
> As two crustal plates collide, heavier rock is pushed back down into the earth's mantle at the point of contact. Meanwhile, lighter rock such as limestone and sandstone is pushed upward to form the towering mountains. At the tops of the highest peaks, like that of Mount Everest, it is possible to find 400-million-year-old fossils of sea creatures and shells that were deposited at the bottom of shallow tropical seas. Now the fossils are exposed at the roof of the world, over 25,000 feet above sea level.
> 
> 
> * Marine Limestone *
> The peak of Mount Everest is made up of rock that was once submerged beneath the Tethys Sea, an open waterway that existed between the Indian subcontinent and Asia over 400 million years ago. For the great nature writer John McPhee, this is the most significant fact about the mountain:
> 
> 
> When the climbers in 1953 planted their flags on the highest mountain, they set them in snow over the skeletons of creatures that had lived in the warm clear ocean that India, moving north, blanked out. Possibly as much as twenty thousand feet below the seafloor, the skeletal remains had turned into rock. This one fact is a treatise in itself on the movements of the surface of the earth. If by some fiat I had to restrict all this writing to one sentence, this is the one I would choose: The summit of Mt. Everest is marine limestone."
> 
> The History of Mount Everest, the World's Tallest Mountain
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the limestone has nothing to do with a global flood 6000 years ago. As the post states, the fossils are 400 million years old and were elevated to their lofty position by the activity of plate tectonics.
Click to expand...


Didn't we agree that one can't do radiometric dating on wet items and marine fossils or was that Syriusly?  Anyway, your 400 millions years old calculation is off.  OTOH, radiocarbon dating is okay if it passes the time criteria.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> Didn't we agree that one can't do radiometric dating on wet items and marine fossils


Got a mouse in your pocket? Nobody but creationist goobers agrees to that.


----------



## james bond

Syriusly said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> At least, I know some basic geology of Mt. Everest unlike a couple posters here.  Science backs up the Bible.
> 
> "*Peak Formation and Fossils *
> As two crustal plates collide, heavier rock is pushed back down into the earth's mantle at the point of contact. Meanwhile, lighter rock such as limestone and sandstone is pushed upward to form the towering mountains. At the tops of the highest peaks, like that of Mount Everest, it is possible to find 400-million-year-old fossils of sea creatures and shells that were deposited at the bottom of shallow tropical seas. Now the fossils are exposed at the roof of the world, over 25,000 feet above sea level.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely- there are 400 million year old fossils over 25,000 feet above sea level.
> 
> Your answer is that means that 6,000 years ago the ark floated by......a scientists answer is that 400 million years ago Mt. Everest was not a mountain- but 6,000 years ago it was maybe a few feet shorter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nah man, you're not getting this. all science is wrong, because it contradicts the Bible. And all Science is correct, because it all supports the Bible.
> 
> Got it?
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


We haven't talked that much recently, so sorry if I am repeating this.  Mt. Everest wasn't as high in the past as it is now.  That's how the flood waters were able to reach so high.  The earthquake below the oceans caused Mt. Everest to rise even more to today's height.  It also explains how we got 7 continents from one, continental drift theory.  The plate tectonics become very important in more ways than one.


----------



## james bond

sealybobo said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the evidence for no tree of life and no common ancestor -- eukaryogenesis doesn't happen.
> 
> Archaeal ancestors of eukaryotes: not so elusive any more
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, you are wrong again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Almost redundant to even bother to point out that he is wrong again- he is after all talking about evolution- and also believes that water once covered the entire earth- including Mt. Everest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet, you have no explanation for the water.  What other planet has this much water on the surface?  Hint:  Look for planets with plate tectonics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Odds are there are dozens of planets like earth if not hundreds. That’s a very small percent.
> 
> And it’s true we haven’t found anything like us yet.
Click to expand...


I'm sure we've gone over this regarding the fine-tuning facts.


----------



## Old Rocks

LOL What a dumb ass you are, Bond. There are many, many dating methods now. No one dates anything with just one of them. Here are a few;

Dating Rocks and Fossils Using Geologic Methods | Learn Science at Scitable


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't we agree that one can't do radiometric dating on wet items and marine fossils
> 
> 
> 
> Got a mouse in your pocket? Nobody but creationist goobers agrees to that.
Click to expand...


I wasn't talking to you.  I was talking with someone with intellinence to understand science.  Not a monkey brain.


----------



## Old Rocks

james bond said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> At least, I know some basic geology of Mt. Everest unlike a couple posters here.  Science backs up the Bible.
> 
> "*Peak Formation and Fossils *
> As two crustal plates collide, heavier rock is pushed back down into the earth's mantle at the point of contact. Meanwhile, lighter rock such as limestone and sandstone is pushed upward to form the towering mountains. At the tops of the highest peaks, like that of Mount Everest, it is possible to find 400-million-year-old fossils of sea creatures and shells that were deposited at the bottom of shallow tropical seas. Now the fossils are exposed at the roof of the world, over 25,000 feet above sea level.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely- there are 400 million year old fossils over 25,000 feet above sea level.
> 
> Your answer is that means that 6,000 years ago the ark floated by......a scientists answer is that 400 million years ago Mt. Everest was not a mountain- but 6,000 years ago it was maybe a few feet shorter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nah man, you're not getting this. all science is wrong, because it contradicts the Bible. And all Science is correct, because it all supports the Bible.
> 
> Got it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We haven't talked that much recently, so sorry if I am repeating this.  Mt. Everest wasn't as high in the past as it is now.  That's how the flood waters were able to reach so high.  The earthquake below the oceans caused Mt. Everest to rise even more to today's height.  It also explains how we got 7 continents from one, continental drift theory.  The plate tectonics become very important in more ways than one.
Click to expand...

LOL You are correct, Mt. Everest was not as high as it is today long ago in our geologic history. However, that was millions of years ago, long before there were even hominids. You twisting to the scientific theory of Plate Tectonics is laughable, indeed.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> I was talking with someone with intellinence to understand science.


Then surely that person responded to you by telling you that you are a liar who knows less than nothing about radiometric dating, since what you said was stupid and false.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was talking with someone with intellinence to understand science.
> 
> 
> 
> Then surely that person responded to you by telling you that you are a liar who knows less than nothing about radiometric dating, since what you said was stupid and false.
Click to expand...


Ha ha.  You can't explain radiometric dating, so you do not qualify to make any judgments.  If something I said was incorrect, then you would be jumping all over me about it and letting the whole world know.  Instead, you revert to your stupid, dumb af ad hominems.  Why don't you take a long walk off a short pier and go try radiometric dating ha ha?


----------



## james bond

Only atheist scientists base their age of the earth and fossiles/rocks on radiometric dating.  Creation scientists do not base the same on radiometric dating because assumptions have to be made and these assumptions could be wrong.

My argument against radiometric dating of objects is that carbon-14 still remains in them.  These are dinosaur bones, rocks, fossils, minerals, crystals, etc.  The decay rates are assumed to be constant.  If the decay rates are constant, then the radiometric dating should be hundreds of thousands, millions and billions of years old.  However, this is not true because carbon-14 still remains in them.  All of the carbon-14 would have been spent.  Second, we do not know what the ratio of parent to daughter elements were when the item was formed.  It's like coming into a room and seeing an hourglass that is running.  From this observation, we cannot be certain that the rate of sand dropping into the lower glass is constant and we do not know what was the amount of sand it the top glass and the bottom glass when it started to fall.  If we KNOW both the rate of sand falling is constant and one side is full of sand and the other is empty, then we can get an accurate measurement if we know when the hourglass was turned over.  The decay rates could change if the temperature or pressure changes.  For long ages such as billions of years, it's not realistic to assume that temperature and pressure remained the same.

It's basic science and common sense.  However, the atheist scientists must have the long-time for evolution to occur, so they steadfastly deny not knowing what the original parent and daughter elements were and assuming that the rate of radioactive decay in the materials have been constant throughout history.  This is extremely doubtful when these items have been submerged in water and resetting the decay.  In fact, the decay has to have been reset by igneous flow for a candidate object to be radiometrically measured.

Here is an example.

For K-Ar radiometric decay system "to work as a clock, the following 4 criteria must be fulfilled:

1. The decay constant and the abundance of K40 must be known accurately.

2. There must have been no incorporation of Ar40 into the mineral at the time of crystallization or a leak of Ar40 from the mineral following crystallization.

3. The system must have remained closed for both K40 and Ar40 since the time of crystallization.

4. The relationship between the data obtained and a specific event must be known."

"But what about the radiometric dating methods? The earth is supposed to be nearly 5 billion years old, and some of these methods seem to verify ancient dates for many of earth's igneous rocks. The answer is that these methods, are far from infallible and are based on three arbitrary assumptions (a constant rate of decay, an isolated system in which no parent or daughter element can be added or lost, and a known amount of the daughter element present initially)."

The Radiometric Dating Game

This is just the decay process.  We also have to make certain that impurities did not get into the sample objects.


----------



## Old Rocks

Bond, you silly ignorant ass, it ain't carbon 14, once it has decayed. Through beta decay, it is nitrogen 14. So it does not remain in the samples as carbon 14. Not only that, carbon 14 is only considered accurate, in most cases, for the last 50,000 years. The other multiple radiometric methods are used on older materials. And the basis for the dating is the same basis that our nuclear reactors work on.


----------



## Old Rocks

Oh, by the way, there are no creation scientists. Just a bunch of religious charlatans that get money from sucker like you.


----------



## ChesBayJJ

james bond said:


> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> At least, I know some basic geology of Mt. Everest unlike a couple posters here.  Science backs up the Bible.
> 
> "*Peak Formation and Fossils *
> As two crustal plates collide, heavier rock is pushed back down into the earth's mantle at the point of contact. Meanwhile, lighter rock such as limestone and sandstone is pushed upward to form the towering mountains. At the tops of the highest peaks, like that of Mount Everest, it is possible to find 400-million-year-old fossils of sea creatures and shells that were deposited at the bottom of shallow tropical seas. Now the fossils are exposed at the roof of the world, over 25,000 feet above sea level.
> 
> 
> * Marine Limestone *
> The peak of Mount Everest is made up of rock that was once submerged beneath the Tethys Sea, an open waterway that existed between the Indian subcontinent and Asia over 400 million years ago. For the great nature writer John McPhee, this is the most significant fact about the mountain:
> 
> 
> When the climbers in 1953 planted their flags on the highest mountain, they set them in snow over the skeletons of creatures that had lived in the warm clear ocean that India, moving north, blanked out. Possibly as much as twenty thousand feet below the seafloor, the skeletal remains had turned into rock. This one fact is a treatise in itself on the movements of the surface of the earth. If by some fiat I had to restrict all this writing to one sentence, this is the one I would choose: The summit of Mt. Everest is marine limestone."
> 
> The History of Mount Everest, the World's Tallest Mountain
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the limestone has nothing to do with a global flood 6000 years ago. As the post states, the fossils are 400 million years old and were elevated to their lofty position by the activity of plate tectonics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Didn't we agree that one can't do radiometric dating on wet items and marine fossils or was that Syriusly?  Anyway, your 400 millions years old calculation is off.  OTOH, radiocarbon dating is okay if it passes the time criteria.
Click to expand...


I don't believe I ever agreed to that. All I will say is, to get good results, the dating has to be done professionally by people that know what they are doing, and samples must be uncontaminated. And there are a number of dating techniques other than carbon.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> You can't explain radiometric dating


Of course I can, as could any curious person who wishes to look it up.. While you creationist charlatans are busy incestuously grifting hilariously false talking points from each other's asses, normal people are learning the hard earned knowledge granted us by real scientists.


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> At least, I know some basic geology of Mt. Everest unlike a couple posters here.  Science backs up the Bible.
> 
> "*Peak Formation and Fossils *
> As two crustal plates collide, heavier rock is pushed back down into the earth's mantle at the point of contact. Meanwhile, lighter rock such as limestone and sandstone is pushed upward to form the towering mountains. At the tops of the highest peaks, like that of Mount Everest, it is possible to find 400-million-year-old fossils of sea creatures and shells that were deposited at the bottom of shallow tropical seas. Now the fossils are exposed at the roof of the world, over 25,000 feet above sea level.
> 
> 
> * Marine Limestone *
> The peak of Mount Everest is made up of rock that was once submerged beneath the Tethys Sea, an open waterway that existed between the Indian subcontinent and Asia over 400 million years ago. For the great nature writer John McPhee, this is the most significant fact about the mountain:
> 
> 
> When the climbers in 1953 planted their flags on the highest mountain, they set them in snow over the skeletons of creatures that had lived in the warm clear ocean that India, moving north, blanked out. Possibly as much as twenty thousand feet below the seafloor, the skeletal remains had turned into rock. This one fact is a treatise in itself on the movements of the surface of the earth. If by some fiat I had to restrict all this writing to one sentence, this is the one I would choose: The summit of Mt. Everest is marine limestone."
> 
> The History of Mount Everest, the World's Tallest Mountain
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the limestone has nothing to do with a global flood 6000 years ago. As the post states, the fossils are 400 million years old and were elevated to their lofty position by the activity of plate tectonics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Didn't we agree that one can't do radiometric dating on wet items and marine fossils or was that Syriusly?  Anyway, your 400 millions years old calculation is off.  OTOH, radiocarbon dating is okay if it passes the time criteria.
Click to expand...

Nah man, you're not getting this. all science is wrong, because it contradicts the Bible. And all Science is correct, because it all supports the Bible.

Got it?


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> Only atheist scientists base their age of the earth and fossiles/rocks on radiometric dating.  Creation scientists.



Odd isn't it how Jamie boy will cite scientists- like marine fossils on Mt. Everest, but then deride them as 'atheist scientists' whether they are atheists or not- if they don't share the believes of his specific Christian cult.

They kind of remind me of the South Pacific Cargo Cults....


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Syriusly said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only atheist scientists base their age of the earth and fossiles/rocks on radiometric dating.  Creation scientists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Odd isn't it how Jamie boy will cite scientists- like marine fossils on Mt. Everest, but then deride them as 'atheist scientists' whether they are atheists or not- if they don't share the believes of his specific Christian cult.
> 
> They kind of remind me of the South Pacific Cargo Cults....
Click to expand...

Well, it's easy to understand, when you take into account the frustration amd impotence he must feel all day every day, knowing the nonsense he invents about our hard earned scientific knowledge is paid exactly zero respect by any serious scientist or scholar, anywhere. A normal, rational human might wonder if the things he is saying are, quite possibly, absurd and not worthy of respect.

IMAGINE how it must feel to be so sure of the truth of something, and then everyone laughs at you every time you talk about it. 

But, a person whose brain is addled by a lifetime of cultish brainwashing would have a much harder time arriving at such an obvious conclusion.


----------



## james bond

ChesBayJJ said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> At least, I know some basic geology of Mt. Everest unlike a couple posters here.  Science backs up the Bible.
> 
> "*Peak Formation and Fossils *
> As two crustal plates collide, heavier rock is pushed back down into the earth's mantle at the point of contact. Meanwhile, lighter rock such as limestone and sandstone is pushed upward to form the towering mountains. At the tops of the highest peaks, like that of Mount Everest, it is possible to find 400-million-year-old fossils of sea creatures and shells that were deposited at the bottom of shallow tropical seas. Now the fossils are exposed at the roof of the world, over 25,000 feet above sea level.
> 
> 
> * Marine Limestone *
> The peak of Mount Everest is made up of rock that was once submerged beneath the Tethys Sea, an open waterway that existed between the Indian subcontinent and Asia over 400 million years ago. For the great nature writer John McPhee, this is the most significant fact about the mountain:
> 
> 
> When the climbers in 1953 planted their flags on the highest mountain, they set them in snow over the skeletons of creatures that had lived in the warm clear ocean that India, moving north, blanked out. Possibly as much as twenty thousand feet below the seafloor, the skeletal remains had turned into rock. This one fact is a treatise in itself on the movements of the surface of the earth. If by some fiat I had to restrict all this writing to one sentence, this is the one I would choose: The summit of Mt. Everest is marine limestone."
> 
> The History of Mount Everest, the World's Tallest Mountain
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the limestone has nothing to do with a global flood 6000 years ago. As the post states, the fossils are 400 million years old and were elevated to their lofty position by the activity of plate tectonics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Didn't we agree that one can't do radiometric dating on wet items and marine fossils or was that Syriusly?  Anyway, your 400 millions years old calculation is off.  OTOH, radiocarbon dating is okay if it passes the time criteria.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't believe I ever agreed to that. All I will say is, to get good results, the dating has to be done professionally by people that know what they are doing, and samples must be uncontaminated. And there are a number of dating techniques other than carbon.
Click to expand...


You see, the carbon still remains in these objects contaminating the object, so there's something wrong when you test with radioisotopes.  You assume that it's not there due to long-time, but it's still there.  If it's there, then one should not think radiometric dating would produce good results.


----------



## ChesBayJJ

james bond said:


> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> At least, I know some basic geology of Mt. Everest unlike a couple posters here.  Science backs up the Bible.
> 
> "*Peak Formation and Fossils *
> As two crustal plates collide, heavier rock is pushed back down into the earth's mantle at the point of contact. Meanwhile, lighter rock such as limestone and sandstone is pushed upward to form the towering mountains. At the tops of the highest peaks, like that of Mount Everest, it is possible to find 400-million-year-old fossils of sea creatures and shells that were deposited at the bottom of shallow tropical seas. Now the fossils are exposed at the roof of the world, over 25,000 feet above sea level.
> 
> 
> * Marine Limestone *
> The peak of Mount Everest is made up of rock that was once submerged beneath the Tethys Sea, an open waterway that existed between the Indian subcontinent and Asia over 400 million years ago. For the great nature writer John McPhee, this is the most significant fact about the mountain:
> 
> 
> When the climbers in 1953 planted their flags on the highest mountain, they set them in snow over the skeletons of creatures that had lived in the warm clear ocean that India, moving north, blanked out. Possibly as much as twenty thousand feet below the seafloor, the skeletal remains had turned into rock. This one fact is a treatise in itself on the movements of the surface of the earth. If by some fiat I had to restrict all this writing to one sentence, this is the one I would choose: The summit of Mt. Everest is marine limestone."
> 
> The History of Mount Everest, the World's Tallest Mountain
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the limestone has nothing to do with a global flood 6000 years ago. As the post states, the fossils are 400 million years old and were elevated to their lofty position by the activity of plate tectonics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Didn't we agree that one can't do radiometric dating on wet items and marine fossils or was that Syriusly?  Anyway, your 400 millions years old calculation is off.  OTOH, radiocarbon dating is okay if it passes the time criteria.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't believe I ever agreed to that. All I will say is, to get good results, the dating has to be done professionally by people that know what they are doing, and samples must be uncontaminated. And there are a number of dating techniques other than carbon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You see, the carbon still remains in these objects contaminating the object, so there's something wrong when you test with radioisotopes.  You assume that it's not there due to long-time, but it's still there.  If it's there, then one should not think radiometric dating would produce good results.
Click to expand...


What are you testing for? What time range? What is the estimated age of the sample you are testing? What method are you using?

Be specific and stop babbling nonsense.


----------



## Syriusly

ChesBayJJ said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> At least, I know some basic geology of Mt. Everest unlike a couple posters here.  Science backs up the Bible.
> 
> "*Peak Formation and Fossils *
> As two crustal plates collide, heavier rock is pushed back down into the earth's mantle at the point of contact. Meanwhile, lighter rock such as limestone and sandstone is pushed upward to form the towering mountains. At the tops of the highest peaks, like that of Mount Everest, it is possible to find 400-million-year-old fossils of sea creatures and shells that were deposited at the bottom of shallow tropical seas. Now the fossils are exposed at the roof of the world, over 25,000 feet above sea level.
> 
> 
> * Marine Limestone *
> The peak of Mount Everest is made up of rock that was once submerged beneath the Tethys Sea, an open waterway that existed between the Indian subcontinent and Asia over 400 million years ago. For the great nature writer John McPhee, this is the most significant fact about the mountain:
> 
> 
> When the climbers in 1953 planted their flags on the highest mountain, they set them in snow over the skeletons of creatures that had lived in the warm clear ocean that India, moving north, blanked out. Possibly as much as twenty thousand feet below the seafloor, the skeletal remains had turned into rock. This one fact is a treatise in itself on the movements of the surface of the earth. If by some fiat I had to restrict all this writing to one sentence, this is the one I would choose: The summit of Mt. Everest is marine limestone."
> 
> The History of Mount Everest, the World's Tallest Mountain
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the limestone has nothing to do with a global flood 6000 years ago. As the post states, the fossils are 400 million years old and were elevated to their lofty position by the activity of plate tectonics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Didn't we agree that one can't do radiometric dating on wet items and marine fossils or was that Syriusly?  Anyway, your 400 millions years old calculation is off.  OTOH, radiocarbon dating is okay if it passes the time criteria.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't believe I ever agreed to that. All I will say is, to get good results, the dating has to be done professionally by people that know what they are doing, and samples must be uncontaminated. And there are a number of dating techniques other than carbon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You see, the carbon still remains in these objects contaminating the object, so there's something wrong when you test with radioisotopes.  You assume that it's not there due to long-time, but it's still there.  If it's there, then one should not think radiometric dating would produce good results.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What are you testing for? What time range? What is the estimated age of the sample you are testing? What method are you using?
> 
> Be specific and stop babbling nonsense.
Click to expand...


You are asking for ice cubes in a furnace.


----------



## james bond

ChesBayJJ said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> At least, I know some basic geology of Mt. Everest unlike a couple posters here.  Science backs up the Bible.
> 
> "*Peak Formation and Fossils *
> As two crustal plates collide, heavier rock is pushed back down into the earth's mantle at the point of contact. Meanwhile, lighter rock such as limestone and sandstone is pushed upward to form the towering mountains. At the tops of the highest peaks, like that of Mount Everest, it is possible to find 400-million-year-old fossils of sea creatures and shells that were deposited at the bottom of shallow tropical seas. Now the fossils are exposed at the roof of the world, over 25,000 feet above sea level.
> 
> 
> * Marine Limestone *
> The peak of Mount Everest is made up of rock that was once submerged beneath the Tethys Sea, an open waterway that existed between the Indian subcontinent and Asia over 400 million years ago. For the great nature writer John McPhee, this is the most significant fact about the mountain:
> 
> 
> When the climbers in 1953 planted their flags on the highest mountain, they set them in snow over the skeletons of creatures that had lived in the warm clear ocean that India, moving north, blanked out. Possibly as much as twenty thousand feet below the seafloor, the skeletal remains had turned into rock. This one fact is a treatise in itself on the movements of the surface of the earth. If by some fiat I had to restrict all this writing to one sentence, this is the one I would choose: The summit of Mt. Everest is marine limestone."
> 
> The History of Mount Everest, the World's Tallest Mountain
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the limestone has nothing to do with a global flood 6000 years ago. As the post states, the fossils are 400 million years old and were elevated to their lofty position by the activity of plate tectonics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Didn't we agree that one can't do radiometric dating on wet items and marine fossils or was that Syriusly?  Anyway, your 400 millions years old calculation is off.  OTOH, radiocarbon dating is okay if it passes the time criteria.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't believe I ever agreed to that. All I will say is, to get good results, the dating has to be done professionally by people that know what they are doing, and samples must be uncontaminated. And there are a number of dating techniques other than carbon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You see, the carbon still remains in these objects contaminating the object, so there's something wrong when you test with radioisotopes.  You assume that it's not there due to long-time, but it's still there.  If it's there, then one should not think radiometric dating would produce good results.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What are you testing for? What time range? What is the estimated age of the sample you are testing? What method are you using?
> 
> Be specific and stop babbling nonsense.
Click to expand...


How old are the dinosaur bones found in the Gobi Desert?  Twenty-five theropod dinosaurs have been discovered along with 200 skulls of mammals.

Or how about the dinosaur bones found in Alberta, Canada?  There is a huge graveyard that stretches for hundreds of miles and holds innumerable dinosaurs bones.

Or in Agate Springs, Nebraska?  There is a fossil graveyard of around 9,000 animals found buried in alluvial deposits.

How old and how did they get there?

Please explain how carbon-14 remains in dinosaur bones?

Carbon-14 dating dinosaur bones

And explain why carbon-14 remains in coal?

Between 1984 and 1998, the atheist science literature reported carbon-14 in 70 samples that came from fossils, coal, oil, natural gas and marble representing the fossil-bearing portion of the geologic record of more than 500 years.  _All_ contained radiocarbon.

Show everyone how smart you are.  You can help from Fort Fun Indiana, BreezeWood  and others who claim superiority here.


----------



## james bond

Syriusly said:


> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the limestone has nothing to do with a global flood 6000 years ago. As the post states, the fossils are 400 million years old and were elevated to their lofty position by the activity of plate tectonics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't we agree that one can't do radiometric dating on wet items and marine fossils or was that Syriusly?  Anyway, your 400 millions years old calculation is off.  OTOH, radiocarbon dating is okay if it passes the time criteria.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't believe I ever agreed to that. All I will say is, to get good results, the dating has to be done professionally by people that know what they are doing, and samples must be uncontaminated. And there are a number of dating techniques other than carbon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You see, the carbon still remains in these objects contaminating the object, so there's something wrong when you test with radioisotopes.  You assume that it's not there due to long-time, but it's still there.  If it's there, then one should not think radiometric dating would produce good results.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What are you testing for? What time range? What is the estimated age of the sample you are testing? What method are you using?
> 
> Be specific and stop babbling nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are asking for ice cubes in a furnace.
Click to expand...


You can have ice cubes in a furnace that isn't lit.  Or put enough ice in it to lower the oxidation temperature ha ha.  Why don't you answer my questions in post #1322, Mr. Smarty Pants?


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the limestone has nothing to do with a global flood 6000 years ago. As the post states, the fossils are 400 million years old and were elevated to their lofty position by the activity of plate tectonics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't we agree that one can't do radiometric dating on wet items and marine fossils or was that Syriusly?  Anyway, your 400 millions years old calculation is off.  OTOH, radiocarbon dating is okay if it passes the time criteria.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't believe I ever agreed to that. All I will say is, to get good results, the dating has to be done professionally by people that know what they are doing, and samples must be uncontaminated. And there are a number of dating techniques other than carbon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You see, the carbon still remains in these objects contaminating the object, so there's something wrong when you test with radioisotopes.  You assume that it's not there due to long-time, but it's still there.  If it's there, then one should not think radiometric dating would produce good results.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What are you testing for? What time range? What is the estimated age of the sample you are testing? What method are you using?
> 
> Be specific and stop babbling nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How old are the dinosaur bones found in the Gobi Desert?  Twenty-five theropod dinosaurs have been discovered along with 200 skulls of mammals.
> 
> Or how about the dinosaur bones found in Alberta, Canada?  There is a huge graveyard that stretches for hundreds of miles and holds innumerable dinosaurs bones.
> 
> Or in Agate Springs, Nebraska?  There is a fossil graveyard of around 9,000 animals found buried in alluvial deposits.
> 
> How old and how did they get there?
> 
> Please explain how carbon-14 remains in dinosaur bones?
> 
> Carbon-14 dating dinosaur bones
> 
> And explain why carbon-14 remains in coal?
> 
> Between 1984 and 1998, the atheist science literature reported carbon-14 in 70 samples that came from fossils, coal, oil, natural gas and marble representing the fossil-bearing portion of the geologic record of more than 500 years.  _All_ contained radiocarbon.
> 
> Show everyone how smart you are.  You can help from Fort Fun Indiana, BreezeWood  and others who claim superiority here.
Click to expand...

Answers to Creationist Attacks on Carbon-14 Dating

Answers are on the net

*Question:* A sample that is more than fifty thousand years old shouldn't have any measurable C-14. Coal, oil, and natural gas are supposed to be millions of years old; yet creationists say that some of them contain measurable amounts of C-14, enough to give them C-14 ages in the tens of thousands of years. How do you explain this?

*Answer:* Very simply. Radiocarbon dating doesn't work well on objects much older than twenty thousand years, because such objects have so little C-14 left that their beta radiation is swamped out by the background radiation of cosmic rays and potassium-40 (K-40) decay. Younger objects can easily be dated, because they still emit plenty of beta radiation, enough to be measured after the background radiation has been subtracted out of the total beta radiation. However, in either case, the background beta radiation has to be compensated for, and, in the older objects, the amount of C-14 they have left is less than the margin of error in measuring background radiation. As Hurley points out:

Without rather special developmental work, it is not generally practicable to measure ages in excess of about twenty thousand years, because the radioactivity of the carbon becomes so slight that it is difficult to get an accurate measurement above background radiation. (p. 108)

Cosmic rays form beta radiation all the time; this is the radiation that turns N-14 to C-14 in the first place. K-40 decay also forms plenty of beta radiation. Stearns, Carroll, and Clark point out that ". . . this isotope [K-40] accounts for a large part of the normal background radiation that can be detected on the earth's surface" (p. 84). This radiation cannot be totally eliminated from the laboratory, so one could probably get a "radiocarbon" date of fifty thousand years from a pure carbon-free piece of tin. However, you now know why this fact doesn't at all invalidate radiocarbon dates of objects younger than twenty thousand years and is certainly no evidence for the notion that coals and oils might be no older than fifty thousand years.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> And explain why carbon-14 remains in coal?


Look it up yourself, you lazy dummy. Scientists have several explanations.


----------



## james bond

Syriusly said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't we agree that one can't do radiometric dating on wet items and marine fossils or was that Syriusly?  Anyway, your 400 millions years old calculation is off.  OTOH, radiocarbon dating is okay if it passes the time criteria.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe I ever agreed to that. All I will say is, to get good results, the dating has to be done professionally by people that know what they are doing, and samples must be uncontaminated. And there are a number of dating techniques other than carbon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You see, the carbon still remains in these objects contaminating the object, so there's something wrong when you test with radioisotopes.  You assume that it's not there due to long-time, but it's still there.  If it's there, then one should not think radiometric dating would produce good results.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What are you testing for? What time range? What is the estimated age of the sample you are testing? What method are you using?
> 
> Be specific and stop babbling nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How old are the dinosaur bones found in the Gobi Desert?  Twenty-five theropod dinosaurs have been discovered along with 200 skulls of mammals.
> 
> Or how about the dinosaur bones found in Alberta, Canada?  There is a huge graveyard that stretches for hundreds of miles and holds innumerable dinosaurs bones.
> 
> Or in Agate Springs, Nebraska?  There is a fossil graveyard of around 9,000 animals found buried in alluvial deposits.
> 
> How old and how did they get there?
> 
> Please explain how carbon-14 remains in dinosaur bones?
> 
> Carbon-14 dating dinosaur bones
> 
> And explain why carbon-14 remains in coal?
> 
> Between 1984 and 1998, the atheist science literature reported carbon-14 in 70 samples that came from fossils, coal, oil, natural gas and marble representing the fossil-bearing portion of the geologic record of more than 500 years.  _All_ contained radiocarbon.
> 
> Show everyone how smart you are.  You can help from Fort Fun Indiana, BreezeWood  and others who claim superiority here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Answers to Creationist Attacks on Carbon-14 Dating
> 
> Answers are on the net
> 
> *Question:* A sample that is more than fifty thousand years old shouldn't have any measurable C-14. Coal, oil, and natural gas are supposed to be millions of years old; yet creationists say that some of them contain measurable amounts of C-14, enough to give them C-14 ages in the tens of thousands of years. How do you explain this?
> 
> *Answer:* Very simply. Radiocarbon dating doesn't work well on objects much older than twenty thousand years, because such objects have so little C-14 left that their beta radiation is swamped out by the background radiation of cosmic rays and potassium-40 (K-40) decay. Younger objects can easily be dated, because they still emit plenty of beta radiation, enough to be measured after the background radiation has been subtracted out of the total beta radiation. However, in either case, the background beta radiation has to be compensated for, and, in the older objects, the amount of C-14 they have left is less than the margin of error in measuring background radiation. As Hurley points out:
> 
> Without rather special developmental work, it is not generally practicable to measure ages in excess of about twenty thousand years, because the radioactivity of the carbon becomes so slight that it is difficult to get an accurate measurement above background radiation. (p. 108)
> 
> Cosmic rays form beta radiation all the time; this is the radiation that turns N-14 to C-14 in the first place. K-40 decay also forms plenty of beta radiation. Stearns, Carroll, and Clark point out that ". . . this isotope [K-40] accounts for a large part of the normal background radiation that can be detected on the earth's surface" (p. 84). This radiation cannot be totally eliminated from the laboratory, so one could probably get a "radiocarbon" date of fifty thousand years from a pure carbon-free piece of tin. However, you now know why this fact doesn't at all invalidate radiocarbon dates of objects younger than twenty thousand years and is certainly no evidence for the notion that coals and oils might be no older than fifty thousand years.
Click to expand...


>>@Syriusly:  A sample that is more than fifty thousand years old shouldn't have any measurable C-14.<<

The answers are NOT on the net.  As usual, atheists are wrong.  It is circular reasoning.  This is wrong because you are using uniformitarianism as the basis for your answer which is what we are trying to find out if true..  Had you actually used observational science instead of making assumptions that fit evolution, then you'd know all of these objects were measured to have significant amounts of C-14.  Go to hell immediately.  Trap door opens and we hear loud screaming doppler effect.

Man, that was very satisfactory and gave me a woodie


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> And explain why carbon-14 remains in coal?
> 
> 
> 
> Look it up yourself, you lazy dummy. Scientists have several explanations.
Click to expand...


I knew you couldn't do it when the pressure is on.

Anyway, you've committed the fallacy of ad hominem, but also of burden of proof.  Bond wins again.  What's the score now, Fort Fun Indiana? 1,000,000 to zero?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> And explain why carbon-14 remains in coal?
> 
> 
> 
> Look it up yourself, you lazy dummy. Scientists have several explanations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I knew you couldn't do it when the pressure is on.
> 
> Anyway, you've committed the fallacy of ad hominem, but also of burden of proof.
Click to expand...

I don't think you know what ad hominem means. First of all, I did not make an argument. Second, I did not make an argument that rested in any way on pointing out that you are a lazy dummy. By the way, you are also ignorant.

Furthermore, you get an "F" for plagiarizing talkorigins.com.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> And explain why carbon-14 remains in coal?
> 
> 
> 
> Look it up yourself, you lazy dummy. Scientists have several explanations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I knew you couldn't do it when the pressure is on.
> 
> Anyway, you've committed the fallacy of ad hominem, but also of burden of proof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't think you know what ad hominem means. First of all, I did not make an argument. Second, I did not make an argument that rested in any way on pointing out that you are a lazy dummy. By the way, you are also ignorant.
> 
> Furthermore, you get an "F" for plagiarizing talkorigins.com.
Click to expand...


Fallacy of argument from repetition.  

Ad Hominem - Definition & Examples | Logical Fallacies


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> And explain why carbon-14 remains in coal?
> 
> 
> 
> Look it up yourself, you lazy dummy. Scientists have several explanations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I knew you couldn't do it when the pressure is on.
> 
> Anyway, you've committed the fallacy of ad hominem, but also of burden of proof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't think you know what ad hominem means. First of all, I did not make an argument. Second, I did not make an argument that rested in any way on pointing out that you are a lazy dummy. By the way, you are also ignorant.
> 
> Furthermore, you get an "F" for plagiarizing talkorigins.com.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fallacy of argument from repetition.
> 
> Ad Hominem - Definition & Examples | Logical Fallacies
Click to expand...

But i did not make an argument...you should really stop using terms you don't understand...


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> And explain why carbon-14 remains in coal?
> 
> 
> 
> Look it up yourself, you lazy dummy. Scientists have several explanations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I knew you couldn't do it when the pressure is on.
> 
> Anyway, you've committed the fallacy of ad hominem, but also of burden of proof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't think you know what ad hominem means. First of all, I did not make an argument. Second, I did not make an argument that rested in any way on pointing out that you are a lazy dummy. By the way, you are also ignorant.
> 
> Furthermore, you get an "F" for plagiarizing talkorigins.com.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fallacy of argument from repetition.
> 
> Ad Hominem - Definition & Examples | Logical Fallacies
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But i did not make an argument...you should really stop using terms you don't understand...
Click to expand...


That's the point.  You are too stupid to make an argument, so you continue to make assertions.

An assertion is what asshats say and then give no evidence to back it up.  An argument presents some kind of evidence, fact or logical reasoning to present a pov.

ETA:  You really should watch more attorney TV shows (LCD), read books about logical argument and attorney cases (better) _and_ actually go watch a jury trieal (best).  I followed _Making of a Murderer_ on Netflix and now am rewarded with a season 2 coming up.


----------



## Muhammed

Ima Cat said:


> I know there are similarities but I think they are coincidental, like cats and seals both have whiskers.  But cats didn't come from seals or vice a versa.


They also both have weak eyes.


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe I ever agreed to that. All I will say is, to get good results, the dating has to be done professionally by people that know what they are doing, and samples must be uncontaminated. And there are a number of dating techniques other than carbon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You see, the carbon still remains in these objects contaminating the object, so there's something wrong when you test with radioisotopes.  You assume that it's not there due to long-time, but it's still there.  If it's there, then one should not think radiometric dating would produce good results.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What are you testing for? What time range? What is the estimated age of the sample you are testing? What method are you using?
> 
> Be specific and stop babbling nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How old are the dinosaur bones found in the Gobi Desert?  Twenty-five theropod dinosaurs have been discovered along with 200 skulls of mammals.
> 
> Or how about the dinosaur bones found in Alberta, Canada?  There is a huge graveyard that stretches for hundreds of miles and holds innumerable dinosaurs bones.
> 
> Or in Agate Springs, Nebraska?  There is a fossil graveyard of around 9,000 animals found buried in alluvial deposits.
> 
> How old and how did they get there?
> 
> Please explain how carbon-14 remains in dinosaur bones?
> 
> Carbon-14 dating dinosaur bones
> 
> And explain why carbon-14 remains in coal?
> 
> Between 1984 and 1998, the atheist science literature reported carbon-14 in 70 samples that came from fossils, coal, oil, natural gas and marble representing the fossil-bearing portion of the geologic record of more than 500 years.  _All_ contained radiocarbon.
> 
> Show everyone how smart you are.  You can help from Fort Fun Indiana, BreezeWood  and others who claim superiority here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Answers to Creationist Attacks on Carbon-14 Dating
> 
> Answers are on the net
> 
> *Question:* A sample that is more than fifty thousand years old shouldn't have any measurable C-14. Coal, oil, and natural gas are supposed to be millions of years old; yet creationists say that some of them contain measurable amounts of C-14, enough to give them C-14 ages in the tens of thousands of years. How do you explain this?
> 
> *Answer:* Very simply. Radiocarbon dating doesn't work well on objects much older than twenty thousand years, because such objects have so little C-14 left that their beta radiation is swamped out by the background radiation of cosmic rays and potassium-40 (K-40) decay. Younger objects can easily be dated, because they still emit plenty of beta radiation, enough to be measured after the background radiation has been subtracted out of the total beta radiation. However, in either case, the background beta radiation has to be compensated for, and, in the older objects, the amount of C-14 they have left is less than the margin of error in measuring background radiation. As Hurley points out:
> 
> Without rather special developmental work, it is not generally practicable to measure ages in excess of about twenty thousand years, because the radioactivity of the carbon becomes so slight that it is difficult to get an accurate measurement above background radiation. (p. 108)
> 
> Cosmic rays form beta radiation all the time; this is the radiation that turns N-14 to C-14 in the first place. K-40 decay also forms plenty of beta radiation. Stearns, Carroll, and Clark point out that ". . . this isotope [K-40] accounts for a large part of the normal background radiation that can be detected on the earth's surface" (p. 84). This radiation cannot be totally eliminated from the laboratory, so one could probably get a "radiocarbon" date of fifty thousand years from a pure carbon-free piece of tin. However, you now know why this fact doesn't at all invalidate radiocarbon dates of objects younger than twenty thousand years and is certainly no evidence for the notion that coals and oils might be no older than fifty thousand years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> >>@Syriusly:  A sample that is more than fifty thousand years old shouldn't have any measurable C-14.<<
> 
> The answers are NOT on the net.  As usual, atheists are wrong.  It is circular reasoning.
Click to expand...


We can lead a christo-creation cultist to the facts- but I can't make you read the facts. 

You will instead of course embrace cristo-creation cultist falsehoods- because it is all a matter of faith to you. 

Answers to Creationist Attacks on Carbon-14 Dating

Answers are on the net

*Question:* A sample that is more than fifty thousand years old shouldn't have any measurable C-14. Coal, oil, and natural gas are supposed to be millions of years old; yet creationists say that some of them contain measurable amounts of C-14, enough to give them C-14 ages in the tens of thousands of years. How do you explain this?

*Answer:* Very simply. Radiocarbon dating doesn't work well on objects much older than twenty thousand years, because such objects have so little C-14 left that their beta radiation is swamped out by the background radiation of cosmic rays and potassium-40 (K-40) decay. Younger objects can easily be dated, because they still emit plenty of beta radiation, enough to be measured after the background radiation has been subtracted out of the total beta radiation. However, in either case, the background beta radiation has to be compensated for, and, in the older objects, the amount of C-14 they have left is less than the margin of error in measuring background radiation. As Hurley points out:

Without rather special developmental work, it is not generally practicable to measure ages in excess of about twenty thousand years, because the radioactivity of the carbon becomes so slight that it is difficult to get an accurate measurement above background radiation. (p. 108)

Cosmic rays form beta radiation all the time; this is the radiation that turns N-14 to C-14 in the first place. K-40 decay also forms plenty of beta radiation. Stearns, Carroll, and Clark point out that ". . . this isotope [K-40] accounts for a large part of the normal background radiation that can be detected on the earth's surface" (p. 84). This radiation cannot be totally eliminated from the laboratory, so one could probably get a "radiocarbon" date of fifty thousand years from a pure carbon-free piece of tin. However, you now know why this fact doesn't at all invalidate radiocarbon dates of objects younger than twenty thousand years and is certainly no evidence for the notion that coals and oils might be no older than fifty thousand years


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> And explain why carbon-14 remains in coal?
> 
> 
> 
> Look it up yourself, you lazy dummy. Scientists have several explanations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I knew you couldn't do it when the pressure is on.
> 
> Anyway, you've committed the fallacy of ad hominem, but also of burden of proof.  Bond wins again.  What's the score now, Fort Fun Indiana? 1,000,000 to zero?
Click to expand...


LOL how hilarious- since I did provide the answer- and you rejected it.

Bond fails again- oh right- all christo-creationists- still with a perfect score of zero.


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look it up yourself, you lazy dummy. Scientists have several explanations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I knew you couldn't do it when the pressure is on.
> 
> Anyway, you've committed the fallacy of ad hominem, but also of burden of proof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't think you know what ad hominem means. First of all, I did not make an argument. Second, I did not make an argument that rested in any way on pointing out that you are a lazy dummy. By the way, you are also ignorant.
> 
> Furthermore, you get an "F" for plagiarizing talkorigins.com.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fallacy of argument from repetition.
> 
> Ad Hominem - Definition & Examples | Logical Fallacies
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But i did not make an argument...you should really stop using terms you don't understand...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's the point.  You are too stupid to make an argument, so you continue to make assertions..
Click to expand...


And so you resort to ad hominem......I do enjoy your display of christo-creation cultist hypocrisy.


----------



## abu afak

Syriusly said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> You see, the carbon still remains in these objects contaminating the object, so there's something wrong when you test with radioisotopes.  You assume that it's not there due to long-time, but it's still there.  If it's there, then one should not think radiometric dating would produce good results.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What are you testing for? What time range? What is the estimated age of the sample you are testing? What method are you using?
> 
> Be specific and stop babbling nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How old are the dinosaur bones found in the Gobi Desert?  Twenty-five theropod dinosaurs have been discovered along with 200 skulls of mammals.
> 
> Or how about the dinosaur bones found in Alberta, Canada?  There is a huge graveyard that stretches for hundreds of miles and holds innumerable dinosaurs bones.
> 
> Or in Agate Springs, Nebraska?  There is a fossil graveyard of around 9,000 animals found buried in alluvial deposits.
> 
> How old and how did they get there?
> 
> Please explain how carbon-14 remains in dinosaur bones?
> 
> Carbon-14 dating dinosaur bones
> 
> And explain why carbon-14 remains in coal?
> 
> Between 1984 and 1998, the atheist science literature reported carbon-14 in 70 samples that came from fossils, coal, oil, natural gas and marble representing the fossil-bearing portion of the geologic record of more than 500 years.  _All_ contained radiocarbon.
> 
> Show everyone how smart you are.  You can help from Fort Fun Indiana, BreezeWood  and others who claim superiority here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Answers to Creationist Attacks on Carbon-14 Dating
> 
> Answers are on the net
> 
> *Question:* A sample that is more than fifty thousand years old shouldn't have any measurable C-14. Coal, oil, and natural gas are supposed to be millions of years old; yet creationists say that some of them contain measurable amounts of C-14, enough to give them C-14 ages in the tens of thousands of years. How do you explain this?
> 
> *Answer:* Very simply. Radiocarbon dating doesn't work well on objects much older than twenty thousand years, because such objects have so little C-14 left that their beta radiation is swamped out by the background radiation of cosmic rays and potassium-40 (K-40) decay. Younger objects can easily be dated, because they still emit plenty of beta radiation, enough to be measured after the background radiation has been subtracted out of the total beta radiation. However, in either case, the background beta radiation has to be compensated for, and, in the older objects, the amount of C-14 they have left is less than the margin of error in measuring background radiation. As Hurley points out:
> 
> Without rather special developmental work, it is not generally practicable to measure ages in excess of about twenty thousand years, because the radioactivity of the carbon becomes so slight that it is difficult to get an accurate measurement above background radiation. (p. 108)
> 
> Cosmic rays form beta radiation all the time; this is the radiation that turns N-14 to C-14 in the first place. K-40 decay also forms plenty of beta radiation. Stearns, Carroll, and Clark point out that ". . . this isotope [K-40] accounts for a large part of the normal background radiation that can be detected on the earth's surface" (p. 84). This radiation cannot be totally eliminated from the laboratory, so one could probably get a "radiocarbon" date of fifty thousand years from a pure carbon-free piece of tin. However, you now know why this fact doesn't at all invalidate radiocarbon dates of objects younger than twenty thousand years and is certainly no evidence for the notion that coals and oils might be no older than fifty thousand years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> >>@Syriusly:  A sample that is more than fifty thousand years old shouldn't have any measurable C-14.<<
> 
> The answers are NOT on the net.  As usual, atheists are wrong.  It is circular reasoning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We can lead a christo-creation cultist to the facts- but I can't make you read the facts.
> 
> You will instead of course embrace cristo-creation cultist falsehoods- because it is all a matter of faith to you.
> 
> Answers to Creationist Attacks on Carbon-14 Dating
> 
> Answers are on the net
> 
> *Question:* A sample that is more than fifty thousand years old shouldn't have any measurable C-14. Coal, oil, and natural gas are supposed to be millions of years old; yet creationists say that some of them contain measurable amounts of C-14, enough to give them C-14 ages in the tens of thousands of years. How do you explain this?
> 
> *Answer:* Very simply. Radiocarbon dating doesn't work well on objects much older than twenty thousand years, because such objects have so little C-14 left that their beta radiation is swamped out by the background radiation of cosmic rays and potassium-40 (K-40) decay. Younger objects can easily be dated, because they still emit plenty of beta radiation, enough to be measured after the background radiation has been subtracted out of the total beta radiation. However, in either case, the background beta radiation has to be compensated for, and, in the older objects, the amount of C-14 they have left is less than the margin of error in measuring background radiation. As Hurley points out:
> 
> Without rather special developmental work, it is not generally practicable to measure ages in excess of about twenty thousand years, because the radioactivity of the carbon becomes so slight that it is difficult to get an accurate measurement above background radiation. (p. 108)
> 
> Cosmic rays form beta radiation all the time; this is the radiation that turns N-14 to C-14 in the first place. K-40 decay also forms plenty of beta radiation. Stearns, Carroll, and Clark point out that ". . . this isotope [K-40] accounts for a large part of the normal background radiation that can be detected on the earth's surface" (p. 84). This radiation cannot be totally eliminated from the laboratory, so one could probably get a "radiocarbon" date of fifty thousand years from a pure carbon-free piece of tin. However, you now know why this fact doesn't at all invalidate radiocarbon dates of objects younger than twenty thousand years and is certainly no evidence for the notion that coals and oils might be no older than fifty thousand years
Click to expand...

And there are many other Decaying Isotopes to use for various age samples.

Radiometric dating - Wikipedia

2Modern dating methods
2.1Uranium–lead dating method
2.2 Samarium–neodymium dating method
2.3 Potassium–argon dating method
2.4 Rubidium–strontium dating method
2.5 Uranium–thorium dating method
2.6 Radiocarbon dating method
2.7 Fission track dating method
2.8 Chlorine-36 dating method
2.9 Luminescence dating methods
2.10 Other methods
.......

3Dating with decay products of short-lived extinct radionuclides
3.1 The 129I – 129Xe chronometer
3.2 The 26Al – 26Mg chronometer
`


----------



## Syriusly

abu afak said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> What are you testing for? What time range? What is the estimated age of the sample you are testing? What method are you using?
> 
> Be specific and stop babbling nonsense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How old are the dinosaur bones found in the Gobi Desert?  Twenty-five theropod dinosaurs have been discovered along with 200 skulls of mammals.
> 
> Or how about the dinosaur bones found in Alberta, Canada?  There is a huge graveyard that stretches for hundreds of miles and holds innumerable dinosaurs bones.
> 
> Or in Agate Springs, Nebraska?  There is a fossil graveyard of around 9,000 animals found buried in alluvial deposits.
> 
> How old and how did they get there?
> 
> Please explain how carbon-14 remains in dinosaur bones?
> 
> Carbon-14 dating dinosaur bones
> 
> And explain why carbon-14 remains in coal?
> 
> Between 1984 and 1998, the atheist science literature reported carbon-14 in 70 samples that came from fossils, coal, oil, natural gas and marble representing the fossil-bearing portion of the geologic record of more than 500 years.  _All_ contained radiocarbon.
> 
> Show everyone how smart you are.  You can help from Fort Fun Indiana, BreezeWood  and others who claim superiority here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Answers to Creationist Attacks on Carbon-14 Dating
> 
> Answers are on the net
> 
> *Question:* A sample that is more than fifty thousand years old shouldn't have any measurable C-14. Coal, oil, and natural gas are supposed to be millions of years old; yet creationists say that some of them contain measurable amounts of C-14, enough to give them C-14 ages in the tens of thousands of years. How do you explain this?
> 
> *Answer:* Very simply. Radiocarbon dating doesn't work well on objects much older than twenty thousand years, because such objects have so little C-14 left that their beta radiation is swamped out by the background radiation of cosmic rays and potassium-40 (K-40) decay. Younger objects can easily be dated, because they still emit plenty of beta radiation, enough to be measured after the background radiation has been subtracted out of the total beta radiation. However, in either case, the background beta radiation has to be compensated for, and, in the older objects, the amount of C-14 they have left is less than the margin of error in measuring background radiation. As Hurley points out:
> 
> Without rather special developmental work, it is not generally practicable to measure ages in excess of about twenty thousand years, because the radioactivity of the carbon becomes so slight that it is difficult to get an accurate measurement above background radiation. (p. 108)
> 
> Cosmic rays form beta radiation all the time; this is the radiation that turns N-14 to C-14 in the first place. K-40 decay also forms plenty of beta radiation. Stearns, Carroll, and Clark point out that ". . . this isotope [K-40] accounts for a large part of the normal background radiation that can be detected on the earth's surface" (p. 84). This radiation cannot be totally eliminated from the laboratory, so one could probably get a "radiocarbon" date of fifty thousand years from a pure carbon-free piece of tin. However, you now know why this fact doesn't at all invalidate radiocarbon dates of objects younger than twenty thousand years and is certainly no evidence for the notion that coals and oils might be no older than fifty thousand years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> >>@Syriusly:  A sample that is more than fifty thousand years old shouldn't have any measurable C-14.<<
> 
> The answers are NOT on the net.  As usual, atheists are wrong.  It is circular reasoning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We can lead a christo-creation cultist to the facts- but I can't make you read the facts.
> 
> You will instead of course embrace cristo-creation cultist falsehoods- because it is all a matter of faith to you.
> 
> Answers to Creationist Attacks on Carbon-14 Dating
> 
> Answers are on the net
> 
> *Question:* A sample that is more than fifty thousand years old shouldn't have any measurable C-14. Coal, oil, and natural gas are supposed to be millions of years old; yet creationists say that some of them contain measurable amounts of C-14, enough to give them C-14 ages in the tens of thousands of years. How do you explain this?
> 
> *Answer:* Very simply. Radiocarbon dating doesn't work well on objects much older than twenty thousand years, because such objects have so little C-14 left that their beta radiation is swamped out by the background radiation of cosmic rays and potassium-40 (K-40) decay. Younger objects can easily be dated, because they still emit plenty of beta radiation, enough to be measured after the background radiation has been subtracted out of the total beta radiation. However, in either case, the background beta radiation has to be compensated for, and, in the older objects, the amount of C-14 they have left is less than the margin of error in measuring background radiation. As Hurley points out:
> 
> Without rather special developmental work, it is not generally practicable to measure ages in excess of about twenty thousand years, because the radioactivity of the carbon becomes so slight that it is difficult to get an accurate measurement above background radiation. (p. 108)
> 
> Cosmic rays form beta radiation all the time; this is the radiation that turns N-14 to C-14 in the first place. K-40 decay also forms plenty of beta radiation. Stearns, Carroll, and Clark point out that ". . . this isotope [K-40] accounts for a large part of the normal background radiation that can be detected on the earth's surface" (p. 84). This radiation cannot be totally eliminated from the laboratory, so one could probably get a "radiocarbon" date of fifty thousand years from a pure carbon-free piece of tin. However, you now know why this fact doesn't at all invalidate radiocarbon dates of objects younger than twenty thousand years and is certainly no evidence for the notion that coals and oils might be no older than fifty thousand years
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And there are many other Decaying Isotopes to use for various age samples.
> 
> Radiometric dating - Wikipedia
> 
> 2Modern dating methods
> 2.1Uranium–lead dating method
> 2.2 Samarium–neodymium dating method
> 2.3 Potassium–argon dating method
> 2.4 Rubidium–strontium dating method
> 2.5 Uranium–thorium dating method
> 2.6 Radiocarbon dating method
> 2.7 Fission track dating method
> 2.8 Chlorine-36 dating method
> 2.9 Luminescence dating methods
> 2.10 Other methods
> .......
> 
> 3Dating with decay products of short-lived extinct radionuclides
> 3.1 The 129I – 129Xe chronometer
> 3.2 The 26Al – 26Mg chronometer
> `
Click to expand...


Of course but the christo-creationists will always whine 'but carbon 14!'


----------



## james bond

abu afak said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> What are you testing for? What time range? What is the estimated age of the sample you are testing? What method are you using?
> 
> Be specific and stop babbling nonsense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How old are the dinosaur bones found in the Gobi Desert?  Twenty-five theropod dinosaurs have been discovered along with 200 skulls of mammals.
> 
> Or how about the dinosaur bones found in Alberta, Canada?  There is a huge graveyard that stretches for hundreds of miles and holds innumerable dinosaurs bones.
> 
> Or in Agate Springs, Nebraska?  There is a fossil graveyard of around 9,000 animals found buried in alluvial deposits.
> 
> How old and how did they get there?
> 
> Please explain how carbon-14 remains in dinosaur bones?
> 
> Carbon-14 dating dinosaur bones
> 
> And explain why carbon-14 remains in coal?
> 
> Between 1984 and 1998, the atheist science literature reported carbon-14 in 70 samples that came from fossils, coal, oil, natural gas and marble representing the fossil-bearing portion of the geologic record of more than 500 years.  _All_ contained radiocarbon.
> 
> Show everyone how smart you are.  You can help from Fort Fun Indiana, BreezeWood  and others who claim superiority here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Answers to Creationist Attacks on Carbon-14 Dating
> 
> Answers are on the net
> 
> *Question:* A sample that is more than fifty thousand years old shouldn't have any measurable C-14. Coal, oil, and natural gas are supposed to be millions of years old; yet creationists say that some of them contain measurable amounts of C-14, enough to give them C-14 ages in the tens of thousands of years. How do you explain this?
> 
> *Answer:* Very simply. Radiocarbon dating doesn't work well on objects much older than twenty thousand years, because such objects have so little C-14 left that their beta radiation is swamped out by the background radiation of cosmic rays and potassium-40 (K-40) decay. Younger objects can easily be dated, because they still emit plenty of beta radiation, enough to be measured after the background radiation has been subtracted out of the total beta radiation. However, in either case, the background beta radiation has to be compensated for, and, in the older objects, the amount of C-14 they have left is less than the margin of error in measuring background radiation. As Hurley points out:
> 
> Without rather special developmental work, it is not generally practicable to measure ages in excess of about twenty thousand years, because the radioactivity of the carbon becomes so slight that it is difficult to get an accurate measurement above background radiation. (p. 108)
> 
> Cosmic rays form beta radiation all the time; this is the radiation that turns N-14 to C-14 in the first place. K-40 decay also forms plenty of beta radiation. Stearns, Carroll, and Clark point out that ". . . this isotope [K-40] accounts for a large part of the normal background radiation that can be detected on the earth's surface" (p. 84). This radiation cannot be totally eliminated from the laboratory, so one could probably get a "radiocarbon" date of fifty thousand years from a pure carbon-free piece of tin. However, you now know why this fact doesn't at all invalidate radiocarbon dates of objects younger than twenty thousand years and is certainly no evidence for the notion that coals and oils might be no older than fifty thousand years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> >>@Syriusly:  A sample that is more than fifty thousand years old shouldn't have any measurable C-14.<<
> 
> The answers are NOT on the net.  As usual, atheists are wrong.  It is circular reasoning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We can lead a christo-creation cultist to the facts- but I can't make you read the facts.
> 
> You will instead of course embrace cristo-creation cultist falsehoods- because it is all a matter of faith to you.
> 
> Answers to Creationist Attacks on Carbon-14 Dating
> 
> Answers are on the net
> 
> *Question:* A sample that is more than fifty thousand years old shouldn't have any measurable C-14. Coal, oil, and natural gas are supposed to be millions of years old; yet creationists say that some of them contain measurable amounts of C-14, enough to give them C-14 ages in the tens of thousands of years. How do you explain this?
> 
> *Answer:* Very simply. Radiocarbon dating doesn't work well on objects much older than twenty thousand years, because such objects have so little C-14 left that their beta radiation is swamped out by the background radiation of cosmic rays and potassium-40 (K-40) decay. Younger objects can easily be dated, because they still emit plenty of beta radiation, enough to be measured after the background radiation has been subtracted out of the total beta radiation. However, in either case, the background beta radiation has to be compensated for, and, in the older objects, the amount of C-14 they have left is less than the margin of error in measuring background radiation. As Hurley points out:
> 
> Without rather special developmental work, it is not generally practicable to measure ages in excess of about twenty thousand years, because the radioactivity of the carbon becomes so slight that it is difficult to get an accurate measurement above background radiation. (p. 108)
> 
> Cosmic rays form beta radiation all the time; this is the radiation that turns N-14 to C-14 in the first place. K-40 decay also forms plenty of beta radiation. Stearns, Carroll, and Clark point out that ". . . this isotope [K-40] accounts for a large part of the normal background radiation that can be detected on the earth's surface" (p. 84). This radiation cannot be totally eliminated from the laboratory, so one could probably get a "radiocarbon" date of fifty thousand years from a pure carbon-free piece of tin. However, you now know why this fact doesn't at all invalidate radiocarbon dates of objects younger than twenty thousand years and is certainly no evidence for the notion that coals and oils might be no older than fifty thousand years
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And there are many other Decaying Isotopes to use for various age samples.
> 
> Radiometric dating - Wikipedia
> 
> 2Modern dating methods
> 2.1Uranium–lead dating method
> 2.2 Samarium–neodymium dating method
> 2.3 Potassium–argon dating method
> 2.4 Rubidium–strontium dating method
> 2.5 Uranium–thorium dating method
> 2.6 Radiocarbon dating method
> 2.7 Fission track dating method
> 2.8 Chlorine-36 dating method
> 2.9 Luminescence dating methods
> 2.10 Other methods
> .......
> 
> 3Dating with decay products of short-lived extinct radionuclides
> 3.1 The 129I – 129Xe chronometer
> 3.2 The 26Al – 26Mg chronometer
> `
Click to expand...


Yes, there are but you neglected to ack that one has to make assumption of parent to daughter isotope ratios, and that decay is CONSTANT.  The different isotopes are for different conditions.  Even then, one can't do it directly on a fossil.  AFAIK, it's done on samples from sandwiching layers.  And once they get their measurement, then what do they do?  They compare it to a known sample based on charts wihci they have drawn up.  If you KNEW what the parent daughter ratio was when the object was formed and that decay is constant, then I would have to agree with the method.  Yet, we find carbon-14 left in coal and diamonds.  We find carbon-14 left in dinosaur fossils.  We find it left in rock samples so old that it should have decayed away.  The secular scientists do no adhere to the foundations of scientific methodology when they have to refer to a chart they made up based on "assumptions."


----------



## james bond

Syriusly said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> How old are the dinosaur bones found in the Gobi Desert?  Twenty-five theropod dinosaurs have been discovered along with 200 skulls of mammals.
> 
> Or how about the dinosaur bones found in Alberta, Canada?  There is a huge graveyard that stretches for hundreds of miles and holds innumerable dinosaurs bones.
> 
> Or in Agate Springs, Nebraska?  There is a fossil graveyard of around 9,000 animals found buried in alluvial deposits.
> 
> How old and how did they get there?
> 
> Please explain how carbon-14 remains in dinosaur bones?
> 
> Carbon-14 dating dinosaur bones
> 
> And explain why carbon-14 remains in coal?
> 
> Between 1984 and 1998, the atheist science literature reported carbon-14 in 70 samples that came from fossils, coal, oil, natural gas and marble representing the fossil-bearing portion of the geologic record of more than 500 years.  _All_ contained radiocarbon.
> 
> Show everyone how smart you are.  You can help from Fort Fun Indiana, BreezeWood  and others who claim superiority here.
> 
> 
> 
> Answers to Creationist Attacks on Carbon-14 Dating
> 
> Answers are on the net
> 
> *Question:* A sample that is more than fifty thousand years old shouldn't have any measurable C-14. Coal, oil, and natural gas are supposed to be millions of years old; yet creationists say that some of them contain measurable amounts of C-14, enough to give them C-14 ages in the tens of thousands of years. How do you explain this?
> 
> *Answer:* Very simply. Radiocarbon dating doesn't work well on objects much older than twenty thousand years, because such objects have so little C-14 left that their beta radiation is swamped out by the background radiation of cosmic rays and potassium-40 (K-40) decay. Younger objects can easily be dated, because they still emit plenty of beta radiation, enough to be measured after the background radiation has been subtracted out of the total beta radiation. However, in either case, the background beta radiation has to be compensated for, and, in the older objects, the amount of C-14 they have left is less than the margin of error in measuring background radiation. As Hurley points out:
> 
> Without rather special developmental work, it is not generally practicable to measure ages in excess of about twenty thousand years, because the radioactivity of the carbon becomes so slight that it is difficult to get an accurate measurement above background radiation. (p. 108)
> 
> Cosmic rays form beta radiation all the time; this is the radiation that turns N-14 to C-14 in the first place. K-40 decay also forms plenty of beta radiation. Stearns, Carroll, and Clark point out that ". . . this isotope [K-40] accounts for a large part of the normal background radiation that can be detected on the earth's surface" (p. 84). This radiation cannot be totally eliminated from the laboratory, so one could probably get a "radiocarbon" date of fifty thousand years from a pure carbon-free piece of tin. However, you now know why this fact doesn't at all invalidate radiocarbon dates of objects younger than twenty thousand years and is certainly no evidence for the notion that coals and oils might be no older than fifty thousand years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> >>@Syriusly:  A sample that is more than fifty thousand years old shouldn't have any measurable C-14.<<
> 
> The answers are NOT on the net.  As usual, atheists are wrong.  It is circular reasoning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We can lead a christo-creation cultist to the facts- but I can't make you read the facts.
> 
> You will instead of course embrace cristo-creation cultist falsehoods- because it is all a matter of faith to you.
> 
> Answers to Creationist Attacks on Carbon-14 Dating
> 
> Answers are on the net
> 
> *Question:* A sample that is more than fifty thousand years old shouldn't have any measurable C-14. Coal, oil, and natural gas are supposed to be millions of years old; yet creationists say that some of them contain measurable amounts of C-14, enough to give them C-14 ages in the tens of thousands of years. How do you explain this?
> 
> *Answer:* Very simply. Radiocarbon dating doesn't work well on objects much older than twenty thousand years, because such objects have so little C-14 left that their beta radiation is swamped out by the background radiation of cosmic rays and potassium-40 (K-40) decay. Younger objects can easily be dated, because they still emit plenty of beta radiation, enough to be measured after the background radiation has been subtracted out of the total beta radiation. However, in either case, the background beta radiation has to be compensated for, and, in the older objects, the amount of C-14 they have left is less than the margin of error in measuring background radiation. As Hurley points out:
> 
> Without rather special developmental work, it is not generally practicable to measure ages in excess of about twenty thousand years, because the radioactivity of the carbon becomes so slight that it is difficult to get an accurate measurement above background radiation. (p. 108)
> 
> Cosmic rays form beta radiation all the time; this is the radiation that turns N-14 to C-14 in the first place. K-40 decay also forms plenty of beta radiation. Stearns, Carroll, and Clark point out that ". . . this isotope [K-40] accounts for a large part of the normal background radiation that can be detected on the earth's surface" (p. 84). This radiation cannot be totally eliminated from the laboratory, so one could probably get a "radiocarbon" date of fifty thousand years from a pure carbon-free piece of tin. However, you now know why this fact doesn't at all invalidate radiocarbon dates of objects younger than twenty thousand years and is certainly no evidence for the notion that coals and oils might be no older than fifty thousand years
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And there are many other Decaying Isotopes to use for various age samples.
> 
> Radiometric dating - Wikipedia
> 
> 2Modern dating methods
> 2.1Uranium–lead dating method
> 2.2 Samarium–neodymium dating method
> 2.3 Potassium–argon dating method
> 2.4 Rubidium–strontium dating method
> 2.5 Uranium–thorium dating method
> 2.6 Radiocarbon dating method
> 2.7 Fission track dating method
> 2.8 Chlorine-36 dating method
> 2.9 Luminescence dating methods
> 2.10 Other methods
> .......
> 
> 3Dating with decay products of short-lived extinct radionuclides
> 3.1 The 129I – 129Xe chronometer
> 3.2 The 26Al – 26Mg chronometer
> `
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course but the christo-creationists will always whine 'but carbon 14!'
Click to expand...


Why do you accept what he posted?  He just discussed different techniques for dating.  It doesn't mean they're true nor the methodology based on their assumptions is correct.  It could be wildly incorrect.  Which method can one use to date rocks that have been underwater for years?  What method does one use to date objects/fossils in sedimentary layers?

YOU HAVE NO ANSWERS!!!


----------



## sealybobo

Ima Cat said:


> I know there are similarities but I think they are coincidental, like cats and seals both have whiskers.  But cats didn't come from seals or vice a versa.


Actually seals are more closely related to dogs than they are cats


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

sealybobo said:


> Actually seals are more closely related to dogs than they are cats


Correct! Their lineages split about 50 million years ago.


----------



## sealybobo

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually seals are more closely related to dogs than they are cats
> 
> 
> 
> Correct! Their lineages split about 50 million years ago.
Click to expand...

One stayed in the water and one didn’t.

It’s a common mistake theists make when they mock science.


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Answers to Creationist Attacks on Carbon-14 Dating
> 
> Answers are on the net
> 
> *Question:* A sample that is more than fifty thousand years old shouldn't have any measurable C-14. Coal, oil, and natural gas are supposed to be millions of years old; yet creationists say that some of them contain measurable amounts of C-14, enough to give them C-14 ages in the tens of thousands of years. How do you explain this?
> 
> *Answer:* Very simply. Radiocarbon dating doesn't work well on objects much older than twenty thousand years, because such objects have so little C-14 left that their beta radiation is swamped out by the background radiation of cosmic rays and potassium-40 (K-40) decay. Younger objects can easily be dated, because they still emit plenty of beta radiation, enough to be measured after the background radiation has been subtracted out of the total beta radiation. However, in either case, the background beta radiation has to be compensated for, and, in the older objects, the amount of C-14 they have left is less than the margin of error in measuring background radiation. As Hurley points out:
> 
> Without rather special developmental work, it is not generally practicable to measure ages in excess of about twenty thousand years, because the radioactivity of the carbon becomes so slight that it is difficult to get an accurate measurement above background radiation. (p. 108)
> 
> Cosmic rays form beta radiation all the time; this is the radiation that turns N-14 to C-14 in the first place. K-40 decay also forms plenty of beta radiation. Stearns, Carroll, and Clark point out that ". . . this isotope [K-40] accounts for a large part of the normal background radiation that can be detected on the earth's surface" (p. 84). This radiation cannot be totally eliminated from the laboratory, so one could probably get a "radiocarbon" date of fifty thousand years from a pure carbon-free piece of tin. However, you now know why this fact doesn't at all invalidate radiocarbon dates of objects younger than twenty thousand years and is certainly no evidence for the notion that coals and oils might be no older than fifty thousand years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >>@Syriusly:  A sample that is more than fifty thousand years old shouldn't have any measurable C-14.<<
> 
> The answers are NOT on the net.  As usual, atheists are wrong.  It is circular reasoning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We can lead a christo-creation cultist to the facts- but I can't make you read the facts.
> 
> You will instead of course embrace cristo-creation cultist falsehoods- because it is all a matter of faith to you.
> 
> Answers to Creationist Attacks on Carbon-14 Dating
> 
> Answers are on the net
> 
> *Question:* A sample that is more than fifty thousand years old shouldn't have any measurable C-14. Coal, oil, and natural gas are supposed to be millions of years old; yet creationists say that some of them contain measurable amounts of C-14, enough to give them C-14 ages in the tens of thousands of years. How do you explain this?
> 
> *Answer:* Very simply. Radiocarbon dating doesn't work well on objects much older than twenty thousand years, because such objects have so little C-14 left that their beta radiation is swamped out by the background radiation of cosmic rays and potassium-40 (K-40) decay. Younger objects can easily be dated, because they still emit plenty of beta radiation, enough to be measured after the background radiation has been subtracted out of the total beta radiation. However, in either case, the background beta radiation has to be compensated for, and, in the older objects, the amount of C-14 they have left is less than the margin of error in measuring background radiation. As Hurley points out:
> 
> Without rather special developmental work, it is not generally practicable to measure ages in excess of about twenty thousand years, because the radioactivity of the carbon becomes so slight that it is difficult to get an accurate measurement above background radiation. (p. 108)
> 
> Cosmic rays form beta radiation all the time; this is the radiation that turns N-14 to C-14 in the first place. K-40 decay also forms plenty of beta radiation. Stearns, Carroll, and Clark point out that ". . . this isotope [K-40] accounts for a large part of the normal background radiation that can be detected on the earth's surface" (p. 84). This radiation cannot be totally eliminated from the laboratory, so one could probably get a "radiocarbon" date of fifty thousand years from a pure carbon-free piece of tin. However, you now know why this fact doesn't at all invalidate radiocarbon dates of objects younger than twenty thousand years and is certainly no evidence for the notion that coals and oils might be no older than fifty thousand years
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And there are many other Decaying Isotopes to use for various age samples.
> 
> Radiometric dating - Wikipedia
> 
> 2Modern dating methods
> 2.1Uranium–lead dating method
> 2.2 Samarium–neodymium dating method
> 2.3 Potassium–argon dating method
> 2.4 Rubidium–strontium dating method
> 2.5 Uranium–thorium dating method
> 2.6 Radiocarbon dating method
> 2.7 Fission track dating method
> 2.8 Chlorine-36 dating method
> 2.9 Luminescence dating methods
> 2.10 Other methods
> .......
> 
> 3Dating with decay products of short-lived extinct radionuclides
> 3.1 The 129I – 129Xe chronometer
> 3.2 The 26Al – 26Mg chronometer
> `
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course but the christo-creationists will always whine 'but carbon 14!'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you accept what he posted?  He just discussed different techniques for dating.  It doesn't mean they're true nor the methodology based on their assumptions is correct.  It could be wildly incorrect.  Which method can one use to date rocks that have been underwater for years?  What method does one use to date objects/fossils in sedimentary layers?
> 
> YOU HAVE NO ANSWERS!!!
Click to expand...


You have only answers you find in your big book of fairy tales. 

Have you been to your Ark museum yet- to see the dinosaurs that were on Noah's Ark?


----------



## Big Black Dog

I’m a child of God.  I was made in His image.  However, I do believe my wife evolved from a monkey.


----------



## Rambunctious

If we evolved from monkeys why are there still monkeys?????


----------



## ChesBayJJ

Rambunctious said:


> If we evolved from monkeys why are there still monkeys?????



If evolution is real why are there still monkeys?  › Ask an Expert (ABC Science)

Why There Still Are Monkeys: Lessons Learned From Teaching Evolution In Kansas – The Evolution Institute

Evolution: Frequently Asked Questions

Read and learn, doofus


----------



## Syriusly

Rambunctious said:


> If we evolved from monkeys why are there still monkeys?????



Why do you think that we evolved from monkeys?


----------



## Rambunctious

Syriusly said:


> Why do you think that we evolved from monkeys?


I don't....


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Rambunctious said:


> If we evolved from monkeys why are there still monkeys?????


My eight-year-old asked me that once. I explained it to her. Now she understands.


----------



## Rambunctious

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> My eight-year-old asked me that once. I explained it to her. Now she understands


8 year olds are gullible by nature.....


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Rambunctious said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> My eight-year-old asked me that once. I explained it to her. Now she understands
> 
> 
> 
> 8 year olds are gullible by nature.....
Click to expand...

But lifelong scientists are not. And all of them and many 8 year olds grasp a concept that you don't.


----------



## Rambunctious

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> But lifelong scientists are not. And all of them and many 8 year olds grasp a concept that you don't


So you think you and your family evolved from monkeys? Fine knock yourself out....my family did not...


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Rambunctious said:


> So you think you and your family evolved from monkeys?


No, and neither do scientists. But it is indeed a fact that chimps and humans share a common ancestor that lived about 7 million years ago.


----------



## Rambunctious

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> No, and neither do scientists. But it is indeed a fact that chimps and humans share a common ancestor that lived about 7 million years ago


When you find the missing link you be sure to let me know....okay? 
This sin't 1980....we have the technology to search the planet like we never have before and still no Sasquatch....


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Rambunctious said:


> When you find the missing link you be sure to let me know....okay?


Your statement belies a deep ignorance of the theory of evolution. There have been  found several "missing links" between this most recent common ancestor and modern  humans. Nobody with knowledge of evolution would make such a silly statement. Given your apparently vast ignorance of this material, I suggest you start with a very basic, beginner's primer.


----------



## Rambunctious

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Your statement belies a deep ignorance of the theory of evolution. There have been found several "missing links" between this most recent common ancestor and modern humans. Nobody with knowledge of evolution would make such a silly statement. Given your apparently vast ignorance of this material, I suggest you start with a very basic, beginner's primer


That's ridiculous nonsense....


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Rambunctious said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your statement belies a deep ignorance of the theory of evolution. There have been found several "missing links" between this most recent common ancestor and modern humans. Nobody with knowledge of evolution would make such a silly statement. Given your apparently vast ignorance of this material, I suggest you start with a very basic, beginner's primer
> 
> 
> 
> That's ridiculous nonsense....
Click to expand...

Which part? Use your big boy words.


----------



## Rambunctious

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Which part? Use your big boy words


Your whole post....if we evolved from monkeys we would have found the evidence by now....its more likely we came from another planet than evolved from monkeys....nonsense!!!! Like I said when you find the missing link call me....until then stop lying and misleading your kin.....


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Rambunctious said:


> if we evolved from monkeys we would have found the evidence by now..


Again, we did not evolve from monkeys. But we did evolve from primates, and we have found mountains of evidence of this. You confuse your abject ignorance of the existence of this evidence with the idea that none has been found.

And again, we have found several species linking modern humans to this most recent common ancestor. And -- get this -- we have found fossils linking that common ancestor to its most recent common ancestor  with other orders of mammals.


----------



## james bond

ChesBayJJ said:


> Rambunctious said:
> 
> 
> 
> If we evolved from monkeys why are there still monkeys?????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If evolution is real why are there still monkeys?  › Ask an Expert (ABC Science)
> 
> Why There Still Are Monkeys: Lessons Learned From Teaching Evolution In Kansas – The Evolution Institute
> 
> Evolution: Frequently Asked Questions
> 
> Read and learn, doofus
Click to expand...


LOL.  The so called expert is using circular logic.  There is no common ancestor because monkeys and humans cannot mate.  We do not observe any common ancestor today.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Again, we did not evolve from monkeys.



There you go.  Ha ha.


----------



## james bond

sealybobo said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually seals are more closely related to dogs than they are cats
> 
> 
> 
> Correct! Their lineages split about 50 million years ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One stayed in the water and one didn’t.
> 
> It’s a common mistake theists make when they mock science.
Click to expand...


Lineages cannot just split.  They can only produce a new species by reproduction.  This is observable science.


----------



## james bond

Syriusly said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> >>@Syriusly:  A sample that is more than fifty thousand years old shouldn't have any measurable C-14.<<
> 
> The answers are NOT on the net.  As usual, atheists are wrong.  It is circular reasoning.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We can lead a christo-creation cultist to the facts- but I can't make you read the facts.
> 
> You will instead of course embrace cristo-creation cultist falsehoods- because it is all a matter of faith to you.
> 
> Answers to Creationist Attacks on Carbon-14 Dating
> 
> Answers are on the net
> 
> *Question:* A sample that is more than fifty thousand years old shouldn't have any measurable C-14. Coal, oil, and natural gas are supposed to be millions of years old; yet creationists say that some of them contain measurable amounts of C-14, enough to give them C-14 ages in the tens of thousands of years. How do you explain this?
> 
> *Answer:* Very simply. Radiocarbon dating doesn't work well on objects much older than twenty thousand years, because such objects have so little C-14 left that their beta radiation is swamped out by the background radiation of cosmic rays and potassium-40 (K-40) decay. Younger objects can easily be dated, because they still emit plenty of beta radiation, enough to be measured after the background radiation has been subtracted out of the total beta radiation. However, in either case, the background beta radiation has to be compensated for, and, in the older objects, the amount of C-14 they have left is less than the margin of error in measuring background radiation. As Hurley points out:
> 
> Without rather special developmental work, it is not generally practicable to measure ages in excess of about twenty thousand years, because the radioactivity of the carbon becomes so slight that it is difficult to get an accurate measurement above background radiation. (p. 108)
> 
> Cosmic rays form beta radiation all the time; this is the radiation that turns N-14 to C-14 in the first place. K-40 decay also forms plenty of beta radiation. Stearns, Carroll, and Clark point out that ". . . this isotope [K-40] accounts for a large part of the normal background radiation that can be detected on the earth's surface" (p. 84). This radiation cannot be totally eliminated from the laboratory, so one could probably get a "radiocarbon" date of fifty thousand years from a pure carbon-free piece of tin. However, you now know why this fact doesn't at all invalidate radiocarbon dates of objects younger than twenty thousand years and is certainly no evidence for the notion that coals and oils might be no older than fifty thousand years
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And there are many other Decaying Isotopes to use for various age samples.
> 
> Radiometric dating - Wikipedia
> 
> 2Modern dating methods
> 2.1Uranium–lead dating method
> 2.2 Samarium–neodymium dating method
> 2.3 Potassium–argon dating method
> 2.4 Rubidium–strontium dating method
> 2.5 Uranium–thorium dating method
> 2.6 Radiocarbon dating method
> 2.7 Fission track dating method
> 2.8 Chlorine-36 dating method
> 2.9 Luminescence dating methods
> 2.10 Other methods
> .......
> 
> 3Dating with decay products of short-lived extinct radionuclides
> 3.1 The 129I – 129Xe chronometer
> 3.2 The 26Al – 26Mg chronometer
> `
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course but the christo-creationists will always whine 'but carbon 14!'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you accept what he posted?  He just discussed different techniques for dating.  It doesn't mean they're true nor the methodology based on their assumptions is correct.  It could be wildly incorrect.  Which method can one use to date rocks that have been underwater for years?  What method does one use to date objects/fossils in sedimentary layers?
> 
> YOU HAVE NO ANSWERS!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have only answers you find in your big book of fairy tales.
> 
> Have you been to your Ark museum yet- to see the dinosaurs that were on Noah's Ark?
Click to expand...


I was correct in that you have no answers.  As for C-14, "On 14C in coal, in 2003, scientists obtained some coal samples from the US Department of Energy and carefully stored in its Coal Sample Bank. The coal samples were tested and 14C was detected in them indicating that these coal sample are not millions of years old."


----------



## james bond

The lowdown to the intrinsic C14 remaining in coal, oil and diamonds has not been explained by contamination or other hypothesis.

"*RATE Carbon 14 Study Withstands Scrutiny*


_“… Baumgardner’s coal samples do show significant radiocarbon above background, inviting explanation.” _–Dr. Kirk Bertsche, AMS Expert  At left: Accelerator mass spectrometer (AMS) at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (From Wikipedia)

The RATE team from Institute for Creation Research has produced some very interesting physical evidence for a young earth … one of their experiments involves measuring Carbon 14 in coal.  To make a long story short, there shouldn’t be any Carbon 14 in coal that is supposedly 300 million years old.  BUT … there is and Dr. Baumgardner and his colleagues were alert enough to notice.   Link here to Dr. Baumgardner’s paper.  Paul Giem of GRISDA did a literature survey of studies in which “too much” carbon 14 was found.  This prompted the RATE team to do their own experiment and sure enough … they found carbon 14 which was significantly above background.  Dr. Baumgardner argues that the C14 is intrinsic but of course Old Earthers say it’s not.  What are the Old Earth explanations?   Dr. Bertsche in his article at Talk Origins has suggested mobile humic acids, microbial growth and neutron bombardment.  Kathleen Hunt in her article at Talk Origins says …

The short version: the 14C in coal is probably produced de novo by radioactive decay of the uranium-thorium isotope series that is naturally found in rocks (and which is found in varying concentrations in different rocks, hence the variation in 14C content in different coals). Research is ongoing at this very moment.

(The fungi/bacteria hypothesis [that 14C in coal is produced by modern microorganisms currently living there --Ed.] may also be plausible, but would probably only contribute to inflation of 14C values if coal sits in warm damp conditions exposed to ambient air. [It wasn't -- read Baumgardner's paper on how the samples were handled] There is also growing evidence that bacteria are widespread in deep rocks, but it is not clear that they could contribute to 14C levels. But they may contribute to 13C.)

…

So, it looks like in-situ production of new 14C is the best-supported hypothesis;

So this appears to be the leading Old Earth Hypothesis but Dr. Bertsche failed to mention in his article that Dr. Baumgardner had already thought of this hypothesis and had calculated the amount of Carbon 14 this would produce.  His calculations showed that the amount of C14 produced would be 4 orders of magnitude too small.  I challenged people at the Talk Rational forum to show that Dr. Baumgardner’s calculations are wrong and several people tried including Dr. Bertsche.  Here is what he wrote recently …

_“When I do the above [calculations on neutron bombardment of 14N to produce 14C in coal] on the back of an envelope, I get a 14C abundance that is too low by about 3 orders of magnitude. LINK HERE.“_

So the two are very close.  Dr. Bertsche has come back today (6/1/10) saying that this is not conclusive and “in situ” contamination is not ruled out.  That’s fine, Dr. Bertsche, if you think it’s not conclusive … you are welcome to keep trying with the calculations.  As for “in situ” contamination, don’t you think your friend Dr. Gove has considered those other sources of contamination?  Why else would he think that in-situ production of new 14C is the best-supported hypothesis?  If Old Earthers would stop ignoring the Elephant in the Living Room — the Global Flood, SOOO many things would be easier to explain … like the bazillions of fossils all over the world which require rapid burial to be preserved, like global sedimentary rock layers, the short history of civilization, legends of a global flood from around the world and so on.  Oh … and Carbon 14 in coal that shouldn’t be there."

TRUTH MATTERS » Blog Archive  » RATE Carbon 14 Study Withstands Scrutiny

And not just in coal, but oild and diamonds, too.

I'll file it under more stuff evos can't explain.


----------



## RWS

Just to clarify, people like bond think that our argument for evolution is that we evolved from monkeys.

He doesn't understand the common ancestor concept. He thinks we argue that we came from monkeys.

And no matter how much you try, you won't convince him. He's totally into his brainwashed religious mantra, and uses false science and links to prove it.

Better to ask philosophical questions. Like... "Does God let us into Heaven if we don't believe?"

And "Which God do we need to believe in?"

Stuff like that...


----------



## ChesBayJJ

james bond said:


> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rambunctious said:
> 
> 
> 
> If we evolved from monkeys why are there still monkeys?????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If evolution is real why are there still monkeys?  › Ask an Expert (ABC Science)
> 
> Why There Still Are Monkeys: Lessons Learned From Teaching Evolution In Kansas – The Evolution Institute
> 
> Evolution: Frequently Asked Questions
> 
> Read and learn, doofus
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL.  The so called expert is using circular logic.  There is no common ancestor because monkeys and humans cannot mate.  We do not observe any common ancestor today.
Click to expand...


You clearly don't understand the concept of speciation and how evolution works.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, we did not evolve from monkeys.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There you go.  Ha ha.
Click to expand...

Laugh it up....youre the one getting laughed out of the middle school classroom...


----------



## james bond

ChesBayJJ said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rambunctious said:
> 
> 
> 
> If we evolved from monkeys why are there still monkeys?????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If evolution is real why are there still monkeys?  › Ask an Expert (ABC Science)
> 
> Why There Still Are Monkeys: Lessons Learned From Teaching Evolution In Kansas – The Evolution Institute
> 
> Evolution: Frequently Asked Questions
> 
> Read and learn, doofus
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL.  The so called expert is using circular logic.  There is no common ancestor because monkeys and humans cannot mate.  We do not observe any common ancestor today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You clearly don't understand the concept of speciation and how evolution works.
Click to expand...


First, you couldn't explain how it works in your own words which means you did not understand.  I understand speciation, which is how natural selection works, but that answer is mythology.  If we take one step back, then ask why aren't there common ancestors?  No amount of _sexual _reproduction produces sustainable ape-humans.  Speaking of which, you can't even explain how sexual reproduction _evolved_.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, we did not evolve from monkeys.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There you go.  Ha ha.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Laugh it up....youre the one getting laughed out of the middle school classroom...
Click to expand...


Tell us more about your background and what happened in middle school and how your education ended there lol lol lol.


----------



## fncceo

james bond said:


> No amount of _sexual _reproduction produces sustainable ape-humans.



I beg to differ...


----------



## dave p

Ima Cat said:


> I know there are similarities but I think they are coincidental, like cats and seals both have whiskers.  But cats didn't come from seals or vice a versa.


I’m pretty sure liberals did.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, we did not evolve from monkeys.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There you go.  Ha ha.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Laugh it up....youre the one getting laughed out of the middle school classroom...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell us more about your background and what happened in middle school and how your education ended there lol lol lol.
Click to expand...

Says the guy copy pasting things he doesn't understand, and saying things at odds with what is now common knowledge for 9 years olds...damn son, you are embarrassing yourself...


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, we did not evolve from monkeys.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There you go.  Ha ha.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Laugh it up....youre the one getting laughed out of the middle school classroom...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell us more about your background and what happened in middle school and how your education ended there lol lol lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says the guy copy pasting things he doesn't understand, and saying things at odds with what is now common knowledge for 9 years olds...damn son, you are embarrassing yourself...
Click to expand...


Of course, I understand.  There are no ape humans or common relative just like there are none now.


----------



## james bond

fncceo said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> No amount of _sexual _reproduction produces sustainable ape-humans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I beg to differ...
Click to expand...


Not sustainable.  Can't breed.


----------



## fncceo

james bond said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> No amount of _sexual _reproduction produces sustainable ape-humans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I beg to differ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not sustainable.  Can't breed.
Click to expand...


Given enough alcohol and Barry White music ... anyone can breed.


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> We can lead a christo-creation cultist to the facts- but I can't make you read the facts.
> 
> You will instead of course embrace cristo-creation cultist falsehoods- because it is all a matter of faith to you.
> 
> Answers to Creationist Attacks on Carbon-14 Dating
> 
> Answers are on the net
> 
> *Question:* A sample that is more than fifty thousand years old shouldn't have any measurable C-14. Coal, oil, and natural gas are supposed to be millions of years old; yet creationists say that some of them contain measurable amounts of C-14, enough to give them C-14 ages in the tens of thousands of years. How do you explain this?
> 
> *Answer:* Very simply. Radiocarbon dating doesn't work well on objects much older than twenty thousand years, because such objects have so little C-14 left that their beta radiation is swamped out by the background radiation of cosmic rays and potassium-40 (K-40) decay. Younger objects can easily be dated, because they still emit plenty of beta radiation, enough to be measured after the background radiation has been subtracted out of the total beta radiation. However, in either case, the background beta radiation has to be compensated for, and, in the older objects, the amount of C-14 they have left is less than the margin of error in measuring background radiation. As Hurley points out:
> 
> Without rather special developmental work, it is not generally practicable to measure ages in excess of about twenty thousand years, because the radioactivity of the carbon becomes so slight that it is difficult to get an accurate measurement above background radiation. (p. 108)
> 
> Cosmic rays form beta radiation all the time; this is the radiation that turns N-14 to C-14 in the first place. K-40 decay also forms plenty of beta radiation. Stearns, Carroll, and Clark point out that ". . . this isotope [K-40] accounts for a large part of the normal background radiation that can be detected on the earth's surface" (p. 84). This radiation cannot be totally eliminated from the laboratory, so one could probably get a "radiocarbon" date of fifty thousand years from a pure carbon-free piece of tin. However, you now know why this fact doesn't at all invalidate radiocarbon dates of objects younger than twenty thousand years and is certainly no evidence for the notion that coals and oils might be no older than fifty thousand years
> 
> 
> 
> And there are many other Decaying Isotopes to use for various age samples.
> 
> Radiometric dating - Wikipedia
> 
> 2Modern dating methods
> 2.1Uranium–lead dating method
> 2.2 Samarium–neodymium dating method
> 2.3 Potassium–argon dating method
> 2.4 Rubidium–strontium dating method
> 2.5 Uranium–thorium dating method
> 2.6 Radiocarbon dating method
> 2.7 Fission track dating method
> 2.8 Chlorine-36 dating method
> 2.9 Luminescence dating methods
> 2.10 Other methods
> .......
> 
> 3Dating with decay products of short-lived extinct radionuclides
> 3.1 The 129I – 129Xe chronometer
> 3.2 The 26Al – 26Mg chronometer
> `
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course but the christo-creationists will always whine 'but carbon 14!'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you accept what he posted?  He just discussed different techniques for dating.  It doesn't mean they're true nor the methodology based on their assumptions is correct.  It could be wildly incorrect.  Which method can one use to date rocks that have been underwater for years?  What method does one use to date objects/fossils in sedimentary layers?
> 
> YOU HAVE NO ANSWERS!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have only answers you find in your big book of fairy tales.
> 
> Have you been to your Ark museum yet- to see the dinosaurs that were on Noah's Ark?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was correct in that you have no answers.  As for C-14, "On 14C in coal, in 2003, scientists obtained some coal samples from the US Department of Energy and carefully stored in its Coal Sample Bank. The coal samples were tested and 14C was detected in them indicating that these coal sample are not millions of years old."
Click to expand...


LOL notice the lack of citation- but where you got that quote was easy to find- Carbon-14 diamonds TalkOrigins - creation.com.

Not at all surprising is that they don't provide any citation- or the names of the 'scientists' either. 

Creation.com appears to have just made it up- which considering that Creationism is all based upon a big book of fairy tales- makes sense.


----------



## RWS

So Bond... based on this thread, who deserves to go to Heaven?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, we did not evolve from monkeys.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There you go.  Ha ha.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Laugh it up....youre the one getting laughed out of the middle school classroom...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell us more about your background and what happened in middle school and how your education ended there lol lol lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says the guy copy pasting things he doesn't understand, and saying things at odds with what is now common knowledge for 9 years olds...damn son, you are embarrassing yourself...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course, I understand.  There are no ape humans or common relative just like there are none now.
Click to expand...

Of course, humans are apes, and all  apes have a common ancestor that lived about 14 million years ago. This is a fact, and no, your psychobabble and crybabying has no more effect on this fact than it would have on the fact that the earth revolves about the sun.


----------



## RWS

Well it does, because he has an idea of who goes to heaven, and who doesn't. 

That's what I want to find out.


----------



## james bond

RWS said:


> So Bond... based on this thread, who deserves to go to Heaven?



"Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?" Gal. 4:16

Going to heaven isn't in this thread, but those being headed for the lake of fire are numerous including yours since it's a _heartfelt_ conviction of yours without any evidence.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> There you go.  Ha ha.
> 
> 
> 
> Laugh it up....youre the one getting laughed out of the middle school classroom...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell us more about your background and what happened in middle school and how your education ended there lol lol lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says the guy copy pasting things he doesn't understand, and saying things at odds with what is now common knowledge for 9 years olds...damn son, you are embarrassing yourself...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course, I understand.  There are no ape humans or common relative just like there are none now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course, humans are apes, and all  apes have a common ancestor that lived about 14 million years ago. This is a fact, and no, your psychobabble and crybabying has no more effect on this fact than it would have on the fact that the earth revolves about the sun.
Click to expand...


The fact is there are no ape humans now nor ever were.  Otherwise, there would be evidence.


----------



## james bond

Evolution is all hypothesis.  It's based on changes over long time, a common ancestor, and history of life and looking at patterns.  Thus, we have mistaken evolutionary thinking and historical science.  Is it any wonder, Fort Fun Indiana thinks it is fact?  Or RWS wants to go to hell over it?

The evidence is to the creation theory as we find life begats new life, the egg came before the chicken, sexual reproduction just appeared, mountains appear and are eroded in a short time (not millions of years), no aliens in existence outside of earth, the presence of C14 when there shouldn't be any, no explanation for dinosaurs flying unless gravity was less in the past and more.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> The fact is there are no ape humans now nor ever were.


If you mean there have never existed or been found fossils of creatures showing the transition between the last common ancestor of chimps and humans to humans...false, and you just failed a 7th grade science test.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> Evolution is all hypothesis.


Evolution is both a scientific theory and a fact.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact is there are no ape humans now nor ever were.
> 
> 
> 
> If you mean there have never existed or been found fossils of creatures showing the transition between the last common ancestor of chimps and humans to humans...false, and you just failed a 7th grade science test.
Click to expand...


It's just monkey fossils.  Their brain capacity was too small to compare to humans and they were not bipedal.  There is no scientific evidence that we could observe of them being anything else.  The intelligent 7th graders who grew up question it in high school and college.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> It's just monkey fossils.


Wrong. First of all, apes are not monkeys, so you just another 7th grade quiz. And the fossils found are of the homo genus, which sets them apart not only from monkeys, but from the other great apes


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution is all hypothesis.
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution is both a scientific theory and a fact.
Click to expand...


So ignorant.  Evolution is not science.

Even Jack Chick said so many years ago and his tracts are more in line with science..

Big Daddy?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> Evolution is not science.


Of course, evolution is a scinentific theory amd a fact, supported by mountains of mutually supportive empirical evidence, gained via scientific method.

Compare that to your creation nonsense, backed by not a shred of evidence.

And you know it, and this embarrasses you. That is why we are treated to this embarrassing dog and pony show, instead of you just admitting "because the Bible says so!", and slithering away ...


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution is not science.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, evolution is a scinentific theory amd a fact, supported by mountains of mutually supportive empirical evidence, gained via scientific method.
> 
> Compare that to your creation nonsense, backed by not a shred of evidence.
> 
> And you know it, and this embarrasses you. That is why we are treated to this embarrassing dog and pony show, instead of you just admitting "because the Bible says so!", and slithering away ...
Click to expand...


Just explain any of the following then.

Evolution doesnn't have creation or origins.  It's also based on uniformitarianism which it doesn't like to admit is incorrect.  It's been scientifically observed that catastrophism is what shaped the earth.  Not one evolution of species can be observed because it takes millions of years.  However, we can observe that a hen and rooster produces a fertile egg.  Evolution cannot explain sexual reproduction nor can it adequately explain asexual reproduction.  They explain all species evolved from a single cell, but no single cell has been created in 200,000+ years.  Evo could not explain the Cambrian explosion.  Evo can't explain sedimentary layers.

As I stated, evolution is not science.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> Evolution doesnn't have creation or origins


So what? It's not an explanation of origins .The theory of electromagnetism doesn't have "origins", either.


james bond said:


> It's also based on uniformitarianism


False. The basis of evolution is genetics.


james bond said:


> It's been scientifically observed that catastrophism is what shaped the earth.


And it also has been observed that very long term, gradual changes have shaped the earth.


james bond said:


> Not one evolution of species can be observed because it takes millions of years.


False. We have observed speciation, which happens at all imaginable speeds.


james bond said:


> However, we can observe that a hen and rooster produces a fertile egg.


And we can observe when eggs, then birds appeared in the fossil record. We can also obseve their ancestors and descendants, which also appear in the fossil record.


james bond said:


> Evolution cannot explain sexual reproduction nor can it adequately explain asexual reproduction.


False. It neatly explains both. Just as it explains land animals and marine animals.


james bond said:


> They explain all species evolved from a single cell, but no single cell has been created in 200,000+ years.


You literally just made that up.


james bond said:


> Evo could not explain the Cambrian explosion.



Of course it can, where do you get this nonsense?

You are a source of a constant stream of false statements regurgitated directly from creationist liars. I am embarrassed for you.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution is not science.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, evolution is a scinentific theory amd a fact, supported by mountains of mutually supportive empirical evidence, gained via scientific method.
> 
> Compare that to your creation nonsense, backed by not a shred of evidence.
> 
> And you know it, and this embarrasses you. That is why we are treated to this embarrassing dog and pony show, instead of you just admitting "because the Bible says so!", and slithering away ...
Click to expand...


The Bible as scientific hypotheses is valid because it has been demonstrated that scientific method backs up the Bible.  However, science does not back up evolution.  It's theory which can be rendered pseudoscience.

Evolution contradicts the Bible and is explained as follows.  Those who do not believe in God, but believe in evolution are foolish.

“They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.” Romans 1:25

“The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God’” Psalm 14:1, Psalm 53:1

"“For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—His eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse” Romans 1:20

Even Fort Fun Indiana and others are in the Bible.

"If a wise man has an argument with a fool, the fool only rages and laughs, and there is no quiet." Proverbs 29:9

Creation is explained as:
7  “But ask the beasts, and they will teach you;
the birds of the heavens, and they will tell you;
8  or the bushes of the earth, and they will teach you;
and the fish of the sea will declare to you.
9  Who among all these does not know
that the hand of the Lord has done this?" Job 12:7-9

For example, butterflies and moths developed their prosboscises, i.e. tongues, long before the emergence of flowering plants.  Or we are finding that it's not a tree of life (evolution's theory of all life from a common ancestor), but bushes of life like that in an orchard.  Only plants and creatures in the same bush of life are related, i.e. form new species from a common ancestor..

Or how Noah sent the raven out first before the dove in order to find land.  Noah sent out the dove three times.  The first time, the dove came back empty handed.  Second time with an olive branch.  The third time was the charm.  It did not return meaning it found land.  Noah sent a raven out the before the dove, i.e. after 40 days and 40 nights, but it did not return.  The raven would not return if it found land, but it also would not return as it could feed on carrion in the water.  Once the raven did not return, it was okay for Noah to send out the dove.  Because of the raven's qualities, the Vikings used the raven to navigate.

Or how animals became our food.  God also states what animals we are not to eat.  "And to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the heavens and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food.” And it was so." Genesis 1:30

Birds and butterflies teach us the coming of winter.  They migrate.

All of this teaches us that creation is true and God is good.  Evolution doesn't teach us the above.  What does knowing you came from a monkey teach us?  That you're dumb AF.

Monkeys from Confucius' code of conduct teaches us to see no evil, hear no evil and speak no evil.  Doesn't that back up what the Bible stated?


----------



## Mac1958

No, we didn't "come from monkeys".  There are still competing theories on the branches of our tree, but monkeys were and are a separate branch.

Unfortunately, our ancestors refused to track their evolutionary progress on either spreadsheets or flow charts - they were very stubborn - so there may always be competing theories.  Or maybe not, maybe we'll figure this thing out for sure, branch by branch.

Either way, it really is okay to not know some stuff yet.  We're getting there.  
.


----------



## RWS

james bond said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> So Bond... based on this thread, who deserves to go to Heaven?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?" Gal. 4:16
> 
> Going to heaven isn't in this thread, but those being headed for the lake of fire are numerous including yours since it's a _heartfelt_ conviction of yours without any evidence.
Click to expand...


Really? The only heartfelt conviction is yours. I'm open to different stuff, but you are absolutely sure you are right about the Christian religion.

What if you're not?

Would you go to heaven?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> The Bible as scientific hypotheses is valid because it has been demonstrated that scientific method backs up the Bible.


Of course, that is utter nonsense, as scientific enlightenment has served to force Christianity to relegate much of the magical nonsense in the Bible to myth and allegory. And thank goodness for that.

I've noticed that you intransigent literalists are always happy to tell us how the Bible perfectly describes hard earned scientific knowledge...but only after we gain this knowledge through science, and not one second before.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Mac1958 said:


> No, we didn't "come from monkeys".  There are still competing theories on the branches of our tree, but monkeys were and are a separate branch.
> 
> Unfortunately, our ancestors refused to track their evolutionary progress on either spreadsheets or flow charts - they were very stubborn - so there may always be competing theories.  Or maybe not, maybe we'll figure this thing out for sure, branch by branch.
> 
> Either way, it really is okay to not know some stuff yet.  We're getting there.
> .


While we will be fleshing out the details for a very long time, there are no competing theories, when it comes to evolution as the explanation for diversity of species. I know you don't disagree, but, with charlatans like JBond lurking, just waiting to wedge their magical nonsense into any gap in rhetoric, its best to be very clear.


----------



## james bond

RWS said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> So Bond... based on this thread, who deserves to go to Heaven?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?" Gal. 4:16
> 
> Going to heaven isn't in this thread, but those being headed for the lake of fire are numerous including yours since it's a _heartfelt_ conviction of yours without any evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really? The only heartfelt conviction is yours. I'm open to different stuff, but you are absolutely sure you are right about the Christian religion.
> 
> What if you're not?
> 
> Would you go to heaven?
Click to expand...


This isn't the religion forum, but yes I am ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY, 100% SURE about Christianity.  Science backs up the Bible even though it's not a science book.  And no, you're not open to different worldviews because you have accepted the lie of evolution as it was handed down to Nimrod.  Are you ready to suffer for eternity in the lake of fire for believing in lies?  All it would take is evolution to be rendered _pseudoscience_.  Already, most of Darwin's theories have been debunked.

We have a history of pseudoscience with the universe or any theory that has to do with origins.  Or I would state any theory that has to do with the ending of life, too.  We are not going to become multiplanetary, but all of life will end here..

In ancient times, the Epicureans and Stoics were the evolutionists of the day.  Nimrod brought the modern version.

"Some of the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers also conversed with him. And some said, “What does this babbler wish to say?” Others said, “He seems to be a preacher of foreign divinities”—because he was preaching Jesus and the resurrection." Acts 17:18


----------



## james bond

Bust of Epicurus

"Ancient Greece" is a very loose term that refers to the Greek speaking cultures from the period of about 800 BCE to 200 CE, a period of about 1000 years. The exact times and cultures considered to be a part of "ancient Greece" vary from historian to historian. The cultures, philosophies, and beliefs of "ancient Greece" are, of course, extremely varied. There is no possible way to generalize "ancient Greek" culture, and the individuals within each of the different cultures were themselves highly varied.

The first logically proposed evolutionary concept is agreed to have come from Anaximandros (Anaximander) of Miletos, who lived from 610 BCE to 547 BCE, about 100 years before the writing of Genesis. Very few texts from Anaximander remain today, but some information about the teachings of Anaximander have been preserved by later writers who disagreed with him.

Anaximander believed that life must have started in the water, and that from this early form of life, other forms of life, including man, developed. Below are some quotes that refer to the evolutionary concepts of Anaximander:

Wherefore they (the Syrians) reference the fish as of the same origin and the same family as man, holding a more reasonable philosophy than that of Anaximandros; for he declares, not that fishes and men were generated at the same time, but that at first men were generated in the form of fishes, and that growing up as sharks do till they were able to help themselves, they then came forth on the dry ground. 
- Plutarch (1st century CE)

Anaximandros, the companion of Thales, says that the infinite is the sole cause of all generation and destruction, and from it the heavens were separated, and similarly all the worlds, which are infinite in number. And he declared that destruction and, far earlier, generation have taken place since an indefinite time, since all things are involved in a cycle. He says that the earth is a cylinder in form, and that its depth is one-third of its breadth. And he says that at the beginning of this world something [Diels] productive of heat and cold from the eternal being was separated therefrom, and a sort of sphere of this flame surrounded the air about the earth, as bark surrounds a tree ; then this sphere was broken into parts and defined into distinct circles, and thus arose the sun and the moon and the stars. Farther he says that at the beginning man was generated from all sorts of animals, since all the rest can quickly get food for themselves, but man alone requires careful feeding for a long time; such a being at the beginning could not have preserved his existence. Such is the teaching of Anaximandros. 
- Hippolytus (3rd century CE)

Animals come into being through vapors raised by the sun. Man, however, came into being from another animal, namely the fish, for at first he was like a fish. Winds are due to a separation of the lightest vapors and the motion of the masses of these vapors ; and moisture comes from the vapor raised by the sun from them; and lightning occurs when a wind falls upon clouds and separates them. Anaximandros was born in the third year of the forty-second Olympiad. 
- Hippolytus (3rd century CE)

What distinguishes the teachings of Anaximander from other origin mythology is that his views were arrived at from a naturalistic perspective and they were not tied to any religious belief. Anaximander is credited with having invented the sun dial and other observational instruments. He produced teachings in the fields of mathematics, astronomy, geography, and biology. While his teachings were crude compared to what we know today, they represent the earliest known example of naturalistic evolutionary thought.

Xenophanes of Kolopbon, who was born around 570 BCE, was both the first recorded person to have understood the implications of fossils, and also one of the first monotheists. Xenophanes was considered an "atheist" of his time because he rejected the traditional Greek pantheon of anthropomorphic gods, instead claiming that there was only one god and that god was infinite.

Despite the fact that this view seems "religious" today, Xenophanes was seen as a rationalist and materialist of his time. Like other monotheistic Greeks, Xenophanes did not develop any kind of religion or base his beliefs on claims of divine revelation. Instead, his view of god was philosophically derived.

In relation to fossils, Xenophanes understood that the fossils were formed by animals that had been preserved in mud. He developed an explanation for fossils which stated that earth must have gone through many life cycles, during which different forms of animals existed and were then wiped out, but their bodies were preserved in the rocks. He believed that new forms of animals developed during the new cycles. Xenophanes did not believe that his god created people, instead he stated that all living things, including people, developed from earth and water.

"Shells are found inland and in the mountains, and in the quarries of Syracuse an impression of a fish and seaweed has been found, and impressions of fish were found in Paros in the depth of the rock and in Malta impressions of many marine creatures. These, he [Xenophanes] says, were produced when everything was long ago covered with mud and the impressions were dried in the mud."
- Hippolytus (discussing the teachings of Xenophanes)

The Greeks, along with other ancient cultures, came into frequent contact with fossils. The word fossil actually comes from Greek and means "dug-up item". The Greeks did not use the term fossil the way that we do today, instead they often talked of petrified bones when discussing larger fossils. Ample evidence now suggests that the fantastic mythology of the ancient Greeks was heavily influenced by their observation of fossils. Not only were fossils commonly found out in the open throughout the lands of ancient Greece, but the Greeks quarried massive amounts of rock. In the process of quarrying rock they often came across fossils. Fossils were actually excavated and put on display in temples in some cases.

The Greeks interpreted many of the large bones that they found as being humanoid. When the Greeks found large thigh bones, for example, they were commonly interpreted as the bones of giants, and it is from these giant bones that the Greeks developed the mythology that Titians once lived on earth, whom Zeus and the other gods fought and killed. Because of the tendency of the Greeks to interpret the "bodily" fossils that they found as humanoid, when they found near complete skeletons that included horned or tusked skulls they interpreted these as having a human type body with an animal head. A small sampling of ancient accounts of fossils are listed below:

"I have seen shells on the hills," evidence that "Egypt was originally an arm of the sea."

In Scythia, "the natives show a footprint left by Heracles on a rock by the river Tyras. It is like a man's footprint, but 3 feet long." (units of measure translated)
- _The Histories_; Herodotus, 430 BCE

"When King Masinissa landed on the headland of Malta, his admiral stole the special tusks of astonishing size from the ancient Temple of Juno."
- _Against Verres_; Cicero (born 106 BCE)

A "figure resembling Pan" was found inside a slab of rock split open in a Chios quarry.
- _De Divinatione_; Cicero

"earth brought forth the giants, ... who were matchless in the bulk of their bodies and invincible in their might, with terrible aspect.... Some say they were born at Phlegra [Italy], but according to others in Phallene [Greece]." Zeuse "killed them with thunderbolts and Heracles shot them with arrows." Athena "threw Sicily on top of the giant Enceladus," while Poseidon "broke off part of Kos and heaped it on the giant Polybotes." Typhon "surpassed all the offspring of earth. As far as the thighs he was of human shape and of prodigious bulk." Zeus fought him from Syria to Thrace and finally buried Typhon under Mount Etna, Sicily.
- Apollodorus (1st century CE)

"The giants [were] men of immense bodies, whose bones of enormous size are still shown in certain places for confirmation of their existence."
- Clement of Rome, 96 CE

"Historians of Chios assert that near Mount Pelinaeus in a wooded glen there was a dragon of gigantic size who made the Chians shudder. No farmer or shepherd dared approach the monster's lair. But a miraculous event allowed the discovery of how large it really was. During a violent lightning storm a forest fire destroyed the entire region of the wooded slopes.... After the fire, all the Chians came to see and discovered the bones of gigantic size and a terrifying skull. From these the villagers were able to imagine how large and terrible the brute was when alive.

...

Euphorion says... that in primeval times Samos was uninhabited [except for] animals of gigantic size, which were savage and dangerous, called Neades. Now these animals with there mere roaring split the ground. So there is a proverbial saying in Samos: 'So and so roars louder than the Neades.' And Euphorion asserts that their huge remains are displayed even to this day."
- _On Animals_; Aelian (lived 170-230 CE)"

Understanding Evolution: History, Theory, Evidence, and Implictions


----------



## RWS

james bond said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> So Bond... based on this thread, who deserves to go to Heaven?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?" Gal. 4:16
> 
> Going to heaven isn't in this thread, but those being headed for the lake of fire are numerous including yours since it's a _heartfelt_ conviction of yours without any evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really? The only heartfelt conviction is yours. I'm open to different stuff, but you are absolutely sure you are right about the Christian religion.
> 
> What if you're not?
> 
> Would you go to heaven?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This isn't the religion forum, but yes I am ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY, 100% SURE about Christianity.  Science backs up the Bible even though it's not a science book.  And no, you're not open to different worldviews because you have accepted the lie of evolution as it was handed down to Nimrod.  Are you ready to suffer for eternity in the lake of fire for believing in lies?  All it would take is evolution to be rendered _pseudoscience_.  Already, most of Darwin's theories have been debunked.
> 
> We have a history of pseudoscience with the universe or any theory that has to do with origins.  Or I would state any theory that has to do with the ending of life, too.  We are not going to become multiplanetary, but all of life will end here..
> 
> In ancient times, the Epicureans and Stoics were the evolutionists of the day.  Nimrod brought the modern version.
> 
> "Some of the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers also conversed with him. And some said, “What does this babbler wish to say?” Others said, “He seems to be a preacher of foreign divinities”—because he was preaching Jesus and the resurrection." Acts 17:18
Click to expand...

Sorry, I asked, "What if you're wrong?" in your Christianity belief? 

There is a slight chance that you may be wrong in that....

Would you still go to heaven?


----------



## RWS

Maybe the Jews are right, or the Muslims, or the Buddhists, or the Hindus, or the atheists, or the other thousands of religions that are active in this world?

The way I look at it, if there's a heaven, i should belong. Fuck 'em if they don't like me for not believing.

Would you go to any heaven/nirvana/whatever that is not Christian?


----------



## RWS

Let's say one day, you meet the unfortunate end. And find out that Heaven is run by Jews....

Would you jump in? Or refuse?


----------



## RWS

that rhymed....


----------



## james bond

RWS said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> So Bond... based on this thread, who deserves to go to Heaven?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?" Gal. 4:16
> 
> Going to heaven isn't in this thread, but those being headed for the lake of fire are numerous including yours since it's a _heartfelt_ conviction of yours without any evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really? The only heartfelt conviction is yours. I'm open to different stuff, but you are absolutely sure you are right about the Christian religion.
> 
> What if you're not?
> 
> Would you go to heaven?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This isn't the religion forum, but yes I am ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY, 100% SURE about Christianity.  Science backs up the Bible even though it's not a science book.  And no, you're not open to different worldviews because you have accepted the lie of evolution as it was handed down to Nimrod.  Are you ready to suffer for eternity in the lake of fire for believing in lies?  All it would take is evolution to be rendered _pseudoscience_.  Already, most of Darwin's theories have been debunked.
> 
> We have a history of pseudoscience with the universe or any theory that has to do with origins.  Or I would state any theory that has to do with the ending of life, too.  We are not going to become multiplanetary, but all of life will end here..
> 
> In ancient times, the Epicureans and Stoics were the evolutionists of the day.  Nimrod brought the modern version.
> 
> "Some of the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers also conversed with him. And some said, “What does this babbler wish to say?” Others said, “He seems to be a preacher of foreign divinities”—because he was preaching Jesus and the resurrection." Acts 17:18
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, I asked, "What if you're wrong?" in your Christianity belief?
> 
> There is a slight chance that you may be wrong in that....
> 
> Would you still go to heaven?
Click to expand...


What part of "I am ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY, 100% SURE about Christianity. Science backs up the Bible even though it's not a science book." did you not understand?

What part of 100% true did you not understand?  God's Word is never wrong or else it would be contradicted and Christianity destroyed.


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> The evidence is to the creation theory.



Creation theory starts "In the Beginning" and ends with the crucifixion.


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> So Bond... based on this thread, who deserves to go to Heaven?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?" Gal. 4:16
> 
> Going to heaven isn't in this thread, but those being headed for the lake of fire are numerous including yours since it's a _heartfelt_ conviction of yours without any evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really? The only heartfelt conviction is yours. I'm open to different stuff, but you are absolutely sure you are right about the Christian religion.
> 
> What if you're not?
> 
> Would you go to heaven?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This isn't the religion forum, but yes I am ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY, 100% SURE about Christianity.  Science backs up the Bible even though it's not a science book.  And no, you're not open to different worldviews because you have accepted the lie of evolution as it was handed down to Nimrod.  Are you ready to suffer for eternity in the lake of fire for believing in lies?  All it would take is evolution to be rendered _pseudoscience_.  Already, most of Darwin's theories have been debunked.
> 
> We have a history of pseudoscience with the universe or any theory that has to do with origins.  Or I would state any theory that has to do with the ending of life, too.  We are not going to become multiplanetary, but all of life will end here..
> 
> In ancient times, the Epicureans and Stoics were the evolutionists of the day.  Nimrod brought the modern version.
> 
> "Some of the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers also conversed with him. And some said, “What does this babbler wish to say?” Others said, “He seems to be a preacher of foreign divinities”—because he was preaching Jesus and the resurrection." Acts 17:18
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, I asked, "What if you're wrong?" in your Christianity belief?
> 
> There is a slight chance that you may be wrong in that....
> 
> Would you still go to heaven?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God's Word is never wrong or else it would be contradicted and Christianity destroyed.
Click to expand...


Those who believe in 'God's Word" instead of the facts just deny the contractions. 

Meanwhile most Christians don't believe in a literal creation myth and Christianity continues on just fine.


----------



## Dan Stubbs

Ima Cat said:


> I know there are similarities but I think they are coincidental, like cats and seals both have whiskers.  But cats didn't come from seals or vice a versa.


*Judging from some of the posting by members and bots there might be a bit of truth. LOL   *


----------



## Dan Stubbs

Jimmy_Chitwood said:


> Ima Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know there are similarities but I think they are coincidental, like cats and seals both have whiskers.  But cats didn't come from seals or vice a versa.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where do you think we came from?
> 
> Ancient Aliens?
Click to expand...

*My Mother I think, she had to tell me.  *


----------



## Old Rocks

james bond said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> So Bond... based on this thread, who deserves to go to Heaven?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?" Gal. 4:16
> 
> Going to heaven isn't in this thread, but those being headed for the lake of fire are numerous including yours since it's a _heartfelt_ conviction of yours without any evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really? The only heartfelt conviction is yours. I'm open to different stuff, but you are absolutely sure you are right about the Christian religion.
> 
> What if you're not?
> 
> Would you go to heaven?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This isn't the religion forum, but yes I am ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY, 100% SURE about Christianity.  Science backs up the Bible even though it's not a science book.  And no, you're not open to different worldviews because you have accepted the lie of evolution as it was handed down to Nimrod.  Are you ready to suffer for eternity in the lake of fire for believing in lies?  All it would take is evolution to be rendered _pseudoscience_.  Already, most of Darwin's theories have been debunked.
> 
> We have a history of pseudoscience with the universe or any theory that has to do with origins.  Or I would state any theory that has to do with the ending of life, too.  We are not going to become multiplanetary, but all of life will end here..
> 
> In ancient times, the Epicureans and Stoics were the evolutionists of the day.  Nimrod brought the modern version.
> 
> "Some of the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers also conversed with him. And some said, “What does this babbler wish to say?” Others said, “He seems to be a preacher of foreign divinities”—because he was preaching Jesus and the resurrection." Acts 17:18
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, I asked, "What if you're wrong?" in your Christianity belief?
> 
> There is a slight chance that you may be wrong in that....
> 
> Would you still go to heaven?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What part of "I am ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY, 100% SURE about Christianity. Science backs up the Bible even though it's not a science book." did you not understand?
> 
> What part of 100% true did you not understand?  God's Word is never wrong or else it would be contradicted and Christianity destroyed.
Click to expand...

LOL Then you have not read your Bible. There are many wrong statements in that book. Statements that reflect the lack of knowledge of the people of that time. Pi is not 3.


----------



## RWS

james bond said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> So Bond... based on this thread, who deserves to go to Heaven?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?" Gal. 4:16
> 
> Going to heaven isn't in this thread, but those being headed for the lake of fire are numerous including yours since it's a _heartfelt_ conviction of yours without any evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really? The only heartfelt conviction is yours. I'm open to different stuff, but you are absolutely sure you are right about the Christian religion.
> 
> What if you're not?
> 
> Would you go to heaven?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This isn't the religion forum, but yes I am ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY, 100% SURE about Christianity.  Science backs up the Bible even though it's not a science book.  And no, you're not open to different worldviews because you have accepted the lie of evolution as it was handed down to Nimrod.  Are you ready to suffer for eternity in the lake of fire for believing in lies?  All it would take is evolution to be rendered _pseudoscience_.  Already, most of Darwin's theories have been debunked.
> 
> We have a history of pseudoscience with the universe or any theory that has to do with origins.  Or I would state any theory that has to do with the ending of life, too.  We are not going to become multiplanetary, but all of life will end here..
> 
> In ancient times, the Epicureans and Stoics were the evolutionists of the day.  Nimrod brought the modern version.
> 
> "Some of the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers also conversed with him. And some said, “What does this babbler wish to say?” Others said, “He seems to be a preacher of foreign divinities”—because he was preaching Jesus and the resurrection." Acts 17:18
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, I asked, "What if you're wrong?" in your Christianity belief?
> 
> There is a slight chance that you may be wrong in that....
> 
> Would you still go to heaven?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What part of "I am ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY, 100% SURE about Christianity. Science backs up the Bible even though it's not a science book." did you not understand?
> 
> What part of 100% true did you not understand?  God's Word is never wrong or else it would be contradicted and Christianity destroyed.
Click to expand...


Trust me, I know that you are absolutely, positively, 100% sure in your belief. That doesn't mean you're right...

What happens if you're not, hypothetically? Do you get to go to another religion's "heaven"? And would you accept that fate, if it contradicts Christianity?


----------



## james bond

RWS said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?" Gal. 4:16
> 
> Going to heaven isn't in this thread, but those being headed for the lake of fire are numerous including yours since it's a _heartfelt_ conviction of yours without any evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? The only heartfelt conviction is yours. I'm open to different stuff, but you are absolutely sure you are right about the Christian religion.
> 
> What if you're not?
> 
> Would you go to heaven?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This isn't the religion forum, but yes I am ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY, 100% SURE about Christianity.  Science backs up the Bible even though it's not a science book.  And no, you're not open to different worldviews because you have accepted the lie of evolution as it was handed down to Nimrod.  Are you ready to suffer for eternity in the lake of fire for believing in lies?  All it would take is evolution to be rendered _pseudoscience_.  Already, most of Darwin's theories have been debunked.
> 
> We have a history of pseudoscience with the universe or any theory that has to do with origins.  Or I would state any theory that has to do with the ending of life, too.  We are not going to become multiplanetary, but all of life will end here..
> 
> In ancient times, the Epicureans and Stoics were the evolutionists of the day.  Nimrod brought the modern version.
> 
> "Some of the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers also conversed with him. And some said, “What does this babbler wish to say?” Others said, “He seems to be a preacher of foreign divinities”—because he was preaching Jesus and the resurrection." Acts 17:18
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, I asked, "What if you're wrong?" in your Christianity belief?
> 
> There is a slight chance that you may be wrong in that....
> 
> Would you still go to heaven?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What part of "I am ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY, 100% SURE about Christianity. Science backs up the Bible even though it's not a science book." did you not understand?
> 
> What part of 100% true did you not understand?  God's Word is never wrong or else it would be contradicted and Christianity destroyed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trust me, I know that you are absolutely, positively, 100% sure in your belief. That doesn't mean you're right...
> 
> What happens if you're not, hypothetically? Do you get to go to another religion's "heaven"? And would you accept that fate, if it contradicts Christianity?
Click to expand...


You still don't get it.  It means 100% ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY, 100% TRUE.

And I don't trust you and would never follow you because you follow Satan's evolution.  You reap what you sow my man.


----------



## Old Rocks

Let's see. Mankind has had one religion or the other for over 200,000 years. And until the beginning of the Enlightenment, life was not that much different from century to century. Then we developed the scientific method, and went from living in essentially hovels, to the present living standard. And the average lifespan is nearly double that of the prior times. So what has helped mankind the most, religion or science?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> You still don't get it. It means 100% ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY, 100% TRUE


No dumbass....just because you believe something does not make it true.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> You still don't get it. It means 100% ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY, 100% TRUE
> 
> 
> 
> No dumbass....just because you believe something does not make it true.
Click to expand...


Isn't this the case with evolution that you claim are facts and theory?  OTOH mine has withstood the test of time much longer than your _biased_ science.  There is no observational evidence nor scientific methodology involved.  It is based on FAITH that it is true.

No one knows what happened in 200,000 years just as we do not know whether the end of the world will happen in 2060.  Look at how long written history is.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> Isn't this the case with evolution that you claim are facts and theory?


Of course it isn't. Because I believe the theory of evolution is a fact does not make it so. The mounatins of mutually supportive evidence make it so. What a stupid fucking question....but, to be expected from someone with no sense of evidence based reasoning ..


----------



## RWS

james bond said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> You still don't get it. It means 100% ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY, 100% TRUE
> 
> 
> 
> No dumbass....just because you believe something does not make it true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Isn't this the case with evolution that you claim are facts and theory?  OTOH mine has withstood the test of time much longer than your _biased_ science.  There is no observational evidence nor scientific methodology involved.  It is based on FAITH that it is true.
> 
> No one knows what happened in 200,000 years just as we do not know whether the end of the world will happen in 2060.  Look at how long written history is.
Click to expand...

I have said many times what would happen if evolution was not true, and religions were right. Nobody can be 100% sure they are right. Just 100% sure in what they believe. Should there be an afterlife based on goodness, I expect to go to whichever religion's heaven is correct, and will go there happily. But... if they reject me because I don't believe, even though I've been a good person my whole life, then I'll be pretty pissed and looking to change the system for the future.... 

So now look at it as a hypothetical that Christianity isn't right (although you believe 100%), and another religion is right. And their "heaven" is the real Heaven. Would you go, if invited, even though they don't agree with your current religious beliefs? Or would you turn them down on a matter of principle?


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't this the case with evolution that you claim are facts and theory?
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it isn't. Because I believe the theory of evolution is a fact does not make it so. The mounatins of mutually supportive evidence make it so. What a stupid fucking question....but, to be expected from someone with no sense of evidence based reasoning ..
Click to expand...


You're turning into the low IQ internet atheist.  First, you do not know the difference between scientific theory and fact.  AFAIK there is no scientific fact about evolution.  Otherwise name five.  You state mountains of mutually supportive evidence, but don't provide any.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> First, you do not know the difference between scientific theory and fact


Of course I do. And evolution is both. It is as much an established fact as it is that the earth revolves about the sun. 

I, of course, am not going to debate the truth of a scientific theory with an uneducated slob on the internet.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> First, you do not know the difference between scientific theory and fact
> 
> 
> 
> Of course I do. And evolution is both. It is as much an established fact as it is that the earth revolves about the sun.
> 
> I, of course, am not going to debate the truth of a scientific theory with an uneducated slob on the internet.
Click to expand...


You got the scientific fact right, but it was founded by a creation scientist..  Many scientific facts based on creation such as the chicken came before the egg.  The earth revolves around the sun was first explained by Nicholas Copernicus a creation scientist.  It isn't evolution.  Thus, there is still no scientific fact based on evolution.

"Copernicus was the Polish astronomer who put forward the first mathematically based system of planets going around the sun.  He attended various European universities, and became a Canon in the Catholic church in 1497.  His new system was actually first presented in the Vatican gardens in 1533 before Pope Clement VII who approved, and urged Copernicus to publish it around this time.  Copernicus was never under any threat of religious persecution - and was urged to publish both by Catholic Bishop Guise, Cardinal Schonberg, and the Protestant Professor George Rheticus.  Copernicus referred sometimes to God in his works, and did not see his system as in conflict with the Bible."

Famous Scientists Who Believed in God


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> You got the scientific fact right, but it was founded by a creation scientist..



Well first, there is no such thing as creation science. Stop being a sniveling little liar and just present your faith in magic as faith in magic, instead of desperately trying to put it on the second shelf as evidence based onowledge. By doing so, it shows that you know your faith does not smdeserve the same respect.
Furthermore...so what? His belief in magical fairies has no bearing on the truth of the fact, nor did it have anything to do with deciding the fact is, indeed, a fact. Get that irrelevant garbage out of here...


----------



## otto105

Ima Cat said:


> I know there are similarities but I think they are coincidental, like cats and seals both have whiskers.  But cats didn't come from seals or vice a versa.




I believe that we all came from one guy and his baby momma who came from thin air by a mythological being in a cloud.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> You got the scientific fact right, but it was founded by a creation scientist..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well first, there is no such thing as creation science. Stop being a sniveling little liar and just present your faith in magic as faith in magic, instead of desperately trying to put it on the second shelf as evidence based onowledge. By doing so, it shows that you know your faith does not smdeserve the same respect.
> Furthermore...so what? His belief in magical fairies has no bearing on the truth of the fact, nor did it have anything to do with deciding the fact is, indeed, a fact. Get that irrelevant garbage out of here...
Click to expand...


So, I scored a point there for God and creation.  You said there was a mountain of facts (evidence) and I'm still waiting.  Why don't you admit, evolution is hypothesis (it may not even be a theory if creation scientists do not believe it), and there are no scientific facts associated with it.  I'm ready to move on.


----------



## otto105

james bond said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> You got the scientific fact right, but it was founded by a creation scientist..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well first, there is no such thing as creation science. Stop being a sniveling little liar and just present your faith in magic as faith in magic, instead of desperately trying to put it on the second shelf as evidence based onowledge. By doing so, it shows that you know your faith does not smdeserve the same respect.
> Furthermore...so what? His belief in magical fairies has no bearing on the truth of the fact, nor did it have anything to do with deciding the fact is, indeed, a fact. Get that irrelevant garbage out of here...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, I scored a point there for God and creation.  You said there was a mountain of facts (evidence) and I'm still waiting.  Why don't you admit, evolution is hypothesis (it may not even be a theory if creation scientists do not believe it), and there are no scientific facts associated with it.  I'm ready to move on.
Click to expand...


The fossil record is quite complete. 

Why have you not heard about it?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> So, I scored a point there for God and creation.


You scored no points. Your magical nonsense is not relevant in any way to scientific knowledge.



james bond said:


> You said there was a mountain of facts (evidence) and I'm still waiting.


Because you are a dishonest jerkoff that dismisses any evidence that you don't think validates your retarded voodoo. Which is all of the evidence. So here you sit, a grown man, waiting for the knowledge that 9 year olds possess. And you're proud of it....good for you.....


----------



## otto105

For the record, creation and science are mutually exclusive.


You can now try to disprove carbon dating.


----------



## james bond

otto105 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> You got the scientific fact right, but it was founded by a creation scientist..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well first, there is no such thing as creation science. Stop being a sniveling little liar and just present your faith in magic as faith in magic, instead of desperately trying to put it on the second shelf as evidence based onowledge. By doing so, it shows that you know your faith does not smdeserve the same respect.
> Furthermore...so what? His belief in magical fairies has no bearing on the truth of the fact, nor did it have anything to do with deciding the fact is, indeed, a fact. Get that irrelevant garbage out of here...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, I scored a point there for God and creation.  You said there was a mountain of facts (evidence) and I'm still waiting.  Why don't you admit, evolution is hypothesis (it may not even be a theory if creation scientists do not believe it), and there are no scientific facts associated with it.  I'm ready to move on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fossil record is quite complete.
> 
> Why have you not heard about it?
Click to expand...


The fossil record does not agree with Darwinian evolution.  That is observable fact.  Why have you not heard about it?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> You got the scientific fact right, but it was founded by a creation scientist..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well first, there is no such thing as creation science. Stop being a sniveling little liar and just present your faith in magic as faith in magic, instead of desperately trying to put it on the second shelf as evidence based onowledge. By doing so, it shows that you know your faith does not smdeserve the same respect.
> Furthermore...so what? His belief in magical fairies has no bearing on the truth of the fact, nor did it have anything to do with deciding the fact is, indeed, a fact. Get that irrelevant garbage out of here...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, I scored a point there for God and creation.  You said there was a mountain of facts (evidence) and I'm still waiting.  Why don't you admit, evolution is hypothesis (it may not even be a theory if creation scientists do not believe it), and there are no scientific facts associated with it.  I'm ready to move on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fossil record is quite complete.
> 
> Why have you not heard about it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fossil record does not agree with Darwinian evolution.  That is observable fact.  Why have you not heard about it?
Click to expand...

The fossil record agrees perfectly with the theory of evolution, and it is one of the strongest pieces of evidence for evolution being an accepted fact, which it is.


----------



## RWS

otto105 said:


> For the record, creation and science are mutually exclusive.
> 
> 
> You can now try to disprove carbon dating.



They can actually be one and the same (for human creation). If you allow ancient aliens, and Sitchin theory.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> You got the scientific fact right, but it was founded by a creation scientist..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well first, there is no such thing as creation science. Stop being a sniveling little liar and just present your faith in magic as faith in magic, instead of desperately trying to put it on the second shelf as evidence based onowledge. By doing so, it shows that you know your faith does not smdeserve the same respect.
> Furthermore...so what? His belief in magical fairies has no bearing on the truth of the fact, nor did it have anything to do with deciding the fact is, indeed, a fact. Get that irrelevant garbage out of here...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, I scored a point there for God and creation.  You said there was a mountain of facts (evidence) and I'm still waiting.  Why don't you admit, evolution is hypothesis (it may not even be a theory if creation scientists do not believe it), and there are no scientific facts associated with it.  I'm ready to move on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fossil record is quite complete.
> 
> Why have you not heard about it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fossil record does not agree with Darwinian evolution.  That is observable fact.  Why have you not heard about it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The fossil record agrees perfectly with the theory of evolution, and it is one of the strongest pieces of evidence for evolution being an accepted fact, which it is.
Click to expand...


You just admitted it's theory as in ToE.  You just admitted that fossil record is not fact.  Besides, you can't have fraud as facts.


----------



## RWS

Just because you believe this stuff, bond, doesn't make it true. 

You're in for a rude awakening. Hopefully it's not for a long time...


----------



## james bond

RWS said:


> Just because you believe this stuff, bond, doesn't make it true.
> 
> You're in for a rude awakening. Hopefully it's not for a long time...



I have said this over and over.  It's not because of Christian theology that I believe.  It's creation science.  It's not I who is in for a rude awakening, but _you_.  And it will last for a long, long, long time.  Evo needs long time.  You reap what you sow.

The words of the prophet (John 3:16) are written on the subway walls and tenement halls.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> You just admitted it's theory as in ToE.


No, i i stated it is a scientific theory, which is not the same. I also stated that it is fact fact. Bond, you are just not a very honest person. Your ridiculous denial of evolution aside, you are still a dishonest, sniveling little worm.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> You just admitted it's theory as in ToE.
> 
> 
> 
> No, i i stated it is a scientific theory, which is not the same. I also stated that it is fact fact. Bond, you are just not a very honest person. Your ridiculous denial of evolution aside, you are still a dishonest, sniveling little worm.
Click to expand...


Eh, word salad.  It's false theory which becomes pseudoscience like practically all of Darwinism.  We found out it's not survival of the fittest.  Even Syriusly inadvertently admitted that there was not a sole tree of life with HGT.  That hurts the common ancestor theory and favors creation theory.  The creation scientists theorize that it's more like bushes of life in God's orchard.  I don't think we'll ever settle the long time and time difference.  (I think God's plan is to teach evos how long billions of years actually is.).

>>FFI:  No, i i stated it is a scientific theory, which is not the same.<<

You didn't state any facts Fort Fun Indiana.  Which you were supposed to have a mountain of.

And scientifc theory is ToE. 

Didn't people think survival of the fittest was a fact at one time?  It was proven false.  All you did was make assertions.

https://io9.gizmodo.com/5988401/why-survival-of-the-fittest-is-wrong

And as usual, I'll claim victory in this round as you had to resort to ad hominems . 

Footnote:  Wouldn't you think if evolution was true, then you'd be way ahead?  I'm the one at a disadvantage since secular science will not accept God, the supernatural and the Bible as scientific theory.  Also, if the Bible is a mythical book, then wouldn't it have been debunked several thousands of years ago?  Instead, things seem to fit, science backs it up and its prophecies are falling into place.  Will the world end in 2060 as Sir Isaac Newton hypothesized?  Unfortunately, it's becoming more and more like the state of the world before Noah's Flood.  Oh, but you don't believe Noah's Flood either.

Statement on the Date 2060

In 1704, Isaac Newton Predicts the World Will End in 2060 |  Open Culture


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> You just admitted it's theory as in ToE.
> 
> 
> 
> No, i i stated it is a scientific theory, which is not the same. I also stated that it is fact fact. Bond, you are just not a very honest person. Your ridiculous denial of evolution aside, you are still a dishonest, sniveling little worm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Eh, word salad.  It's false theory which becomes pseudoscience like practically all of Darwinism.  We found out it's not survival of the fittest.  Even Syriusly inadvertently admitted that there was not a sole tree of life with HGT.  That hurts the common ancestor theory and favors creation theory.  The creation scientists theorize that it's more like bushes of life in God's orchard.  I don't think we'll ever settle the long time and time difference.e
Click to expand...


lol 
'inadvertently admitted' 
I never claimed that there was a 'sole tree of life' because I never went with your whole tree of life/bush of life idiocy in the first place. 

There is nothing about HGT which harms the common ancestor theory and there is no such thing as 'creation scientists'- just quakes who pretend that a big book of fairy tales is science based.


----------



## Syriusly

james bond said:


> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> You got the scientific fact right, but it was founded by a creation scientist..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well first, there is no such thing as creation science. Stop being a sniveling little liar and just present your faith in magic as faith in magic, instead of desperately trying to put it on the second shelf as evidence based onowledge. By doing so, it shows that you know your faith does not smdeserve the same respect.
> Furthermore...so what? His belief in magical fairies has no bearing on the truth of the fact, nor did it have anything to do with deciding the fact is, indeed, a fact. Get that irrelevant garbage out of here...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, I scored a point there for God and creation.  You said there was a mountain of facts (evidence) and I'm still waiting.  Why don't you admit, evolution is hypothesis (it may not even be a theory if creation scientists do not believe it), and there are no scientific facts associated with it.  I'm ready to move on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fossil record is quite complete.
> 
> Why have you not heard about it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fossil record does not agree with Darwinian evolution.  That is observable fact.  Why have you not heard about it?
Click to expand...


The fossil record supports the theory of evolution.

And that is an observable fact.


----------



## james bond

Syriusly said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> You just admitted it's theory as in ToE.
> 
> 
> 
> No, i i stated it is a scientific theory, which is not the same. I also stated that it is fact fact. Bond, you are just not a very honest person. Your ridiculous denial of evolution aside, you are still a dishonest, sniveling little worm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Eh, word salad.  It's false theory which becomes pseudoscience like practically all of Darwinism.  We found out it's not survival of the fittest.  Even Syriusly inadvertently admitted that there was not a sole tree of life with HGT.  That hurts the common ancestor theory and favors creation theory.  The creation scientists theorize that it's more like bushes of life in God's orchard.  I don't think we'll ever settle the long time and time difference.e
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol
> 'inadvertently admitted'
> I never claimed that there was a 'sole tree of life' because I never went with your whole tree of life/bush of life idiocy in the first place.
> 
> There is nothing about HGT which harms the common ancestor theory and there is no such thing as 'creation scientists'- just quakes who pretend that a big book of fairy tales is science based.
Click to expand...


Darwin claimed tree of life.  Without it, evolution goes down the tubes.  No common ancestor.

Creation scientists think it's an orchard of life consisting of bushes of life being separated by sexual union.  Apes and humans cannot mate and therefore no evidence of ape-humans.  Ape-humans combinations are just not observed which is the weakness/lie of the make-believe monkeys to man silliness.

In fact, Richard Dawkins, evolutionary biologist, has challenged bushes of life already.  Atheist scientists do not want to advertise it because they think they'll be wrong and lose (and presumably go to hell).

Bushes in the Tree of Life

The Tree of Life may be a bush

HGT doesn't even explain common ancestor.  It just at the single-cell level.  You're making mountains out of a molehill ha ha.


----------



## james bond

Syriusly said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> You got the scientific fact right, but it was founded by a creation scientist..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well first, there is no such thing as creation science. Stop being a sniveling little liar and just present your faith in magic as faith in magic, instead of desperately trying to put it on the second shelf as evidence based onowledge. By doing so, it shows that you know your faith does not smdeserve the same respect.
> Furthermore...so what? His belief in magical fairies has no bearing on the truth of the fact, nor did it have anything to do with deciding the fact is, indeed, a fact. Get that irrelevant garbage out of here...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, I scored a point there for God and creation.  You said there was a mountain of facts (evidence) and I'm still waiting.  Why don't you admit, evolution is hypothesis (it may not even be a theory if creation scientists do not believe it), and there are no scientific facts associated with it.  I'm ready to move on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fossil record is quite complete.
> 
> Why have you not heard about it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fossil record does not agree with Darwinian evolution.  That is observable fact.  Why have you not heard about it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fossil record supports the theory of evolution.
> 
> And that is an observable fact.
Click to expand...


Survival of the fittest was thought to be a fact, but that turned into pseudoscience.

I would say the fossil record is founded upon circular thinking.  The fossils were made to fit ToE instead of just being fossils in the bushes of life.  It will shake out when the tree of life vs bushes of life argument is settled.  You already admitted that bushes of life is possible.


----------



## RWS

james bond said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just because you believe this stuff, bond, doesn't make it true.
> 
> You're in for a rude awakening. Hopefully it's not for a long time...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have said this over and over.  It's not because of Christian theology that I believe.  It's creation science.  It's not I who is in for a rude awakening, but _you_.  And it will last for a long, long, long time.  Evo needs long time.  You reap what you sow.
> 
> The words of the prophet (John 3:16) are written on the subway walls and tenement halls.
Click to expand...

Wow, that's a dark and cool version of a song that was meant to provide hope. I love it though! That was awesome!!

The original is by Simon & Garfunkel (my sister went to the same HS with them, Forest Hills HS in Queens) , And it is about acknowledging the despair and apocalyptic people on the subway floor.


----------



## RWS

And fyi... they're Jewish... jus sayin

You don't want to go to their Heaven...


----------



## RWS

james bond said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just because you believe this stuff, bond, doesn't make it true.
> 
> You're in for a rude awakening. Hopefully it's not for a long time...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have said this over and over.  It's not because of Christian theology that I believe.  It's creation science.  It's not I who is in for a rude awakening, but _you_.  And it will last for a long, long, long time.  Evo needs long time.  You reap what you sow.
> 
> The words of the prophet (John 3:16) are written on the subway walls and tenement halls.
Click to expand...

Creation Science is made up by Christian theology. Every link you post goes back to a Christian site. You are brainwashed into your belief. Probably because you were borne into it.

If you had been born Jewish, or Muslim, or Buddhist, you would think differently. You just follow what you were brainwashed into from birth. And though you try to look like you have given it a lot of thought, you obviously haven't.

Or else we wouldn't be having these conversations.


----------



## RWS

I was born Christian. It took me a few years to realize the fallacy. Maybe 8 yrs old.

And once I did, even though I still love the ideal of Jesus, and strive to be like him, I could not commit myself to a lie.

And then the reason I have problems with religion, is that they're all looking to kill each other over arguments in belief in a non-existent deity. And it has lead to countless lives being lost, women getting burned and  raped, children getting abducted or killed... All in the name of religion in a false "God". 

"God" is actually the "Devil".


----------



## RWS

I'll tell you what I think the real god is, when you're ready to listen.


----------



## james bond

RWS said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just because you believe this stuff, bond, doesn't make it true.
> 
> You're in for a rude awakening. Hopefully it's not for a long time...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have said this over and over.  It's not because of Christian theology that I believe.  It's creation science.  It's not I who is in for a rude awakening, but _you_.  And it will last for a long, long, long time.  Evo needs long time.  You reap what you sow.
> 
> The words of the prophet (John 3:16) are written on the subway walls and tenement halls.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow, that's a dark and cool version of a song that was meant to provide hope. I love it though! That was awesome!!
> 
> The original is by Simon & Garfunkel (my sister went to the same HS with them, Forest Hills HS in Queens) , And it is about acknowledging the despair and apocalyptic people on the subway floor.
Click to expand...


I'm glad you liked it.  It is a dark, somber more heavy metal interpretation of S&G's folksy version.  I think it's a song about several things happening in a dream.  The main being inability to communicate.  An inability to communicate about so many things, and this leads us to not being able to live _peacefully_ together.  I think it could cover everything really.


----------



## RWS

True, I loved that cover of it. Thank you.

We need to recognize the issues why we cannot live peacefully together. That's what I'm all about.

The big stumbling block I have encountered is the differences in religion, and that's why I post so much about it.

Everyone thinks they're right about their beliefs. But either one religion/belief, or none, is true and right. There can't be two. How do we get everybody to get along with that concept and understanding, and still live peacefully together?

That's the puzzle we have to figure out...


----------



## james bond

RWS said:


> True, I loved that cover of it. Thank you.
> 
> We need to recognize the issues why we cannot live peacefully together. That's what I'm all about.
> 
> The big stumbling block I have encountered is the differences in religion, and that's why I post so much about it.
> 
> Everyone thinks they're right about their beliefs. But either one religion/belief, or none, is true and right. There can't be two. How do we get everybody to get along with that concept and understanding, and still live peacefully together?
> 
> That's the puzzle we have to figure out...



The sounds of silence covers everything imho including religion, but this is a science forum.  The major ones are politics, war, science, religion and what to watch on TV or which movie to see.  I'm just kidding about the last two.


----------



## deanrd

The GOP nominee for Gov in Florida used the term "monkey" when discussing the first black Democratic nominee for Gov.

So I guess Republicans think "monkey" is a very important word.


----------



## RWS

james bond said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> True, I loved that cover of it. Thank you.
> 
> We need to recognize the issues why we cannot live peacefully together. That's what I'm all about.
> 
> The big stumbling block I have encountered is the differences in religion, and that's why I post so much about it.
> 
> Everyone thinks they're right about their beliefs. But either one religion/belief, or none, is true and right. There can't be two. How do we get everybody to get along with that concept and understanding, and still live peacefully together?
> 
> That's the puzzle we have to figure out...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The sounds of silence covers everything imho including religion, but this is a science forum.  The major ones are politics, war, science, religion and what to watch on TV or which movie to see.  I'm just kidding about the last two.
Click to expand...


OK I agree. What about the puzzle that humanity needs to solve, before we all wipe each other out over differences in religions? How do we all get along with differences in things as important as life after death?


----------



## james bond

RWS said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> True, I loved that cover of it. Thank you.
> 
> We need to recognize the issues why we cannot live peacefully together. That's what I'm all about.
> 
> The big stumbling block I have encountered is the differences in religion, and that's why I post so much about it.
> 
> Everyone thinks they're right about their beliefs. But either one religion/belief, or none, is true and right. There can't be two. How do we get everybody to get along with that concept and understanding, and still live peacefully together?
> 
> That's the puzzle we have to figure out...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The sounds of silence covers everything imho including religion, but this is a science forum.  The major ones are politics, war, science, religion and what to watch on TV or which movie to see.  I'm just kidding about the last two.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK I agree. What about the puzzle that humanity needs to solve, before we all wipe each other out over differences in religions? How do we all get along with differences in things as important as life after death?
Click to expand...


I hope I don't go too far into this as this is the S&T forum.  I want to first preface what you usually think about my beliefs and creation science.  My science isn't to reinforce my Christian beliefs.  It's science based on what the Bible says or using it as scientific hypothesis.  I thought maybe this was what you were getting at.

Now, to your comments.  Are you saying the US (mainly Christian) still go to war over religion today?  You may not agree, but the religious wars I see is Israel vs Islamic countries and Islam vs atheists over in Europe.  The US interest in the Middle East is more poli-economical.  It has interests over oil, terrorism and seeing peace between Israel and Islamic countries.

>>What about the puzzle that humanity needs to solve, before we all wipe each other out over differences in religions? How do we all get along with differences in things as important as life after death?<<

I think the puzzle that humanity needs to solve is poli-economical over differences in religion.  However, I can't speak for what Islam thinks.  Life after death is important, but usually the differences do not lead to war.  What are your views?


----------



## james bond

I was going to see 2001:  A Space Odyssey in IMAX today, but it already fell off the rotation.  It was suppose to play a week and today would've been the last day.  Oh well.  Anyway, I've it a few times already, but not in IMAX.

What do you think is _represented_ by the monolith?  It seems to make any creature that comes into contact with it "evolve."  They all have scalar dimensions 1:4:9, so are assumed to be the creation of an extraterrestrial intelligence.  They are mysterious black slabs found found on earth as well as the moon, Jupiter and elsewhere  .  Someone told me that the movie illustrates the contradiction that exists in science about empiricism.  In the movie, everyone who found and came into contact with the monolith evolved into something more.  How they came to be is not explained.  Just that they found the monolith.  However, as shown in the movie's final scene, the human embryo is seen as naturally occurring.

How is it, that a mysterious slab of black material created by alien intelligence transform creatures into something that is more infinitely complex such as the human embryo merely by chance?  It really can't unless the alien intelligence was advanced enough to create something organic from inorganic materials.  I think the film perfectly represents the contraction of evolution and empiricism.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> Survival of the fittest was thought to be a fact, but that turned into pseudoscience.


No, it's still a fact.

You just failed another 7th grade science test.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Survival of the fittest was thought to be a fact, but that turned into pseudoscience.
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's still a fact.
> 
> You just failed another 7th grade science test.
Click to expand...


LOL.  You are not qualified to judge 7th grade science nor 3rd nor 1st grade.  You do not understand what it means.  I even came up with survival of the fittest as something that was considered fact at one time, but it's changed to mean something else.  Who is to say that it won't change again?  

Forget 'survival of the fittest' – the laziest will inherit the Earth 

You need to go back to 1st grade science I'm afraid.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Survival of the fittest was thought to be a fact, but that turned into pseudoscience.
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's still a fact.
> 
> You just failed another 7th grade science test.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL.  You are not qualified to judge 7th grade science nor 3rd nor 1st grade.  You do not understand what it means.  I even came up with survival of the fittest as something that was considered fact at one time, but it's changed to mean something else.  Who is to say that it won't change again?
> 
> Forget 'survival of the fittest' – the laziest will inherit the Earth
> 
> You need to go back to 1st grade science I'm afraid.
Click to expand...

You idiot...that headline is a double entendre on the word, "fit". Damn you just made yourself look stupid.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Survival of the fittest was thought to be a fact, but that turned into pseudoscience.
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's still a fact.
> 
> You just failed another 7th grade science test.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL.  You are not qualified to judge 7th grade science nor 3rd nor 1st grade.  You do not understand what it means.  I even came up with survival of the fittest as something that was considered fact at one time, but it's changed to mean something else.  Who is to say that it won't change again?
> 
> Forget 'survival of the fittest' – the laziest will inherit the Earth
> 
> You need to go back to 1st grade science I'm afraid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You idiot...that headline is a double entendre on the word, "fit". Damn you just made yourself look stupid.
Click to expand...


Ha ha.  You lost again with ad hominem attack.  What is it now?  125 - 0?


----------



## RWS

I think that if we can remove the religious cloud of hatred from the world, we could start seeing clearly, and start to make some change in governments to serve the people, instead of the mongers.


----------



## james bond

RWS said:


> I think that if we can remove the religious cloud of hatred from the world, we could start seeing clearly, and start to make some change in governments to serve the people, instead of the mongers.



I can only speak for Christianity and that God presents an objective moral view to guide us all.  However, the world has their own view and thus it slides into the god of the world hands.


----------



## RWS

james bond said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think that if we can remove the religious cloud of hatred from the world, we could start seeing clearly, and start to make some change in governments to serve the people, instead of the mongers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can only speak for Christianity and that God presents an objective moral view to guide us all.  However, the world has their own view and thus it slides into the god of the world hands.
Click to expand...

That;s the best philosophical quote that I've heard from you. However, it's full of holes from logic, when someone doesn't believe in God. But that was great anyway!

However, I do recall something about you saying that you don't represent Christianity, only the science of creation. Jus sayin. Not wanting to argue a great idealist post, just pointing it out.

I wish your version of things were true.


----------



## RWS

If the whole world could be Christian, and we could wipe out the rest, we may lead more peaceful lives around the planet. Especially after we destroy all the crazy splinter factions that don't agree with the central principle. 

However, that requires genocide. I'd rather convince the world to be atheist, or to be more understanding, using logic and truth. It's a lot more peaceful and eco-friendly. 

But then, there are the types that are so fanatical, that they may need smiting...


----------



## james bond

RWS said:


> If the whole world could be Christian, and we could wipe out the rest, we may lead more peaceful lives around the planet. Especially after we destroy all the crazy splinter factions that don't agree with the central principle.
> 
> However, that requires genocide. I'd rather convince the world to be atheist, or to be more understanding, using logic and truth. It's a lot more peaceful and eco-friendly.
> 
> But then, there are the types that are so fanatical, that they may need smiting...



Nothing to smile about.  Genocide was committed by social Darwinists, eugenicists, Hitler, Planned Parenthood, state atheism, communists and the like.  All leftist and atheist leaning groups.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Survival of the fittest was thought to be a fact, but that turned into pseudoscience.
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's still a fact.
> 
> You just failed another 7th grade science test.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL.  You are not qualified to judge 7th grade science nor 3rd nor 1st grade.  You do not understand what it means.  I even came up with survival of the fittest as something that was considered fact at one time, but it's changed to mean something else.  Who is to say that it won't change again?
> 
> Forget 'survival of the fittest' – the laziest will inherit the Earth
> 
> You need to go back to 1st grade science I'm afraid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You idiot...that headline is a double entendre on the word, "fit". Damn you just made yourself look stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ha ha.  You lost again with ad hominem attack.  What is it now?  125 - 0?
Click to expand...

Hmm, no, you are still wrong about everything, you still have zero understanding of evolution, and evolution is still an accepted fact. But thanks for asking.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Survival of the fittest was thought to be a fact, but that turned into pseudoscience.
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's still a fact.
> 
> You just failed another 7th grade science test.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL.  You are not qualified to judge 7th grade science nor 3rd nor 1st grade.  You do not understand what it means.  I even came up with survival of the fittest as something that was considered fact at one time, but it's changed to mean something else.  Who is to say that it won't change again?
> 
> Forget 'survival of the fittest' – the laziest will inherit the Earth
> 
> You need to go back to 1st grade science I'm afraid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You idiot...that headline is a double entendre on the word, "fit". Damn you just made yourself look stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ha ha.  You lost again with ad hominem attack.  What is it now?  125 - 0?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hmm, no, you are still wrong about everything, you still have zero understanding of evolution, and evolution is still an accepted fact. But thanks for asking.
Click to expand...


Yet, you did not produce one fact in your claimed "mountain of evidence."  While I produced a false one.  I can easily produce a creation fact.  "Every time heat flows from a hot spot to a cold spot, entropy *increases.*"  Thus, when the season changes from winter to spring, entropy increases.  Every day, the sun provides heat for the earth.  Every day, entropy increases.

Evolution is the opposite.  "Every time heat flows from a cold spot to a hot spot, entropy *decreases.*"  It takes energy (heat) in lightning to supposedly create life (abiogenesis bullsh*t).  The earth and universe is closed system, so entropy increases.


----------



## RWS

james bond said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the whole world could be Christian, and we could wipe out the rest, we may lead more peaceful lives around the planet. Especially after we destroy all the crazy splinter factions that don't agree with the central principle.
> 
> However, that requires genocide. I'd rather convince the world to be atheist, or to be more understanding, using logic and truth. It's a lot more peaceful and eco-friendly.
> 
> But then, there are the types that are so fanatical, that they may need smiting...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing to smile about.  Genocide was committed by social Darwinists, eugenicists, Hitler, Planned Parenthood, state atheism, communists and the like.  All leftist and atheist leaning groups.
Click to expand...

All committed by religious fanatics.

Socialism is a religion too. Just as much as any other. It's actually based on Calvinism and Puritanism ideas that we must remove all earthly claims in favor of the state. Or "God" as they called it. Replace "state" with "god", and you have the same thing.

Hitler believed in a religion where the underground gods wanted to wipe out non-believers.

All these genocidal people that have tried to influence us, are trying to trick us to believe in their "god".

Atheists look at this, and say WTF is wrong with these people?!?


----------



## RWS

What's wrong, is religion....

That's the thing that ties all human mass-insanity together.


----------



## RWS

james bond said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the whole world could be Christian, and we could wipe out the rest, we may lead more peaceful lives around the planet. Especially after we destroy all the crazy splinter factions that don't agree with the central principle.
> 
> However, that requires genocide. I'd rather convince the world to be atheist, or to be more understanding, using logic and truth. It's a lot more peaceful and eco-friendly.
> 
> But then, there are the types that are so fanatical, that they may need smiting...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing to smile about.  Genocide was committed by social Darwinists, eugenicists, Hitler, Planned Parenthood, state atheism, communists and the like.  All leftist and atheist leaning groups.
Click to expand...

(edited)
All committed by religious fanatics.

Socialism is a religion too. Just as much as any other. It's actually based on Calvinism and Puritanism ideas that we must remove all earthly claims in favor of the state. Or "God" as they called it. Replace "state" with "god", and you have the same thing. They all lead to a "Heaven" or "Utopia" that cannot exist, to the benefit of their respective rulers.

Hitler believed in a religion where the underground gods wanted to wipe out non-believers.

All these genocidal people that have tried to influence us, are trying to trick us to believe in their "god".

Atheists look at this, and say WTF is wrong with these people?!?


----------



## BuckToothMoron

Ima Cat said:


> I know there are similarities but I think they are coincidental, like cats and seals both have whiskers.  But cats didn't come from seals or vice a versa.



Evolution does not claim we came from monkeys. It suggest we have common ancestry.


----------



## Flopper

ScienceRocks said:


> We're primates that developed from a common ancestor 5-7 million years ago that yes was an ape.
> 
> That is a fact....The evidence is very strong.


*It was Pierolapithecus catalaunicus thought to be a common ancestor of humans and the other great apes but there is still a missing link.  We don't have all pieces of the puzzle.*


----------



## RWS

Psst, the "missing link" may be extraterrestrial. Think about it for a little bit. 

But actually there is no missing link.


----------



## RWS

What came first, the chicken, or the egg? 

We all know the answer, and there is no missing link.


----------



## RWS

But ET's could have sped us along the path of evolution and knowledge. Culminating with the great Sumerian civilization 6000 years ago, that we take for granted today.


----------



## Flopper

Ima Cat said:


> I know there are similarities but I think they are coincidental, like cats and seals both have whiskers.  But cats didn't come from seals or vice a versa.


*Nearly all animals on earth today come from a common ancestors, not from any spices that exist today.  So cats didn't come from seals but they did come from a common ancestor many millions of ears ago, long before cats or seals existed.*


----------



## james bond

RWS said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the whole world could be Christian, and we could wipe out the rest, we may lead more peaceful lives around the planet. Especially after we destroy all the crazy splinter factions that don't agree with the central principle.
> 
> However, that requires genocide. I'd rather convince the world to be atheist, or to be more understanding, using logic and truth. It's a lot more peaceful and eco-friendly.
> 
> But then, there are the types that are so fanatical, that they may need smiting...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing to smile about.  Genocide was committed by social Darwinists, eugenicists, Hitler, Planned Parenthood, state atheism, communists and the like.  All leftist and atheist leaning groups.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All committed by religious fanatics.
> 
> Socialism is a religion too. Just as much as any other. It's actually based on Calvinism and Puritanism ideas that we must remove all earthly claims in favor of the state. Or "God" as they called it. Replace "state" with "god", and you have the same thing.
> 
> Hitler believed in a religion where the underground gods wanted to wipe out non-believers.
> 
> All these genocidal people that have tried to influence us, are trying to trick us to believe in their "god".
> 
> Atheists look at this, and say WTF is wrong with these people?!?
Click to expand...


We do not traditionally think socialism is a religion, but a political system.  Whatever.  If you want to call it a religion, fine, but it's not based on Christianity.  I would think it's based on leftist 'religion' like _secular humanism_, i.e. atheism.  Didn't we have communal living from the libbies during the 60s?  I saw Easy Rider, one of the classic 60s movies.  

"It was from this secular humanist morality that Robert Owen (began an experiment in communal living in 1825) derived his understanding of Ethical Socialism and formulated his experiments in constructing Utopian communities in Britain and in a fledging America. In purchasing property from a religious community, Owen dubbed the experiment "New Harmony" and proceeded to fabricate his little society based upon humanist liberty and egalitarian tenets while deconstructing institutions such as marriage in the service of a worldly human happiness."

Socialism as Religion

Robert Owen - Wikipedia

Again, genocide is from Darwin.  It led to eugenics from Darwin's cousin.  Trying to bring this post back to science.  There was a book written called _Hitler's Scientists_ by John Cornwell. 

"From chapter 1 to 6, through relationships with scientists who make weapons, Hitler realized the power of science and technology in relation to dominance through war. Germany's dominance in science fields helped the Nazi Party to gain advantages in weapons and machines. In the 1900s, Germans made early advances in the liquefaction of gases, the production of electrical power, and electrochemistry. Especially in the case of German chemist Fritz Haber(considered the "father of chemical warfare") who became an honorable scientist in Germany who had contributed to producing high explosives during World War I. Furthermore, during this time period, Haber got recognized for producing poison gas with his colleagues. After the First World War, the topic of racial hygiene became prevalent in Germany, and Hitler overpowered the Nazi party and brain washed Germans to practice eugenics and the destruction of "impurities" in an "inferior" race."

Hitler's Scientists - Wikipedia

The state atheists like Hitler and his scientists killed around 11 million.  Doesn't this prove that genocide is leftist 'religion?'  If you believe otherwise, ti's based on Satanic lies as pointed out many times in the Religion and Ethics forum.


----------



## RWS

Socialist religion, and Hitler based on his crazy religion, killed a lot of people. And they got folks to follow them by making them think their afterlife (or future advance) was dependent on them following the crazy orders they were given.

Those were religions. And just like many other religions, they killed a lot of people, because they thought they were right! They were brainwashed into thinking they were right! And it allowed them to kill people like crazy, because they though they were doing the right thing. Based on their religious brainwashing.

Christians did the same. And those were really horrible deaths, because it took knives and rocks and swords. They evil ones didn't die quickly. And they killed and raped and rampaged throughout the world. Because God and Jesus told them to.

Or so they say...

They're all full of shit. And anybody who follows that is full of shit too. You can't forgive your religion for the crimes it has committed. This is what people follow. And it will happen again.

Just like today where the Church is giving a blind eye to kids who have been molested by wicked gay priests. There are thousands of kids, now grownups, saying they were blown by priests and nobody cared. The Pope is even under scrutiny for allowing this under his watch.

If these priests and popes are really holy people connected directly to god, then god should smite them.

But he doesn't.

Why?

Because your God doesn't exist.


----------



## RWS

It's a made-up tale to make people feel good, and ultimately to make them follow a ruler that says he talks to "god", so he can create an army of followers to fight his battles.

People that tell you to argue the fallacy that we came from monkeys, are the same people that are using you to fight their battles. 

You, Bond, are fighting a battle that you were brainwashed into. Despite all obvious evidence. You do it because you feel like a warrior for Christianity. 

You were brainwashed into this.


----------



## DOTR

Flopper said:


> Ima Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know there are similarities but I think they are coincidental, like cats and seals both have whiskers.  But cats didn't come from seals or vice a versa.
> 
> 
> 
> *Nearly all animals on earth today come from a common ancestors, not from any spices that exist today.  So cats didn't come from seals but they did come from a common ancestor many millions of ears ago, long before cats or seals existed.*
Click to expand...


 Nearly?


----------



## james bond

RWS said:


> Socialist religion, and Hitler based on his crazy religion, killed a lot of people. And they got folks to follow them by making them think their afterlife (or future advance) was dependent on them following the crazy orders they were given.
> 
> Those were religions. And just like many other religions, they killed a lot of people, because they thought they were right! They were brainwashed into thinking they were right! And it allowed them to kill people like crazy, because they though they were doing the right thing. Based on their religious brainwashing.
> 
> Christians did the same. And those were really horrible deaths, because it took knives and rocks and swords. They evil ones didn't die quickly. And they killed and raped and rampaged throughout the world. Because God and Jesus told them to.
> 
> Or so they say...
> 
> They're all full of shit. And anybody who follows that is full of shit too. You can't forgive your religion for the crimes it has committed. This is what people follow. And it will happen again.
> 
> Just like today where the Church is giving a blind eye to kids who have been molested by wicked gay priests. There are thousands of kids, now grownups, saying they were blown by priests and nobody cared. The Pope is even under scrutiny for allowing this under his watch.
> 
> If these priests and popes are really holy people connected directly to god, then god should smite them.
> 
> But he doesn't.
> 
> Why?
> 
> Because your God doesn't exist.



You're starting to ramble on because you do not reply to my truthful statements backed up by my links.  It goes to show that your statements are based on assertions and do not present a coherent argument.  Is this typical of atheists?  No, I've heard atheists with better arguments, but they end up being wrong.  Still, they presented an actual argument.

First, we know that socialism (politics and ideology) is based on secular humanism.  Secular humanism is based on Marxist humanism and Karl Marx.  Is it any wonder that this is the basis of your rants against Christianity?  At least, the atheists I know admit this is their foundation.  If you haven't realized this already, then this is the path you are heading down.

As for the Christians doing violence and killing because God told them to, it is the story of the Canaanites which has been explained several times already.  God had good reason for destroying his enemies that stood in the way and would kill the Israelites.

Why did God command the extermination / genocide of the Canaanites, women and children included?

As for the gay priests, you're referring to Catholics and Pope Francis has to deal with it.  The church should be sued by its victims in my opinion.

There is no reason for the god of the world to smite Catholics.  Many Christians think the Catholics may be fall under Satan when the time comes.  It is a form of Christianity under human influence instead of following the Bible.  Satan doesn't just influence non-believers.  He influences believers, too.  The theistic evolutionists.

And from all your nonsense, you conclude God doesn't exist.  It's just the rantings of someone who's gone looney tunes.



> It's a made-up tale to make people feel good, and ultimately to make them follow a ruler that says he talks to "god", so he can create an army of followers to fight his battles.
> 
> People that tell you to argue the fallacy that we came from monkeys, are the same people that are using you to fight their battles.
> 
> You, Bond, are fighting a battle that you were brainwashed into. Despite all obvious evidence. You do it because you feel like a warrior for Christianity.
> 
> You were brainwashed into this



It's not made up at all.  It was written down many centuries ago by people from different walks of life.  It's part history, part science (even though it's not a science book) and for our lives in the future.  If one studies it, then there is no other conclusion that they can come to.  As I stated, I compared evolution from evolution.berkeley.edu and what the Bible says and the Bible is correct.  Prior to that, I believed in evolution.  However, around 2011 I had serious doubts about evolution based on its own merits.

Darwin was wrong and much of evolution has not panned out.  I started seriously questioning it in 2011 when there wasn't an explanation of how multicell creatures come into existence.  How did sexual reproduction evolve?  Where is the mountain of evidence of transitional fossils?  What are scientific breakthroughs based on evolution?  Why is evolution considered science when it's more forensics and forensics without adequate evidence could be wrong (and it usually is)?  Living creatures and their births look like there is intelligence behind their designs just like DNA.  Evos cannot explain nor have arguments to disprove, but try to pass off their dogma instead.  Why is evolution dogma taught as science?  It's more philosophy and religion.  Creation should be taught as science since it provides the origins to biology, zoology, geology and paleontolgy which is filled with erroneous ideas taught from evolution.

You keep believing we came from a monkey or a common ancestor, but there is no evidence of this monkey or common ancestor.  They should be in abundance.  When asked why there aren't any today, we get the same fossil evidence circular reasoning mumbo jumbo.  How does knowing you came from an ape help at all then?  What other science has it led to?  What good does knowing that your DNA is similar to a monkey's DNA done?  What good is knowing birds came from dinosaurs?  It's just used to promote evolution, as circular reasoning is ought to do.

So, clearly I wasn't brainwashed into anything.  My faith in Jesus is my faith.  It has led to my discovering creation science and discovering it better explains our reality and origins and our future than the myths of evolution.  All your mountain of evidence, theories and "facts" has led to a lot of nothing which beliefs in myths are ought to do.  While belief in creation science and the Bible has led to all kinds of breakthroughs such as mathematics, magnetic field strength, continental drift and plate tectonics, radioactive decay and helium in rocks, cold material near the earth's core and much more.  I don't have to list all the scientists who believed in creation and their accomplishments as it will fill multiple pages here.


----------



## LittleNipper

I must say that Sean Connery was my favorite James Bond. He certainly knew when and how to wear a suit --- and he wasn't a pretty boy either.


----------



## james bond

LittleNipper said:


> I must say that Sean Connery was my favorite James Bond. He certainly knew when and how to wear a suit --- and he wasn't a pretty boy either.



Why, thank you, LittleNipper .


----------



## james bond

RWS said:


> It's a made-up tale to make people feel good, and ultimately to make them follow a ruler that says he talks to "god", so he can create an army of followers to fight his battles.
> 
> People that tell you to argue the fallacy that we came from monkeys, are the same people that are using you to fight their battles.
> 
> You, Bond, are fighting a battle that you were brainwashed into. Despite all obvious evidence. You do it because you feel like a warrior for Christianity.
> 
> You were brainwashed into this.



You are back to your tired, old tropes thinking that creation scientists were brainwashed into this.  Nothing of the kind.  In fact, creationists created science to pay homage to God.  It's the other way around, so you are wrong once again.

However, I did find the following to add to the discussion.  It lists the ways an ape-human or common ancestor could be demonstrated in science.


Combine ape fossil bones with human fossil bones and declare the two to be one individual—a real “apeman.”
Emphasize certain humanlike qualities of fossilized ape bones, and with imagination upgrade apes to be more humanlike.
Emphasize certain apelike qualities of fossilized human bones, and with imagination downgrade humans to be more apelike.






The problem for evolutionists is NONE of the above occurred naturally.  Two out of three are imaginary.  The first one was deliberate fraud or based on fallacies of insufficient evidence.  They were all reconstructed by the evolutionists trying to show common ancestry.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Socialist religion, and Hitler based on his crazy religion, killed a lot of people. And they got folks to follow them by making them think their afterlife (or future advance) was dependent on them following the crazy orders they were given.
> 
> Those were religions. And just like many other religions, they killed a lot of people, because they thought they were right! They were brainwashed into thinking they were right! And it allowed them to kill people like crazy, because they though they were doing the right thing. Based on their religious brainwashing.
> 
> Christians did the same. And those were really horrible deaths, because it took knives and rocks and swords. They evil ones didn't die quickly. And they killed and raped and rampaged throughout the world. Because God and Jesus told them to.
> 
> Or so they say...
> 
> They're all full of shit. And anybody who follows that is full of shit too. You can't forgive your religion for the crimes it has committed. This is what people follow. And it will happen again.
> 
> Just like today where the Church is giving a blind eye to kids who have been molested by wicked gay priests. There are thousands of kids, now grownups, saying they were blown by priests and nobody cared. The Pope is even under scrutiny for allowing this under his watch.
> 
> If these priests and popes are really holy people connected directly to god, then god should smite them.
> 
> But he doesn't.
> 
> Why?
> 
> Because your God doesn't exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're starting to ramble on because you do not reply to my truthful statements backed up by my links.  It goes to show that your statements are based on assertions and do not present a coherent argument.  Is this typical of atheists?  No, I've heard atheists with better arguments, but they end up being wrong.  Still, they presented an actual argument.
> 
> First, we know that socialism (politics and ideology) is based on secular humanism.  Secular humanism is based on Marxist humanism and Karl Marx.  Is it any wonder that this is the basis of your rants against Christianity?  At least, the atheists I know admit this is their foundation.  If you haven't realized this already, then this is the path you are heading down.
> 
> As for the Christians doing violence and killing because God told them to, it is the story of the Canaanites which has been explained several times already.  God had good reason for destroying his enemies that stood in the way and would kill the Israelites.
> 
> Why did God command the extermination / genocide of the Canaanites, women and children included?
> 
> As for the gay priests, you're referring to Catholics and Pope Francis has to deal with it.  The church should be sued by its victims in my opinion.
> 
> There is no reason for the god of the world to smite Catholics.  Many Christians think the Catholics may be fall under Satan when the time comes.  It is a form of Christianity under human influence instead of following the Bible.  Satan doesn't just influence non-believers.  He influences believers, too.  The theistic evolutionists.
> 
> And from all your nonsense, you conclude God doesn't exist.  It's just the rantings of someone who's gone looney tunes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's a made-up tale to make people feel good, and ultimately to make them follow a ruler that says he talks to "god", so he can create an army of followers to fight his battles.
> 
> People that tell you to argue the fallacy that we came from monkeys, are the same people that are using you to fight their battles.
> 
> You, Bond, are fighting a battle that you were brainwashed into. Despite all obvious evidence. You do it because you feel like a warrior for Christianity.
> 
> You were brainwashed into this
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not made up at all.  It was written down many centuries ago by people from different walks of life.  It's part history, part science (even though it's not a science book) and for our lives in the future.  If one studies it, then there is no other conclusion that they can come to.  As I stated, I compared evolution from evolution.berkeley.edu and what the Bible says and the Bible is correct.  Prior to that, I believed in evolution.  However, around 2011 I had serious doubts about evolution based on its own merits.
> 
> Darwin was wrong and much of evolution has not panned out.  I started seriously questioning it in 2011 when there wasn't an explanation of how multicell creatures come into existence.  How did sexual reproduction evolve?  Where is the mountain of evidence of transitional fossils?  What are scientific breakthroughs based on evolution?  Why is evolution considered science when it's more forensics and forensics without adequate evidence could be wrong (and it usually is)?  Living creatures and their births look like there is intelligence behind their designs just like DNA.  Evos cannot explain nor have arguments to disprove, but try to pass off their dogma instead.  Why is evolution dogma taught as science?  It's more philosophy and religion.  Creation should be taught as science since it provides the origins to biology, zoology, geology and paleontolgy which is filled with erroneous ideas taught from evolution.
> 
> You keep believing we came from a monkey or a common ancestor, but there is no evidence of this monkey or common ancestor.  They should be in abundance.  When asked why there aren't any today, we get the same fossil evidence circular reasoning mumbo jumbo.  How does knowing you came from an ape help at all then?  What other science has it led to?  What good does knowing that your DNA is similar to a monkey's DNA done?  What good is knowing birds came from dinosaurs?  It's just used to promote evolution, as circular reasoning is ought to do.
> 
> So, clearly I wasn't brainwashed into anything.  My faith in Jesus is my faith.  It has led to my discovering creation science and discovering it better explains our reality and origins and our future than the myths of evolution.  All your mountain of evidence, theories and "facts" has led to a lot of nothing which beliefs in myths are ought to do.  While belief in creation science and the Bible has led to all kinds of breakthroughs such as mathematics, magnetic field strength, continental drift and plate tectonics, radioactive decay and helium in rocks, cold material near the earth's core and much more.  I don't have to list all the scientists who believed in creation and their accomplishments as it will fill multiple pages here.
Click to expand...


That was a long infomercial for the irrelevant Christian creation ministries.

And yes, the geocentric model is true, at least for the Flat Earth loons.


----------



## Pogo

james bond said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the whole world could be Christian, and we could wipe out the rest, we may lead more peaceful lives around the planet. Especially after we destroy all the crazy splinter factions that don't agree with the central principle.
> 
> However, that requires genocide. I'd rather convince the world to be atheist, or to be more understanding, using logic and truth. It's a lot more peaceful and eco-friendly.
> 
> But then, there are the types that are so fanatical, that they may need smiting...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing to smile about.  Genocide was committed by social Darwinists, eugenicists, Hitler, Planned Parenthood, state atheism, communists and the like.  All leftist and atheist leaning groups.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All committed by religious fanatics.
> 
> Socialism is a religion too. Just as much as any other. It's actually based on Calvinism and Puritanism ideas that we must remove all earthly claims in favor of the state. Or "God" as they called it. Replace "state" with "god", and you have the same thing.
> 
> Hitler believed in a religion where the underground gods wanted to wipe out non-believers.
> 
> All these genocidal people that have tried to influence us, are trying to trick us to believe in their "god".
> 
> Atheists look at this, and say WTF is wrong with these people?!?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We do not traditionally think socialism is a religion, but a political system.  Whatever.  If you want to call it a religion, fine, but it's not based on Christianity.  I would think it's based on leftist 'religion' like _secular humanism_, i.e. atheism.  Didn't we have communal living from the libbies during the 60s?  I saw Easy Rider, one of the classic 60s movies.
> 
> "It was from this secular humanist morality that Robert Owen (began an experiment in communal living in 1825) derived his understanding of Ethical Socialism and formulated his experiments in constructing Utopian communities in Britain and in a fledging America. In purchasing property from a religious community, Owen dubbed the experiment "New Harmony" and proceeded to fabricate his little society based upon humanist liberty and egalitarian tenets while deconstructing institutions such as marriage in the service of a worldly human happiness."
> 
> Socialism as Religion
> 
> Robert Owen - Wikipedia
> 
> Again, genocide is from Darwin.  It led to eugenics from Darwin's cousin.  Trying to bring this post back to science.  There was a book written called _Hitler's Scientists_ by John Cornwell.
> 
> "From chapter 1 to 6, through relationships with scientists who make weapons, Hitler realized the power of science and technology in relation to dominance through war. Germany's dominance in science fields helped the Nazi Party to gain advantages in weapons and machines. In the 1900s, Germans made early advances in the liquefaction of gases, the production of electrical power, and electrochemistry. Especially in the case of German chemist Fritz Haber(considered the "father of chemical warfare") who became an honorable scientist in Germany who had contributed to producing high explosives during World War I. Furthermore, during this time period, Haber got recognized for producing poison gas with his colleagues. After the First World War, the topic of racial hygiene became prevalent in Germany, and Hitler overpowered the Nazi party and brain washed Germans to practice eugenics and the destruction of "impurities" in an "inferior" race."
> 
> Hitler's Scientists - Wikipedia
> 
> The state atheists like Hitler and his scientists killed around 11 million.  Doesn't this prove that genocide is leftist 'religion?'  If you believe otherwise, ti's based on Satanic lies as pointed out many times in the Religion and Ethics forum.
Click to expand...


----------



## RWS

james bond said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Socialist religion, and Hitler based on his crazy religion, killed a lot of people. And they got folks to follow them by making them think their afterlife (or future advance) was dependent on them following the crazy orders they were given.
> 
> Those were religions. And just like many other religions, they killed a lot of people, because they thought they were right! They were brainwashed into thinking they were right! And it allowed them to kill people like crazy, because they though they were doing the right thing. Based on their religious brainwashing.
> 
> Christians did the same. And those were really horrible deaths, because it took knives and rocks and swords. They evil ones didn't die quickly. And they killed and raped and rampaged throughout the world. Because God and Jesus told them to.
> 
> Or so they say...
> 
> They're all full of shit. And anybody who follows that is full of shit too. You can't forgive your religion for the crimes it has committed. This is what people follow. And it will happen again.
> 
> Just like today where the Church is giving a blind eye to kids who have been molested by wicked gay priests. There are thousands of kids, now grownups, saying they were blown by priests and nobody cared. The Pope is even under scrutiny for allowing this under his watch.
> 
> If these priests and popes are really holy people connected directly to god, then god should smite them.
> 
> But he doesn't.
> 
> Why?
> 
> Because your God doesn't exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're starting to ramble on because you do not reply to my truthful statements backed up by my links.  It goes to show that your statements are based on assertions and do not present a coherent argument.  Is this typical of atheists?  No, I've heard atheists with better arguments, but they end up being wrong.  Still, they presented an actual argument.
> 
> First, we know that socialism (politics and ideology) is based on secular humanism.  Secular humanism is based on Marxist humanism and Karl Marx.  Is it any wonder that this is the basis of your rants against Christianity?  At least, the atheists I know admit this is their foundation.  If you haven't realized this already, then this is the path you are heading down.
> 
> As for the Christians doing violence and killing because God told them to, it is the story of the Canaanites which has been explained several times already.  God had good reason for destroying his enemies that stood in the way and would kill the Israelites.
> 
> Why did God command the extermination / genocide of the Canaanites, women and children included?
> 
> As for the gay priests, you're referring to Catholics and Pope Francis has to deal with it.  The church should be sued by its victims in my opinion.
> 
> There is no reason for the god of the world to smite Catholics.  Many Christians think the Catholics may be fall under Satan when the time comes.  It is a form of Christianity under human influence instead of following the Bible.  Satan doesn't just influence non-believers.  He influences believers, too.  The theistic evolutionists.
> 
> And from all your nonsense, you conclude God doesn't exist.  It's just the rantings of someone who's gone looney tunes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's a made-up tale to make people feel good, and ultimately to make them follow a ruler that says he talks to "god", so he can create an army of followers to fight his battles.
> 
> People that tell you to argue the fallacy that we came from monkeys, are the same people that are using you to fight their battles.
> 
> You, Bond, are fighting a battle that you were brainwashed into. Despite all obvious evidence. You do it because you feel like a warrior for Christianity.
> 
> You were brainwashed into this
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not made up at all.  It was written down many centuries ago by people from different walks of life.  It's part history, part science (even though it's not a science book) and for our lives in the future.  If one studies it, then there is no other conclusion that they can come to.  As I stated, I compared evolution from evolution.berkeley.edu and what the Bible says and the Bible is correct.  Prior to that, I believed in evolution.  However, around 2011 I had serious doubts about evolution based on its own merits.
> 
> Darwin was wrong and much of evolution has not panned out.  I started seriously questioning it in 2011 when there wasn't an explanation of how multicell creatures come into existence.  How did sexual reproduction evolve?  Where is the mountain of evidence of transitional fossils?  What are scientific breakthroughs based on evolution?  Why is evolution considered science when it's more forensics and forensics without adequate evidence could be wrong (and it usually is)?  Living creatures and their births look like there is intelligence behind their designs just like DNA.  Evos cannot explain nor have arguments to disprove, but try to pass off their dogma instead.  Why is evolution dogma taught as science?  It's more philosophy and religion.  Creation should be taught as science since it provides the origins to biology, zoology, geology and paleontolgy which is filled with erroneous ideas taught from evolution.
> 
> You keep believing we came from a monkey or a common ancestor, but there is no evidence of this monkey or common ancestor.  They should be in abundance.  When asked why there aren't any today, we get the same fossil evidence circular reasoning mumbo jumbo.  How does knowing you came from an ape help at all then?  What other science has it led to?  What good does knowing that your DNA is similar to a monkey's DNA done?  What good is knowing birds came from dinosaurs?  It's just used to promote evolution, as circular reasoning is ought to do.
> 
> So, clearly I wasn't brainwashed into anything.  My faith in Jesus is my faith.  It has led to my discovering creation science and discovering it better explains our reality and origins and our future than the myths of evolution.  All your mountain of evidence, theories and "facts" has led to a lot of nothing which beliefs in myths are ought to do.  While belief in creation science and the Bible has led to all kinds of breakthroughs such as mathematics, magnetic field strength, continental drift and plate tectonics, radioactive decay and helium in rocks, cold material near the earth's core and much more.  I don't have to list all the scientists who believed in creation and their accomplishments as it will fill multiple pages here.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry for whatever happened to you in 2011. 

If it makes you feel good to follow these beliefs, then go for it! 

Do not hurt, do not kill, do not do anything wrong based on those beliefs. Do not think you are superior because of those beliefs. Do not use your beliefs to hurt or hinder others. 

And then I'm totally cool with it!


----------



## LuckyDuck

Ima Cat said:


> I know there are similarities but I think they are coincidental, like cats and seals both have whiskers.  But cats didn't come from seals or vice a versa.


Clearly, the more logical/rational answer as to where we came from is:
A vast, invisible fairy or similar thing, reached down into some mud, molded the clump of mud to look human, sprinkled its fairy-dust on it so that it would become human, then once it had its human, it ripped out a rib from the human (rather than simply mold some more mud) and made an opposite sex human.
Clearly, far more rational than the evolutionary process.


----------



## RWS

goodbye stranger bond...


----------



## james bond

RWS said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Socialist religion, and Hitler based on his crazy religion, killed a lot of people. And they got folks to follow them by making them think their afterlife (or future advance) was dependent on them following the crazy orders they were given.
> 
> Those were religions. And just like many other religions, they killed a lot of people, because they thought they were right! They were brainwashed into thinking they were right! And it allowed them to kill people like crazy, because they though they were doing the right thing. Based on their religious brainwashing.
> 
> Christians did the same. And those were really horrible deaths, because it took knives and rocks and swords. They evil ones didn't die quickly. And they killed and raped and rampaged throughout the world. Because God and Jesus told them to.
> 
> Or so they say...
> 
> They're all full of shit. And anybody who follows that is full of shit too. You can't forgive your religion for the crimes it has committed. This is what people follow. And it will happen again.
> 
> Just like today where the Church is giving a blind eye to kids who have been molested by wicked gay priests. There are thousands of kids, now grownups, saying they were blown by priests and nobody cared. The Pope is even under scrutiny for allowing this under his watch.
> 
> If these priests and popes are really holy people connected directly to god, then god should smite them.
> 
> But he doesn't.
> 
> Why?
> 
> Because your God doesn't exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're starting to ramble on because you do not reply to my truthful statements backed up by my links.  It goes to show that your statements are based on assertions and do not present a coherent argument.  Is this typical of atheists?  No, I've heard atheists with better arguments, but they end up being wrong.  Still, they presented an actual argument.
> 
> First, we know that socialism (politics and ideology) is based on secular humanism.  Secular humanism is based on Marxist humanism and Karl Marx.  Is it any wonder that this is the basis of your rants against Christianity?  At least, the atheists I know admit this is their foundation.  If you haven't realized this already, then this is the path you are heading down.
> 
> As for the Christians doing violence and killing because God told them to, it is the story of the Canaanites which has been explained several times already.  God had good reason for destroying his enemies that stood in the way and would kill the Israelites.
> 
> Why did God command the extermination / genocide of the Canaanites, women and children included?
> 
> As for the gay priests, you're referring to Catholics and Pope Francis has to deal with it.  The church should be sued by its victims in my opinion.
> 
> There is no reason for the god of the world to smite Catholics.  Many Christians think the Catholics may be fall under Satan when the time comes.  It is a form of Christianity under human influence instead of following the Bible.  Satan doesn't just influence non-believers.  He influences believers, too.  The theistic evolutionists.
> 
> And from all your nonsense, you conclude God doesn't exist.  It's just the rantings of someone who's gone looney tunes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's a made-up tale to make people feel good, and ultimately to make them follow a ruler that says he talks to "god", so he can create an army of followers to fight his battles.
> 
> People that tell you to argue the fallacy that we came from monkeys, are the same people that are using you to fight their battles.
> 
> You, Bond, are fighting a battle that you were brainwashed into. Despite all obvious evidence. You do it because you feel like a warrior for Christianity.
> 
> You were brainwashed into this
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not made up at all.  It was written down many centuries ago by people from different walks of life.  It's part history, part science (even though it's not a science book) and for our lives in the future.  If one studies it, then there is no other conclusion that they can come to.  As I stated, I compared evolution from evolution.berkeley.edu and what the Bible says and the Bible is correct.  Prior to that, I believed in evolution.  However, around 2011 I had serious doubts about evolution based on its own merits.
> 
> Darwin was wrong and much of evolution has not panned out.  I started seriously questioning it in 2011 when there wasn't an explanation of how multicell creatures come into existence.  How did sexual reproduction evolve?  Where is the mountain of evidence of transitional fossils?  What are scientific breakthroughs based on evolution?  Why is evolution considered science when it's more forensics and forensics without adequate evidence could be wrong (and it usually is)?  Living creatures and their births look like there is intelligence behind their designs just like DNA.  Evos cannot explain nor have arguments to disprove, but try to pass off their dogma instead.  Why is evolution dogma taught as science?  It's more philosophy and religion.  Creation should be taught as science since it provides the origins to biology, zoology, geology and paleontolgy which is filled with erroneous ideas taught from evolution.
> 
> You keep believing we came from a monkey or a common ancestor, but there is no evidence of this monkey or common ancestor.  They should be in abundance.  When asked why there aren't any today, we get the same fossil evidence circular reasoning mumbo jumbo.  How does knowing you came from an ape help at all then?  What other science has it led to?  What good does knowing that your DNA is similar to a monkey's DNA done?  What good is knowing birds came from dinosaurs?  It's just used to promote evolution, as circular reasoning is ought to do.
> 
> So, clearly I wasn't brainwashed into anything.  My faith in Jesus is my faith.  It has led to my discovering creation science and discovering it better explains our reality and origins and our future than the myths of evolution.  All your mountain of evidence, theories and "facts" has led to a lot of nothing which beliefs in myths are ought to do.  While belief in creation science and the Bible has led to all kinds of breakthroughs such as mathematics, magnetic field strength, continental drift and plate tectonics, radioactive decay and helium in rocks, cold material near the earth's core and much more.  I don't have to list all the scientists who believed in creation and their accomplishments as it will fill multiple pages here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm sorry for whatever happened to you in 2011.
> 
> If it makes you feel good to follow these beliefs, then go for it!
> 
> Do not hurt, do not kill, do not do anything wrong based on those beliefs. Do not think you are superior because of those beliefs. Do not use your beliefs to hurt or hinder others.
> 
> And then I'm totally cool with it!
Click to expand...


Don't worry about me.  You think I base it on beliefs (faith), but it's based on truth and facts.  Worry about yourself and how unhappy you are and being wrong. 

I have happiness.  Peace.  Objective moral values.  Satisfaction.  Ready to die if the world ends tomorrow.  I have Jesus.  I have the Spirit.  I have the Trinity.  I have God.  I have creation science.  I understand how Satan has lied and misled the world and he will come again and mislead millions more.


----------



## RWS

Are you willing to kill for your beliefs?


----------



## james bond

RWS said:


> Are you willing to kill for your beliefs?



Murder and unjustified killing is against God's commandments.  Most human laws follow God's commandment not to kill.  OTOH there are no morals against unjustified killing by atheists and state atheism.  The evidence shows they've killed billions, more than any other group in history.

Thus, your question implies untruth and _wrong_ basis on my beliefs.  Atheists are usually wrong.


----------



## RWS

Seriously. Let's look at some of the most crazy mass murders in the world. The Crusades, and the subsequent Inquisitions.

Dictated by somebody's "god".

And it made Christianity rule the world.

Murder, rape, genocide, pedophilia, torture, corruption, and slander, made Christianity what it is today.

That's great stuff to try to live up to, if you're an asshole.

And that also applies to other religions. But Christianity is the bitch, because followers say they are against it, but instead they promote it. To this day, especially the little kid stuff... Fucking sick assholes!


----------



## james bond

RWS said:


> Seriously. Let's look at some of the most crazy mass murders in the world. The Crusades, and the subsequent Inquisitions.
> 
> Dictated by somebody's "god".
> 
> And it made Christianity rule the world.
> 
> Murder, rape, genocide, pedophilia, torture, corruption, and slander, made Christianity what it is today.
> 
> That's great stuff to try to live up to, if you're an asshole.
> 
> And that also applies to other religions. But Christianity is the bitch, because followers say they are against it, but instead they promote it. To this day, especially the little kid stuff... Fucking sick assholes!



You are wrong again.  You do not present any evidence to back it up while I do.  State atheism killed more people than any other group or ideology.

Atheist regimes in 20th century alone killed more people than all world religions killed in the last 20 centuries put together. 

Mao Ze-Dong (China, 1958-61 and 1966-69, Tibet 1949-50) 49-78,000,00 people murdered 
Jozef Stalin (USSR 1932-39 only) 15,000,000 people murdered 
Pol Pot (Cambodia, 1975-79) 1,700,000 people murdered 
Kim II Sung (North Korea 1948-94) 1.6 million people murdered 
Tito (Yugoslavia 1945-1987) 570,000 people murdered  
Suharto (Communists 1967-66) 500,000 people murdered 
Ante Pavelic (Croatia 1941-45) 359,000 people murdered 
Ho Chi Min (Vietnam 1953-56) 200,000 people murdered 
Vladimir Ilich Lenin (USSR, 1917-20) 30,000 people murdered 
Adolf Hitler, secular and anti-religion (Germany 1939-1945) 12,000,000 people murdered 

Atheist Murderers
Atheist Murderers

Top 10 People Who Gave Atheism a Bad Name
10 People Who Give Atheism a Bad Name - Listverse


----------



## RWS

How many times do I have to say... Socialism and Nazism are religions.

You can't get mass amounts of people to willfully kill and die, unless they believe in a religion. Or are defending against a religion.

Religion is the tool to create wars. And none of them are true.


----------



## RWS

At least none that have been used in that manner....


----------



## RWS

If the world was all atheists, maybe we would have wars about money and land?

But those would all be settled in a room with a dozen lawyers.

Religions have to kill and rape and decimate and destroy, and then enslave or torture anyone who survives. And make sure their children follow the new way of order. Or otherwise, kill them too.

It's a big difference the way atheists and religionists handle things.


----------



## james bond

RWS said:


> How many times do I have to say... Socialism and Nazism are religions.
> 
> You can't get mass amounts of people to willfully kill and die, unless they believe in a religion. Or are defending against a religion.
> 
> Religion is the tool to create wars. And none of them are true.



No one's denying that, but stating atheism _murdered_ the most people.  When one has no objective morality, these things happen.  Or are you too hypocritical to be able to admit it?


----------



## james bond

RWS said:


> If the world was all atheists, maybe we would have wars about money and land?
> 
> But those would all be settled in a room with a dozen lawyers.
> 
> Religions have to kill and rape and decimate and destroy, and then enslave or torture anyone who survives. And make sure their children follow the new way of order. Or otherwise, kill them too.
> 
> It's a big difference the way atheists and religionists handle things.



We don't need wars about money and land nor lawyers, looney.  We got the politics board ha ha.


----------



## RWS

james bond said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many times do I have to say... Socialism and Nazism are religions.
> 
> You can't get mass amounts of people to willfully kill and die, unless they believe in a religion. Or are defending against a religion.
> 
> Religion is the tool to create wars. And none of them are true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one's denying that, but stating atheism _murdered_ the most people.  When one has no objective morality, these things happen.  Or are you too hypocritical to be able to admit it?
Click to expand...


Socialism and Nazism together murdered the most people. But those are religions as I've stated. Christianity is a very close 2nd. Jews and Muslims are very close 3rds. 

Being an atheist has nothing to do with that. We just scratch our heads wondering how people can be so crazy... 

Why not get along?


----------



## RWS

Why kill, rape, and destroy? 

Just love your neighbor. That's what ur book says. 

If people would just follow it, dang, this would be a totally different world.


----------



## RWS

Instead we have disagreements on stupid shit about imaginary beings, and then hatred, and then just stupid shit to try to control the other person's imaginary belief, and their response, etc....

It's absolutely terrible. I sit outside of the bubble, and laugh.

I'm going to turn you on to a new way of thinking Bond...


----------



## james bond

RWS said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many times do I have to say... Socialism and Nazism are religions.
> 
> You can't get mass amounts of people to willfully kill and die, unless they believe in a religion. Or are defending against a religion.
> 
> Religion is the tool to create wars. And none of them are true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one's denying that, but stating atheism _murdered_ the most people.  When one has no objective morality, these things happen.  Or are you too hypocritical to be able to admit it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Socialism and Nazism together murdered the most people. But those are religions as I've stated. Christianity is a very close 2nd. Jews and Muslims are very close 3rds.
> 
> Being an atheist has nothing to do with that. We just scratch our heads wondering how people can be so crazy...
> 
> Why not get along?
Click to expand...


In that regard, then we can say that Socialism, Nazism and State Atheism were gods that failed.


----------



## RWS

Yes, all gods and false religions fail.

They fail the test of altruism and humanity. 

Every single one, outside of Buddhism... but then maybe that one too... who knows?

Religion is a weapon.


----------



## RWS

And I ain't gonna get used as such.

You wanna be a tool? To promote hatred, murder, rape, and child molestation? And then sweep it under the rug in the future?

Go ahead.

If there is a hell, there's a warm and cozy spot there for you.

But of course, there is no hell. You realize that and that's why you religious peeps don't care, and continue to commit atrocities.

It's all fun and games, to try to make as much money as possible by converting as many as you can.


----------



## RWS

Religions are terribly evil... and they prey on the weak and needy.


----------



## RWS

They give false promises, and then dire consequences, if their rules are not followed.


----------



## Death Angel

RWS said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many times do I have to say... Socialism and Nazism are religions.
> 
> You can't get mass amounts of people to willfully kill and die, unless they believe in a religion. Or are defending against a religion.
> 
> Religion is the tool to create wars. And none of them are true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one's denying that, but stating atheism _murdered_ the most people.  When one has no objective morality, these things happen.  Or are you too hypocritical to be able to admit it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Socialism and Nazism together murdered the most people. But those are religions as I've stated. Christianity is a very close 2nd. Jews and Muslims are very close 3rds.
> 
> Being an atheist has nothing to do with that. We just scratch our heads wondering how people can be so crazy...
> 
> Why not get along?
Click to expand...

Christianity killed NO ONE. Anyone who murders the innocent is NOT a practicing Christian. The Christian faith condemns murder. Islam and Atheism does not.


----------



## Death Angel

RWS represents WHY Western culture is dying.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously. Let's look at some of the most crazy mass murders in the world. The Crusades, and the subsequent Inquisitions.
> 
> Dictated by somebody's "god".
> 
> And it made Christianity rule the world.
> 
> Murder, rape, genocide, pedophilia, torture, corruption, and slander, made Christianity what it is today.
> 
> That's great stuff to try to live up to, if you're an asshole.
> 
> And that also applies to other religions. But Christianity is the bitch, because followers say they are against it, but instead they promote it. To this day, especially the little kid stuff... Fucking sick assholes!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are wrong again.  You do not present any evidence to back it up while I do.  State atheism killed more people than any other group or ideology.
> 
> Atheist regimes in 20th century alone killed more people than all world religions killed in the last 20 centuries put together.
> 
> Mao Ze-Dong (China, 1958-61 and 1966-69, Tibet 1949-50) 49-78,000,00 people murdered
> Jozef Stalin (USSR 1932-39 only) 15,000,000 people murdered
> Pol Pot (Cambodia, 1975-79) 1,700,000 people murdered
> Kim II Sung (North Korea 1948-94) 1.6 million people murdered
> Tito (Yugoslavia 1945-1987) 570,000 people murdered
> Suharto (Communists 1967-66) 500,000 people murdered
> Ante Pavelic (Croatia 1941-45) 359,000 people murdered
> Ho Chi Min (Vietnam 1953-56) 200,000 people murdered
> Vladimir Ilich Lenin (USSR, 1917-20) 30,000 people murdered
> Adolf Hitler, secular and anti-religion (Germany 1939-1945) 12,000,000 people murdered
> 
> Atheist Murderers
> Atheist Murderers
> 
> Top 10 People Who Gave Atheism a Bad Name
> 10 People Who Give Atheism a Bad Name - Listverse
Click to expand...


The issue with your simple cutting and pasting is that you're not understanding what you're cutting and pasting.

You're too lazy to actually examine the numbers so I did it for you. 

Firstly, your whining regarding Mao and Stalin is mis-placed. Their motivations speak to political ideologies. Your claims to Atheism as the motivation for the atrocities is sweepingly ignorant. The atrocities of communism is overshadowed by the acts of specific individuals.


Let's see how well the numbers balance down the list, shall we?:

There is no question about Pol Pot - Commie/Authoritarian, no doubt about it.<-- Not religious (and not disputed!)

The Monguls were not Christians or Moslems. If anything their beliefs were more like your Eskimo religion.<-- Religious!

Manchu were possibly believers in Confucianism, but they were just as ruthless as Christians or Moslems.<-- Religious!

Taiping Rebellion was either Buddhism or Confucianism related.<-- RELIGIOUS!

While the Annihilation of the American Indians, might be attributed to Christian, it was in reality a clash of a "Stone Age" culture with one that was moving into the "Industrial Age". <-- NON RELIGIOUS!

Joe Stalin, Mao, a real Communist atheist.<-- Not religious and NOT DISPUTED!

The Mideast Slave trade was run by Moslems, and of course there were ideological perspectives involved as well as a mercantile motive.<-- RELIGIOUS!

The Atlantic Slave could clearly be laid on the hands of Christians.<-- RELIGIOUS!

Timur Lenk was a Turkish Mongul whose conquests rivaled Ghengis Khan. He was not a Christian or Moslem - merely killed lots of them!<-- Not religious, perhaps!

The Kaiser, Archduke Ferdinand, King George, Tsar, and the French were all Christian (but the Turks were Islamic). Although WWII was largely about power and control, Nazism was deeply rooted in christianity <-- Religious!

The Russian Civil War was the Whites (Christians) against the Reds (Atheistic Communist Bolsheviks). Flip a coin, but the Bolsheviks started it! The Czar instituted pogroms against the Jews, <-- Religious!

The Thuggee were a Hindhu cult.<--- Religious!

Rome falls to the pagan Barbarians!<-- "Pagans" had religious beliefs. So did Rome. --RELIGIOUS!

The Thirty Year War involved Christian Europe, again more about power than religion!<--Religious!

The Congo Free State included imperialism and colonialism attributed to a number of European Christian States. It wasn't entirely about religion, however.<-- Religious!

The Chinese Civil War involved atheistic Marxist under Mao, and Buddhists or Confucians under the Nationalist banner. <-- BOTH!

The Crusades<-- Religious!

Spanish Inquisition<-- Religious!

Spanish conquest of South America<-- Religious!

The moslem rape of the Indian Subcontinent stands as one of the greatest genocides in human history. Some 80 million people may have been killed <== RELIGIOUS

The moslem conquest of Europe shortly after the death of the Islam's man-god: muhammud, is impossible to calculate. <-- RELIGIOUS!

Any fair tallying of the numbers will put your communist-Marxist ideology in the running for really "evil" category! HOWEVER  Marxism, which defines an ideology, was the prime motivator for Lenin, Stalin Mao, Pol Pot and Kim Jong. Atheism was not a motivating factor in their atrocities. 

So  tally the score. Religion "wins".

What's important to understand though is that it has always been the religions that have perpetrated the greatest horrors, mass murders and suffering. Look around you though, Its you wonderful religious folks who are suicide bombers, airline hijackers, mass murderers, etc., etc. Hey, it's theists who claim that they have morals of a divine nature to adhere to -- it's theism that claims a "better person" comes from a deep faith. The fact is, it's a sham.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many times do I have to say... Socialism and Nazism are religions.
> 
> You can't get mass amounts of people to willfully kill and die, unless they believe in a religion. Or are defending against a religion.
> 
> Religion is the tool to create wars. And none of them are true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one's denying that, but stating atheism _murdered_ the most people.  When one has no objective morality, these things happen.  Or are you too hypocritical to be able to admit it?
Click to expand...


It is simply false to suggest that "atheism _murdered_ the most people". In what appears to be feverish attempts at _moral equivalence_, I'll advise that the purges committed under Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot were in furtherance of _political ideologies_. Atheism was not the motivating factor in those purges. I have nothing to support any claim that Stalin, Mao or Pol Pot ever shouted _Atheism Akbar_ in the commission of their mass murders. I'm surprised (well, not really), that you would choose to falsely and carelessly introduce Atheism as a motivating factor for mass murder when that was not the case. On the other hand, mass murder has historically been a vehicle for expansion of religious ideology. The religious perspectives have been the engine that drove conquests. Shields, placards, belt buckles, engraving on weapons, etc., have borne the symbols of religious ideologies.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously. Let's look at some of the most crazy mass murders in the world. The Crusades, and the subsequent Inquisitions.
> 
> Dictated by somebody's "god".
> 
> And it made Christianity rule the world.
> 
> Murder, rape, genocide, pedophilia, torture, corruption, and slander, made Christianity what it is today.
> 
> That's great stuff to try to live up to, if you're an asshole.
> 
> And that also applies to other religions. But Christianity is the bitch, because followers say they are against it, but instead they promote it. To this day, especially the little kid stuff... Fucking sick assholes!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are wrong again.  You do not present any evidence to back it up while I do.  State atheism killed more people than any other group or ideology.
> 
> Atheist regimes in 20th century alone killed more people than all world religions killed in the last 20 centuries put together.
> 
> Mao Ze-Dong (China, 1958-61 and 1966-69, Tibet 1949-50) 49-78,000,00 people murdered
> Jozef Stalin (USSR 1932-39 only) 15,000,000 people murdered
> Pol Pot (Cambodia, 1975-79) 1,700,000 people murdered
> Kim II Sung (North Korea 1948-94) 1.6 million people murdered
> Tito (Yugoslavia 1945-1987) 570,000 people murdered
> Suharto (Communists 1967-66) 500,000 people murdered
> Ante Pavelic (Croatia 1941-45) 359,000 people murdered
> Ho Chi Min (Vietnam 1953-56) 200,000 people murdered
> Vladimir Ilich Lenin (USSR, 1917-20) 30,000 people murdered
> Adolf Hitler, secular and anti-religion (Germany 1939-1945) 12,000,000 people murdered
> 
> Atheist Murderers
> Atheist Murderers
> 
> Top 10 People Who Gave Atheism a Bad Name
> 10 People Who Give Atheism a Bad Name - Listverse
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The issue with your simple cutting and pasting is that you're not understanding what you're cutting and pasting.
> 
> You're too lazy to actually examine the numbers so I did it for you.
> 
> Firstly, your whining regarding Mao and Stalin is mis-placed. Their motivations speak to political ideologies. Your claims to Atheism as the motivation for the atrocities is sweepingly ignorant. The atrocities of communism is overshadowed by the acts of specific individuals.
> 
> 
> Let's see how well the numbers balance down the list, shall we?:
> 
> There is no question about Pol Pot - Commie/Authoritarian, no doubt about it.<-- Not religious (and not disputed!)
> 
> The Monguls were not Christians or Moslems. If anything their beliefs were more like your Eskimo religion.<-- Religious!
> 
> Manchu were possibly believers in Confucianism, but they were just as ruthless as Christians or Moslems.<-- Religious!
> 
> Taiping Rebellion was either Buddhism or Confucianism related.<-- RELIGIOUS!
> 
> While the Annihilation of the American Indians, might be attributed to Christian, it was in reality a clash of a "Stone Age" culture with one that was moving into the "Industrial Age". <-- NON RELIGIOUS!
> 
> Joe Stalin, Mao, a real Communist atheist.<-- Not religious and NOT DISPUTED!
> 
> The Mideast Slave trade was run by Moslems, and of course there were ideological perspectives involved as well as a mercantile motive.<-- RELIGIOUS!
> 
> The Atlantic Slave could clearly be laid on the hands of Christians.<-- RELIGIOUS!
> 
> Timur Lenk was a Turkish Mongul whose conquests rivaled Ghengis Khan. He was not a Christian or Moslem - merely killed lots of them!<-- Not religious, perhaps!
> 
> The Kaiser, Archduke Ferdinand, King George, Tsar, and the French were all Christian (but the Turks were Islamic). Although WWII was largely about power and control, Nazism was deeply rooted in christianity <-- Religious!
> 
> The Russian Civil War was the Whites (Christians) against the Reds (Atheistic Communist Bolsheviks). Flip a coin, but the Bolsheviks started it! The Czar instituted pogroms against the Jews, <-- Religious!
> 
> The Thuggee were a Hindhu cult.<--- Religious!
> 
> Rome falls to the pagan Barbarians!<-- "Pagans" had religious beliefs. So did Rome. --RELIGIOUS!
> 
> The Thirty Year War involved Christian Europe, again more about power than religion!<--Religious!
> 
> The Congo Free State included imperialism and colonialism attributed to a number of European Christian States. It wasn't entirely about religion, however.<-- Religious!
> 
> The Chinese Civil War involved atheistic Marxist under Mao, and Buddhists or Confucians under the Nationalist banner. <-- BOTH!
> 
> The Crusades<-- Religious!
> 
> Spanish Inquisition<-- Religious!
> 
> Spanish conquest of South America<-- Religious!
> 
> The moslem rape of the Indian Subcontinent stands as one of the greatest genocides in human history. Some 80 million people may have been killed <== RELIGIOUS
> 
> The moslem conquest of Europe shortly after the death of the Islam's man-god: muhammud, is impossible to calculate. <-- RELIGIOUS!
> 
> Any fair tallying of the numbers will put your communist-Marxist ideology in the running for really "evil" category! HOWEVER  Marxism, which defines an ideology, was the prime motivator for Lenin, Stalin Mao, Pol Pot and Kim Jong. Atheism was not a motivating factor in their atrocities.
> 
> So  tally the score. Religion "wins".
> 
> What's important to understand though is that it has always been the religions that have perpetrated the greatest horrors, mass murders and suffering. Look around you though, Its you wonderful religious folks who are suicide bombers, airline hijackers, mass murderers, etc., etc. Hey, it's theists who claim that they have morals of a divine nature to adhere to -- it's theism that claims a "better person" comes from a deep faith. The fact is, it's a sham.
Click to expand...


Total numbers is what we were discussing and I was pointing out State Atheism which is politically based killed the most people throughout history.  Today, it is associated with secular humanism and socialism.  In the past, it was associated with Marxism and Marxist humanism.  

Generally speaking, people consider these killings to be politically motivated instead of religious motivations.  However, that isn't to state that religion did not play any part.  We know of religious based killings and this is going on today.  Thus, if someone like RWS, who sounds like a purist, state it's religious-based and that atheism and all other religions are involved, then it is hard to make an argument against it.  (Even Buddhism has killed people.)  So, in this discussion, it is considered religious killings with a political motivation.  For example, the killings in London by Islamicists are against atheists.  I suspect the killings in France are the same motivation.  Not to say, other religious people aren't killed but I don't think they are the targets.

List of terrorist incidents in London
List of terrorist incidents in London - Wikipedia

List of terrorist incidents in France
List of terrorist incidents in France - Wikipedia


----------



## james bond

Speaking of which, to get back to the topic, do monkeys/apes kill each other besides survival?  In other words, they may do it for fun or pleasure.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously. Let's look at some of the most crazy mass murders in the world. The Crusades, and the subsequent Inquisitions.
> 
> Dictated by somebody's "god".
> 
> And it made Christianity rule the world.
> 
> Murder, rape, genocide, pedophilia, torture, corruption, and slander, made Christianity what it is today.
> 
> That's great stuff to try to live up to, if you're an asshole.
> 
> And that also applies to other religions. But Christianity is the bitch, because followers say they are against it, but instead they promote it. To this day, especially the little kid stuff... Fucking sick assholes!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are wrong again.  You do not present any evidence to back it up while I do.  State atheism killed more people than any other group or ideology.
> 
> Atheist regimes in 20th century alone killed more people than all world religions killed in the last 20 centuries put together.
> 
> Mao Ze-Dong (China, 1958-61 and 1966-69, Tibet 1949-50) 49-78,000,00 people murdered
> Jozef Stalin (USSR 1932-39 only) 15,000,000 people murdered
> Pol Pot (Cambodia, 1975-79) 1,700,000 people murdered
> Kim II Sung (North Korea 1948-94) 1.6 million people murdered
> Tito (Yugoslavia 1945-1987) 570,000 people murdered
> Suharto (Communists 1967-66) 500,000 people murdered
> Ante Pavelic (Croatia 1941-45) 359,000 people murdered
> Ho Chi Min (Vietnam 1953-56) 200,000 people murdered
> Vladimir Ilich Lenin (USSR, 1917-20) 30,000 people murdered
> Adolf Hitler, secular and anti-religion (Germany 1939-1945) 12,000,000 people murdered
> 
> Atheist Murderers
> Atheist Murderers
> 
> Top 10 People Who Gave Atheism a Bad Name
> 10 People Who Give Atheism a Bad Name - Listverse
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The issue with your simple cutting and pasting is that you're not understanding what you're cutting and pasting.
> 
> You're too lazy to actually examine the numbers so I did it for you.
> 
> Firstly, your whining regarding Mao and Stalin is mis-placed. Their motivations speak to political ideologies. Your claims to Atheism as the motivation for the atrocities is sweepingly ignorant. The atrocities of communism is overshadowed by the acts of specific individuals.
> 
> 
> Let's see how well the numbers balance down the list, shall we?:
> 
> There is no question about Pol Pot - Commie/Authoritarian, no doubt about it.<-- Not religious (and not disputed!)
> 
> The Monguls were not Christians or Moslems. If anything their beliefs were more like your Eskimo religion.<-- Religious!
> 
> Manchu were possibly believers in Confucianism, but they were just as ruthless as Christians or Moslems.<-- Religious!
> 
> Taiping Rebellion was either Buddhism or Confucianism related.<-- RELIGIOUS!
> 
> While the Annihilation of the American Indians, might be attributed to Christian, it was in reality a clash of a "Stone Age" culture with one that was moving into the "Industrial Age". <-- NON RELIGIOUS!
> 
> Joe Stalin, Mao, a real Communist atheist.<-- Not religious and NOT DISPUTED!
> 
> The Mideast Slave trade was run by Moslems, and of course there were ideological perspectives involved as well as a mercantile motive.<-- RELIGIOUS!
> 
> The Atlantic Slave could clearly be laid on the hands of Christians.<-- RELIGIOUS!
> 
> Timur Lenk was a Turkish Mongul whose conquests rivaled Ghengis Khan. He was not a Christian or Moslem - merely killed lots of them!<-- Not religious, perhaps!
> 
> The Kaiser, Archduke Ferdinand, King George, Tsar, and the French were all Christian (but the Turks were Islamic). Although WWII was largely about power and control, Nazism was deeply rooted in christianity <-- Religious!
> 
> The Russian Civil War was the Whites (Christians) against the Reds (Atheistic Communist Bolsheviks). Flip a coin, but the Bolsheviks started it! The Czar instituted pogroms against the Jews, <-- Religious!
> 
> The Thuggee were a Hindhu cult.<--- Religious!
> 
> Rome falls to the pagan Barbarians!<-- "Pagans" had religious beliefs. So did Rome. --RELIGIOUS!
> 
> The Thirty Year War involved Christian Europe, again more about power than religion!<--Religious!
> 
> The Congo Free State included imperialism and colonialism attributed to a number of European Christian States. It wasn't entirely about religion, however.<-- Religious!
> 
> The Chinese Civil War involved atheistic Marxist under Mao, and Buddhists or Confucians under the Nationalist banner. <-- BOTH!
> 
> The Crusades<-- Religious!
> 
> Spanish Inquisition<-- Religious!
> 
> Spanish conquest of South America<-- Religious!
> 
> The moslem rape of the Indian Subcontinent stands as one of the greatest genocides in human history. Some 80 million people may have been killed <== RELIGIOUS
> 
> The moslem conquest of Europe shortly after the death of the Islam's man-god: muhammud, is impossible to calculate. <-- RELIGIOUS!
> 
> Any fair tallying of the numbers will put your communist-Marxist ideology in the running for really "evil" category! HOWEVER  Marxism, which defines an ideology, was the prime motivator for Lenin, Stalin Mao, Pol Pot and Kim Jong. Atheism was not a motivating factor in their atrocities.
> 
> So  tally the score. Religion "wins".
> 
> What's important to understand though is that it has always been the religions that have perpetrated the greatest horrors, mass murders and suffering. Look around you though, Its you wonderful religious folks who are suicide bombers, airline hijackers, mass murderers, etc., etc. Hey, it's theists who claim that they have morals of a divine nature to adhere to -- it's theism that claims a "better person" comes from a deep faith. The fact is, it's a sham.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Total numbers is what we were discussing and I was pointing out State Atheism which is politically based killed the most people throughout history.  Today, it is associated with secular humanism and socialism.  In the past, it was associated with Marxism and Marxist humanism.
> 
> Generally speaking, people consider these killings to be politically motivated instead of religious motivations.  However, that isn't to state that religion did not play any part.  We know of religious based killings and this is going on today.  Thus, if someone like RWS, who sounds like a purist, state it's religious-based and that atheism and all other religions are involved, then it is hard to make an argument against it.  (Even Buddhism has killed people.)  So, in this discussion, it is considered religious killings with a political motivation.  For example, the killings in London by Islamicists are against atheists.  I suspect the killings in France are the same motivation.  Not to say, other religious people aren't killed but I don't think they are the targets.
> 
> List of terrorist incidents in London
> List of terrorist incidents in London - Wikipedia
> 
> List of terrorist incidents in France
> List of terrorist incidents in France - Wikipedia
Click to expand...


State Atheism is not politically based. Political Ideologies such as communism, Marxism, Leninist political doctrines, etc., do not use atheism as a basis for political doctrine. 

BTW, it is nonsensical to suggest that the killings in London or Spain (or elsewhere in Europe), by Islamicists are against atheists.

When Islamic killers slaughtered 191 innocent Spaniards in Madrid, it had nothing to do with Atheists. it was ostensibly provoked by the Aznar administration's decision to send Spanish troops into Iraq as part of the U.S.-led coalition (or the Crusaders, as the mujahideen like to call them). And that's fair in the gee-had playbook. But that horrific terror attack, was also about something less temporal and more profound. It's about the Islamic legal concept of _waqf_.

In Arabic, waqf can literally mean prevention, restraint, or retention. In Islam, a waqf is any property that has been given for the benefit of islamics, in perpetuity, and to please God. It is essentially making land, or other material, God's property, not to be taken back by anyone. It is an important part of sharia law, and has several purposes. In this case, we are concerned with its ramifications in connection with land—essentially any land previously conquered by Islam.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Speaking of which, to get back to the topic, do monkeys/apes kill each other besides survival?  In other words, they may do it for fun or pleasure.



Support your statement that monkeys/apes may kill each other for fun.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously. Let's look at some of the most crazy mass murders in the world. The Crusades, and the subsequent Inquisitions.
> 
> Dictated by somebody's "god".
> 
> And it made Christianity rule the world.
> 
> Murder, rape, genocide, pedophilia, torture, corruption, and slander, made Christianity what it is today.
> 
> That's great stuff to try to live up to, if you're an asshole.
> 
> And that also applies to other religions. But Christianity is the bitch, because followers say they are against it, but instead they promote it. To this day, especially the little kid stuff... Fucking sick assholes!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are wrong again.  You do not present any evidence to back it up while I do.  State atheism killed more people than any other group or ideology.
> 
> Atheist regimes in 20th century alone killed more people than all world religions killed in the last 20 centuries put together.
> 
> Mao Ze-Dong (China, 1958-61 and 1966-69, Tibet 1949-50) 49-78,000,00 people murdered
> Jozef Stalin (USSR 1932-39 only) 15,000,000 people murdered
> Pol Pot (Cambodia, 1975-79) 1,700,000 people murdered
> Kim II Sung (North Korea 1948-94) 1.6 million people murdered
> Tito (Yugoslavia 1945-1987) 570,000 people murdered
> Suharto (Communists 1967-66) 500,000 people murdered
> Ante Pavelic (Croatia 1941-45) 359,000 people murdered
> Ho Chi Min (Vietnam 1953-56) 200,000 people murdered
> Vladimir Ilich Lenin (USSR, 1917-20) 30,000 people murdered
> Adolf Hitler, secular and anti-religion (Germany 1939-1945) 12,000,000 people murdered
> 
> Atheist Murderers
> Atheist Murderers
> 
> Top 10 People Who Gave Atheism a Bad Name
> 10 People Who Give Atheism a Bad Name - Listverse
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The issue with your simple cutting and pasting is that you're not understanding what you're cutting and pasting.
> 
> You're too lazy to actually examine the numbers so I did it for you.
> 
> Firstly, your whining regarding Mao and Stalin is mis-placed. Their motivations speak to political ideologies. Your claims to Atheism as the motivation for the atrocities is sweepingly ignorant. The atrocities of communism is overshadowed by the acts of specific individuals.
> 
> 
> Let's see how well the numbers balance down the list, shall we?:
> 
> There is no question about Pol Pot - Commie/Authoritarian, no doubt about it.<-- Not religious (and not disputed!)
> 
> The Monguls were not Christians or Moslems. If anything their beliefs were more like your Eskimo religion.<-- Religious!
> 
> Manchu were possibly believers in Confucianism, but they were just as ruthless as Christians or Moslems.<-- Religious!
> 
> Taiping Rebellion was either Buddhism or Confucianism related.<-- RELIGIOUS!
> 
> While the Annihilation of the American Indians, might be attributed to Christian, it was in reality a clash of a "Stone Age" culture with one that was moving into the "Industrial Age". <-- NON RELIGIOUS!
> 
> Joe Stalin, Mao, a real Communist atheist.<-- Not religious and NOT DISPUTED!
> 
> The Mideast Slave trade was run by Moslems, and of course there were ideological perspectives involved as well as a mercantile motive.<-- RELIGIOUS!
> 
> The Atlantic Slave could clearly be laid on the hands of Christians.<-- RELIGIOUS!
> 
> Timur Lenk was a Turkish Mongul whose conquests rivaled Ghengis Khan. He was not a Christian or Moslem - merely killed lots of them!<-- Not religious, perhaps!
> 
> The Kaiser, Archduke Ferdinand, King George, Tsar, and the French were all Christian (but the Turks were Islamic). Although WWII was largely about power and control, Nazism was deeply rooted in christianity <-- Religious!
> 
> The Russian Civil War was the Whites (Christians) against the Reds (Atheistic Communist Bolsheviks). Flip a coin, but the Bolsheviks started it! The Czar instituted pogroms against the Jews, <-- Religious!
> 
> The Thuggee were a Hindhu cult.<--- Religious!
> 
> Rome falls to the pagan Barbarians!<-- "Pagans" had religious beliefs. So did Rome. --RELIGIOUS!
> 
> The Thirty Year War involved Christian Europe, again more about power than religion!<--Religious!
> 
> The Congo Free State included imperialism and colonialism attributed to a number of European Christian States. It wasn't entirely about religion, however.<-- Religious!
> 
> The Chinese Civil War involved atheistic Marxist under Mao, and Buddhists or Confucians under the Nationalist banner. <-- BOTH!
> 
> The Crusades<-- Religious!
> 
> Spanish Inquisition<-- Religious!
> 
> Spanish conquest of South America<-- Religious!
> 
> The moslem rape of the Indian Subcontinent stands as one of the greatest genocides in human history. Some 80 million people may have been killed <== RELIGIOUS
> 
> The moslem conquest of Europe shortly after the death of the Islam's man-god: muhammud, is impossible to calculate. <-- RELIGIOUS!
> 
> Any fair tallying of the numbers will put your communist-Marxist ideology in the running for really "evil" category! HOWEVER  Marxism, which defines an ideology, was the prime motivator for Lenin, Stalin Mao, Pol Pot and Kim Jong. Atheism was not a motivating factor in their atrocities.
> 
> So  tally the score. Religion "wins".
> 
> What's important to understand though is that it has always been the religions that have perpetrated the greatest horrors, mass murders and suffering. Look around you though, Its you wonderful religious folks who are suicide bombers, airline hijackers, mass murderers, etc., etc. Hey, it's theists who claim that they have morals of a divine nature to adhere to -- it's theism that claims a "better person" comes from a deep faith. The fact is, it's a sham.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Total numbers is what we were discussing and I was pointing out State Atheism which is politically based killed the most people throughout history.  Today, it is associated with secular humanism and socialism.  In the past, it was associated with Marxism and Marxist humanism.
> 
> Generally speaking, people consider these killings to be politically motivated instead of religious motivations.  However, that isn't to state that religion did not play any part.  We know of religious based killings and this is going on today.  Thus, if someone like RWS, who sounds like a purist, state it's religious-based and that atheism and all other religions are involved, then it is hard to make an argument against it.  (Even Buddhism has killed people.)  So, in this discussion, it is considered religious killings with a political motivation.  For example, the killings in London by Islamicists are against atheists.  I suspect the killings in France are the same motivation.  Not to say, other religious people aren't killed but I don't think they are the targets.
> 
> List of terrorist incidents in London
> List of terrorist incidents in London - Wikipedia
> 
> List of terrorist incidents in France
> List of terrorist incidents in France - Wikipedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> State Atheism is not politically based. Political Ideologies such as communism, Marxism, Leninist political doctrines, etc., do not use atheism as a basis for political doctrine.
> 
> BTW, it is nonsensical to suggest that the killings in London or Spain (or elsewhere in Europe), by Islamicists are against atheists.
> 
> When Islamic killers slaughtered 191 innocent Spaniards in Madrid, it had nothing to do with Atheists. it was ostensibly provoked by the Aznar administration's decision to send Spanish troops into Iraq as part of the U.S.-led coalition (or the Crusaders, as the mujahideen like to call them). And that's fair in the gee-had playbook. But that horrific terror attack, was also about something less temporal and more profound. It's about the Islamic legal concept of _waqf_.
> 
> In Arabic, waqf can literally mean prevention, restraint, or retention. In Islam, a waqf is any property that has been given for the benefit of islamics, in perpetuity, and to please God. It is essentially making land, or other material, God's property, not to be taken back by anyone. It is an important part of sharia law, and has several purposes. In this case, we are concerned with its ramifications in connection with land—essentially any land previously conquered by Islam.
Click to expand...


>>State Atheism is not politically based. Political Ideologies such as communism, Marxism, Leninist political doctrines, etc., do not use atheism as a basis for political doctrine.<<

So wrong.  You should read The Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx.  He explains how to use atheism to further communism.  We see that today with secular humanism and socialism as stated already.

This is my post on this as we are off topic.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking of which, to get back to the topic, do monkeys/apes kill each other besides survival?  In other words, they may do it for fun or pleasure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Support your statement that monkeys/apes may kill each other for fun.
Click to expand...


I asked a question.  Can you answer it?


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking of which, to get back to the topic, do monkeys/apes kill each other besides survival?  In other words, they may do it for fun or pleasure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Support your statement that monkeys/apes may kill each other for fun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I asked a question.  Can you answer it?
Click to expand...


You made an utterly indefensible statement which you obviously cannot support.

Why chimpanzees attack and kill each other

Bands of chimpanzees violently kill individuals from neighboring groups in order to expand their own territory, according to a 10-year study of a chimp community in Uganda that provides the first definitive evidence for this long-suspected function of this behavior. 

Read more at: Why chimpanzees attack and kill each other

For myself, I'll cite Jane Goodall's study of chimpanzees as the natural analogy to human tribal customs that evolves into law (and which codes morality). Furthermore, we consistently see humans -- with no specific religious connotation, have survival-based laws that preclude wanton murder and thievery. Further still, we see simple indigenous tribes have _better_ morality than industrial nations have -- for instance, many tribes have no concept of thievery because they communally share everything.

You made a statement that you refuse to support. Can you support it?


----------



## Checkerboard Strangler

Ima Cat said:


> I know there are similarities but I think they are coincidental, like cats and seals both have whiskers.  But cats didn't come from seals or vice a versa.



Do you believe birds came from dinosaurs?


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously. Let's look at some of the most crazy mass murders in the world. The Crusades, and the subsequent Inquisitions.
> 
> Dictated by somebody's "god".
> 
> And it made Christianity rule the world.
> 
> Murder, rape, genocide, pedophilia, torture, corruption, and slander, made Christianity what it is today.
> 
> That's great stuff to try to live up to, if you're an asshole.
> 
> And that also applies to other religions. But Christianity is the bitch, because followers say they are against it, but instead they promote it. To this day, especially the little kid stuff... Fucking sick assholes!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are wrong again.  You do not present any evidence to back it up while I do.  State atheism killed more people than any other group or ideology.
> 
> Atheist regimes in 20th century alone killed more people than all world religions killed in the last 20 centuries put together.
> 
> Mao Ze-Dong (China, 1958-61 and 1966-69, Tibet 1949-50) 49-78,000,00 people murdered
> Jozef Stalin (USSR 1932-39 only) 15,000,000 people murdered
> Pol Pot (Cambodia, 1975-79) 1,700,000 people murdered
> Kim II Sung (North Korea 1948-94) 1.6 million people murdered
> Tito (Yugoslavia 1945-1987) 570,000 people murdered
> Suharto (Communists 1967-66) 500,000 people murdered
> Ante Pavelic (Croatia 1941-45) 359,000 people murdered
> Ho Chi Min (Vietnam 1953-56) 200,000 people murdered
> Vladimir Ilich Lenin (USSR, 1917-20) 30,000 people murdered
> Adolf Hitler, secular and anti-religion (Germany 1939-1945) 12,000,000 people murdered
> 
> Atheist Murderers
> Atheist Murderers
> 
> Top 10 People Who Gave Atheism a Bad Name
> 10 People Who Give Atheism a Bad Name - Listverse
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The issue with your simple cutting and pasting is that you're not understanding what you're cutting and pasting.
> 
> You're too lazy to actually examine the numbers so I did it for you.
> 
> Firstly, your whining regarding Mao and Stalin is mis-placed. Their motivations speak to political ideologies. Your claims to Atheism as the motivation for the atrocities is sweepingly ignorant. The atrocities of communism is overshadowed by the acts of specific individuals.
> 
> 
> Let's see how well the numbers balance down the list, shall we?:
> 
> There is no question about Pol Pot - Commie/Authoritarian, no doubt about it.<-- Not religious (and not disputed!)
> 
> The Monguls were not Christians or Moslems. If anything their beliefs were more like your Eskimo religion.<-- Religious!
> 
> Manchu were possibly believers in Confucianism, but they were just as ruthless as Christians or Moslems.<-- Religious!
> 
> Taiping Rebellion was either Buddhism or Confucianism related.<-- RELIGIOUS!
> 
> While the Annihilation of the American Indians, might be attributed to Christian, it was in reality a clash of a "Stone Age" culture with one that was moving into the "Industrial Age". <-- NON RELIGIOUS!
> 
> Joe Stalin, Mao, a real Communist atheist.<-- Not religious and NOT DISPUTED!
> 
> The Mideast Slave trade was run by Moslems, and of course there were ideological perspectives involved as well as a mercantile motive.<-- RELIGIOUS!
> 
> The Atlantic Slave could clearly be laid on the hands of Christians.<-- RELIGIOUS!
> 
> Timur Lenk was a Turkish Mongul whose conquests rivaled Ghengis Khan. He was not a Christian or Moslem - merely killed lots of them!<-- Not religious, perhaps!
> 
> The Kaiser, Archduke Ferdinand, King George, Tsar, and the French were all Christian (but the Turks were Islamic). Although WWII was largely about power and control, Nazism was deeply rooted in christianity <-- Religious!
> 
> The Russian Civil War was the Whites (Christians) against the Reds (Atheistic Communist Bolsheviks). Flip a coin, but the Bolsheviks started it! The Czar instituted pogroms against the Jews, <-- Religious!
> 
> The Thuggee were a Hindhu cult.<--- Religious!
> 
> Rome falls to the pagan Barbarians!<-- "Pagans" had religious beliefs. So did Rome. --RELIGIOUS!
> 
> The Thirty Year War involved Christian Europe, again more about power than religion!<--Religious!
> 
> The Congo Free State included imperialism and colonialism attributed to a number of European Christian States. It wasn't entirely about religion, however.<-- Religious!
> 
> The Chinese Civil War involved atheistic Marxist under Mao, and Buddhists or Confucians under the Nationalist banner. <-- BOTH!
> 
> The Crusades<-- Religious!
> 
> Spanish Inquisition<-- Religious!
> 
> Spanish conquest of South America<-- Religious!
> 
> The moslem rape of the Indian Subcontinent stands as one of the greatest genocides in human history. Some 80 million people may have been killed <== RELIGIOUS
> 
> The moslem conquest of Europe shortly after the death of the Islam's man-god: muhammud, is impossible to calculate. <-- RELIGIOUS!
> 
> Any fair tallying of the numbers will put your communist-Marxist ideology in the running for really "evil" category! HOWEVER  Marxism, which defines an ideology, was the prime motivator for Lenin, Stalin Mao, Pol Pot and Kim Jong. Atheism was not a motivating factor in their atrocities.
> 
> So  tally the score. Religion "wins".
> 
> What's important to understand though is that it has always been the religions that have perpetrated the greatest horrors, mass murders and suffering. Look around you though, Its you wonderful religious folks who are suicide bombers, airline hijackers, mass murderers, etc., etc. Hey, it's theists who claim that they have morals of a divine nature to adhere to -- it's theism that claims a "better person" comes from a deep faith. The fact is, it's a sham.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Total numbers is what we were discussing and I was pointing out State Atheism which is politically based killed the most people throughout history.  Today, it is associated with secular humanism and socialism.  In the past, it was associated with Marxism and Marxist humanism.
> 
> Generally speaking, people consider these killings to be politically motivated instead of religious motivations.  However, that isn't to state that religion did not play any part.  We know of religious based killings and this is going on today.  Thus, if someone like RWS, who sounds like a purist, state it's religious-based and that atheism and all other religions are involved, then it is hard to make an argument against it.  (Even Buddhism has killed people.)  So, in this discussion, it is considered religious killings with a political motivation.  For example, the killings in London by Islamicists are against atheists.  I suspect the killings in France are the same motivation.  Not to say, other religious people aren't killed but I don't think they are the targets.
> 
> List of terrorist incidents in London
> List of terrorist incidents in London - Wikipedia
> 
> List of terrorist incidents in France
> List of terrorist incidents in France - Wikipedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> State Atheism is not politically based. Political Ideologies such as communism, Marxism, Leninist political doctrines, etc., do not use atheism as a basis for political doctrine.
> 
> BTW, it is nonsensical to suggest that the killings in London or Spain (or elsewhere in Europe), by Islamicists are against atheists.
> 
> When Islamic killers slaughtered 191 innocent Spaniards in Madrid, it had nothing to do with Atheists. it was ostensibly provoked by the Aznar administration's decision to send Spanish troops into Iraq as part of the U.S.-led coalition (or the Crusaders, as the mujahideen like to call them). And that's fair in the gee-had playbook. But that horrific terror attack, was also about something less temporal and more profound. It's about the Islamic legal concept of _waqf_.
> 
> In Arabic, waqf can literally mean prevention, restraint, or retention. In Islam, a waqf is any property that has been given for the benefit of islamics, in perpetuity, and to please God. It is essentially making land, or other material, God's property, not to be taken back by anyone. It is an important part of sharia law, and has several purposes. In this case, we are concerned with its ramifications in connection with land—essentially any land previously conquered by Islam.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> >>State Atheism is not politically based. Political Ideologies such as communism, Marxism, Leninist political doctrines, etc., do not use atheism as a basis for political doctrine.<<
> 
> So wrong.  You should read The Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx.  He explains how to use atheism to further communism.  We see that today with secular humanism and socialism as stated already.
> 
> This is my post on this as we are off topic.
Click to expand...


Yes, I explained that to you. Communism, Marxism, Leninist political doctrines are exactly that: political doctrines. They use many elements to craft, reinforce and bolster social policy.


----------



## RWS

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously. Let's look at some of the most crazy mass murders in the world. The Crusades, and the subsequent Inquisitions.
> 
> Dictated by somebody's "god".
> 
> And it made Christianity rule the world.
> 
> Murder, rape, genocide, pedophilia, torture, corruption, and slander, made Christianity what it is today.
> 
> That's great stuff to try to live up to, if you're an asshole.
> 
> And that also applies to other religions. But Christianity is the bitch, because followers say they are against it, but instead they promote it. To this day, especially the little kid stuff... Fucking sick assholes!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are wrong again.  You do not present any evidence to back it up while I do.  State atheism killed more people than any other group or ideology.
> 
> Atheist regimes in 20th century alone killed more people than all world religions killed in the last 20 centuries put together.
> 
> Mao Ze-Dong (China, 1958-61 and 1966-69, Tibet 1949-50) 49-78,000,00 people murdered
> Jozef Stalin (USSR 1932-39 only) 15,000,000 people murdered
> Pol Pot (Cambodia, 1975-79) 1,700,000 people murdered
> Kim II Sung (North Korea 1948-94) 1.6 million people murdered
> Tito (Yugoslavia 1945-1987) 570,000 people murdered
> Suharto (Communists 1967-66) 500,000 people murdered
> Ante Pavelic (Croatia 1941-45) 359,000 people murdered
> Ho Chi Min (Vietnam 1953-56) 200,000 people murdered
> Vladimir Ilich Lenin (USSR, 1917-20) 30,000 people murdered
> Adolf Hitler, secular and anti-religion (Germany 1939-1945) 12,000,000 people murdered
> 
> Atheist Murderers
> Atheist Murderers
> 
> Top 10 People Who Gave Atheism a Bad Name
> 10 People Who Give Atheism a Bad Name - Listverse
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The issue with your simple cutting and pasting is that you're not understanding what you're cutting and pasting.
> 
> You're too lazy to actually examine the numbers so I did it for you.
> 
> Firstly, your whining regarding Mao and Stalin is mis-placed. Their motivations speak to political ideologies. Your claims to Atheism as the motivation for the atrocities is sweepingly ignorant. The atrocities of communism is overshadowed by the acts of specific individuals.
> 
> 
> Let's see how well the numbers balance down the list, shall we?:
> 
> There is no question about Pol Pot - Commie/Authoritarian, no doubt about it.<-- Not religious (and not disputed!)
> 
> The Monguls were not Christians or Moslems. If anything their beliefs were more like your Eskimo religion.<-- Religious!
> 
> Manchu were possibly believers in Confucianism, but they were just as ruthless as Christians or Moslems.<-- Religious!
> 
> Taiping Rebellion was either Buddhism or Confucianism related.<-- RELIGIOUS!
> 
> While the Annihilation of the American Indians, might be attributed to Christian, it was in reality a clash of a "Stone Age" culture with one that was moving into the "Industrial Age". <-- NON RELIGIOUS!
> 
> Joe Stalin, Mao, a real Communist atheist.<-- Not religious and NOT DISPUTED!
> 
> The Mideast Slave trade was run by Moslems, and of course there were ideological perspectives involved as well as a mercantile motive.<-- RELIGIOUS!
> 
> The Atlantic Slave could clearly be laid on the hands of Christians.<-- RELIGIOUS!
> 
> Timur Lenk was a Turkish Mongul whose conquests rivaled Ghengis Khan. He was not a Christian or Moslem - merely killed lots of them!<-- Not religious, perhaps!
> 
> The Kaiser, Archduke Ferdinand, King George, Tsar, and the French were all Christian (but the Turks were Islamic). Although WWII was largely about power and control, Nazism was deeply rooted in christianity <-- Religious!
> 
> The Russian Civil War was the Whites (Christians) against the Reds (Atheistic Communist Bolsheviks). Flip a coin, but the Bolsheviks started it! The Czar instituted pogroms against the Jews, <-- Religious!
> 
> The Thuggee were a Hindhu cult.<--- Religious!
> 
> Rome falls to the pagan Barbarians!<-- "Pagans" had religious beliefs. So did Rome. --RELIGIOUS!
> 
> The Thirty Year War involved Christian Europe, again more about power than religion!<--Religious!
> 
> The Congo Free State included imperialism and colonialism attributed to a number of European Christian States. It wasn't entirely about religion, however.<-- Religious!
> 
> The Chinese Civil War involved atheistic Marxist under Mao, and Buddhists or Confucians under the Nationalist banner. <-- BOTH!
> 
> The Crusades<-- Religious!
> 
> Spanish Inquisition<-- Religious!
> 
> Spanish conquest of South America<-- Religious!
> 
> The moslem rape of the Indian Subcontinent stands as one of the greatest genocides in human history. Some 80 million people may have been killed <== RELIGIOUS
> 
> The moslem conquest of Europe shortly after the death of the Islam's man-god: muhammud, is impossible to calculate. <-- RELIGIOUS!
> 
> Any fair tallying of the numbers will put your communist-Marxist ideology in the running for really "evil" category! HOWEVER  Marxism, which defines an ideology, was the prime motivator for Lenin, Stalin Mao, Pol Pot and Kim Jong. Atheism was not a motivating factor in their atrocities.
> 
> So  tally the score. Religion "wins".
> 
> What's important to understand though is that it has always been the religions that have perpetrated the greatest horrors, mass murders and suffering. Look around you though, Its you wonderful religious folks who are suicide bombers, airline hijackers, mass murderers, etc., etc. Hey, it's theists who claim that they have morals of a divine nature to adhere to -- it's theism that claims a "better person" comes from a deep faith. The fact is, it's a sham.
Click to expand...

A couple of differences there, but otherwise.... high five!!!!

What a great post!


----------



## RWS

Death Angel said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many times do I have to say... Socialism and Nazism are religions.
> 
> You can't get mass amounts of people to willfully kill and die, unless they believe in a religion. Or are defending against a religion.
> 
> Religion is the tool to create wars. And none of them are true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one's denying that, but stating atheism _murdered_ the most people.  When one has no objective morality, these things happen.  Or are you too hypocritical to be able to admit it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Socialism and Nazism together murdered the most people. But those are religions as I've stated. Christianity is a very close 2nd. Jews and Muslims are very close 3rds.
> 
> Being an atheist has nothing to do with that. We just scratch our heads wondering how people can be so crazy...
> 
> Why not get along?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Christianity killed NO ONE. Anyone who murders the innocent is NOT a practicing Christian. The Christian faith condemns murder. Islam and Atheism does not.
Click to expand...

wow, really?


----------



## Muhammed




----------



## RWS

james bond said:


> Speaking of which, to get back to the topic, do monkeys/apes kill each other besides survival?  In other words, they may do it for fun or pleasure.


They may kill each other, but it's usually over domination.

Just like religious humans.


----------



## RWS

We're no different

We're just like other apes and monkeys. And other mammals, and reptiles and fish, and probably those fake dinosaurs too!


----------



## Muhammed




----------



## Muhammed

Bigly!

That'll teach them to go monkeying up 5th Ave.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking of which, to get back to the topic, do monkeys/apes kill each other besides survival?  In other words, they may do it for fun or pleasure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Support your statement that monkeys/apes may kill each other for fun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I asked a question.  Can you answer it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You made an utterly indefensible statement which you obviously cannot support.
> 
> Why chimpanzees attack and kill each other
> 
> Bands of chimpanzees violently kill individuals from neighboring groups in order to expand their own territory, according to a 10-year study of a chimp community in Uganda that provides the first definitive evidence for this long-suspected function of this behavior.
> 
> Read more at: Why chimpanzees attack and kill each other
> 
> For myself, I'll cite Jane Goodall's study of chimpanzees as the natural analogy to human tribal customs that evolves into law (and which codes morality). Furthermore, we consistently see humans -- with no specific religious connotation, have survival-based laws that preclude wanton murder and thievery. Further still, we see simple indigenous tribes have _better_ morality than industrial nations have -- for instance, many tribes have no concept of thievery because they communally share everything.
> 
> You made a statement that you refuse to support. Can you support it?
Click to expand...


Again, I asked a question to get back on topic.  I don't think it's just territorial, but to attract better mates.  Both exhibit behaviors to attract better mates.

Monkey Reproduction - Monkey Facts and Information

Here's two troubling, puzzling videos though which triggered my question.  They are attacking their own as food and also killing a defenseless baby.  Graphic, so you may not want to watch.  Your link discusses it and tries to tie it to human warfare which has nothing to do with it.  The so-called apes to humans theory is suppose to be the other way.  They can be trained to be social and domesticated, but the wild monkeys are dangerous to humans.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> The so-called apes to humans theory is suppose to be the other way.


No it isn't....just stop


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking of which, to get back to the topic, do monkeys/apes kill each other besides survival?  In other words, they may do it for fun or pleasure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Support your statement that monkeys/apes may kill each other for fun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I asked a question.  Can you answer it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You made an utterly indefensible statement which you obviously cannot support.
> 
> Why chimpanzees attack and kill each other
> 
> Bands of chimpanzees violently kill individuals from neighboring groups in order to expand their own territory, according to a 10-year study of a chimp community in Uganda that provides the first definitive evidence for this long-suspected function of this behavior.
> 
> Read more at: Why chimpanzees attack and kill each other
> 
> For myself, I'll cite Jane Goodall's study of chimpanzees as the natural analogy to human tribal customs that evolves into law (and which codes morality). Furthermore, we consistently see humans -- with no specific religious connotation, have survival-based laws that preclude wanton murder and thievery. Further still, we see simple indigenous tribes have _better_ morality than industrial nations have -- for instance, many tribes have no concept of thievery because they communally share everything.
> 
> You made a statement that you refuse to support. Can you support it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, I asked a question to get back on topic.  I don't think it's just territorial, but to attract better mates.  Both exhibit behaviors to attract better mates.
> 
> Monkey Reproduction - Monkey Facts and Information
> 
> Here's two troubling, puzzling videos though which triggered my question.  They are attacking their own as food and also killing a defenseless baby.  Graphic, so you may not want to watch.  Your link discusses it and tries to tie it to human warfare which has nothing to do with it.  The so-called apes to humans theory is suppose to be the other way.  They can be trained to be social and domesticated, but the wild monkeys are dangerous to humans.
Click to expand...


So, there is no indication that monkeys kill for fun.

Why would you suggest they do and then retreat from providing support fir your suggestion?

Otherwise, the “apes to humans” nonsense is a narrative coming from those ignorant of science and/or the crackpots associated with the ID’iot creationist cults.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking of which, to get back to the topic, do monkeys/apes kill each other besides survival?  In other words, they may do it for fun or pleasure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Support your statement that monkeys/apes may kill each other for fun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I asked a question.  Can you answer it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You made an utterly indefensible statement which you obviously cannot support.
> 
> Why chimpanzees attack and kill each other
> 
> Bands of chimpanzees violently kill individuals from neighboring groups in order to expand their own territory, according to a 10-year study of a chimp community in Uganda that provides the first definitive evidence for this long-suspected function of this behavior.
> 
> Read more at: Why chimpanzees attack and kill each other
> 
> For myself, I'll cite Jane Goodall's study of chimpanzees as the natural analogy to human tribal customs that evolves into law (and which codes morality). Furthermore, we consistently see humans -- with no specific religious connotation, have survival-based laws that preclude wanton murder and thievery. Further still, we see simple indigenous tribes have _better_ morality than industrial nations have -- for instance, many tribes have no concept of thievery because they communally share everything.
> 
> You made a statement that you refuse to support. Can you support it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, I asked a question to get back on topic.  I don't think it's just territorial, but to attract better mates.  Both exhibit behaviors to attract better mates.
> 
> Monkey Reproduction - Monkey Facts and Information
> 
> Here's two troubling, puzzling videos though which triggered my question.  They are attacking their own as food and also killing a defenseless baby.  Graphic, so you may not want to watch.  Your link discusses it and tries to tie it to human warfare which has nothing to do with it.  The so-called apes to humans theory is suppose to be the other way.  They can be trained to be social and domesticated, but the wild monkeys are dangerous to humans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, there is no indication that monkeys kill for fun.
> 
> Why would you suggest they do and then retreat from providing support fir your suggestion?
> 
> Otherwise, the “apes to humans” nonsense is a narrative coming from those ignorant of science and/or the crackpots associated with the ID’iot creationist cults.
Click to expand...


We don't know that.  You didn't answer why the baby monkey was killed after taking control of the troop.  Other animals like a cat kills a mouse for fun.  Some dogs chase squirrels due to their prey instinct.  They can kill squirrels for what appears to be fun.  We see this aggressive behavior from monkeys.  You said they kill due to territory.  Do they have a prey instinct?  I would think they do.  So, they could kill for fun.  I think they have sex for fun, too.  It appears they do and this does not follow the evolutionary thinking and explanations.

"Sex, we are told, is pleasurable. Yet you probably wouldn’t think that if you waded through the scientific literature. That's because most scientific accounts of sexual behaviour rest upon evolutionary explanations rather than the more immediately relevant mental and emotional experiences. To say that we have sex because it helps us to preserve our genetic legacies would be entirely accurate, but the more fleeting, experiential, pleasurable aspects of that most basic of social urges would be missing. It would be like staring at a painting with half the colour spectrum removed from it."

Do animals have sex for pleasure?


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Support your statement that monkeys/apes may kill each other for fun.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I asked a question.  Can you answer it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You made an utterly indefensible statement which you obviously cannot support.
> 
> Why chimpanzees attack and kill each other
> 
> Bands of chimpanzees violently kill individuals from neighboring groups in order to expand their own territory, according to a 10-year study of a chimp community in Uganda that provides the first definitive evidence for this long-suspected function of this behavior.
> 
> Read more at: Why chimpanzees attack and kill each other
> 
> For myself, I'll cite Jane Goodall's study of chimpanzees as the natural analogy to human tribal customs that evolves into law (and which codes morality). Furthermore, we consistently see humans -- with no specific religious connotation, have survival-based laws that preclude wanton murder and thievery. Further still, we see simple indigenous tribes have _better_ morality than industrial nations have -- for instance, many tribes have no concept of thievery because they communally share everything.
> 
> You made a statement that you refuse to support. Can you support it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, I asked a question to get back on topic.  I don't think it's just territorial, but to attract better mates.  Both exhibit behaviors to attract better mates.
> 
> Monkey Reproduction - Monkey Facts and Information
> 
> Here's two troubling, puzzling videos though which triggered my question.  They are attacking their own as food and also killing a defenseless baby.  Graphic, so you may not want to watch.  Your link discusses it and tries to tie it to human warfare which has nothing to do with it.  The so-called apes to humans theory is suppose to be the other way.  They can be trained to be social and domesticated, but the wild monkeys are dangerous to humans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, there is no indication that monkeys kill for fun.
> 
> Why would you suggest they do and then retreat from providing support fir your suggestion?
> 
> Otherwise, the “apes to humans” nonsense is a narrative coming from those ignorant of science and/or the crackpots associated with the ID’iot creationist cults.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We don't know that.  You didn't answer why the baby monkey was killed after taking control of the troop.  Other animals like a cat kills a mouse for fun.  Some dogs chase squirrels due to their prey instinct.  They can kill squirrels for what appears to be fun.  We see this aggressive behavior from monkeys.  You said they kill due to territory.  Do they have a prey instinct?  I would think they do.  So, they could kill for fun.  I think they have sex for fun, too.  It appears they do and this does not follow the evolutionary thinking and explanations.
> 
> "Sex, we are told, is pleasurable. Yet you probably wouldn’t think that if you waded through the scientific literature. That's because most scientific accounts of sexual behaviour rest upon evolutionary explanations rather than the more immediately relevant mental and emotional experiences. To say that we have sex because it helps us to preserve our genetic legacies would be entirely accurate, but the more fleeting, experiential, pleasurable aspects of that most basic of social urges would be missing. It would be like staring at a painting with half the colour spectrum removed from it."
> 
> Do animals have sex for pleasure?
Click to expand...

A dominant male in species including but not limited to chimpanzees may kill a juvenile to increase the likelihood of the female going into heat. 

Male Sexual Aggression: What Chimps Can Reveal About People

It has nothing at all to do with killing for fun.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> I asked a question.  Can you answer it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You made an utterly indefensible statement which you obviously cannot support.
> 
> Why chimpanzees attack and kill each other
> 
> Bands of chimpanzees violently kill individuals from neighboring groups in order to expand their own territory, according to a 10-year study of a chimp community in Uganda that provides the first definitive evidence for this long-suspected function of this behavior.
> 
> Read more at: Why chimpanzees attack and kill each other
> 
> For myself, I'll cite Jane Goodall's study of chimpanzees as the natural analogy to human tribal customs that evolves into law (and which codes morality). Furthermore, we consistently see humans -- with no specific religious connotation, have survival-based laws that preclude wanton murder and thievery. Further still, we see simple indigenous tribes have _better_ morality than industrial nations have -- for instance, many tribes have no concept of thievery because they communally share everything.
> 
> You made a statement that you refuse to support. Can you support it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, I asked a question to get back on topic.  I don't think it's just territorial, but to attract better mates.  Both exhibit behaviors to attract better mates.
> 
> Monkey Reproduction - Monkey Facts and Information
> 
> Here's two troubling, puzzling videos though which triggered my question.  They are attacking their own as food and also killing a defenseless baby.  Graphic, so you may not want to watch.  Your link discusses it and tries to tie it to human warfare which has nothing to do with it.  The so-called apes to humans theory is suppose to be the other way.  They can be trained to be social and domesticated, but the wild monkeys are dangerous to humans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, there is no indication that monkeys kill for fun.
> 
> Why would you suggest they do and then retreat from providing support fir your suggestion?
> 
> Otherwise, the “apes to humans” nonsense is a narrative coming from those ignorant of science and/or the crackpots associated with the ID’iot creationist cults.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We don't know that.  You didn't answer why the baby monkey was killed after taking control of the troop.  Other animals like a cat kills a mouse for fun.  Some dogs chase squirrels due to their prey instinct.  They can kill squirrels for what appears to be fun.  We see this aggressive behavior from monkeys.  You said they kill due to territory.  Do they have a prey instinct?  I would think they do.  So, they could kill for fun.  I think they have sex for fun, too.  It appears they do and this does not follow the evolutionary thinking and explanations.
> 
> "Sex, we are told, is pleasurable. Yet you probably wouldn’t think that if you waded through the scientific literature. That's because most scientific accounts of sexual behaviour rest upon evolutionary explanations rather than the more immediately relevant mental and emotional experiences. To say that we have sex because it helps us to preserve our genetic legacies would be entirely accurate, but the more fleeting, experiential, pleasurable aspects of that most basic of social urges would be missing. It would be like staring at a painting with half the colour spectrum removed from it."
> 
> Do animals have sex for pleasure?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A dominant male in species including but not limited to chimpanzees may kill a juvenile to increase the likelihood of the female going into heat.
> 
> Male Sexual Aggression: What Chimps Can Reveal About People
> 
> It has nothing at all to do with killing for fun.
Click to expand...


This sexual behavior nor killing babies isn't the norm with people, so it still doesn't follow that humans came from monkeys.  Certainly, killing babies in order to mate more isn't the acceptable norm in human society.  So far, we found that evolution doesn't explain the cannibalistic behavior nor the violent behavior of aggressive male monkeys to females and their offspring.  Instead, we find that the actual behaviors do not match the evolutionary clinical descriptions.  Another fail for evolution?  I think so.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> This sexual behavior nor killing babies isn't the norm with people, so it still doesn't follow that humans came from monkeys.


The charlatans tactic used here is to point out a difference between two species and then say it is somehow evidence that one is not descended from or related to  the other. of course as any 7th grader knows what shows us that one species is descended from or related to another are the similarities between the two species not the differences.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You made an utterly indefensible statement which you obviously cannot support.
> 
> Why chimpanzees attack and kill each other
> 
> Bands of chimpanzees violently kill individuals from neighboring groups in order to expand their own territory, according to a 10-year study of a chimp community in Uganda that provides the first definitive evidence for this long-suspected function of this behavior.
> 
> Read more at: Why chimpanzees attack and kill each other
> 
> For myself, I'll cite Jane Goodall's study of chimpanzees as the natural analogy to human tribal customs that evolves into law (and which codes morality). Furthermore, we consistently see humans -- with no specific religious connotation, have survival-based laws that preclude wanton murder and thievery. Further still, we see simple indigenous tribes have _better_ morality than industrial nations have -- for instance, many tribes have no concept of thievery because they communally share everything.
> 
> You made a statement that you refuse to support. Can you support it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, I asked a question to get back on topic.  I don't think it's just territorial, but to attract better mates.  Both exhibit behaviors to attract better mates.
> 
> Monkey Reproduction - Monkey Facts and Information
> 
> Here's two troubling, puzzling videos though which triggered my question.  They are attacking their own as food and also killing a defenseless baby.  Graphic, so you may not want to watch.  Your link discusses it and tries to tie it to human warfare which has nothing to do with it.  The so-called apes to humans theory is suppose to be the other way.  They can be trained to be social and domesticated, but the wild monkeys are dangerous to humans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, there is no indication that monkeys kill for fun.
> 
> Why would you suggest they do and then retreat from providing support fir your suggestion?
> 
> Otherwise, the “apes to humans” nonsense is a narrative coming from those ignorant of science and/or the crackpots associated with the ID’iot creationist cults.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We don't know that.  You didn't answer why the baby monkey was killed after taking control of the troop.  Other animals like a cat kills a mouse for fun.  Some dogs chase squirrels due to their prey instinct.  They can kill squirrels for what appears to be fun.  We see this aggressive behavior from monkeys.  You said they kill due to territory.  Do they have a prey instinct?  I would think they do.  So, they could kill for fun.  I think they have sex for fun, too.  It appears they do and this does not follow the evolutionary thinking and explanations.
> 
> "Sex, we are told, is pleasurable. Yet you probably wouldn’t think that if you waded through the scientific literature. That's because most scientific accounts of sexual behaviour rest upon evolutionary explanations rather than the more immediately relevant mental and emotional experiences. To say that we have sex because it helps us to preserve our genetic legacies would be entirely accurate, but the more fleeting, experiential, pleasurable aspects of that most basic of social urges would be missing. It would be like staring at a painting with half the colour spectrum removed from it."
> 
> Do animals have sex for pleasure?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A dominant male in species including but not limited to chimpanzees may kill a juvenile to increase the likelihood of the female going into heat.
> 
> Male Sexual Aggression: What Chimps Can Reveal About People
> 
> It has nothing at all to do with killing for fun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This sexual behavior nor killing babies isn't the norm with people, so it still doesn't follow that humans came from monkeys.  Certainly, killing babies in order to mate more isn't the acceptable norm in human society.  So far, we found that evolution doesn't explain the cannibalistic behavior nor the violent behavior of aggressive male monkeys to females and their offspring.  Instead, we find that the actual behaviors do not match the evolutionary clinical descriptions.  Another fail for evolution?  I think so.
Click to expand...


What you are missing is that humans have evolved a much more complex brain than Apes, Chimpanzees, etc. Humans are sentient creatures.

I believe our sentience has allowed us to explore. As you move further away from humans, you find corollaries of human behavior that resides in us still, that have proven successful evolutionarily throughout time, and are maintained, and you also see hints of where our sentience comes from. That's why we see a degree of self-awareness in chimpanzees but not at all in ants -- yet hierarchal structuring of both societies have similarities. Are there offshoots? Yes, nature is not perfect, and never has it been claimed it is, and what do we see? An imperfect nature, with a lot of starts and stops, successes and failures.

We have evolved a sense of survival, it is _evident _in almost every animal, and the methods to which we go to survive get more complex as -- surprise! -- the higher towards sentience you go. At the same time, we _also_ see vestiges of self-sacrifice for the greater good, just like a lowly bee will sting an invader and die, for the greater good of the hive.

Also, why would the gods create mankind out of dust, give him sentience, a special place in the universe, and then give animals such similar abilities—just at a lower “wattage”? Yet more confusion, making it seem as though we evolved our characteristics from animals similar to us, who share 99.9% of our DNA, instead of humans being qualitatively different. Why would the gods do this, particularly when the bibles says man will have dominion over all beasts? What is more likely, that the gods purposely made these similarities so to confuse and confound us, or the story was set down within the limited parameters of knowledge of the natural world that existed at the time?

Another fail for fear and superstition? Yes.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, I asked a question to get back on topic.  I don't think it's just territorial, but to attract better mates.  Both exhibit behaviors to attract better mates.
> 
> Monkey Reproduction - Monkey Facts and Information
> 
> Here's two troubling, puzzling videos though which triggered my question.  They are attacking their own as food and also killing a defenseless baby.  Graphic, so you may not want to watch.  Your link discusses it and tries to tie it to human warfare which has nothing to do with it.  The so-called apes to humans theory is suppose to be the other way.  They can be trained to be social and domesticated, but the wild monkeys are dangerous to humans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, there is no indication that monkeys kill for fun.
> 
> Why would you suggest they do and then retreat from providing support fir your suggestion?
> 
> Otherwise, the “apes to humans” nonsense is a narrative coming from those ignorant of science and/or the crackpots associated with the ID’iot creationist cults.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We don't know that.  You didn't answer why the baby monkey was killed after taking control of the troop.  Other animals like a cat kills a mouse for fun.  Some dogs chase squirrels due to their prey instinct.  They can kill squirrels for what appears to be fun.  We see this aggressive behavior from monkeys.  You said they kill due to territory.  Do they have a prey instinct?  I would think they do.  So, they could kill for fun.  I think they have sex for fun, too.  It appears they do and this does not follow the evolutionary thinking and explanations.
> 
> "Sex, we are told, is pleasurable. Yet you probably wouldn’t think that if you waded through the scientific literature. That's because most scientific accounts of sexual behaviour rest upon evolutionary explanations rather than the more immediately relevant mental and emotional experiences. To say that we have sex because it helps us to preserve our genetic legacies would be entirely accurate, but the more fleeting, experiential, pleasurable aspects of that most basic of social urges would be missing. It would be like staring at a painting with half the colour spectrum removed from it."
> 
> Do animals have sex for pleasure?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A dominant male in species including but not limited to chimpanzees may kill a juvenile to increase the likelihood of the female going into heat.
> 
> Male Sexual Aggression: What Chimps Can Reveal About People
> 
> It has nothing at all to do with killing for fun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This sexual behavior nor killing babies isn't the norm with people, so it still doesn't follow that humans came from monkeys.  Certainly, killing babies in order to mate more isn't the acceptable norm in human society.  So far, we found that evolution doesn't explain the cannibalistic behavior nor the violent behavior of aggressive male monkeys to females and their offspring.  Instead, we find that the actual behaviors do not match the evolutionary clinical descriptions.  Another fail for evolution?  I think so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you are missing is that humans have evolved a much more complex brain than Apes, Chimpanzees, etc. Humans are sentient creatures.
> 
> I believe our sentience has allowed us to explore. As you move further away from humans, you find corollaries of human behavior that resides in us still, that have proven successful evolutionarily throughout time, and are maintained, and you also see hints of where our sentience comes from. That's why we see a degree of self-awareness in chimpanzees but not at all in ants -- yet hierarchal structuring of both societies have similarities. Are there offshoots? Yes, nature is not perfect, and never has it been claimed it is, and what do we see? An imperfect nature, with a lot of starts and stops, successes and failures.
> 
> We have evolved a sense of survival, it is _evident _in almost every animal, and the methods to which we go to survive get more complex as -- surprise! -- the higher towards sentience you go. At the same time, we _also_ see vestiges of self-sacrifice for the greater good, just like a lowly bee will sting an invader and die, for the greater good of the hive.
> 
> Also, why would the gods create mankind out of dust, give him sentience, a special place in the universe, and then give animals such similar abilities—just at a lower “wattage”? Yet more confusion, making it seem as though we evolved our characteristics from animals similar to us, who share 99.9% of our DNA, instead of humans being qualitatively different. Why would the gods do this, particularly when the bibles says man will have dominion over all beasts? What is more likely, that the gods purposely made these similarities so to confuse and confound us, or the story was set down within the limited parameters of knowledge of the natural world that existed at the time?
> 
> Another fail for fear and superstition? Yes.
Click to expand...


>>What you are missing is that humans have evolved a much more complex brain than Apes, Chimpanzees, etc. Humans are sentient creatures.<<

I stopped reading after the first sentence.  This is the creation scientist's argument that we _didn't_ develop from monkeys.  The evos claim it was due to bipedalism in monkeys that led to humans.  Care to try again?


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, there is no indication that monkeys kill for fun.
> 
> Why would you suggest they do and then retreat from providing support fir your suggestion?
> 
> Otherwise, the “apes to humans” nonsense is a narrative coming from those ignorant of science and/or the crackpots associated with the ID’iot creationist cults.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We don't know that.  You didn't answer why the baby monkey was killed after taking control of the troop.  Other animals like a cat kills a mouse for fun.  Some dogs chase squirrels due to their prey instinct.  They can kill squirrels for what appears to be fun.  We see this aggressive behavior from monkeys.  You said they kill due to territory.  Do they have a prey instinct?  I would think they do.  So, they could kill for fun.  I think they have sex for fun, too.  It appears they do and this does not follow the evolutionary thinking and explanations.
> 
> "Sex, we are told, is pleasurable. Yet you probably wouldn’t think that if you waded through the scientific literature. That's because most scientific accounts of sexual behaviour rest upon evolutionary explanations rather than the more immediately relevant mental and emotional experiences. To say that we have sex because it helps us to preserve our genetic legacies would be entirely accurate, but the more fleeting, experiential, pleasurable aspects of that most basic of social urges would be missing. It would be like staring at a painting with half the colour spectrum removed from it."
> 
> Do animals have sex for pleasure?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A dominant male in species including but not limited to chimpanzees may kill a juvenile to increase the likelihood of the female going into heat.
> 
> Male Sexual Aggression: What Chimps Can Reveal About People
> 
> It has nothing at all to do with killing for fun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This sexual behavior nor killing babies isn't the norm with people, so it still doesn't follow that humans came from monkeys.  Certainly, killing babies in order to mate more isn't the acceptable norm in human society.  So far, we found that evolution doesn't explain the cannibalistic behavior nor the violent behavior of aggressive male monkeys to females and their offspring.  Instead, we find that the actual behaviors do not match the evolutionary clinical descriptions.  Another fail for evolution?  I think so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you are missing is that humans have evolved a much more complex brain than Apes, Chimpanzees, etc. Humans are sentient creatures.
> 
> I believe our sentience has allowed us to explore. As you move further away from humans, you find corollaries of human behavior that resides in us still, that have proven successful evolutionarily throughout time, and are maintained, and you also see hints of where our sentience comes from. That's why we see a degree of self-awareness in chimpanzees but not at all in ants -- yet hierarchal structuring of both societies have similarities. Are there offshoots? Yes, nature is not perfect, and never has it been claimed it is, and what do we see? An imperfect nature, with a lot of starts and stops, successes and failures.
> 
> We have evolved a sense of survival, it is _evident _in almost every animal, and the methods to which we go to survive get more complex as -- surprise! -- the higher towards sentience you go. At the same time, we _also_ see vestiges of self-sacrifice for the greater good, just like a lowly bee will sting an invader and die, for the greater good of the hive.
> 
> Also, why would the gods create mankind out of dust, give him sentience, a special place in the universe, and then give animals such similar abilities—just at a lower “wattage”? Yet more confusion, making it seem as though we evolved our characteristics from animals similar to us, who share 99.9% of our DNA, instead of humans being qualitatively different. Why would the gods do this, particularly when the bibles says man will have dominion over all beasts? What is more likely, that the gods purposely made these similarities so to confuse and confound us, or the story was set down within the limited parameters of knowledge of the natural world that existed at the time?
> 
> Another fail for fear and superstition? Yes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> >>What you are missing is that humans have evolved a much more complex brain than Apes, Chimpanzees, etc. Humans are sentient creatures.<<
> 
> I stopped reading after the first sentence.  This is the creation scientist's argument that we _didn't_ develop from monkeys.  The evos claim it was due to bipedalism in monkeys that led to humans.  Care to try again?
Click to expand...


What I've found truly alarming about the creationist / religious arguments is just how unsupported they are.

They entirety of the creationist / religious agenda is managed toward using supernaturalism as the cause of existence. Where science will flex and adjust to new evidence and methods of testing, the creation ministries test nothing. 

The creation ministries never provide the results of rigorous testing and methodology for peer review because they can't. They never seek to provide positive evidence of their outrageous claims because they can't. Thus, the difference between science and religious claims. Science will test, falsifying and confirm through the process of study and peer review. Creationism only tries and fails to tear down science to promote a claim not available for investigation.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> We don't know that.  You didn't answer why the baby monkey was killed after taking control of the troop.  Other animals like a cat kills a mouse for fun.  Some dogs chase squirrels due to their prey instinct.  They can kill squirrels for what appears to be fun.  We see this aggressive behavior from monkeys.  You said they kill due to territory.  Do they have a prey instinct?  I would think they do.  So, they could kill for fun.  I think they have sex for fun, too.  It appears they do and this does not follow the evolutionary thinking and explanations.
> 
> "Sex, we are told, is pleasurable. Yet you probably wouldn’t think that if you waded through the scientific literature. That's because most scientific accounts of sexual behaviour rest upon evolutionary explanations rather than the more immediately relevant mental and emotional experiences. To say that we have sex because it helps us to preserve our genetic legacies would be entirely accurate, but the more fleeting, experiential, pleasurable aspects of that most basic of social urges would be missing. It would be like staring at a painting with half the colour spectrum removed from it."
> 
> Do animals have sex for pleasure?
> 
> 
> 
> A dominant male in species including but not limited to chimpanzees may kill a juvenile to increase the likelihood of the female going into heat.
> 
> Male Sexual Aggression: What Chimps Can Reveal About People
> 
> It has nothing at all to do with killing for fun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This sexual behavior nor killing babies isn't the norm with people, so it still doesn't follow that humans came from monkeys.  Certainly, killing babies in order to mate more isn't the acceptable norm in human society.  So far, we found that evolution doesn't explain the cannibalistic behavior nor the violent behavior of aggressive male monkeys to females and their offspring.  Instead, we find that the actual behaviors do not match the evolutionary clinical descriptions.  Another fail for evolution?  I think so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you are missing is that humans have evolved a much more complex brain than Apes, Chimpanzees, etc. Humans are sentient creatures.
> 
> I believe our sentience has allowed us to explore. As you move further away from humans, you find corollaries of human behavior that resides in us still, that have proven successful evolutionarily throughout time, and are maintained, and you also see hints of where our sentience comes from. That's why we see a degree of self-awareness in chimpanzees but not at all in ants -- yet hierarchal structuring of both societies have similarities. Are there offshoots? Yes, nature is not perfect, and never has it been claimed it is, and what do we see? An imperfect nature, with a lot of starts and stops, successes and failures.
> 
> We have evolved a sense of survival, it is _evident _in almost every animal, and the methods to which we go to survive get more complex as -- surprise! -- the higher towards sentience you go. At the same time, we _also_ see vestiges of self-sacrifice for the greater good, just like a lowly bee will sting an invader and die, for the greater good of the hive.
> 
> Also, why would the gods create mankind out of dust, give him sentience, a special place in the universe, and then give animals such similar abilities—just at a lower “wattage”? Yet more confusion, making it seem as though we evolved our characteristics from animals similar to us, who share 99.9% of our DNA, instead of humans being qualitatively different. Why would the gods do this, particularly when the bibles says man will have dominion over all beasts? What is more likely, that the gods purposely made these similarities so to confuse and confound us, or the story was set down within the limited parameters of knowledge of the natural world that existed at the time?
> 
> Another fail for fear and superstition? Yes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> >>What you are missing is that humans have evolved a much more complex brain than Apes, Chimpanzees, etc. Humans are sentient creatures.<<
> 
> I stopped reading after the first sentence.  This is the creation scientist's argument that we _didn't_ develop from monkeys.  The evos claim it was due to bipedalism in monkeys that led to humans.  Care to try again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I've found truly alarming about the creationist / religious arguments is just how unsupported they are.
> 
> They entirety of the creationist / religious agenda is managed toward using supernaturalism as the cause of existence. Where science will flex and adjust to new evidence and methods of testing, the creation ministries test nothing.
> 
> The creation ministries never provide the results of rigorous testing and methodology for peer review because they can't. They never seek to provide positive evidence of their outrageous claims because they can't. Thus, the difference between science and religious claims. Science will test, falsifying and confirm through the process of study and peer review. Creationism only tries and fails to tear down science to promote a claim not available for investigation.
Click to expand...


Now you're going off from what we were discussing.  Believe me, my faith does not drive my science.  Why do the majority, if not all, atheists think creation science is tied to their faith?  Sure, it's based on the Bible, but it only takes what God has said in regards to how the world and universe works.  The only supernatural is what's in Genesis.  There are no ghosts, fortune tellers, monsters, goblins, witches, aliens and the like.  To the contrary, isn't belief in atheism tied to secular science or atheist science today?  Atheism is a religion.

Creation science was what was considered science and true before the atheists came up with uniformitariansim and evolution.  Both of the latter are theories or hypothesis and not something that is observable science although evolutionists like to think so.  The only thing observable is natural selection.

Instead, today the lie has taken over.  Today, the God theory, the supernatural (Genesis only) and the Bible cannot be discussed or peer reviewed anymore like it was done in the past.  Atheist science or secular science, since uniformitarianism and evolution took over, has systematically eliminated God, the supernatural and the Bible as theories.  This was not so before the 1850s.  So today, the greatest scientists of the past, i.e. creation scientists, are no more.  The ones who believe in creation have to lie to keep their jobs.  Creation science has been systematically eliminated from science.  People like Sir Francis Bacon, Copernicus, Galileo, Isaac Newton, Louis Pasteur, Linus Pauling and those who invented today's modern science and theories have been eliminated.  Almost all of the great scientists of the past were creation scientists.  Even Einstein came to believe in pantheism.  See my list of famous scientists of the past below.  They were systematically eliminated by Charles Darwin whose own theories have been rendered pseudoscience today.  There's still good science, but the areas of biology, geology, zoology and paleontology are the worst because evolution and evolutionary thinking has taken over.

Creation scientists - creation.com


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> A dominant male in species including but not limited to chimpanzees may kill a juvenile to increase the likelihood of the female going into heat.
> 
> Male Sexual Aggression: What Chimps Can Reveal About People
> 
> It has nothing at all to do with killing for fun.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This sexual behavior nor killing babies isn't the norm with people, so it still doesn't follow that humans came from monkeys.  Certainly, killing babies in order to mate more isn't the acceptable norm in human society.  So far, we found that evolution doesn't explain the cannibalistic behavior nor the violent behavior of aggressive male monkeys to females and their offspring.  Instead, we find that the actual behaviors do not match the evolutionary clinical descriptions.  Another fail for evolution?  I think so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you are missing is that humans have evolved a much more complex brain than Apes, Chimpanzees, etc. Humans are sentient creatures.
> 
> I believe our sentience has allowed us to explore. As you move further away from humans, you find corollaries of human behavior that resides in us still, that have proven successful evolutionarily throughout time, and are maintained, and you also see hints of where our sentience comes from. That's why we see a degree of self-awareness in chimpanzees but not at all in ants -- yet hierarchal structuring of both societies have similarities. Are there offshoots? Yes, nature is not perfect, and never has it been claimed it is, and what do we see? An imperfect nature, with a lot of starts and stops, successes and failures.
> 
> We have evolved a sense of survival, it is _evident _in almost every animal, and the methods to which we go to survive get more complex as -- surprise! -- the higher towards sentience you go. At the same time, we _also_ see vestiges of self-sacrifice for the greater good, just like a lowly bee will sting an invader and die, for the greater good of the hive.
> 
> Also, why would the gods create mankind out of dust, give him sentience, a special place in the universe, and then give animals such similar abilities—just at a lower “wattage”? Yet more confusion, making it seem as though we evolved our characteristics from animals similar to us, who share 99.9% of our DNA, instead of humans being qualitatively different. Why would the gods do this, particularly when the bibles says man will have dominion over all beasts? What is more likely, that the gods purposely made these similarities so to confuse and confound us, or the story was set down within the limited parameters of knowledge of the natural world that existed at the time?
> 
> Another fail for fear and superstition? Yes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> >>What you are missing is that humans have evolved a much more complex brain than Apes, Chimpanzees, etc. Humans are sentient creatures.<<
> 
> I stopped reading after the first sentence.  This is the creation scientist's argument that we _didn't_ develop from monkeys.  The evos claim it was due to bipedalism in monkeys that led to humans.  Care to try again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I've found truly alarming about the creationist / religious arguments is just how unsupported they are.
> 
> They entirety of the creationist / religious agenda is managed toward using supernaturalism as the cause of existence. Where science will flex and adjust to new evidence and methods of testing, the creation ministries test nothing.
> 
> The creation ministries never provide the results of rigorous testing and methodology for peer review because they can't. They never seek to provide positive evidence of their outrageous claims because they can't. Thus, the difference between science and religious claims. Science will test, falsifying and confirm through the process of study and peer review. Creationism only tries and fails to tear down science to promote a claim not available for investigation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now you're going off from what we were discussing.  Believe me, my faith does not drive my science.  Why do the majority, if not all, atheists think creation science is tied to their faith?  Sure, it's based on the Bible, but it only takes what God has said in regards to how the world and universe works.  The only supernatural is what's in Genesis.  There are no ghosts, fortune tellers, monsters, goblins, witches, aliens and the like.  To the contrary, isn't belief in atheism tied to secular science or atheist science today?  Atheism is a religion.
> 
> Creation science was what was considered science and true before the atheists came up with uniformitariansim and evolution.  Both of the latter are theories or hypothesis and not something that is observable science although evolutionists like to think so.  The only thing observable is natural selection.
> 
> Instead, today the lie has taken over.  Today, the God theory, the supernatural (Genesis only) and the Bible cannot be discussed or peer reviewed anymore like it was done in the past.  Atheist science or secular science, since uniformitarianism and evolution took over, has systematically eliminated God, the supernatural and the Bible as theories.  This was not so before the 1850s.  So today, the greatest scientists of the past, i.e. creation scientists, are no more.  The ones who believe in creation have to lie to keep their jobs.  Creation science has been systematically eliminated from science.  People like Sir Francis Bacon, Copernicus, Galileo, Isaac Newton, Louis Pasteur, Linus Pauling and those who invented today's modern science and theories have been eliminated.  Almost all of the great scientists of the past were creation scientists.  Even Einstein came to believe in pantheism.  See my list of famous scientists of the past below.  They were systematically eliminated by Charles Darwin whose own theories have been rendered pseudoscience today.  There's still good science, but the areas of biology, geology, zoology and paleontology are the worst because evolution and evolutionary thinking has taken over.
> 
> Creation scientists - creation.com
Click to expand...


A couple of points. First, it's dishonest to arbitrarily and retroactively assign the label of "creation scientist" to those mathematicians and biologists of the past. Many of them were persecuted by the church which literally held back science and investigation for 800 years. 

Secondly, the idea that even today, fundamentalist ministries are still promoting a flat earth and a geocentric model is nearly beyond comprehension. You need to be honest with yourself and others regarding the role of the religious entities in literally crushing science and investigation which furthered the Dark Ages.

The earth is not flat. The planets orbit the Sun. Gravity, while a theory, is not to be dismissed as irrelevant because it is a theory. 

The fact is, Psychology and Physiology began the evisceration of metaphysics as the province of philosophy and theology (although it is only right to recognize the assistance of both theologian and philosopher in this task) and carried much of the pursuit for knowledge to the scientific arena where hard physical truths must be accounted for. In a similar way the development of the scientific method and the consensus it brings, combined with the academic and intellectual freedoms of the Renaissance and the Age of Enlightenment, left less and less room for literal interpretations of any creation stories. 

We should remember that Darwin was not operating in an intellectual vacuum regarding an old earth. The prevailing scientific viewpoint was that the earth was extremely old by the 1800s, which was at odds with a literal interpretation of the bibles. 

Pursuing a natural explanation for phenomena has been validated again and again. Even the work of great intellects who sought to use their scientific discoveries as proofs of the glories of the Christian Gods, men like Copernicus and Newton, has been pressed into the service of naturalism. Their methods and the evidence thereby derived were completely sound; their motivations being the pursuit of knowledge. Nevertheless, the naturalist has encompassed their learning and driven on, pushing back the limitations of naturalism further and further into the past, bringing us up even to the threshold of the instant of the expansion of the universe itself.

The second reason is to some extent predicated on the first – as naturalism has had such coruscating success, why place limits on what it might achieve? Introducing supernaturalism into the picture is an unnecessarily limiting factor, particularly when the existence of various supernatural creators is itself speculative. Some would argue that this is a contradictory position to take; that locking out the divine from the picture is blinkered thinking. But I have yet to see a convincing argument as to how allowing for supernatural creation really advances our understanding. Without a plausible framework to show us how we are to know the sculptors hand or understand the tools that he used, it is futile. 

Until theology or creation science can come up with a plausible means to investigate the method of supernatural creation, some tentative hypothesis, a beginnings of a framework, then what useful role can they have in advancement of knowledge? Even the more sophisticated arguments of intelligent design only seem to serve as foils for complexity, not as alternative mechanisms. In physics, when infinity shows up as a result of equations, the equations are not considered solved; they are considered to have no real-world validity. Supernatural intervention as a function seems to have a similar deadening effect.


----------



## RWS

If god was perfect, then everything would have just "poofed" into existence as it is today. And nothing would ever change.

But god is not perfect, which is why evolution explains existence as it is today. And things will continue to change.

Many have to fail over time for some to improve.


----------



## RWS

However, religions just want to cut to the chase and destroy all the competition to ensure they continue their financial dominance.

Religions want instant evolution to dominance. By destroying anyone who says differently. And then taking their shit and promising an afterlife.

Real evolution to dominance takes billions of years. And there's no money to be made from followers hoping for an afterlife.


----------



## RWS

Bond, what do you believe your afterlife consists of? Where? And why?


----------



## cnm

james bond said:


> Why do the majority, if not all, atheists think creation science is tied to their faith? Sure, it's based on the Bible,


Well I assume you meant creation science was tied to creationists' faith. In which case it's based on faith that the Bible is the word of God, for which no demonstrable evidence exists.


----------



## james bond

cnm said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do the majority, if not all, atheists think creation science is tied to their faith? Sure, it's based on the Bible,
> 
> 
> 
> Well I assume you meant creation science was tied to creationists' faith. In which case it's based on faith that the Bible is the word of God, for which no demonstrable evidence exists.
Click to expand...


"God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them."  Genesis 1:27 

Demonstrable evidence exists everywhere.  The Bible describes we were made in God's image.  We are like God in that we naturally understand good and evil and what's right and just.  Unfortunately, we don't make the right choices as we witness here all around.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> This sexual behavior nor killing babies isn't the norm with people, so it still doesn't follow that humans came from monkeys.  Certainly, killing babies in order to mate more isn't the acceptable norm in human society.  So far, we found that evolution doesn't explain the cannibalistic behavior nor the violent behavior of aggressive male monkeys to females and their offspring.  Instead, we find that the actual behaviors do not match the evolutionary clinical descriptions.  Another fail for evolution?  I think so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you are missing is that humans have evolved a much more complex brain than Apes, Chimpanzees, etc. Humans are sentient creatures.
> 
> I believe our sentience has allowed us to explore. As you move further away from humans, you find corollaries of human behavior that resides in us still, that have proven successful evolutionarily throughout time, and are maintained, and you also see hints of where our sentience comes from. That's why we see a degree of self-awareness in chimpanzees but not at all in ants -- yet hierarchal structuring of both societies have similarities. Are there offshoots? Yes, nature is not perfect, and never has it been claimed it is, and what do we see? An imperfect nature, with a lot of starts and stops, successes and failures.
> 
> We have evolved a sense of survival, it is _evident _in almost every animal, and the methods to which we go to survive get more complex as -- surprise! -- the higher towards sentience you go. At the same time, we _also_ see vestiges of self-sacrifice for the greater good, just like a lowly bee will sting an invader and die, for the greater good of the hive.
> 
> Also, why would the gods create mankind out of dust, give him sentience, a special place in the universe, and then give animals such similar abilities—just at a lower “wattage”? Yet more confusion, making it seem as though we evolved our characteristics from animals similar to us, who share 99.9% of our DNA, instead of humans being qualitatively different. Why would the gods do this, particularly when the bibles says man will have dominion over all beasts? What is more likely, that the gods purposely made these similarities so to confuse and confound us, or the story was set down within the limited parameters of knowledge of the natural world that existed at the time?
> 
> Another fail for fear and superstition? Yes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> >>What you are missing is that humans have evolved a much more complex brain than Apes, Chimpanzees, etc. Humans are sentient creatures.<<
> 
> I stopped reading after the first sentence.  This is the creation scientist's argument that we _didn't_ develop from monkeys.  The evos claim it was due to bipedalism in monkeys that led to humans.  Care to try again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I've found truly alarming about the creationist / religious arguments is just how unsupported they are.
> 
> They entirety of the creationist / religious agenda is managed toward using supernaturalism as the cause of existence. Where science will flex and adjust to new evidence and methods of testing, the creation ministries test nothing.
> 
> The creation ministries never provide the results of rigorous testing and methodology for peer review because they can't. They never seek to provide positive evidence of their outrageous claims because they can't. Thus, the difference between science and religious claims. Science will test, falsifying and confirm through the process of study and peer review. Creationism only tries and fails to tear down science to promote a claim not available for investigation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now you're going off from what we were discussing.  Believe me, my faith does not drive my science.  Why do the majority, if not all, atheists think creation science is tied to their faith?  Sure, it's based on the Bible, but it only takes what God has said in regards to how the world and universe works.  The only supernatural is what's in Genesis.  There are no ghosts, fortune tellers, monsters, goblins, witches, aliens and the like.  To the contrary, isn't belief in atheism tied to secular science or atheist science today?  Atheism is a religion.
> 
> Creation science was what was considered science and true before the atheists came up with uniformitariansim and evolution.  Both of the latter are theories or hypothesis and not something that is observable science although evolutionists like to think so.  The only thing observable is natural selection.
> 
> Instead, today the lie has taken over.  Today, the God theory, the supernatural (Genesis only) and the Bible cannot be discussed or peer reviewed anymore like it was done in the past.  Atheist science or secular science, since uniformitarianism and evolution took over, has systematically eliminated God, the supernatural and the Bible as theories.  This was not so before the 1850s.  So today, the greatest scientists of the past, i.e. creation scientists, are no more.  The ones who believe in creation have to lie to keep their jobs.  Creation science has been systematically eliminated from science.  People like Sir Francis Bacon, Copernicus, Galileo, Isaac Newton, Louis Pasteur, Linus Pauling and those who invented today's modern science and theories have been eliminated.  Almost all of the great scientists of the past were creation scientists.  Even Einstein came to believe in pantheism.  See my list of famous scientists of the past below.  They were systematically eliminated by Charles Darwin whose own theories have been rendered pseudoscience today.  There's still good science, but the areas of biology, geology, zoology and paleontology are the worst because evolution and evolutionary thinking has taken over.
> 
> Creation scientists - creation.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A couple of points. First, it's dishonest to arbitrarily and retroactively assign the label of "creation scientist" to those mathematicians and biologists of the past. Many of them were persecuted by the church which literally held back science and investigation for 800 years.
> 
> Secondly, the idea that even today, fundamentalist ministries are still promoting a flat earth and a geocentric model is nearly beyond comprehension. You need to be honest with yourself and others regarding the role of the religious entities in literally crushing science and investigation which furthered the Dark Ages.
> 
> The earth is not flat. The planets orbit the Sun. Gravity, while a theory, is not to be dismissed as irrelevant because it is a theory.
> 
> The fact is, Psychology and Physiology began the evisceration of metaphysics as the province of philosophy and theology (although it is only right to recognize the assistance of both theologian and philosopher in this task) and carried much of the pursuit for knowledge to the scientific arena where hard physical truths must be accounted for. In a similar way the development of the scientific method and the consensus it brings, combined with the academic and intellectual freedoms of the Renaissance and the Age of Enlightenment, left less and less room for literal interpretations of any creation stories.
> 
> We should remember that Darwin was not operating in an intellectual vacuum regarding an old earth. The prevailing scientific viewpoint was that the earth was extremely old by the 1800s, which was at odds with a literal interpretation of the bibles.
> 
> Pursuing a natural explanation for phenomena has been validated again and again. Even the work of great intellects who sought to use their scientific discoveries as proofs of the glories of the Christian Gods, men like Copernicus and Newton, has been pressed into the service of naturalism. Their methods and the evidence thereby derived were completely sound; their motivations being the pursuit of knowledge. Nevertheless, the naturalist has encompassed their learning and driven on, pushing back the limitations of naturalism further and further into the past, bringing us up even to the threshold of the instant of the expansion of the universe itself.
> 
> The second reason is to some extent predicated on the first – as naturalism has had such coruscating success, why place limits on what it might achieve? Introducing supernaturalism into the picture is an unnecessarily limiting factor, particularly when the existence of various supernatural creators is itself speculative. Some would argue that this is a contradictory position to take; that locking out the divine from the picture is blinkered thinking. But I have yet to see a convincing argument as to how allowing for supernatural creation really advances our understanding. Without a plausible framework to show us how we are to know the sculptors hand or understand the tools that he used, it is futile.
> 
> Until theology or creation science can come up with a plausible means to investigate the method of supernatural creation, some tentative hypothesis, a beginnings of a framework, then what useful role can they have in advancement of knowledge? Even the more sophisticated arguments of intelligent design only seem to serve as foils for complexity, not as alternative mechanisms. In physics, when infinity shows up as a result of equations, the equations are not considered solved; they are considered to have no real-world validity. Supernatural intervention as a function seems to have a similar deadening effect.
Click to expand...


I'd have to disagree.  The majority did just fine as shown in my link.  Modern science was founded by Sir Francis Bacon.  Why complain about what happened in the past when it's what happened today with secular scientists systematically eliminating creation scientists from science?  They won't peer-review anything to do with the Bible.  In fact, it's so bad that creation scientists had to go in the closet to keep their jobs.  They just _mouth_ the BS lines of evolution.  Creation scientists have to do their own peer-review.  Furthermore, why are you re-writing history to fit your own wrong worldview?

The Bible shows that the earth is not flat.  I can give you the verses if you want.  Do you know how to simply show that the earth is not flat using science?  I do.  Are you a flat earther ha ha?  You're also going by stereotypes stating there are people who still believe in geocentricity.

As for the rest, I'll let you pontificate on your soapbox.  I don't want to go off topic.

>>Until theology or creation science can come up with a plausible means to investigate the method of supernatural creation, some tentative hypothesis, a beginnings of a framework, then what useful role can they have in advancement of knowledge? Even the more sophisticated arguments of intelligent design only seem to serve as foils for complexity, not as alternative mechanisms. In physics, when infinity shows up as a result of equations, the equations are not considered solved; they are considered to have no real-world validity. Supernatural intervention as a function seems to have a similar deadening effect.<<

I think the faithful here have been showing evidence of creation such as only life begats life.  The evos can't explain how single-cells creatures became multicells ones nor how asexual reproduction became sexual reproduction.  Evos cannot create a blade of grass.  God only allowed us to manipulate at the molecular level.


----------



## james bond

RWS said:


> Bond, what do you believe your afterlife consists of? Where? And why?



"The New Heaven and the New Earth
Then I saw ya new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more." Revelation 21

The Bible states that God will get rid of the universe and the faithful will live on a new Earth as paradise.  It's God's promise.  Also, we will have new and perfect spiritual bodies.  The non-believers will have theirs destroyed by the lake of fire.  This could be the cause of weeping, gnashing of teeth and eternal woe.


----------



## RWS

james bond said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bond, what do you believe your afterlife consists of? Where? And why?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The New Heaven and the New Earth
> Then I saw ya new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more." Revelation 21
> 
> The Bible states that God will get rid of the universe and the faithful will live on a new Earth as paradise.  It's God's promise.  Also, we will have new and perfect spiritual bodies.  The non-believers will have theirs destroyed by the lake of fire.  This could be the cause of weeping, gnashing of teeth and eternal woe.
Click to expand...

And that promise is only true to believers of that particular religion?


----------



## cnm

james bond said:


> Demonstrable evidence exists everywhere.


No it doesn't. Claiming something isn't demonstrating evidence. There's similar claims Thor exists, but you maintain a selective faith based atheism.


----------



## cnm

james bond said:


> The non-believers will have theirs destroyed by the lake of fire.


Care to demonstrate?


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you are missing is that humans have evolved a much more complex brain than Apes, Chimpanzees, etc. Humans are sentient creatures.
> 
> I believe our sentience has allowed us to explore. As you move further away from humans, you find corollaries of human behavior that resides in us still, that have proven successful evolutionarily throughout time, and are maintained, and you also see hints of where our sentience comes from. That's why we see a degree of self-awareness in chimpanzees but not at all in ants -- yet hierarchal structuring of both societies have similarities. Are there offshoots? Yes, nature is not perfect, and never has it been claimed it is, and what do we see? An imperfect nature, with a lot of starts and stops, successes and failures.
> 
> We have evolved a sense of survival, it is _evident _in almost every animal, and the methods to which we go to survive get more complex as -- surprise! -- the higher towards sentience you go. At the same time, we _also_ see vestiges of self-sacrifice for the greater good, just like a lowly bee will sting an invader and die, for the greater good of the hive.
> 
> Also, why would the gods create mankind out of dust, give him sentience, a special place in the universe, and then give animals such similar abilities—just at a lower “wattage”? Yet more confusion, making it seem as though we evolved our characteristics from animals similar to us, who share 99.9% of our DNA, instead of humans being qualitatively different. Why would the gods do this, particularly when the bibles says man will have dominion over all beasts? What is more likely, that the gods purposely made these similarities so to confuse and confound us, or the story was set down within the limited parameters of knowledge of the natural world that existed at the time?
> 
> Another fail for fear and superstition? Yes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >>What you are missing is that humans have evolved a much more complex brain than Apes, Chimpanzees, etc. Humans are sentient creatures.<<
> 
> I stopped reading after the first sentence.  This is the creation scientist's argument that we _didn't_ develop from monkeys.  The evos claim it was due to bipedalism in monkeys that led to humans.  Care to try again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I've found truly alarming about the creationist / religious arguments is just how unsupported they are.
> 
> They entirety of the creationist / religious agenda is managed toward using supernaturalism as the cause of existence. Where science will flex and adjust to new evidence and methods of testing, the creation ministries test nothing.
> 
> The creation ministries never provide the results of rigorous testing and methodology for peer review because they can't. They never seek to provide positive evidence of their outrageous claims because they can't. Thus, the difference between science and religious claims. Science will test, falsifying and confirm through the process of study and peer review. Creationism only tries and fails to tear down science to promote a claim not available for investigation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now you're going off from what we were discussing.  Believe me, my faith does not drive my science.  Why do the majority, if not all, atheists think creation science is tied to their faith?  Sure, it's based on the Bible, but it only takes what God has said in regards to how the world and universe works.  The only supernatural is what's in Genesis.  There are no ghosts, fortune tellers, monsters, goblins, witches, aliens and the like.  To the contrary, isn't belief in atheism tied to secular science or atheist science today?  Atheism is a religion.
> 
> Creation science was what was considered science and true before the atheists came up with uniformitariansim and evolution.  Both of the latter are theories or hypothesis and not something that is observable science although evolutionists like to think so.  The only thing observable is natural selection.
> 
> Instead, today the lie has taken over.  Today, the God theory, the supernatural (Genesis only) and the Bible cannot be discussed or peer reviewed anymore like it was done in the past.  Atheist science or secular science, since uniformitarianism and evolution took over, has systematically eliminated God, the supernatural and the Bible as theories.  This was not so before the 1850s.  So today, the greatest scientists of the past, i.e. creation scientists, are no more.  The ones who believe in creation have to lie to keep their jobs.  Creation science has been systematically eliminated from science.  People like Sir Francis Bacon, Copernicus, Galileo, Isaac Newton, Louis Pasteur, Linus Pauling and those who invented today's modern science and theories have been eliminated.  Almost all of the great scientists of the past were creation scientists.  Even Einstein came to believe in pantheism.  See my list of famous scientists of the past below.  They were systematically eliminated by Charles Darwin whose own theories have been rendered pseudoscience today.  There's still good science, but the areas of biology, geology, zoology and paleontology are the worst because evolution and evolutionary thinking has taken over.
> 
> Creation scientists - creation.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A couple of points. First, it's dishonest to arbitrarily and retroactively assign the label of "creation scientist" to those mathematicians and biologists of the past. Many of them were persecuted by the church which literally held back science and investigation for 800 years.
> 
> Secondly, the idea that even today, fundamentalist ministries are still promoting a flat earth and a geocentric model is nearly beyond comprehension. You need to be honest with yourself and others regarding the role of the religious entities in literally crushing science and investigation which furthered the Dark Ages.
> 
> The earth is not flat. The planets orbit the Sun. Gravity, while a theory, is not to be dismissed as irrelevant because it is a theory.
> 
> The fact is, Psychology and Physiology began the evisceration of metaphysics as the province of philosophy and theology (although it is only right to recognize the assistance of both theologian and philosopher in this task) and carried much of the pursuit for knowledge to the scientific arena where hard physical truths must be accounted for. In a similar way the development of the scientific method and the consensus it brings, combined with the academic and intellectual freedoms of the Renaissance and the Age of Enlightenment, left less and less room for literal interpretations of any creation stories.
> 
> We should remember that Darwin was not operating in an intellectual vacuum regarding an old earth. The prevailing scientific viewpoint was that the earth was extremely old by the 1800s, which was at odds with a literal interpretation of the bibles.
> 
> Pursuing a natural explanation for phenomena has been validated again and again. Even the work of great intellects who sought to use their scientific discoveries as proofs of the glories of the Christian Gods, men like Copernicus and Newton, has been pressed into the service of naturalism. Their methods and the evidence thereby derived were completely sound; their motivations being the pursuit of knowledge. Nevertheless, the naturalist has encompassed their learning and driven on, pushing back the limitations of naturalism further and further into the past, bringing us up even to the threshold of the instant of the expansion of the universe itself.
> 
> The second reason is to some extent predicated on the first – as naturalism has had such coruscating success, why place limits on what it might achieve? Introducing supernaturalism into the picture is an unnecessarily limiting factor, particularly when the existence of various supernatural creators is itself speculative. Some would argue that this is a contradictory position to take; that locking out the divine from the picture is blinkered thinking. But I have yet to see a convincing argument as to how allowing for supernatural creation really advances our understanding. Without a plausible framework to show us how we are to know the sculptors hand or understand the tools that he used, it is futile.
> 
> Until theology or creation science can come up with a plausible means to investigate the method of supernatural creation, some tentative hypothesis, a beginnings of a framework, then what useful role can they have in advancement of knowledge? Even the more sophisticated arguments of intelligent design only seem to serve as foils for complexity, not as alternative mechanisms. In physics, when infinity shows up as a result of equations, the equations are not considered solved; they are considered to have no real-world validity. Supernatural intervention as a function seems to have a similar deadening effect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd have to disagree.  The majority did just fine as shown in my link.  Modern science was founded by Sir Francis Bacon.  Why complain about what happened in the past when it's what happened today with secular scientists systematically eliminating creation scientists from science?  They won't peer-review anything to do with the Bible.  In fact, it's so bad that creation scientists had to go in the closet to keep their jobs.  They just _mouth_ the BS lines of evolution.  Creation scientists have to do their own peer-review.  Furthermore, why are you re-writing history to fit your own wrong worldview?
> 
> The Bible shows that the earth is not flat.  I can give you the verses if you want.  Do you know how to simply show that the earth is not flat using science?  I do.  Are you a flat earther ha ha?  You're also going by stereotypes stating there are people who still believe in geocentricity.
> 
> As for the rest, I'll let you pontificate on your soapbox.  I don't want to go off topic.
> 
> >>Until theology or creation science can come up with a plausible means to investigate the method of supernatural creation, some tentative hypothesis, a beginnings of a framework, then what useful role can they have in advancement of knowledge? Even the more sophisticated arguments of intelligent design only seem to serve as foils for complexity, not as alternative mechanisms. In physics, when infinity shows up as a result of equations, the equations are not considered solved; they are considered to have no real-world validity. Supernatural intervention as a function seems to have a similar deadening effect.<<
> 
> I think the faithful here have been showing evidence of creation such as only life begats life.  The evos can't explain how single-cells creatures became multicells ones nor how asexual reproduction became sexual reproduction.  Evos cannot create a blade of grass.  God only allowed us to manipulate at the molecular level.
Click to expand...




james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you are missing is that humans have evolved a much more complex brain than Apes, Chimpanzees, etc. Humans are sentient creatures.
> 
> I believe our sentience has allowed us to explore. As you move further away from humans, you find corollaries of human behavior that resides in us still, that have proven successful evolutionarily throughout time, and are maintained, and you also see hints of where our sentience comes from. That's why we see a degree of self-awareness in chimpanzees but not at all in ants -- yet hierarchal structuring of both societies have similarities. Are there offshoots? Yes, nature is not perfect, and never has it been claimed it is, and what do we see? An imperfect nature, with a lot of starts and stops, successes and failures.
> 
> We have evolved a sense of survival, it is _evident _in almost every animal, and the methods to which we go to survive get more complex as -- surprise! -- the higher towards sentience you go. At the same time, we _also_ see vestiges of self-sacrifice for the greater good, just like a lowly bee will sting an invader and die, for the greater good of the hive.
> 
> Also, why would the gods create mankind out of dust, give him sentience, a special place in the universe, and then give animals such similar abilities—just at a lower “wattage”? Yet more confusion, making it seem as though we evolved our characteristics from animals similar to us, who share 99.9% of our DNA, instead of humans being qualitatively different. Why would the gods do this, particularly when the bibles says man will have dominion over all beasts? What is more likely, that the gods purposely made these similarities so to confuse and confound us, or the story was set down within the limited parameters of knowledge of the natural world that existed at the time?
> 
> Another fail for fear and superstition? Yes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >>What you are missing is that humans have evolved a much more complex brain than Apes, Chimpanzees, etc. Humans are sentient creatures.<<
> 
> I stopped reading after the first sentence.  This is the creation scientist's argument that we _didn't_ develop from monkeys.  The evos claim it was due to bipedalism in monkeys that led to humans.  Care to try again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I've found truly alarming about the creationist / religious arguments is just how unsupported they are.
> 
> They entirety of the creationist / religious agenda is managed toward using supernaturalism as the cause of existence. Where science will flex and adjust to new evidence and methods of testing, the creation ministries test nothing.
> 
> The creation ministries never provide the results of rigorous testing and methodology for peer review because they can't. They never seek to provide positive evidence of their outrageous claims because they can't. Thus, the difference between science and religious claims. Science will test, falsifying and confirm through the process of study and peer review. Creationism only tries and fails to tear down science to promote a claim not available for investigation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now you're going off from what we were discussing.  Believe me, my faith does not drive my science.  Why do the majority, if not all, atheists think creation science is tied to their faith?  Sure, it's based on the Bible, but it only takes what God has said in regards to how the world and universe works.  The only supernatural is what's in Genesis.  There are no ghosts, fortune tellers, monsters, goblins, witches, aliens and the like.  To the contrary, isn't belief in atheism tied to secular science or atheist science today?  Atheism is a religion.
> 
> Creation science was what was considered science and true before the atheists came up with uniformitariansim and evolution.  Both of the latter are theories or hypothesis and not something that is observable science although evolutionists like to think so.  The only thing observable is natural selection.
> 
> Instead, today the lie has taken over.  Today, the God theory, the supernatural (Genesis only) and the Bible cannot be discussed or peer reviewed anymore like it was done in the past.  Atheist science or secular science, since uniformitarianism and evolution took over, has systematically eliminated God, the supernatural and the Bible as theories.  This was not so before the 1850s.  So today, the greatest scientists of the past, i.e. creation scientists, are no more.  The ones who believe in creation have to lie to keep their jobs.  Creation science has been systematically eliminated from science.  People like Sir Francis Bacon, Copernicus, Galileo, Isaac Newton, Louis Pasteur, Linus Pauling and those who invented today's modern science and theories have been eliminated.  Almost all of the great scientists of the past were creation scientists.  Even Einstein came to believe in pantheism.  See my list of famous scientists of the past below.  They were systematically eliminated by Charles Darwin whose own theories have been rendered pseudoscience today.  There's still good science, but the areas of biology, geology, zoology and paleontology are the worst because evolution and evolutionary thinking has taken over.
> 
> Creation scientists - creation.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A couple of points. First, it's dishonest to arbitrarily and retroactively assign the label of "creation scientist" to those mathematicians and biologists of the past. Many of them were persecuted by the church which literally held back science and investigation for 800 years.
> 
> Secondly, the idea that even today, fundamentalist ministries are still promoting a flat earth and a geocentric model is nearly beyond comprehension. You need to be honest with yourself and others regarding the role of the religious entities in literally crushing science and investigation which furthered the Dark Ages.
> 
> The earth is not flat. The planets orbit the Sun. Gravity, while a theory, is not to be dismissed as irrelevant because it is a theory.
> 
> The fact is, Psychology and Physiology began the evisceration of metaphysics as the province of philosophy and theology (although it is only right to recognize the assistance of both theologian and philosopher in this task) and carried much of the pursuit for knowledge to the scientific arena where hard physical truths must be accounted for. In a similar way the development of the scientific method and the consensus it brings, combined with the academic and intellectual freedoms of the Renaissance and the Age of Enlightenment, left less and less room for literal interpretations of any creation stories.
> 
> We should remember that Darwin was not operating in an intellectual vacuum regarding an old earth. The prevailing scientific viewpoint was that the earth was extremely old by the 1800s, which was at odds with a literal interpretation of the bibles.
> 
> Pursuing a natural explanation for phenomena has been validated again and again. Even the work of great intellects who sought to use their scientific discoveries as proofs of the glories of the Christian Gods, men like Copernicus and Newton, has been pressed into the service of naturalism. Their methods and the evidence thereby derived were completely sound; their motivations being the pursuit of knowledge. Nevertheless, the naturalist has encompassed their learning and driven on, pushing back the limitations of naturalism further and further into the past, bringing us up even to the threshold of the instant of the expansion of the universe itself.
> 
> The second reason is to some extent predicated on the first – as naturalism has had such coruscating success, why place limits on what it might achieve? Introducing supernaturalism into the picture is an unnecessarily limiting factor, particularly when the existence of various supernatural creators is itself speculative. Some would argue that this is a contradictory position to take; that locking out the divine from the picture is blinkered thinking. But I have yet to see a convincing argument as to how allowing for supernatural creation really advances our understanding. Without a plausible framework to show us how we are to know the sculptors hand or understand the tools that he used, it is futile.
> 
> Until theology or creation science can come up with a plausible means to investigate the method of supernatural creation, some tentative hypothesis, a beginnings of a framework, then what useful role can they have in advancement of knowledge? Even the more sophisticated arguments of intelligent design only seem to serve as foils for complexity, not as alternative mechanisms. In physics, when infinity shows up as a result of equations, the equations are not considered solved; they are considered to have no real-world validity. Supernatural intervention as a function seems to have a similar deadening effect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd have to disagree.  The majority did just fine as shown in my link.  Modern science was founded by Sir Francis Bacon.  Why complain about what happened in the past when it's what happened today with secular scientists systematically eliminating creation scientists from science?  They won't peer-review anything to do with the Bible.  In fact, it's so bad that creation scientists had to go in the closet to keep their jobs.  They just _mouth_ the BS lines of evolution.  Creation scientists have to do their own peer-review.  Furthermore, why are you re-writing history to fit your own wrong worldview?
> 
> The Bible shows that the earth is not flat.  I can give you the verses if you want.  Do you know how to simply show that the earth is not flat using science?  I do.  Are you a flat earther ha ha?  You're also going by stereotypes stating there are people who still believe in geocentricity.
> 
> As for the rest, I'll let you pontificate on your soapbox.  I don't want to go off topic.
> 
> >>Until theology or creation science can come up with a plausible means to investigate the method of supernatural creation, some tentative hypothesis, a beginnings of a framework, then what useful role can they have in advancement of knowledge? Even the more sophisticated arguments of intelligent design only seem to serve as foils for complexity, not as alternative mechanisms. In physics, when infinity shows up as a result of equations, the equations are not considered solved; they are considered to have no real-world validity. Supernatural intervention as a function seems to have a similar deadening effect.<<
> 
> I think the faithful here have been showing evidence of creation such as only life begats life.  The evos can't explain how single-cells creatures became multicells ones nor how asexual reproduction became sexual reproduction.  Evos cannot create a blade of grass.  God only allowed us to manipulate at the molecular level.
Click to expand...


In the legitimate science world, scientists publish their work in peer reviewed journals where other scientists have an opportunity to study the data, perform their own tests and compare data to arrive at conclusions. You're claiming that "secular scientists systematically eliminating creation scientists from science? " I would suggest that it is creationists who have abandoned the discipmine of the scientific method and are simply pressing a religious agenda. 

In the world of the creation ministries, they're not just biased, they're biased _in extremis_ and their every effort is couched in terms of pressing a predefined agenda. It's dishonest and contrived. Those at the various Christian creationist ministries don't see it as important whether they present facts or not. If they choose to further opinions and press a religious agenda, that's their choosing. However, don't make the mistake that the opinions of religious fundamentalists are not fostered under the umbrella of a bias and a bigotry firmly in place. The prejudices and preconceptions have earned "creation science" only ridicule and condemnation from the relevant science community. That is probably the greatest indictment against the creation ministries.


"There is no observational fact imaginable which cannot, one way or another, be made to fit the creation model." 
- Henry Morris 
_President, Institute for Creation Research_


----------



## bripat9643

Flopper said:


> Ima Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know there are similarities but I think they are coincidental, like cats and seals both have whiskers.  But cats didn't come from seals or vice a versa.
> 
> 
> 
> *Nearly all animals on earth today come from a common ancestors, not from any spices that exist today.  So cats didn't come from seals but they did come from a common ancestor many millions of ears ago, long before cats or seals existed.*
Click to expand...

All animals, not "nearly all."


----------



## james bond

RWS said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bond, what do you believe your afterlife consists of? Where? And why?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The New Heaven and the New Earth
> Then I saw ya new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more." Revelation 21
> 
> The Bible states that God will get rid of the universe and the faithful will live on a new Earth as paradise.  It's God's promise.  Also, we will have new and perfect spiritual bodies.  The non-believers will have theirs destroyed by the lake of fire.  This could be the cause of weeping, gnashing of teeth and eternal woe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And that promise is only true to believers of that particular religion?
Click to expand...


It starts with reading and believing in John 3:16.  _Have you heard of it?_


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> >>What you are missing is that humans have evolved a much more complex brain than Apes, Chimpanzees, etc. Humans are sentient creatures.<<
> 
> I stopped reading after the first sentence.  This is the creation scientist's argument that we _didn't_ develop from monkeys.  The evos claim it was due to bipedalism in monkeys that led to humans.  Care to try again?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What I've found truly alarming about the creationist / religious arguments is just how unsupported they are.
> 
> They entirety of the creationist / religious agenda is managed toward using supernaturalism as the cause of existence. Where science will flex and adjust to new evidence and methods of testing, the creation ministries test nothing.
> 
> The creation ministries never provide the results of rigorous testing and methodology for peer review because they can't. They never seek to provide positive evidence of their outrageous claims because they can't. Thus, the difference between science and religious claims. Science will test, falsifying and confirm through the process of study and peer review. Creationism only tries and fails to tear down science to promote a claim not available for investigation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now you're going off from what we were discussing.  Believe me, my faith does not drive my science.  Why do the majority, if not all, atheists think creation science is tied to their faith?  Sure, it's based on the Bible, but it only takes what God has said in regards to how the world and universe works.  The only supernatural is what's in Genesis.  There are no ghosts, fortune tellers, monsters, goblins, witches, aliens and the like.  To the contrary, isn't belief in atheism tied to secular science or atheist science today?  Atheism is a religion.
> 
> Creation science was what was considered science and true before the atheists came up with uniformitariansim and evolution.  Both of the latter are theories or hypothesis and not something that is observable science although evolutionists like to think so.  The only thing observable is natural selection.
> 
> Instead, today the lie has taken over.  Today, the God theory, the supernatural (Genesis only) and the Bible cannot be discussed or peer reviewed anymore like it was done in the past.  Atheist science or secular science, since uniformitarianism and evolution took over, has systematically eliminated God, the supernatural and the Bible as theories.  This was not so before the 1850s.  So today, the greatest scientists of the past, i.e. creation scientists, are no more.  The ones who believe in creation have to lie to keep their jobs.  Creation science has been systematically eliminated from science.  People like Sir Francis Bacon, Copernicus, Galileo, Isaac Newton, Louis Pasteur, Linus Pauling and those who invented today's modern science and theories have been eliminated.  Almost all of the great scientists of the past were creation scientists.  Even Einstein came to believe in pantheism.  See my list of famous scientists of the past below.  They were systematically eliminated by Charles Darwin whose own theories have been rendered pseudoscience today.  There's still good science, but the areas of biology, geology, zoology and paleontology are the worst because evolution and evolutionary thinking has taken over.
> 
> Creation scientists - creation.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A couple of points. First, it's dishonest to arbitrarily and retroactively assign the label of "creation scientist" to those mathematicians and biologists of the past. Many of them were persecuted by the church which literally held back science and investigation for 800 years.
> 
> Secondly, the idea that even today, fundamentalist ministries are still promoting a flat earth and a geocentric model is nearly beyond comprehension. You need to be honest with yourself and others regarding the role of the religious entities in literally crushing science and investigation which furthered the Dark Ages.
> 
> The earth is not flat. The planets orbit the Sun. Gravity, while a theory, is not to be dismissed as irrelevant because it is a theory.
> 
> The fact is, Psychology and Physiology began the evisceration of metaphysics as the province of philosophy and theology (although it is only right to recognize the assistance of both theologian and philosopher in this task) and carried much of the pursuit for knowledge to the scientific arena where hard physical truths must be accounted for. In a similar way the development of the scientific method and the consensus it brings, combined with the academic and intellectual freedoms of the Renaissance and the Age of Enlightenment, left less and less room for literal interpretations of any creation stories.
> 
> We should remember that Darwin was not operating in an intellectual vacuum regarding an old earth. The prevailing scientific viewpoint was that the earth was extremely old by the 1800s, which was at odds with a literal interpretation of the bibles.
> 
> Pursuing a natural explanation for phenomena has been validated again and again. Even the work of great intellects who sought to use their scientific discoveries as proofs of the glories of the Christian Gods, men like Copernicus and Newton, has been pressed into the service of naturalism. Their methods and the evidence thereby derived were completely sound; their motivations being the pursuit of knowledge. Nevertheless, the naturalist has encompassed their learning and driven on, pushing back the limitations of naturalism further and further into the past, bringing us up even to the threshold of the instant of the expansion of the universe itself.
> 
> The second reason is to some extent predicated on the first – as naturalism has had such coruscating success, why place limits on what it might achieve? Introducing supernaturalism into the picture is an unnecessarily limiting factor, particularly when the existence of various supernatural creators is itself speculative. Some would argue that this is a contradictory position to take; that locking out the divine from the picture is blinkered thinking. But I have yet to see a convincing argument as to how allowing for supernatural creation really advances our understanding. Without a plausible framework to show us how we are to know the sculptors hand or understand the tools that he used, it is futile.
> 
> Until theology or creation science can come up with a plausible means to investigate the method of supernatural creation, some tentative hypothesis, a beginnings of a framework, then what useful role can they have in advancement of knowledge? Even the more sophisticated arguments of intelligent design only seem to serve as foils for complexity, not as alternative mechanisms. In physics, when infinity shows up as a result of equations, the equations are not considered solved; they are considered to have no real-world validity. Supernatural intervention as a function seems to have a similar deadening effect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd have to disagree.  The majority did just fine as shown in my link.  Modern science was founded by Sir Francis Bacon.  Why complain about what happened in the past when it's what happened today with secular scientists systematically eliminating creation scientists from science?  They won't peer-review anything to do with the Bible.  In fact, it's so bad that creation scientists had to go in the closet to keep their jobs.  They just _mouth_ the BS lines of evolution.  Creation scientists have to do their own peer-review.  Furthermore, why are you re-writing history to fit your own wrong worldview?
> 
> The Bible shows that the earth is not flat.  I can give you the verses if you want.  Do you know how to simply show that the earth is not flat using science?  I do.  Are you a flat earther ha ha?  You're also going by stereotypes stating there are people who still believe in geocentricity.
> 
> As for the rest, I'll let you pontificate on your soapbox.  I don't want to go off topic.
> 
> >>Until theology or creation science can come up with a plausible means to investigate the method of supernatural creation, some tentative hypothesis, a beginnings of a framework, then what useful role can they have in advancement of knowledge? Even the more sophisticated arguments of intelligent design only seem to serve as foils for complexity, not as alternative mechanisms. In physics, when infinity shows up as a result of equations, the equations are not considered solved; they are considered to have no real-world validity. Supernatural intervention as a function seems to have a similar deadening effect.<<
> 
> I think the faithful here have been showing evidence of creation such as only life begats life.  The evos can't explain how single-cells creatures became multicells ones nor how asexual reproduction became sexual reproduction.  Evos cannot create a blade of grass.  God only allowed us to manipulate at the molecular level.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> >>What you are missing is that humans have evolved a much more complex brain than Apes, Chimpanzees, etc. Humans are sentient creatures.<<
> 
> I stopped reading after the first sentence.  This is the creation scientist's argument that we _didn't_ develop from monkeys.  The evos claim it was due to bipedalism in monkeys that led to humans.  Care to try again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I've found truly alarming about the creationist / religious arguments is just how unsupported they are.
> 
> They entirety of the creationist / religious agenda is managed toward using supernaturalism as the cause of existence. Where science will flex and adjust to new evidence and methods of testing, the creation ministries test nothing.
> 
> The creation ministries never provide the results of rigorous testing and methodology for peer review because they can't. They never seek to provide positive evidence of their outrageous claims because they can't. Thus, the difference between science and religious claims. Science will test, falsifying and confirm through the process of study and peer review. Creationism only tries and fails to tear down science to promote a claim not available for investigation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now you're going off from what we were discussing.  Believe me, my faith does not drive my science.  Why do the majority, if not all, atheists think creation science is tied to their faith?  Sure, it's based on the Bible, but it only takes what God has said in regards to how the world and universe works.  The only supernatural is what's in Genesis.  There are no ghosts, fortune tellers, monsters, goblins, witches, aliens and the like.  To the contrary, isn't belief in atheism tied to secular science or atheist science today?  Atheism is a religion.
> 
> Creation science was what was considered science and true before the atheists came up with uniformitariansim and evolution.  Both of the latter are theories or hypothesis and not something that is observable science although evolutionists like to think so.  The only thing observable is natural selection.
> 
> Instead, today the lie has taken over.  Today, the God theory, the supernatural (Genesis only) and the Bible cannot be discussed or peer reviewed anymore like it was done in the past.  Atheist science or secular science, since uniformitarianism and evolution took over, has systematically eliminated God, the supernatural and the Bible as theories.  This was not so before the 1850s.  So today, the greatest scientists of the past, i.e. creation scientists, are no more.  The ones who believe in creation have to lie to keep their jobs.  Creation science has been systematically eliminated from science.  People like Sir Francis Bacon, Copernicus, Galileo, Isaac Newton, Louis Pasteur, Linus Pauling and those who invented today's modern science and theories have been eliminated.  Almost all of the great scientists of the past were creation scientists.  Even Einstein came to believe in pantheism.  See my list of famous scientists of the past below.  They were systematically eliminated by Charles Darwin whose own theories have been rendered pseudoscience today.  There's still good science, but the areas of biology, geology, zoology and paleontology are the worst because evolution and evolutionary thinking has taken over.
> 
> Creation scientists - creation.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A couple of points. First, it's dishonest to arbitrarily and retroactively assign the label of "creation scientist" to those mathematicians and biologists of the past. Many of them were persecuted by the church which literally held back science and investigation for 800 years.
> 
> Secondly, the idea that even today, fundamentalist ministries are still promoting a flat earth and a geocentric model is nearly beyond comprehension. You need to be honest with yourself and others regarding the role of the religious entities in literally crushing science and investigation which furthered the Dark Ages.
> 
> The earth is not flat. The planets orbit the Sun. Gravity, while a theory, is not to be dismissed as irrelevant because it is a theory.
> 
> The fact is, Psychology and Physiology began the evisceration of metaphysics as the province of philosophy and theology (although it is only right to recognize the assistance of both theologian and philosopher in this task) and carried much of the pursuit for knowledge to the scientific arena where hard physical truths must be accounted for. In a similar way the development of the scientific method and the consensus it brings, combined with the academic and intellectual freedoms of the Renaissance and the Age of Enlightenment, left less and less room for literal interpretations of any creation stories.
> 
> We should remember that Darwin was not operating in an intellectual vacuum regarding an old earth. The prevailing scientific viewpoint was that the earth was extremely old by the 1800s, which was at odds with a literal interpretation of the bibles.
> 
> Pursuing a natural explanation for phenomena has been validated again and again. Even the work of great intellects who sought to use their scientific discoveries as proofs of the glories of the Christian Gods, men like Copernicus and Newton, has been pressed into the service of naturalism. Their methods and the evidence thereby derived were completely sound; their motivations being the pursuit of knowledge. Nevertheless, the naturalist has encompassed their learning and driven on, pushing back the limitations of naturalism further and further into the past, bringing us up even to the threshold of the instant of the expansion of the universe itself.
> 
> The second reason is to some extent predicated on the first – as naturalism has had such coruscating success, why place limits on what it might achieve? Introducing supernaturalism into the picture is an unnecessarily limiting factor, particularly when the existence of various supernatural creators is itself speculative. Some would argue that this is a contradictory position to take; that locking out the divine from the picture is blinkered thinking. But I have yet to see a convincing argument as to how allowing for supernatural creation really advances our understanding. Without a plausible framework to show us how we are to know the sculptors hand or understand the tools that he used, it is futile.
> 
> Until theology or creation science can come up with a plausible means to investigate the method of supernatural creation, some tentative hypothesis, a beginnings of a framework, then what useful role can they have in advancement of knowledge? Even the more sophisticated arguments of intelligent design only seem to serve as foils for complexity, not as alternative mechanisms. In physics, when infinity shows up as a result of equations, the equations are not considered solved; they are considered to have no real-world validity. Supernatural intervention as a function seems to have a similar deadening effect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd have to disagree.  The majority did just fine as shown in my link.  Modern science was founded by Sir Francis Bacon.  Why complain about what happened in the past when it's what happened today with secular scientists systematically eliminating creation scientists from science?  They won't peer-review anything to do with the Bible.  In fact, it's so bad that creation scientists had to go in the closet to keep their jobs.  They just _mouth_ the BS lines of evolution.  Creation scientists have to do their own peer-review.  Furthermore, why are you re-writing history to fit your own wrong worldview?
> 
> The Bible shows that the earth is not flat.  I can give you the verses if you want.  Do you know how to simply show that the earth is not flat using science?  I do.  Are you a flat earther ha ha?  You're also going by stereotypes stating there are people who still believe in geocentricity.
> 
> As for the rest, I'll let you pontificate on your soapbox.  I don't want to go off topic.
> 
> >>Until theology or creation science can come up with a plausible means to investigate the method of supernatural creation, some tentative hypothesis, a beginnings of a framework, then what useful role can they have in advancement of knowledge? Even the more sophisticated arguments of intelligent design only seem to serve as foils for complexity, not as alternative mechanisms. In physics, when infinity shows up as a result of equations, the equations are not considered solved; they are considered to have no real-world validity. Supernatural intervention as a function seems to have a similar deadening effect.<<
> 
> I think the faithful here have been showing evidence of creation such as only life begats life.  The evos can't explain how single-cells creatures became multicells ones nor how asexual reproduction became sexual reproduction.  Evos cannot create a blade of grass.  God only allowed us to manipulate at the molecular level.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In the legitimate science world, scientists publish their work in peer reviewed journals where other scientists have an opportunity to study the data, perform their own tests and compare data to arrive at conclusions. You're claiming that "secular scientists systematically eliminating creation scientists from science? " I would suggest that it is creationists who have abandoned the discipmine of the scientific method and are simply pressing a religious agenda.
> 
> In the world of the creation ministries, they're not just biased, they're biased _in extremis_ and their every effort is couched in terms of pressing a predefined agenda. It's dishonest and contrived. Those at the various Christian creationist ministries don't see it as important whether they present facts or not. If they choose to further opinions and press a religious agenda, that's their choosing. However, don't make the mistake that the opinions of religious fundamentalists are not fostered under the umbrella of a bias and a bigotry firmly in place. The prejudices and preconceptions have earned "creation science" only ridicule and condemnation from the relevant science community. That is probably the greatest indictment against the creation ministries.
> 
> 
> "There is no observational fact imaginable which cannot, one way or another, be made to fit the creation model."
> - Henry Morris
> _President, Institute for Creation Research_
Click to expand...


Hollie I didn't get past your first sentence this time.

Let's rewind this a bit.  The way I learned science to be is that of rigorous argument.  Sometimes, this argument became so heated that the opposing scientists would have gladly stepped into and ring with boxing gloves to settle who was right.  Today, we have peer-review, but that peer-review is biased because of having only atheist scientists or those who believe only in evolution.  This is because the creation scientists have been systematically left out as I have been complaining for several pages now.  This has been done since the 1850s.  Thus, we have had tremendous amount of fraud and mis-identification of fossil evidence.  We had Piltdown Man (fooled an entire generation of people), Nebraska Man, Peking Man, Lucy and more when it came to identifying missing links or evidence of a major transformation of species.  This is because evolutionists are evaluating their own work.  Why not let a creation scientist evaluate the work?  This is the kind of science that I was brought up believing.  However, they are not allowed to peer-review any work because they have been systematically eliminated from scientific peer-review.  Thus, the fraud and fake science continues unabated.  Any intelligent person would just ignore the findings unless they had reason to become famous, get a promotion or get money for validating the evidence for evolution.  Again, this is not the way I learned science.  Real science comes about through great argument and differences of opinion.  The same could be done with atheist scientists evaluation what a creation scientist is saying using the Bible as theory.  However, today this does not happen.  Instead, we are led to situations such as the great birds to dinosaurs fakery.  Dinosaurs did not have feathers!

"*Is it a bird? Is it a dinosaur? No, it's a fake *
It was a coup for National Geographic - the first pictures of a creature whose existence would turn the theory of bird evolution on its head. Then it was exposed as a hoax.

Archaeoraptor first turned up in a hotel room in Tucson, Arizona. Stephen Czerkas, a dinosaur enthusiast who ran a small private museum, was wandering around a fossil fair when he heard that a Chinese dealer had something extraordinary.
When the dealer unwrapped a foot-long slab of rock, Czerkas experienced a paleontological epiphany. Embedded in the stone were the fossilised bones of an extraordinary prehistoric animal, with the complex limbs of a prototype bird and the distinctive tail of an earth-bound dromaeosaur, edged with the shadow of what seemed to be feathers. It looked like a dinosaur that could fly.

"It was stunning," Czerkas recalls. "I could see right away that it didn't belong on sale. It belonged in a museum."

He hastily contacted a patron who put up the $80,000 the dealer was asking for, and took his prize home in a state of high excitement, convinced he had discovered evidence of a pivotal moment in evolution."

Is it a bird? Is it a dinosaur? No, it's a fake

Thus, let the creation scientists back in the game and let's have some real science accomplished.  Otherwise, we will continue to have embarrassments such as humans came from monkeys and birds are dinosaurs wrong-way science.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> What I've found truly alarming about the creationist / religious arguments is just how unsupported they are.
> 
> They entirety of the creationist / religious agenda is managed toward using supernaturalism as the cause of existence. Where science will flex and adjust to new evidence and methods of testing, the creation ministries test nothing.
> 
> The creation ministries never provide the results of rigorous testing and methodology for peer review because they can't. They never seek to provide positive evidence of their outrageous claims because they can't. Thus, the difference between science and religious claims. Science will test, falsifying and confirm through the process of study and peer review. Creationism only tries and fails to tear down science to promote a claim not available for investigation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now you're going off from what we were discussing.  Believe me, my faith does not drive my science.  Why do the majority, if not all, atheists think creation science is tied to their faith?  Sure, it's based on the Bible, but it only takes what God has said in regards to how the world and universe works.  The only supernatural is what's in Genesis.  There are no ghosts, fortune tellers, monsters, goblins, witches, aliens and the like.  To the contrary, isn't belief in atheism tied to secular science or atheist science today?  Atheism is a religion.
> 
> Creation science was what was considered science and true before the atheists came up with uniformitariansim and evolution.  Both of the latter are theories or hypothesis and not something that is observable science although evolutionists like to think so.  The only thing observable is natural selection.
> 
> Instead, today the lie has taken over.  Today, the God theory, the supernatural (Genesis only) and the Bible cannot be discussed or peer reviewed anymore like it was done in the past.  Atheist science or secular science, since uniformitarianism and evolution took over, has systematically eliminated God, the supernatural and the Bible as theories.  This was not so before the 1850s.  So today, the greatest scientists of the past, i.e. creation scientists, are no more.  The ones who believe in creation have to lie to keep their jobs.  Creation science has been systematically eliminated from science.  People like Sir Francis Bacon, Copernicus, Galileo, Isaac Newton, Louis Pasteur, Linus Pauling and those who invented today's modern science and theories have been eliminated.  Almost all of the great scientists of the past were creation scientists.  Even Einstein came to believe in pantheism.  See my list of famous scientists of the past below.  They were systematically eliminated by Charles Darwin whose own theories have been rendered pseudoscience today.  There's still good science, but the areas of biology, geology, zoology and paleontology are the worst because evolution and evolutionary thinking has taken over.
> 
> Creation scientists - creation.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A couple of points. First, it's dishonest to arbitrarily and retroactively assign the label of "creation scientist" to those mathematicians and biologists of the past. Many of them were persecuted by the church which literally held back science and investigation for 800 years.
> 
> Secondly, the idea that even today, fundamentalist ministries are still promoting a flat earth and a geocentric model is nearly beyond comprehension. You need to be honest with yourself and others regarding the role of the religious entities in literally crushing science and investigation which furthered the Dark Ages.
> 
> The earth is not flat. The planets orbit the Sun. Gravity, while a theory, is not to be dismissed as irrelevant because it is a theory.
> 
> The fact is, Psychology and Physiology began the evisceration of metaphysics as the province of philosophy and theology (although it is only right to recognize the assistance of both theologian and philosopher in this task) and carried much of the pursuit for knowledge to the scientific arena where hard physical truths must be accounted for. In a similar way the development of the scientific method and the consensus it brings, combined with the academic and intellectual freedoms of the Renaissance and the Age of Enlightenment, left less and less room for literal interpretations of any creation stories.
> 
> We should remember that Darwin was not operating in an intellectual vacuum regarding an old earth. The prevailing scientific viewpoint was that the earth was extremely old by the 1800s, which was at odds with a literal interpretation of the bibles.
> 
> Pursuing a natural explanation for phenomena has been validated again and again. Even the work of great intellects who sought to use their scientific discoveries as proofs of the glories of the Christian Gods, men like Copernicus and Newton, has been pressed into the service of naturalism. Their methods and the evidence thereby derived were completely sound; their motivations being the pursuit of knowledge. Nevertheless, the naturalist has encompassed their learning and driven on, pushing back the limitations of naturalism further and further into the past, bringing us up even to the threshold of the instant of the expansion of the universe itself.
> 
> The second reason is to some extent predicated on the first – as naturalism has had such coruscating success, why place limits on what it might achieve? Introducing supernaturalism into the picture is an unnecessarily limiting factor, particularly when the existence of various supernatural creators is itself speculative. Some would argue that this is a contradictory position to take; that locking out the divine from the picture is blinkered thinking. But I have yet to see a convincing argument as to how allowing for supernatural creation really advances our understanding. Without a plausible framework to show us how we are to know the sculptors hand or understand the tools that he used, it is futile.
> 
> Until theology or creation science can come up with a plausible means to investigate the method of supernatural creation, some tentative hypothesis, a beginnings of a framework, then what useful role can they have in advancement of knowledge? Even the more sophisticated arguments of intelligent design only seem to serve as foils for complexity, not as alternative mechanisms. In physics, when infinity shows up as a result of equations, the equations are not considered solved; they are considered to have no real-world validity. Supernatural intervention as a function seems to have a similar deadening effect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd have to disagree.  The majority did just fine as shown in my link.  Modern science was founded by Sir Francis Bacon.  Why complain about what happened in the past when it's what happened today with secular scientists systematically eliminating creation scientists from science?  They won't peer-review anything to do with the Bible.  In fact, it's so bad that creation scientists had to go in the closet to keep their jobs.  They just _mouth_ the BS lines of evolution.  Creation scientists have to do their own peer-review.  Furthermore, why are you re-writing history to fit your own wrong worldview?
> 
> The Bible shows that the earth is not flat.  I can give you the verses if you want.  Do you know how to simply show that the earth is not flat using science?  I do.  Are you a flat earther ha ha?  You're also going by stereotypes stating there are people who still believe in geocentricity.
> 
> As for the rest, I'll let you pontificate on your soapbox.  I don't want to go off topic.
> 
> >>Until theology or creation science can come up with a plausible means to investigate the method of supernatural creation, some tentative hypothesis, a beginnings of a framework, then what useful role can they have in advancement of knowledge? Even the more sophisticated arguments of intelligent design only seem to serve as foils for complexity, not as alternative mechanisms. In physics, when infinity shows up as a result of equations, the equations are not considered solved; they are considered to have no real-world validity. Supernatural intervention as a function seems to have a similar deadening effect.<<
> 
> I think the faithful here have been showing evidence of creation such as only life begats life.  The evos can't explain how single-cells creatures became multicells ones nor how asexual reproduction became sexual reproduction.  Evos cannot create a blade of grass.  God only allowed us to manipulate at the molecular level.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> What I've found truly alarming about the creationist / religious arguments is just how unsupported they are.
> 
> They entirety of the creationist / religious agenda is managed toward using supernaturalism as the cause of existence. Where science will flex and adjust to new evidence and methods of testing, the creation ministries test nothing.
> 
> The creation ministries never provide the results of rigorous testing and methodology for peer review because they can't. They never seek to provide positive evidence of their outrageous claims because they can't. Thus, the difference between science and religious claims. Science will test, falsifying and confirm through the process of study and peer review. Creationism only tries and fails to tear down science to promote a claim not available for investigation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now you're going off from what we were discussing.  Believe me, my faith does not drive my science.  Why do the majority, if not all, atheists think creation science is tied to their faith?  Sure, it's based on the Bible, but it only takes what God has said in regards to how the world and universe works.  The only supernatural is what's in Genesis.  There are no ghosts, fortune tellers, monsters, goblins, witches, aliens and the like.  To the contrary, isn't belief in atheism tied to secular science or atheist science today?  Atheism is a religion.
> 
> Creation science was what was considered science and true before the atheists came up with uniformitariansim and evolution.  Both of the latter are theories or hypothesis and not something that is observable science although evolutionists like to think so.  The only thing observable is natural selection.
> 
> Instead, today the lie has taken over.  Today, the God theory, the supernatural (Genesis only) and the Bible cannot be discussed or peer reviewed anymore like it was done in the past.  Atheist science or secular science, since uniformitarianism and evolution took over, has systematically eliminated God, the supernatural and the Bible as theories.  This was not so before the 1850s.  So today, the greatest scientists of the past, i.e. creation scientists, are no more.  The ones who believe in creation have to lie to keep their jobs.  Creation science has been systematically eliminated from science.  People like Sir Francis Bacon, Copernicus, Galileo, Isaac Newton, Louis Pasteur, Linus Pauling and those who invented today's modern science and theories have been eliminated.  Almost all of the great scientists of the past were creation scientists.  Even Einstein came to believe in pantheism.  See my list of famous scientists of the past below.  They were systematically eliminated by Charles Darwin whose own theories have been rendered pseudoscience today.  There's still good science, but the areas of biology, geology, zoology and paleontology are the worst because evolution and evolutionary thinking has taken over.
> 
> Creation scientists - creation.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A couple of points. First, it's dishonest to arbitrarily and retroactively assign the label of "creation scientist" to those mathematicians and biologists of the past. Many of them were persecuted by the church which literally held back science and investigation for 800 years.
> 
> Secondly, the idea that even today, fundamentalist ministries are still promoting a flat earth and a geocentric model is nearly beyond comprehension. You need to be honest with yourself and others regarding the role of the religious entities in literally crushing science and investigation which furthered the Dark Ages.
> 
> The earth is not flat. The planets orbit the Sun. Gravity, while a theory, is not to be dismissed as irrelevant because it is a theory.
> 
> The fact is, Psychology and Physiology began the evisceration of metaphysics as the province of philosophy and theology (although it is only right to recognize the assistance of both theologian and philosopher in this task) and carried much of the pursuit for knowledge to the scientific arena where hard physical truths must be accounted for. In a similar way the development of the scientific method and the consensus it brings, combined with the academic and intellectual freedoms of the Renaissance and the Age of Enlightenment, left less and less room for literal interpretations of any creation stories.
> 
> We should remember that Darwin was not operating in an intellectual vacuum regarding an old earth. The prevailing scientific viewpoint was that the earth was extremely old by the 1800s, which was at odds with a literal interpretation of the bibles.
> 
> Pursuing a natural explanation for phenomena has been validated again and again. Even the work of great intellects who sought to use their scientific discoveries as proofs of the glories of the Christian Gods, men like Copernicus and Newton, has been pressed into the service of naturalism. Their methods and the evidence thereby derived were completely sound; their motivations being the pursuit of knowledge. Nevertheless, the naturalist has encompassed their learning and driven on, pushing back the limitations of naturalism further and further into the past, bringing us up even to the threshold of the instant of the expansion of the universe itself.
> 
> The second reason is to some extent predicated on the first – as naturalism has had such coruscating success, why place limits on what it might achieve? Introducing supernaturalism into the picture is an unnecessarily limiting factor, particularly when the existence of various supernatural creators is itself speculative. Some would argue that this is a contradictory position to take; that locking out the divine from the picture is blinkered thinking. But I have yet to see a convincing argument as to how allowing for supernatural creation really advances our understanding. Without a plausible framework to show us how we are to know the sculptors hand or understand the tools that he used, it is futile.
> 
> Until theology or creation science can come up with a plausible means to investigate the method of supernatural creation, some tentative hypothesis, a beginnings of a framework, then what useful role can they have in advancement of knowledge? Even the more sophisticated arguments of intelligent design only seem to serve as foils for complexity, not as alternative mechanisms. In physics, when infinity shows up as a result of equations, the equations are not considered solved; they are considered to have no real-world validity. Supernatural intervention as a function seems to have a similar deadening effect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd have to disagree.  The majority did just fine as shown in my link.  Modern science was founded by Sir Francis Bacon.  Why complain about what happened in the past when it's what happened today with secular scientists systematically eliminating creation scientists from science?  They won't peer-review anything to do with the Bible.  In fact, it's so bad that creation scientists had to go in the closet to keep their jobs.  They just _mouth_ the BS lines of evolution.  Creation scientists have to do their own peer-review.  Furthermore, why are you re-writing history to fit your own wrong worldview?
> 
> The Bible shows that the earth is not flat.  I can give you the verses if you want.  Do you know how to simply show that the earth is not flat using science?  I do.  Are you a flat earther ha ha?  You're also going by stereotypes stating there are people who still believe in geocentricity.
> 
> As for the rest, I'll let you pontificate on your soapbox.  I don't want to go off topic.
> 
> >>Until theology or creation science can come up with a plausible means to investigate the method of supernatural creation, some tentative hypothesis, a beginnings of a framework, then what useful role can they have in advancement of knowledge? Even the more sophisticated arguments of intelligent design only seem to serve as foils for complexity, not as alternative mechanisms. In physics, when infinity shows up as a result of equations, the equations are not considered solved; they are considered to have no real-world validity. Supernatural intervention as a function seems to have a similar deadening effect.<<
> 
> I think the faithful here have been showing evidence of creation such as only life begats life.  The evos can't explain how single-cells creatures became multicells ones nor how asexual reproduction became sexual reproduction.  Evos cannot create a blade of grass.  God only allowed us to manipulate at the molecular level.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In the legitimate science world, scientists publish their work in peer reviewed journals where other scientists have an opportunity to study the data, perform their own tests and compare data to arrive at conclusions. You're claiming that "secular scientists systematically eliminating creation scientists from science? " I would suggest that it is creationists who have abandoned the discipmine of the scientific method and are simply pressing a religious agenda.
> 
> In the world of the creation ministries, they're not just biased, they're biased _in extremis_ and their every effort is couched in terms of pressing a predefined agenda. It's dishonest and contrived. Those at the various Christian creationist ministries don't see it as important whether they present facts or not. If they choose to further opinions and press a religious agenda, that's their choosing. However, don't make the mistake that the opinions of religious fundamentalists are not fostered under the umbrella of a bias and a bigotry firmly in place. The prejudices and preconceptions have earned "creation science" only ridicule and condemnation from the relevant science community. That is probably the greatest indictment against the creation ministries.
> 
> 
> "There is no observational fact imaginable which cannot, one way or another, be made to fit the creation model."
> - Henry Morris
> _President, Institute for Creation Research_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hollie I didn't get past your first sentence this time.
> 
> Let's rewind this a bit.  The way I learned science to be is that of rigorous argument.  Sometimes, this argument became so heated that the opposing scientists would have gladly stepped into and ring with boxing gloves to settle who was right.  Today, we have peer-review, but that peer-review is biased because of having only atheist scientists or those who believe only in evolution.  This is because the creation scientists have been systematically left out as I have been complaining for several pages now.  This has been done since the 1850s.  Thus, we have had tremendous amount of fraud and mis-identification of fossil evidence.  We had Piltdown Man (fooled an entire generation of people), Nebraska Man, Peking Man, Lucy and more when it came to identifying missing links or evidence of a major transformation of species.  This is because evolutionists are evaluating their own work.  Why not let a creation scientist evaluate the work?  This is the kind of science that I was brought up believing.  However, they are not allowed to peer-review any work because they have been systematically eliminated from scientific peer-review.  Thus, the fraud and fake science continues unabated.  Any intelligent person would just ignore the findings unless they had reason to become famous, get a promotion or get money for validating the evidence for evolution.  Again, this is not the way I learned science.  Real science comes about through great argument and differences of opinion.  The same could be done with atheist scientists evaluation what a creation scientist is saying using the Bible as theory.  However, today this does not happen.  Instead, we are led to situations such as the great birds to dinosaurs fakery.  Dinosaurs did not have feathers!
> 
> "*Is it a bird? Is it a dinosaur? No, it's a fake *
> It was a coup for National Geographic - the first pictures of a creature whose existence would turn the theory of bird evolution on its head. Then it was exposed as a hoax.
> 
> Archaeoraptor first turned up in a hotel room in Tucson, Arizona. Stephen Czerkas, a dinosaur enthusiast who ran a small private museum, was wandering around a fossil fair when he heard that a Chinese dealer had something extraordinary.
> When the dealer unwrapped a foot-long slab of rock, Czerkas experienced a paleontological epiphany. Embedded in the stone were the fossilised bones of an extraordinary prehistoric animal, with the complex limbs of a prototype bird and the distinctive tail of an earth-bound dromaeosaur, edged with the shadow of what seemed to be feathers. It looked like a dinosaur that could fly.
> 
> "It was stunning," Czerkas recalls. "I could see right away that it didn't belong on sale. It belonged in a museum."
> 
> He hastily contacted a patron who put up the $80,000 the dealer was asking for, and took his prize home in a state of high excitement, convinced he had discovered evidence of a pivotal moment in evolution."
> 
> Is it a bird? Is it a dinosaur? No, it's a fake
> 
> Thus, let the creation scientists back in the game and let's have some real science accomplished.  Otherwise, we will continue to have embarrassments such as humans came from monkeys and birds are dinosaurs wrong-way science.
Click to expand...



I think you’re missing the goals of the creationist industry.

"It is precisely because Biblical revelation is absolutely authoritative and perspicuous that the scientific facts, rightly interpreted, will give the same testimony as that of Scripture. There is not the slightest possibility that the _facts_ of science can contradict the Bible."
_-Dr. Henry Morris in very first paragraph of "Scientists Confront Creationism" edited by Laurie R. Godfrey_


It’s precisely the agenda of creationists that excludes them from a reliable association for peer review.

Hence, creationism is not science.



An important part of the scientific method is the rejection or modification of a theory if the theory does not fit the observed facts. But in creationism, it is the other way around. If the facts don't fit the theory, then deny the facts, and curse the finder. Find some way to reject the data, at all costs.

"But the main reason for insisting on the universal Flood as a fact of history and as the primary vehicle for geological interpretation is that God's Word plainly teaches it! No geologic difficulties, real or imagined, can be allowed to take precedence over the clear statements and necessary inferences of Scripture."
Dr. Henry Morris, _Biblical Cosmology and Modern Science _(1970) p.32-33

Thus, creationism is not science.


Science starts with observations. From the observations may come Scientific Laws, or detailed descriptions of physical phenomena. But science goes further than that. If a scientist can see connections, patterns and regularity, a hypothesis can be formulated to explain the observations. If enough data is gathered that supports the hypothesis, and experiments confirm the idea, and no contrary observations can be found, a scientific theory is put forward. Theories are the goal, the pinnacle, of science. But in creationism, the observations don't come first--they don't even count at all. Creationism starts with the bible and will not deviate from what is written. All data, observations and conclusions *must* conform with their interpretation of the bible, or be rejected out of hand.


It’s important that you raised the case of Piltdown man. One might wonder how Charles Dawson got away with his deceptions for so long, but the important thing is that his fraud was discovered by scientists, reported by scientists, and it will be scientists who will work to correct the record. This is how science works. Sometimes the discovery is quick as in the case of *Archaeoraptor*. Sometimes it is slow as in the case of *Piltdown*. But eventually the correction occurs.


I’m curious to get your reaction to one of the many creationist frauds that was perpetrated by a “creation scientist”.  Are these the folks you believe should be doing peer review?

She Must Be a Scientist; She Works in Front of a Green Screen


----------



## fncceo

james bond said:


> It starts with reading and believing in John 3:16. _Have you heard of it?_



John Grisham?


----------



## Syriusly

LOL- this thread still continues on.....the Creationist scam lives on.....


----------



## RWS

james bond said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bond, what do you believe your afterlife consists of? Where? And why?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The New Heaven and the New Earth
> Then I saw ya new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more." Revelation 21
> 
> The Bible states that God will get rid of the universe and the faithful will live on a new Earth as paradise.  It's God's promise.  Also, we will have new and perfect spiritual bodies.  The non-believers will have theirs destroyed by the lake of fire.  This could be the cause of weeping, gnashing of teeth and eternal woe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And that promise is only true to believers of that particular religion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It starts with reading and believing in John 3:16.  _Have you heard of it?_
Click to expand...

Yes I have, but it doesn't seem to rule out others who don't believe.

Remember I am a born Catholic. I just realized reality at a young age and rejected religions. And always thought that living a good life should be good enough.


----------



## RWS

Those that tell me that I have to believe in their religion to get to the afterlife, are full of shit, and their religions are seeking money and/or armies.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> I think you’re missing the goals of the creationist industry.
> 
> "It is precisely because Biblical revelation is absolutely authoritative and perspicuous that the scientific facts, rightly interpreted, will give the same testimony as that of Scripture. There is not the slightest possibility that the _facts_ of science can contradict the Bible."
> _-Dr. Henry Morris in very first paragraph of "Scientists Confront Creationism" edited by Laurie R. Godfrey_
> 
> 
> It’s precisely the agenda of creationists that excludes them from a reliable association for peer review.
> 
> Hence, creationism is not science.
> 
> 
> 
> An important part of the scientific method is the rejection or modification of a theory if the theory does not fit the observed facts. But in creationism, it is the other way around. If the facts don't fit the theory, then deny the facts, and curse the finder. Find some way to reject the data, at all costs.
> 
> "But the main reason for insisting on the universal Flood as a fact of history and as the primary vehicle for geological interpretation is that God's Word plainly teaches it! No geologic difficulties, real or imagined, can be allowed to take precedence over the clear statements and necessary inferences of Scripture."
> Dr. Henry Morris, _Biblical Cosmology and Modern Science _(1970) p.32-33
> 
> Thus, creationism is not science.
> 
> 
> Science starts with observations. From the observations may come Scientific Laws, or detailed descriptions of physical phenomena. But science goes further than that. If a scientist can see connections, patterns and regularity, a hypothesis can be formulated to explain the observations. If enough data is gathered that supports the hypothesis, and experiments confirm the idea, and no contrary observations can be found, a scientific theory is put forward. Theories are the goal, the pinnacle, of science. But in creationism, the observations don't come first--they don't even count at all. Creationism starts with the bible and will not deviate from what is written. All data, observations and conclusions *must* conform with their interpretation of the bible, or be rejected out of hand.
> 
> 
> It’s important that you raised the case of Piltdown man. One might wonder how Charles Dawson got away with his deceptions for so long, but the important thing is that his fraud was discovered by scientists, reported by scientists, and it will be scientists who will work to correct the record. This is how science works. Sometimes the discovery is quick as in the case of *Archaeoraptor*. Sometimes it is slow as in the case of *Piltdown*. But eventually the correction occurs.
> 
> 
> I’m curious to get your reaction to one of the many creationist frauds that was perpetrated by a “creation scientist”.  Are these the folks you believe should be doing peer review?
> 
> She Must Be a Scientist; She Works in Front of a Green Screen



Creationism _is_ science because it's observational science.  It's testable.  It's falsifiable for the the most part.  I don't think you have been listening to what I wrote.  Why don't you name one thing that is observable, testable and falsifiable with evolution?  Don't use natural selection or microevolution because we agree on that.  Can you admit that evolution hasn't produced much by believing in it?

On the other hand, we have made numerous and remarkable advancement through creation science.  I don't think I have to repeat the list of accomplishments of creation scientists and how important they have been from my previous links.

Finally, you do not know the difference between ID and creation science.  You may as well get the fail award.  ROTFL


----------



## bripat9643

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you’re missing the goals of the creationist industry.
> 
> "It is precisely because Biblical revelation is absolutely authoritative and perspicuous that the scientific facts, rightly interpreted, will give the same testimony as that of Scripture. There is not the slightest possibility that the _facts_ of science can contradict the Bible."
> _-Dr. Henry Morris in very first paragraph of "Scientists Confront Creationism" edited by Laurie R. Godfrey_
> 
> 
> It’s precisely the agenda of creationists that excludes them from a reliable association for peer review.
> 
> Hence, creationism is not science.
> 
> 
> 
> An important part of the scientific method is the rejection or modification of a theory if the theory does not fit the observed facts. But in creationism, it is the other way around. If the facts don't fit the theory, then deny the facts, and curse the finder. Find some way to reject the data, at all costs.
> 
> "But the main reason for insisting on the universal Flood as a fact of history and as the primary vehicle for geological interpretation is that God's Word plainly teaches it! No geologic difficulties, real or imagined, can be allowed to take precedence over the clear statements and necessary inferences of Scripture."
> Dr. Henry Morris, _Biblical Cosmology and Modern Science _(1970) p.32-33
> 
> Thus, creationism is not science.
> 
> 
> Science starts with observations. From the observations may come Scientific Laws, or detailed descriptions of physical phenomena. But science goes further than that. If a scientist can see connections, patterns and regularity, a hypothesis can be formulated to explain the observations. If enough data is gathered that supports the hypothesis, and experiments confirm the idea, and no contrary observations can be found, a scientific theory is put forward. Theories are the goal, the pinnacle, of science. But in creationism, the observations don't come first--they don't even count at all. Creationism starts with the bible and will not deviate from what is written. All data, observations and conclusions *must* conform with their interpretation of the bible, or be rejected out of hand.
> 
> 
> It’s important that you raised the case of Piltdown man. One might wonder how Charles Dawson got away with his deceptions for so long, but the important thing is that his fraud was discovered by scientists, reported by scientists, and it will be scientists who will work to correct the record. This is how science works. Sometimes the discovery is quick as in the case of *Archaeoraptor*. Sometimes it is slow as in the case of *Piltdown*. But eventually the correction occurs.
> 
> 
> I’m curious to get your reaction to one of the many creationist frauds that was perpetrated by a “creation scientist”.  Are these the folks you believe should be doing peer review?
> 
> She Must Be a Scientist; She Works in Front of a Green Screen
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Creationism _is_ science because it's observational science.  It's testable.  It's falsifiable for the the most part.  I don't think you have been listening to what I wrote.  Why don't you name one thing that is observable, testable and falsifiable with evolution?  Don't use natural selection or microevolution because we agree on that.  Can you admit that evolution hasn't produced much by believing in it?
> 
> On the other hand, we have made numerous and remarkable advancement through creation science.  I don't think I have to repeat the list of accomplishments of creation scientists and how important they have been from my previous links.
> 
> Finally, you do not know the difference between ID and creation science.  You may as well get the fail award.  ROTFL
Click to expand...

creationism is not science.  "Creation scientists" have made no advancements to human knowledge.  None.


----------



## RWS

In fact, they have detracted knowledge that humans had already accumulated by burning books and scrolls, and destroying anything (inc people) that disagreed with their agenda. Thank god the Sumerian tablets survived.

We'd probably already have colonies on Mars, if not for religious interference and dogma.

I mean, how long ago was it, when Christians stopped killing and jailing people for thinking the Earth went around the Sun?


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you’re missing the goals of the creationist industry.
> 
> "It is precisely because Biblical revelation is absolutely authoritative and perspicuous that the scientific facts, rightly interpreted, will give the same testimony as that of Scripture. There is not the slightest possibility that the _facts_ of science can contradict the Bible."
> _-Dr. Henry Morris in very first paragraph of "Scientists Confront Creationism" edited by Laurie R. Godfrey_
> 
> 
> It’s precisely the agenda of creationists that excludes them from a reliable association for peer review.
> 
> Hence, creationism is not science.
> 
> 
> 
> An important part of the scientific method is the rejection or modification of a theory if the theory does not fit the observed facts. But in creationism, it is the other way around. If the facts don't fit the theory, then deny the facts, and curse the finder. Find some way to reject the data, at all costs.
> 
> "But the main reason for insisting on the universal Flood as a fact of history and as the primary vehicle for geological interpretation is that God's Word plainly teaches it! No geologic difficulties, real or imagined, can be allowed to take precedence over the clear statements and necessary inferences of Scripture."
> Dr. Henry Morris, _Biblical Cosmology and Modern Science _(1970) p.32-33
> 
> Thus, creationism is not science.
> 
> 
> Science starts with observations. From the observations may come Scientific Laws, or detailed descriptions of physical phenomena. But science goes further than that. If a scientist can see connections, patterns and regularity, a hypothesis can be formulated to explain the observations. If enough data is gathered that supports the hypothesis, and experiments confirm the idea, and no contrary observations can be found, a scientific theory is put forward. Theories are the goal, the pinnacle, of science. But in creationism, the observations don't come first--they don't even count at all. Creationism starts with the bible and will not deviate from what is written. All data, observations and conclusions *must* conform with their interpretation of the bible, or be rejected out of hand.
> 
> 
> It’s important that you raised the case of Piltdown man. One might wonder how Charles Dawson got away with his deceptions for so long, but the important thing is that his fraud was discovered by scientists, reported by scientists, and it will be scientists who will work to correct the record. This is how science works. Sometimes the discovery is quick as in the case of *Archaeoraptor*. Sometimes it is slow as in the case of *Piltdown*. But eventually the correction occurs.
> 
> 
> I’m curious to get your reaction to one of the many creationist frauds that was perpetrated by a “creation scientist”.  Are these the folks you believe should be doing peer review?
> 
> She Must Be a Scientist; She Works in Front of a Green Screen
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Creationism _is_ science because it's observational science.  It's testable.  It's falsifiable for the the most part.  I don't think you have been listening to what I wrote.  Why don't you name one thing that is observable, testable and falsifiable with evolution?  Don't use natural selection or microevolution because we agree on that.  Can you admit that evolution hasn't produced much by believing in it?
> 
> On the other hand, we have made numerous and remarkable advancement through creation science.  I don't think I have to repeat the list of accomplishments of creation scientists and how important they have been from my previous links.
> 
> Finally, you do not know the difference between ID and creation science.  You may as well get the fail award.  ROTFL
Click to expand...


Your claim that supernaturalism is “observational science” is simply not true. You offered no relevant examples of what is observable within supernaturalism which I believe was a calculated strategy. Do you have any observable examples of men rising from the dead? How about global floods or Arcs or the planets revolving around the sun?

For examples of things that are observable, testable and falsifiable within evolution, well, there are many. Start here:

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1

The above is part 1. 

You have heard of the flu virus, right? The various strains that kill people every year is one obvious example of evolution. 

I think what you’re missing is that the latest version of fundamentalist Christianity called “creation science” is just rebranded “Biblical Creationism”  Fundamentalists have become self-destructive with their efforts to force christian dogma into the public schools under the masquerade of science. Years ago, fundamentalist christians made no effort to conceal their agenda of promoting Biblical literalism. It was originally called "Biblical Creationism" with no pretense. Faced with the correct legal conclusions that it was merely religion, they regrouped and renamed it "Scientific Creationism," making a half hearted attempt to edit out explicit Biblical references... but that fooled no one. When that met an equally unambiguous decision in the courts, the new version became "Intelligent Design." In the process, the creationist movement has become progressively more reactionary, more desperate, and truly, more reactionary.

For examples of how fundamentalists have been eviserated in their attempts to illegally force Christian dogma into the public school syllabus, look here:  Ten Major Court Cases about Evolution and Creationism


There is nothing absurd about the natural world. Every discovery by science has been shown to have a natural causation and natural explanation. Not a single, understandable event in nature can be assigned a supernatural, supermagical cause.

We know with certainty that species and organisms evolve. That's a fact not in dispute by the modern science community. You may insist that modern science is flawed and unreliable but that is an issue only a fringe minority accepts.


----------



## james bond

bripat9643 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you’re missing the goals of the creationist industry.
> 
> "It is precisely because Biblical revelation is absolutely authoritative and perspicuous that the scientific facts, rightly interpreted, will give the same testimony as that of Scripture. There is not the slightest possibility that the _facts_ of science can contradict the Bible."
> _-Dr. Henry Morris in very first paragraph of "Scientists Confront Creationism" edited by Laurie R. Godfrey_
> 
> 
> It’s precisely the agenda of creationists that excludes them from a reliable association for peer review.
> 
> Hence, creationism is not science.
> 
> 
> 
> An important part of the scientific method is the rejection or modification of a theory if the theory does not fit the observed facts. But in creationism, it is the other way around. If the facts don't fit the theory, then deny the facts, and curse the finder. Find some way to reject the data, at all costs.
> 
> "But the main reason for insisting on the universal Flood as a fact of history and as the primary vehicle for geological interpretation is that God's Word plainly teaches it! No geologic difficulties, real or imagined, can be allowed to take precedence over the clear statements and necessary inferences of Scripture."
> Dr. Henry Morris, _Biblical Cosmology and Modern Science _(1970) p.32-33
> 
> Thus, creationism is not science.
> 
> 
> Science starts with observations. From the observations may come Scientific Laws, or detailed descriptions of physical phenomena. But science goes further than that. If a scientist can see connections, patterns and regularity, a hypothesis can be formulated to explain the observations. If enough data is gathered that supports the hypothesis, and experiments confirm the idea, and no contrary observations can be found, a scientific theory is put forward. Theories are the goal, the pinnacle, of science. But in creationism, the observations don't come first--they don't even count at all. Creationism starts with the bible and will not deviate from what is written. All data, observations and conclusions *must* conform with their interpretation of the bible, or be rejected out of hand.
> 
> 
> It’s important that you raised the case of Piltdown man. One might wonder how Charles Dawson got away with his deceptions for so long, but the important thing is that his fraud was discovered by scientists, reported by scientists, and it will be scientists who will work to correct the record. This is how science works. Sometimes the discovery is quick as in the case of *Archaeoraptor*. Sometimes it is slow as in the case of *Piltdown*. But eventually the correction occurs.
> 
> 
> I’m curious to get your reaction to one of the many creationist frauds that was perpetrated by a “creation scientist”.  Are these the folks you believe should be doing peer review?
> 
> She Must Be a Scientist; She Works in Front of a Green Screen
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Creationism _is_ science because it's observational science.  It's testable.  It's falsifiable for the the most part.  I don't think you have been listening to what I wrote.  Why don't you name one thing that is observable, testable and falsifiable with evolution?  Don't use natural selection or microevolution because we agree on that.  Can you admit that evolution hasn't produced much by believing in it?
> 
> On the other hand, we have made numerous and remarkable advancement through creation science.  I don't think I have to repeat the list of accomplishments of creation scientists and how important they have been from my previous links.
> 
> Finally, you do not know the difference between ID and creation science.  You may as well get the fail award.  ROTFL
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> creationism is not science.  "Creation scientists" have made no advancements to human knowledge.  None.
Click to expand...


Wrong.  Creation scientists have explained how mountains, rivers, canyons and trees are formed.  They've explained the laws of motion and universal gravitation and formed the dominant scientific viewpoint before the theory of relativity.  They created physics.  Compared to the great creation scientists, atheist scientists have not done much.  In fact, can you name anything great that came out of believing in evolution?


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you’re missing the goals of the creationist industry.
> 
> "It is precisely because Biblical revelation is absolutely authoritative and perspicuous that the scientific facts, rightly interpreted, will give the same testimony as that of Scripture. There is not the slightest possibility that the _facts_ of science can contradict the Bible."
> _-Dr. Henry Morris in very first paragraph of "Scientists Confront Creationism" edited by Laurie R. Godfrey_
> 
> 
> It’s precisely the agenda of creationists that excludes them from a reliable association for peer review.
> 
> Hence, creationism is not science.
> 
> 
> 
> An important part of the scientific method is the rejection or modification of a theory if the theory does not fit the observed facts. But in creationism, it is the other way around. If the facts don't fit the theory, then deny the facts, and curse the finder. Find some way to reject the data, at all costs.
> 
> "But the main reason for insisting on the universal Flood as a fact of history and as the primary vehicle for geological interpretation is that God's Word plainly teaches it! No geologic difficulties, real or imagined, can be allowed to take precedence over the clear statements and necessary inferences of Scripture."
> Dr. Henry Morris, _Biblical Cosmology and Modern Science _(1970) p.32-33
> 
> Thus, creationism is not science.
> 
> 
> Science starts with observations. From the observations may come Scientific Laws, or detailed descriptions of physical phenomena. But science goes further than that. If a scientist can see connections, patterns and regularity, a hypothesis can be formulated to explain the observations. If enough data is gathered that supports the hypothesis, and experiments confirm the idea, and no contrary observations can be found, a scientific theory is put forward. Theories are the goal, the pinnacle, of science. But in creationism, the observations don't come first--they don't even count at all. Creationism starts with the bible and will not deviate from what is written. All data, observations and conclusions *must* conform with their interpretation of the bible, or be rejected out of hand.
> 
> 
> It’s important that you raised the case of Piltdown man. One might wonder how Charles Dawson got away with his deceptions for so long, but the important thing is that his fraud was discovered by scientists, reported by scientists, and it will be scientists who will work to correct the record. This is how science works. Sometimes the discovery is quick as in the case of *Archaeoraptor*. Sometimes it is slow as in the case of *Piltdown*. But eventually the correction occurs.
> 
> 
> I’m curious to get your reaction to one of the many creationist frauds that was perpetrated by a “creation scientist”.  Are these the folks you believe should be doing peer review?
> 
> She Must Be a Scientist; She Works in Front of a Green Screen
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Creationism _is_ science because it's observational science.  It's testable.  It's falsifiable for the the most part.  I don't think you have been listening to what I wrote.  Why don't you name one thing that is observable, testable and falsifiable with evolution?  Don't use natural selection or microevolution because we agree on that.  Can you admit that evolution hasn't produced much by believing in it?
> 
> On the other hand, we have made numerous and remarkable advancement through creation science.  I don't think I have to repeat the list of accomplishments of creation scientists and how important they have been from my previous links.
> 
> Finally, you do not know the difference between ID and creation science.  You may as well get the fail award.  ROTFL
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your claim that supernaturalism is “observational science” is simply not true. You offered no relevant examples of what is observable within supernaturalism which I believe was a calculated strategy. Do you have any observable examples of men rising from the dead? How about global floods or Arcs or the planets revolving around the sun?
> 
> For examples of things that are observable, testable and falsifiable within evolution, well, there are many. Start here:
> 
> 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1
> 
> The above is part 1.
> 
> You have heard of the flu virus, right? The various strains that kill people every year is one obvious example of evolution.
> 
> I think what you’re missing is that the latest version of fundamentalist Christianity called “creation science” is just rebranded “Biblical Creationism”  Fundamentalists have become self-destructive with their efforts to force christian dogma into the public schools under the masquerade of science. Years ago, fundamentalist christians made no effort to conceal their agenda of promoting Biblical literalism. It was originally called "Biblical Creationism" with no pretense. Faced with the correct legal conclusions that it was merely religion, they regrouped and renamed it "Scientific Creationism," making a half hearted attempt to edit out explicit Biblical references... but that fooled no one. When that met an equally unambiguous decision in the courts, the new version became "Intelligent Design." In the process, the creationist movement has become progressively more reactionary, more desperate, and truly, more reactionary.
> 
> For examples of how fundamentalists have been eviserated in their attempts to illegally force Christian dogma into the public school syllabus, look here:  Ten Major Court Cases about Evolution and Creationism
> 
> 
> There is nothing absurd about the natural world. Every discovery by science has been shown to have a natural causation and natural explanation. Not a single, understandable event in nature can be assigned a supernatural, supermagical cause.
> 
> We know with certainty that species and organisms evolve. That's a fact not in dispute by the modern science community. You may insist that modern science is flawed and unreliable but that is an issue only a fringe minority accepts.
Click to expand...


The greatest evidence for a man rising from the dead is the Resurrection of Jesus.  He is the only one.  There are many people who witnessed the miracle and they are written down.  The giant stone that could not be moved in front of Jesus' burial tomb was cast aside and the entrance open.  There is more evidence if you read the evidence of the biblical scholars.  The global flood is evidence by what we see in stratification.  We see that canyons were cut out from the rushing waters.  We see that mountains came up from beneath the seas.  You can easily take a look at the evidence from the Ark Encounter Museum.

Is There Evidence of the Flood?

None of your 29+ evidence is valid.  Dr. Theobald fails to address the origin of the first living thing or the mechanism by which that first organism diverged into every life form that has ever existed.

The flu virus traded parts with other flu viruses and mutated.  However, neither the flu nor its new virus is evidence for evolution.  The virus targets specific animals such as birds, swine, human and certain types of tissue.  New variations of the virus arises from these infected animals.  For example, a pig gets one strain of virus and is exposed to another strain from another animal.  The cells within the pig creates the new virus.

The court cases are a different battle.  It's not about science, but the mostly a battle over separation of church and state.  The good fight will go in trying to teach creation science in our schools.  That is the only way that we can bring back real science back into our classrooms and institutions of higher learning.


----------



## Dan Stubbs

Desperado said:


> No chance.  Evolution may account for the differences within a species, but it does not account for new species.


How about parallel  Evolution this has been theory for a long time that explains the many many branches of the human race.  DNA has help some but not all.


----------



## Dan Stubbs

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you’re missing the goals of the creationist industry.
> 
> "It is precisely because Biblical revelation is absolutely authoritative and perspicuous that the scientific facts, rightly interpreted, will give the same testimony as that of Scripture. There is not the slightest possibility that the _facts_ of science can contradict the Bible."
> _-Dr. Henry Morris in very first paragraph of "Scientists Confront Creationism" edited by Laurie R. Godfrey_
> 
> 
> It’s precisely the agenda of creationists that excludes them from a reliable association for peer review.
> 
> Hence, creationism is not science.
> 
> 
> 
> An important part of the scientific method is the rejection or modification of a theory if the theory does not fit the observed facts. But in creationism, it is the other way around. If the facts don't fit the theory, then deny the facts, and curse the finder. Find some way to reject the data, at all costs.
> 
> "But the main reason for insisting on the universal Flood as a fact of history and as the primary vehicle for geological interpretation is that God's Word plainly teaches it! No geologic difficulties, real or imagined, can be allowed to take precedence over the clear statements and necessary inferences of Scripture."
> Dr. Henry Morris, _Biblical Cosmology and Modern Science _(1970) p.32-33
> 
> Thus, creationism is not science.
> 
> 
> Science starts with observations. From the observations may come Scientific Laws, or detailed descriptions of physical phenomena. But science goes further than that. If a scientist can see connections, patterns and regularity, a hypothesis can be formulated to explain the observations. If enough data is gathered that supports the hypothesis, and experiments confirm the idea, and no contrary observations can be found, a scientific theory is put forward. Theories are the goal, the pinnacle, of science. But in creationism, the observations don't come first--they don't even count at all. Creationism starts with the bible and will not deviate from what is written. All data, observations and conclusions *must* conform with their interpretation of the bible, or be rejected out of hand.
> 
> 
> It’s important that you raised the case of Piltdown man. One might wonder how Charles Dawson got away with his deceptions for so long, but the important thing is that his fraud was discovered by scientists, reported by scientists, and it will be scientists who will work to correct the record. This is how science works. Sometimes the discovery is quick as in the case of *Archaeoraptor*. Sometimes it is slow as in the case of *Piltdown*. But eventually the correction occurs.
> 
> 
> I’m curious to get your reaction to one of the many creationist frauds that was perpetrated by a “creation scientist”.  Are these the folks you believe should be doing peer review?
> 
> She Must Be a Scientist; She Works in Front of a Green Screen
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Creationism _is_ science because it's observational science.  It's testable.  It's falsifiable for the the most part.  I don't think you have been listening to what I wrote.  Why don't you name one thing that is observable, testable and falsifiable with evolution?  Don't use natural selection or microevolution because we agree on that.  Can you admit that evolution hasn't produced much by believing in it?
> 
> On the other hand, we have made numerous and remarkable advancement through creation science.  I don't think I have to repeat the list of accomplishments of creation scientists and how important they have been from my previous links.
> 
> Finally, you do not know the difference between ID and creation science.  You may as well get the fail award.  ROTFL
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your claim that supernaturalism is “observational science” is simply not true. You offered no relevant examples of what is observable within supernaturalism which I believe was a calculated strategy. Do you have any observable examples of men rising from the dead? How about global floods or Arcs or the planets revolving around the sun?
> 
> For examples of things that are observable, testable and falsifiable within evolution, well, there are many. Start here:
> 
> 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1
> 
> The above is part 1.
> 
> You have heard of the flu virus, right? The various strains that kill people every year is one obvious example of evolution.
> 
> I think what you’re missing is that the latest version of fundamentalist Christianity called “creation science” is just rebranded “Biblical Creationism”  Fundamentalists have become self-destructive with their efforts to force christian dogma into the public schools under the masquerade of science. Years ago, fundamentalist christians made no effort to conceal their agenda of promoting Biblical literalism. It was originally called "Biblical Creationism" with no pretense. Faced with the correct legal conclusions that it was merely religion, they regrouped and renamed it "Scientific Creationism," making a half hearted attempt to edit out explicit Biblical references... but that fooled no one. When that met an equally unambiguous decision in the courts, the new version became "Intelligent Design." In the process, the creationist movement has become progressively more reactionary, more desperate, and truly, more reactionary.
> 
> For examples of how fundamentalists have been eviserated in their attempts to illegally force Christian dogma into the public school syllabus, look here:  Ten Major Court Cases about Evolution and Creationism
> 
> 
> There is nothing absurd about the natural world. Every discovery by science has been shown to have a natural causation and natural explanation. Not a single, understandable event in nature can be assigned a supernatural, supermagical cause.
> 
> We know with certainty that species and organisms evolve. That's a fact not in dispute by the modern science community. You may insist that modern science is flawed and unreliable but that is an issue only a fringe minority accepts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The greatest evidence for a man rising from the dead is the Resurrection of Jesus.  He is the only one.  There are many people who witnessed the miracle and they are written down.  The giant stone that could not be moved in front of Jesus' burial tomb was cast aside and the entrance open.  There is more evidence if you read the evidence of the biblical scholars.  The global flood is evidence by what we see in stratification.  We see that canyons were cut out from the rushing waters.  We see that mountains came up from beneath the seas.  You can easily take a look at the evidence from the Ark Encounter Museum.
> 
> Is There Evidence of the Flood?
> 
> None of your 29+ evidence is valid.  Dr. Theobald fails to address the origin of the first living thing or the mechanism by which that first organism diverged into every life form that has ever existed.
> 
> The flu virus traded parts with other flu viruses and mutated.  However, neither the flu nor its new virus is evidence for evolution.  The virus targets specific animals such as birds, swine, human and certain types of tissue.  New variations of the virus arises from these infected animals.  For example, a pig gets one strain of virus and is exposed to another strain from another animal.  The cells within the pig creates the new virus.
> 
> The court cases are a different battle.  It's not about science, but the mostly a battle over separation of church and state.  The good fight will go in trying to teach creation science in our schools.  That is the only way that we can bring back real science back into our classrooms and institutions of higher learning.
Click to expand...

*Not much of a Bible thumper, but just off hand it seems that anything is possible with a God.  So he or she or it, could have created anything he wanted to.  I kind of like the dual Evolution in some form.  The DNA factor does not really add much to the subject since we are made of space stuff.*


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you’re missing the goals of the creationist industry.
> 
> "It is precisely because Biblical revelation is absolutely authoritative and perspicuous that the scientific facts, rightly interpreted, will give the same testimony as that of Scripture. There is not the slightest possibility that the _facts_ of science can contradict the Bible."
> _-Dr. Henry Morris in very first paragraph of "Scientists Confront Creationism" edited by Laurie R. Godfrey_
> 
> 
> It’s precisely the agenda of creationists that excludes them from a reliable association for peer review.
> 
> Hence, creationism is not science.
> 
> 
> 
> An important part of the scientific method is the rejection or modification of a theory if the theory does not fit the observed facts. But in creationism, it is the other way around. If the facts don't fit the theory, then deny the facts, and curse the finder. Find some way to reject the data, at all costs.
> 
> "But the main reason for insisting on the universal Flood as a fact of history and as the primary vehicle for geological interpretation is that God's Word plainly teaches it! No geologic difficulties, real or imagined, can be allowed to take precedence over the clear statements and necessary inferences of Scripture."
> Dr. Henry Morris, _Biblical Cosmology and Modern Science _(1970) p.32-33
> 
> Thus, creationism is not science.
> 
> 
> Science starts with observations. From the observations may come Scientific Laws, or detailed descriptions of physical phenomena. But science goes further than that. If a scientist can see connections, patterns and regularity, a hypothesis can be formulated to explain the observations. If enough data is gathered that supports the hypothesis, and experiments confirm the idea, and no contrary observations can be found, a scientific theory is put forward. Theories are the goal, the pinnacle, of science. But in creationism, the observations don't come first--they don't even count at all. Creationism starts with the bible and will not deviate from what is written. All data, observations and conclusions *must* conform with their interpretation of the bible, or be rejected out of hand.
> 
> 
> It’s important that you raised the case of Piltdown man. One might wonder how Charles Dawson got away with his deceptions for so long, but the important thing is that his fraud was discovered by scientists, reported by scientists, and it will be scientists who will work to correct the record. This is how science works. Sometimes the discovery is quick as in the case of *Archaeoraptor*. Sometimes it is slow as in the case of *Piltdown*. But eventually the correction occurs.
> 
> 
> I’m curious to get your reaction to one of the many creationist frauds that was perpetrated by a “creation scientist”.  Are these the folks you believe should be doing peer review?
> 
> She Must Be a Scientist; She Works in Front of a Green Screen
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Creationism _is_ science because it's observational science.  It's testable.  It's falsifiable for the the most part.  I don't think you have been listening to what I wrote.  Why don't you name one thing that is observable, testable and falsifiable with evolution?  Don't use natural selection or microevolution because we agree on that.  Can you admit that evolution hasn't produced much by believing in it?
> 
> On the other hand, we have made numerous and remarkable advancement through creation science.  I don't think I have to repeat the list of accomplishments of creation scientists and how important they have been from my previous links.
> 
> Finally, you do not know the difference between ID and creation science.  You may as well get the fail award.  ROTFL
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your claim that supernaturalism is “observational science” is simply not true. You offered no relevant examples of what is observable within supernaturalism which I believe was a calculated strategy. Do you have any observable examples of men rising from the dead? How about global floods or Arcs or the planets revolving around the sun?
> 
> For examples of things that are observable, testable and falsifiable within evolution, well, there are many. Start here:
> 
> 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1
> 
> The above is part 1.
> 
> You have heard of the flu virus, right? The various strains that kill people every year is one obvious example of evolution.
> 
> I think what you’re missing is that the latest version of fundamentalist Christianity called “creation science” is just rebranded “Biblical Creationism”  Fundamentalists have become self-destructive with their efforts to force christian dogma into the public schools under the masquerade of science. Years ago, fundamentalist christians made no effort to conceal their agenda of promoting Biblical literalism. It was originally called "Biblical Creationism" with no pretense. Faced with the correct legal conclusions that it was merely religion, they regrouped and renamed it "Scientific Creationism," making a half hearted attempt to edit out explicit Biblical references... but that fooled no one. When that met an equally unambiguous decision in the courts, the new version became "Intelligent Design." In the process, the creationist movement has become progressively more reactionary, more desperate, and truly, more reactionary.
> 
> For examples of how fundamentalists have been eviserated in their attempts to illegally force Christian dogma into the public school syllabus, look here:  Ten Major Court Cases about Evolution and Creationism
> 
> 
> There is nothing absurd about the natural world. Every discovery by science has been shown to have a natural causation and natural explanation. Not a single, understandable event in nature can be assigned a supernatural, supermagical cause.
> 
> We know with certainty that species and organisms evolve. That's a fact not in dispute by the modern science community. You may insist that modern science is flawed and unreliable but that is an issue only a fringe minority accepts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The greatest evidence for a man rising from the dead is the Resurrection of Jesus.  He is the only one.  There are many people who witnessed the miracle and they are written down.  The giant stone that could not be moved in front of Jesus' burial tomb was cast aside and the entrance open.  There is more evidence if you read the evidence of the biblical scholars.  The global flood is evidence by what we see in stratification.  We see that canyons were cut out from the rushing waters.  We see that mountains came up from beneath the seas.  You can easily take a look at the evidence from the Ark Encounter Museum.
> 
> Is There Evidence of the Flood?
> 
> None of your 29+ evidence is valid.  Dr. Theobald fails to address the origin of the first living thing or the mechanism by which that first organism diverged into every life form that has ever existed.
> 
> The flu virus traded parts with other flu viruses and mutated.  However, neither the flu nor its new virus is evidence for evolution.  The virus targets specific animals such as birds, swine, human and certain types of tissue.  New variations of the virus arises from these infected animals.  For example, a pig gets one strain of virus and is exposed to another strain from another animal.  The cells within the pig creates the new virus.
> 
> The court cases are a different battle.  It's not about science, but the mostly a battle over separation of church and state.  The good fight will go in trying to teach creation science in our schools.  That is the only way that we can bring back real science back into our classrooms and institutions of higher learning.
Click to expand...


There is no evidence of Jesus rising from the dead. None. It is false to claim there were witnesses. There were none. 

There was no immovable stone in front of any cave where Jesus was buried. Why are you re-writing the Bible’s?

There is no evidence of any global flood. The Ark museum is an embarrassment to thinking humans.

Oddly, your description of viruses identifies adaptation and evolution.

Kitzmiller certainly was about science. It was about the religion being taught under the false name of science. Real science does not teach magic and supernaturalism as “science”. Also, real science does not teach such absurdities as a geocentric model.


----------



## LittleNipper

bripat9643 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you’re missing the goals of the creationist industry.
> 
> "It is precisely because Biblical revelation is absolutely authoritative and perspicuous that the scientific facts, rightly interpreted, will give the same testimony as that of Scripture. There is not the slightest possibility that the _facts_ of science can contradict the Bible."
> _-Dr. Henry Morris in very first paragraph of "Scientists Confront Creationism" edited by Laurie R. Godfrey_
> 
> 
> It’s precisely the agenda of creationists that excludes them from a reliable association for peer review.
> 
> Hence, creationism is not science.
> 
> 
> 
> An important part of the scientific method is the rejection or modification of a theory if the theory does not fit the observed facts. But in creationism, it is the other way around. If the facts don't fit the theory, then deny the facts, and curse the finder. Find some way to reject the data, at all costs.
> 
> "But the main reason for insisting on the universal Flood as a fact of history and as the primary vehicle for geological interpretation is that God's Word plainly teaches it! No geologic difficulties, real or imagined, can be allowed to take precedence over the clear statements and necessary inferences of Scripture."
> Dr. Henry Morris, _Biblical Cosmology and Modern Science _(1970) p.32-33
> 
> Thus, creationism is not science.
> 
> 
> Science starts with observations. From the observations may come Scientific Laws, or detailed descriptions of physical phenomena. But science goes further than that. If a scientist can see connections, patterns and regularity, a hypothesis can be formulated to explain the observations. If enough data is gathered that supports the hypothesis, and experiments confirm the idea, and no contrary observations can be found, a scientific theory is put forward. Theories are the goal, the pinnacle, of science. But in creationism, the observations don't come first--they don't even count at all. Creationism starts with the bible and will not deviate from what is written. All data, observations and conclusions *must* conform with their interpretation of the bible, or be rejected out of hand.
> 
> 
> It’s important that you raised the case of Piltdown man. One might wonder how Charles Dawson got away with his deceptions for so long, but the important thing is that his fraud was discovered by scientists, reported by scientists, and it will be scientists who will work to correct the record. This is how science works. Sometimes the discovery is quick as in the case of *Archaeoraptor*. Sometimes it is slow as in the case of *Piltdown*. But eventually the correction occurs.
> 
> 
> I’m curious to get your reaction to one of the many creationist frauds that was perpetrated by a “creation scientist”.  Are these the folks you believe should be doing peer review?
> 
> She Must Be a Scientist; She Works in Front of a Green Screen
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Creationism _is_ science because it's observational science.  It's testable.  It's falsifiable for the the most part.  I don't think you have been listening to what I wrote.  Why don't you name one thing that is observable, testable and falsifiable with evolution?  Don't use natural selection or microevolution because we agree on that.  Can you admit that evolution hasn't produced much by believing in it?
> 
> On the other hand, we have made numerous and remarkable advancement through creation science.  I don't think I have to repeat the list of accomplishments of creation scientists and how important they have been from my previous links.
> 
> Finally, you do not know the difference between ID and creation science.  You may as well get the fail award.  ROTFL
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> creationism is not science.  "Creation scientists" have made no advancements to human knowledge.  None.
Click to expand...

Pasteur believed in experimental science. As he said himself, “Experimental science is essentially positivist in the sense that in its conceptions it never concerns itself with the essence of things, the origin of the world or its final destiny.” I would suggest that evolutionists have only tried to turn society atheistic with their unobservable theories but have not really done anything that would be regarded as valuable in terms of a Ford, Edison, Pasture or even Einstein. Practical application far out ways theory for the sake of eliminating GOD as the revealed CREATOR of ALL.


----------



## LittleNipper

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you’re missing the goals of the creationist industry.
> 
> "It is precisely because Biblical revelation is absolutely authoritative and perspicuous that the scientific facts, rightly interpreted, will give the same testimony as that of Scripture. There is not the slightest possibility that the _facts_ of science can contradict the Bible."
> _-Dr. Henry Morris in very first paragraph of "Scientists Confront Creationism" edited by Laurie R. Godfrey_
> 
> 
> It’s precisely the agenda of creationists that excludes them from a reliable association for peer review.
> 
> Hence, creationism is not science.
> 
> 
> 
> An important part of the scientific method is the rejection or modification of a theory if the theory does not fit the observed facts. But in creationism, it is the other way around. If the facts don't fit the theory, then deny the facts, and curse the finder. Find some way to reject the data, at all costs.
> 
> "But the main reason for insisting on the universal Flood as a fact of history and as the primary vehicle for geological interpretation is that God's Word plainly teaches it! No geologic difficulties, real or imagined, can be allowed to take precedence over the clear statements and necessary inferences of Scripture."
> Dr. Henry Morris, _Biblical Cosmology and Modern Science _(1970) p.32-33
> 
> Thus, creationism is not science.
> 
> 
> Science starts with observations. From the observations may come Scientific Laws, or detailed descriptions of physical phenomena. But science goes further than that. If a scientist can see connections, patterns and regularity, a hypothesis can be formulated to explain the observations. If enough data is gathered that supports the hypothesis, and experiments confirm the idea, and no contrary observations can be found, a scientific theory is put forward. Theories are the goal, the pinnacle, of science. But in creationism, the observations don't come first--they don't even count at all. Creationism starts with the bible and will not deviate from what is written. All data, observations and conclusions *must* conform with their interpretation of the bible, or be rejected out of hand.
> 
> 
> It’s important that you raised the case of Piltdown man. One might wonder how Charles Dawson got away with his deceptions for so long, but the important thing is that his fraud was discovered by scientists, reported by scientists, and it will be scientists who will work to correct the record. This is how science works. Sometimes the discovery is quick as in the case of *Archaeoraptor*. Sometimes it is slow as in the case of *Piltdown*. But eventually the correction occurs.
> 
> 
> I’m curious to get your reaction to one of the many creationist frauds that was perpetrated by a “creation scientist”.  Are these the folks you believe should be doing peer review?
> 
> She Must Be a Scientist; She Works in Front of a Green Screen
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Creationism _is_ science because it's observational science.  It's testable.  It's falsifiable for the the most part.  I don't think you have been listening to what I wrote.  Why don't you name one thing that is observable, testable and falsifiable with evolution?  Don't use natural selection or microevolution because we agree on that.  Can you admit that evolution hasn't produced much by believing in it?
> 
> On the other hand, we have made numerous and remarkable advancement through creation science.  I don't think I have to repeat the list of accomplishments of creation scientists and how important they have been from my previous links.
> 
> Finally, you do not know the difference between ID and creation science.  You may as well get the fail award.  ROTFL
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your claim that supernaturalism is “observational science” is simply not true. You offered no relevant examples of what is observable within supernaturalism which I believe was a calculated strategy. Do you have any observable examples of men rising from the dead? How about global floods or Arcs or the planets revolving around the sun?
> 
> For examples of things that are observable, testable and falsifiable within evolution, well, there are many. Start here:
> 
> 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1
> 
> The above is part 1.
> 
> You have heard of the flu virus, right? The various strains that kill people every year is one obvious example of evolution.
> 
> I think what you’re missing is that the latest version of fundamentalist Christianity called “creation science” is just rebranded “Biblical Creationism”  Fundamentalists have become self-destructive with their efforts to force christian dogma into the public schools under the masquerade of science. Years ago, fundamentalist christians made no effort to conceal their agenda of promoting Biblical literalism. It was originally called "Biblical Creationism" with no pretense. Faced with the correct legal conclusions that it was merely religion, they regrouped and renamed it "Scientific Creationism," making a half hearted attempt to edit out explicit Biblical references... but that fooled no one. When that met an equally unambiguous decision in the courts, the new version became "Intelligent Design." In the process, the creationist movement has become progressively more reactionary, more desperate, and truly, more reactionary.
> 
> For examples of how fundamentalists have been eviserated in their attempts to illegally force Christian dogma into the public school syllabus, look here:  Ten Major Court Cases about Evolution and Creationism
> 
> 
> There is nothing absurd about the natural world. Every discovery by science has been shown to have a natural causation and natural explanation. Not a single, understandable event in nature can be assigned a supernatural, supermagical cause.
> 
> We know with certainty that species and organisms evolve. That's a fact not in dispute by the modern science community. You may insist that modern science is flawed and unreliable but that is an issue only a fringe minority accepts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The greatest evidence for a man rising from the dead is the Resurrection of Jesus.  He is the only one.  There are many people who witnessed the miracle and they are written down.  The giant stone that could not be moved in front of Jesus' burial tomb was cast aside and the entrance open.  There is more evidence if you read the evidence of the biblical scholars.  The global flood is evidence by what we see in stratification.  We see that canyons were cut out from the rushing waters.  We see that mountains came up from beneath the seas.  You can easily take a look at the evidence from the Ark Encounter Museum.
> 
> Is There Evidence of the Flood?
> 
> None of your 29+ evidence is valid.  Dr. Theobald fails to address the origin of the first living thing or the mechanism by which that first organism diverged into every life form that has ever existed.
> 
> The flu virus traded parts with other flu viruses and mutated.  However, neither the flu nor its new virus is evidence for evolution.  The virus targets specific animals such as birds, swine, human and certain types of tissue.  New variations of the virus arises from these infected animals.  For example, a pig gets one strain of virus and is exposed to another strain from another animal.  The cells within the pig creates the new virus.
> 
> The court cases are a different battle.  It's not about science, but the mostly a battle over separation of church and state.  The good fight will go in trying to teach creation science in our schools.  That is the only way that we can bring back real science back into our classrooms and institutions of higher learning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no evidence of Jesus rising from the dead. None. It is false to claim there were witnesses. There were none.
> 
> There was no immovable stone in front of any cave where Jesus was buried. Why are you re-writing the Bible’s?
> 
> There is no evidence of any global flood. The Ark museum is an embarrassment to thinking humans.
> 
> Oddly, your description of viruses identifies adaptation and evolution.
> 
> Kitzmiller certainly was about science. It was about the religion being taught under the false name of science. Real science does not teach magic and supernaturalism as “science”. Also, real science does not teach such absurdities as a geocentric model.
Click to expand...

There were at least 500 eyewitness accounts to the fact that the Messiah arose. All but one of the Apostles died for what they observed (no one dies for what they know to be a lie). 
There are canyons all over the world carved out by rushing water. There are marine fossils found on mountain tops. There are trees standing nearly vertical through many layers of sediment. There are stories across the globe regarding a man and his family building a vessel to save himself and his family and selected animals according to GOD's command.The vast number of fossils found are the result of drowning in mud.

 As for viruses, with all their adaptation they are clearly still viruses. And the man driving a car is really no different than the man riding a chariot. In fact, if we were hit with a major solar flare, it is likely the man driving his auto would become the man in a chariot. Adaptation demonstrates only an ability to roll with the punches. And frankly GOD has given man the creative ability to invent air conditioning, and improved lighting, and recording devices. HOWEVER, man is still no better than ADAM after the fall.


----------



## james bond

Dan Stubbs said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you’re missing the goals of the creationist industry.
> 
> "It is precisely because Biblical revelation is absolutely authoritative and perspicuous that the scientific facts, rightly interpreted, will give the same testimony as that of Scripture. There is not the slightest possibility that the _facts_ of science can contradict the Bible."
> _-Dr. Henry Morris in very first paragraph of "Scientists Confront Creationism" edited by Laurie R. Godfrey_
> 
> 
> It’s precisely the agenda of creationists that excludes them from a reliable association for peer review.
> 
> Hence, creationism is not science.
> 
> 
> 
> An important part of the scientific method is the rejection or modification of a theory if the theory does not fit the observed facts. But in creationism, it is the other way around. If the facts don't fit the theory, then deny the facts, and curse the finder. Find some way to reject the data, at all costs.
> 
> "But the main reason for insisting on the universal Flood as a fact of history and as the primary vehicle for geological interpretation is that God's Word plainly teaches it! No geologic difficulties, real or imagined, can be allowed to take precedence over the clear statements and necessary inferences of Scripture."
> Dr. Henry Morris, _Biblical Cosmology and Modern Science _(1970) p.32-33
> 
> Thus, creationism is not science.
> 
> 
> Science starts with observations. From the observations may come Scientific Laws, or detailed descriptions of physical phenomena. But science goes further than that. If a scientist can see connections, patterns and regularity, a hypothesis can be formulated to explain the observations. If enough data is gathered that supports the hypothesis, and experiments confirm the idea, and no contrary observations can be found, a scientific theory is put forward. Theories are the goal, the pinnacle, of science. But in creationism, the observations don't come first--they don't even count at all. Creationism starts with the bible and will not deviate from what is written. All data, observations and conclusions *must* conform with their interpretation of the bible, or be rejected out of hand.
> 
> 
> It’s important that you raised the case of Piltdown man. One might wonder how Charles Dawson got away with his deceptions for so long, but the important thing is that his fraud was discovered by scientists, reported by scientists, and it will be scientists who will work to correct the record. This is how science works. Sometimes the discovery is quick as in the case of *Archaeoraptor*. Sometimes it is slow as in the case of *Piltdown*. But eventually the correction occurs.
> 
> 
> I’m curious to get your reaction to one of the many creationist frauds that was perpetrated by a “creation scientist”.  Are these the folks you believe should be doing peer review?
> 
> She Must Be a Scientist; She Works in Front of a Green Screen
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Creationism _is_ science because it's observational science.  It's testable.  It's falsifiable for the the most part.  I don't think you have been listening to what I wrote.  Why don't you name one thing that is observable, testable and falsifiable with evolution?  Don't use natural selection or microevolution because we agree on that.  Can you admit that evolution hasn't produced much by believing in it?
> 
> On the other hand, we have made numerous and remarkable advancement through creation science.  I don't think I have to repeat the list of accomplishments of creation scientists and how important they have been from my previous links.
> 
> Finally, you do not know the difference between ID and creation science.  You may as well get the fail award.  ROTFL
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your claim that supernaturalism is “observational science” is simply not true. You offered no relevant examples of what is observable within supernaturalism which I believe was a calculated strategy. Do you have any observable examples of men rising from the dead? How about global floods or Arcs or the planets revolving around the sun?
> 
> For examples of things that are observable, testable and falsifiable within evolution, well, there are many. Start here:
> 
> 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1
> 
> The above is part 1.
> 
> You have heard of the flu virus, right? The various strains that kill people every year is one obvious example of evolution.
> 
> I think what you’re missing is that the latest version of fundamentalist Christianity called “creation science” is just rebranded “Biblical Creationism”  Fundamentalists have become self-destructive with their efforts to force christian dogma into the public schools under the masquerade of science. Years ago, fundamentalist christians made no effort to conceal their agenda of promoting Biblical literalism. It was originally called "Biblical Creationism" with no pretense. Faced with the correct legal conclusions that it was merely religion, they regrouped and renamed it "Scientific Creationism," making a half hearted attempt to edit out explicit Biblical references... but that fooled no one. When that met an equally unambiguous decision in the courts, the new version became "Intelligent Design." In the process, the creationist movement has become progressively more reactionary, more desperate, and truly, more reactionary.
> 
> For examples of how fundamentalists have been eviserated in their attempts to illegally force Christian dogma into the public school syllabus, look here:  Ten Major Court Cases about Evolution and Creationism
> 
> 
> There is nothing absurd about the natural world. Every discovery by science has been shown to have a natural causation and natural explanation. Not a single, understandable event in nature can be assigned a supernatural, supermagical cause.
> 
> We know with certainty that species and organisms evolve. That's a fact not in dispute by the modern science community. You may insist that modern science is flawed and unreliable but that is an issue only a fringe minority accepts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The greatest evidence for a man rising from the dead is the Resurrection of Jesus.  He is the only one.  There are many people who witnessed the miracle and they are written down.  The giant stone that could not be moved in front of Jesus' burial tomb was cast aside and the entrance open.  There is more evidence if you read the evidence of the biblical scholars.  The global flood is evidence by what we see in stratification.  We see that canyons were cut out from the rushing waters.  We see that mountains came up from beneath the seas.  You can easily take a look at the evidence from the Ark Encounter Museum.
> 
> Is There Evidence of the Flood?
> 
> None of your 29+ evidence is valid.  Dr. Theobald fails to address the origin of the first living thing or the mechanism by which that first organism diverged into every life form that has ever existed.
> 
> The flu virus traded parts with other flu viruses and mutated.  However, neither the flu nor its new virus is evidence for evolution.  The virus targets specific animals such as birds, swine, human and certain types of tissue.  New variations of the virus arises from these infected animals.  For example, a pig gets one strain of virus and is exposed to another strain from another animal.  The cells within the pig creates the new virus.
> 
> The court cases are a different battle.  It's not about science, but the mostly a battle over separation of church and state.  The good fight will go in trying to teach creation science in our schools.  That is the only way that we can bring back real science back into our classrooms and institutions of higher learning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Not much of a Bible thumper, but just off hand it seems that anything is possible with a God.  So he or she or it, could have created anything he wanted to.  I kind of like the dual Evolution in some form.  The DNA factor does not really add much to the subject since we are made of space stuff.*
Click to expand...


There are no aliens in Genesis.  Strictly limited to Earth.  Observational science demonstrates it.  The fine tuning facts discovered by atheist scientists when studying the Big Bang shows that aliens are not natural.  They are supernatural and we do not find them anywhere.

How Common is Life?


----------



## james bond

fncceo said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> It starts with reading and believing in John 3:16. _Have you heard of it?_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> John Grisham?
Click to expand...


Nope, he wrote books about lawyers and lies.  The latter may as well be about evolutionists.

"It's amazing how lies grow.  You start with a small one that seems easy to cover, then you get boxed in and tell another one.  Then another.  People believe you at first, then they act upon your lies, and you catch yourself wishing you'd simply told the truth"  John Grisham


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you’re missing the goals of the creationist industry.
> 
> "It is precisely because Biblical revelation is absolutely authoritative and perspicuous that the scientific facts, rightly interpreted, will give the same testimony as that of Scripture. There is not the slightest possibility that the _facts_ of science can contradict the Bible."
> _-Dr. Henry Morris in very first paragraph of "Scientists Confront Creationism" edited by Laurie R. Godfrey_
> 
> 
> It’s precisely the agenda of creationists that excludes them from a reliable association for peer review.
> 
> Hence, creationism is not science.
> 
> 
> 
> An important part of the scientific method is the rejection or modification of a theory if the theory does not fit the observed facts. But in creationism, it is the other way around. If the facts don't fit the theory, then deny the facts, and curse the finder. Find some way to reject the data, at all costs.
> 
> "But the main reason for insisting on the universal Flood as a fact of history and as the primary vehicle for geological interpretation is that God's Word plainly teaches it! No geologic difficulties, real or imagined, can be allowed to take precedence over the clear statements and necessary inferences of Scripture."
> Dr. Henry Morris, _Biblical Cosmology and Modern Science _(1970) p.32-33
> 
> Thus, creationism is not science.
> 
> 
> Science starts with observations. From the observations may come Scientific Laws, or detailed descriptions of physical phenomena. But science goes further than that. If a scientist can see connections, patterns and regularity, a hypothesis can be formulated to explain the observations. If enough data is gathered that supports the hypothesis, and experiments confirm the idea, and no contrary observations can be found, a scientific theory is put forward. Theories are the goal, the pinnacle, of science. But in creationism, the observations don't come first--they don't even count at all. Creationism starts with the bible and will not deviate from what is written. All data, observations and conclusions *must* conform with their interpretation of the bible, or be rejected out of hand.
> 
> 
> It’s important that you raised the case of Piltdown man. One might wonder how Charles Dawson got away with his deceptions for so long, but the important thing is that his fraud was discovered by scientists, reported by scientists, and it will be scientists who will work to correct the record. This is how science works. Sometimes the discovery is quick as in the case of *Archaeoraptor*. Sometimes it is slow as in the case of *Piltdown*. But eventually the correction occurs.
> 
> 
> I’m curious to get your reaction to one of the many creationist frauds that was perpetrated by a “creation scientist”.  Are these the folks you believe should be doing peer review?
> 
> She Must Be a Scientist; She Works in Front of a Green Screen
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Creationism _is_ science because it's observational science.  It's testable.  It's falsifiable for the the most part.  I don't think you have been listening to what I wrote.  Why don't you name one thing that is observable, testable and falsifiable with evolution?  Don't use natural selection or microevolution because we agree on that.  Can you admit that evolution hasn't produced much by believing in it?
> 
> On the other hand, we have made numerous and remarkable advancement through creation science.  I don't think I have to repeat the list of accomplishments of creation scientists and how important they have been from my previous links.
> 
> Finally, you do not know the difference between ID and creation science.  You may as well get the fail award.  ROTFL
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your claim that supernaturalism is “observational science” is simply not true. You offered no relevant examples of what is observable within supernaturalism which I believe was a calculated strategy. Do you have any observable examples of men rising from the dead? How about global floods or Arcs or the planets revolving around the sun?
> 
> For examples of things that are observable, testable and falsifiable within evolution, well, there are many. Start here:
> 
> 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1
> 
> The above is part 1.
> 
> You have heard of the flu virus, right? The various strains that kill people every year is one obvious example of evolution.
> 
> I think what you’re missing is that the latest version of fundamentalist Christianity called “creation science” is just rebranded “Biblical Creationism”  Fundamentalists have become self-destructive with their efforts to force christian dogma into the public schools under the masquerade of science. Years ago, fundamentalist christians made no effort to conceal their agenda of promoting Biblical literalism. It was originally called "Biblical Creationism" with no pretense. Faced with the correct legal conclusions that it was merely religion, they regrouped and renamed it "Scientific Creationism," making a half hearted attempt to edit out explicit Biblical references... but that fooled no one. When that met an equally unambiguous decision in the courts, the new version became "Intelligent Design." In the process, the creationist movement has become progressively more reactionary, more desperate, and truly, more reactionary.
> 
> For examples of how fundamentalists have been eviserated in their attempts to illegally force Christian dogma into the public school syllabus, look here:  Ten Major Court Cases about Evolution and Creationism
> 
> 
> There is nothing absurd about the natural world. Every discovery by science has been shown to have a natural causation and natural explanation. Not a single, understandable event in nature can be assigned a supernatural, supermagical cause.
> 
> We know with certainty that species and organisms evolve. That's a fact not in dispute by the modern science community. You may insist that modern science is flawed and unreliable but that is an issue only a fringe minority accepts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The greatest evidence for a man rising from the dead is the Resurrection of Jesus.  He is the only one.  There are many people who witnessed the miracle and they are written down.  The giant stone that could not be moved in front of Jesus' burial tomb was cast aside and the entrance open.  There is more evidence if you read the evidence of the biblical scholars.  The global flood is evidence by what we see in stratification.  We see that canyons were cut out from the rushing waters.  We see that mountains came up from beneath the seas.  You can easily take a look at the evidence from the Ark Encounter Museum.
> 
> Is There Evidence of the Flood?
> 
> None of your 29+ evidence is valid.  Dr. Theobald fails to address the origin of the first living thing or the mechanism by which that first organism diverged into every life form that has ever existed.
> 
> The flu virus traded parts with other flu viruses and mutated.  However, neither the flu nor its new virus is evidence for evolution.  The virus targets specific animals such as birds, swine, human and certain types of tissue.  New variations of the virus arises from these infected animals.  For example, a pig gets one strain of virus and is exposed to another strain from another animal.  The cells within the pig creates the new virus.
> 
> The court cases are a different battle.  It's not about science, but the mostly a battle over separation of church and state.  The good fight will go in trying to teach creation science in our schools.  That is the only way that we can bring back real science back into our classrooms and institutions of higher learning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no evidence of Jesus rising from the dead. None. It is false to claim there were witnesses. There were none.
> 
> There was no immovable stone in front of any cave where Jesus was buried. Why are you re-writing the Bible’s?
> 
> There is no evidence of any global flood. The Ark museum is an embarrassment to thinking humans.
> 
> Oddly, your description of viruses identifies adaptation and evolution.
> 
> Kitzmiller certainly was about science. It was about the religion being taught under the false name of science. Real science does not teach magic and supernaturalism as “science”. Also, real science does not teach such absurdities as a geocentric model.
Click to expand...


You are sadly mistaken and it will cost you severely after you die.

As for the rest, you are lying.  You are not presenting an argument which is based on evidence, but just making assertions.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you’re missing the goals of the creationist industry.
> 
> "It is precisely because Biblical revelation is absolutely authoritative and perspicuous that the scientific facts, rightly interpreted, will give the same testimony as that of Scripture. There is not the slightest possibility that the _facts_ of science can contradict the Bible."
> _-Dr. Henry Morris in very first paragraph of "Scientists Confront Creationism" edited by Laurie R. Godfrey_
> 
> 
> It’s precisely the agenda of creationists that excludes them from a reliable association for peer review.
> 
> Hence, creationism is not science.
> 
> 
> 
> An important part of the scientific method is the rejection or modification of a theory if the theory does not fit the observed facts. But in creationism, it is the other way around. If the facts don't fit the theory, then deny the facts, and curse the finder. Find some way to reject the data, at all costs.
> 
> "But the main reason for insisting on the universal Flood as a fact of history and as the primary vehicle for geological interpretation is that God's Word plainly teaches it! No geologic difficulties, real or imagined, can be allowed to take precedence over the clear statements and necessary inferences of Scripture."
> Dr. Henry Morris, _Biblical Cosmology and Modern Science _(1970) p.32-33
> 
> Thus, creationism is not science.
> 
> 
> Science starts with observations. From the observations may come Scientific Laws, or detailed descriptions of physical phenomena. But science goes further than that. If a scientist can see connections, patterns and regularity, a hypothesis can be formulated to explain the observations. If enough data is gathered that supports the hypothesis, and experiments confirm the idea, and no contrary observations can be found, a scientific theory is put forward. Theories are the goal, the pinnacle, of science. But in creationism, the observations don't come first--they don't even count at all. Creationism starts with the bible and will not deviate from what is written. All data, observations and conclusions *must* conform with their interpretation of the bible, or be rejected out of hand.
> 
> 
> It’s important that you raised the case of Piltdown man. One might wonder how Charles Dawson got away with his deceptions for so long, but the important thing is that his fraud was discovered by scientists, reported by scientists, and it will be scientists who will work to correct the record. This is how science works. Sometimes the discovery is quick as in the case of *Archaeoraptor*. Sometimes it is slow as in the case of *Piltdown*. But eventually the correction occurs.
> 
> 
> I’m curious to get your reaction to one of the many creationist frauds that was perpetrated by a “creation scientist”.  Are these the folks you believe should be doing peer review?
> 
> She Must Be a Scientist; She Works in Front of a Green Screen
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Creationism _is_ science because it's observational science.  It's testable.  It's falsifiable for the the most part.  I don't think you have been listening to what I wrote.  Why don't you name one thing that is observable, testable and falsifiable with evolution?  Don't use natural selection or microevolution because we agree on that.  Can you admit that evolution hasn't produced much by believing in it?
> 
> On the other hand, we have made numerous and remarkable advancement through creation science.  I don't think I have to repeat the list of accomplishments of creation scientists and how important they have been from my previous links.
> 
> Finally, you do not know the difference between ID and creation science.  You may as well get the fail award.  ROTFL
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your claim that supernaturalism is “observational science” is simply not true. You offered no relevant examples of what is observable within supernaturalism which I believe was a calculated strategy. Do you have any observable examples of men rising from the dead? How about global floods or Arcs or the planets revolving around the sun?
> 
> For examples of things that are observable, testable and falsifiable within evolution, well, there are many. Start here:
> 
> 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1
> 
> The above is part 1.
> 
> You have heard of the flu virus, right? The various strains that kill people every year is one obvious example of evolution.
> 
> I think what you’re missing is that the latest version of fundamentalist Christianity called “creation science” is just rebranded “Biblical Creationism”  Fundamentalists have become self-destructive with their efforts to force christian dogma into the public schools under the masquerade of science. Years ago, fundamentalist christians made no effort to conceal their agenda of promoting Biblical literalism. It was originally called "Biblical Creationism" with no pretense. Faced with the correct legal conclusions that it was merely religion, they regrouped and renamed it "Scientific Creationism," making a half hearted attempt to edit out explicit Biblical references... but that fooled no one. When that met an equally unambiguous decision in the courts, the new version became "Intelligent Design." In the process, the creationist movement has become progressively more reactionary, more desperate, and truly, more reactionary.
> 
> For examples of how fundamentalists have been eviserated in their attempts to illegally force Christian dogma into the public school syllabus, look here:  Ten Major Court Cases about Evolution and Creationism
> 
> 
> There is nothing absurd about the natural world. Every discovery by science has been shown to have a natural causation and natural explanation. Not a single, understandable event in nature can be assigned a supernatural, supermagical cause.
> 
> We know with certainty that species and organisms evolve. That's a fact not in dispute by the modern science community. You may insist that modern science is flawed and unreliable but that is an issue only a fringe minority accepts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The greatest evidence for a man rising from the dead is the Resurrection of Jesus.  He is the only one.  There are many people who witnessed the miracle and they are written down.  The giant stone that could not be moved in front of Jesus' burial tomb was cast aside and the entrance open.  There is more evidence if you read the evidence of the biblical scholars.  The global flood is evidence by what we see in stratification.  We see that canyons were cut out from the rushing waters.  We see that mountains came up from beneath the seas.  You can easily take a look at the evidence from the Ark Encounter Museum.
> 
> Is There Evidence of the Flood?
> 
> None of your 29+ evidence is valid.  Dr. Theobald fails to address the origin of the first living thing or the mechanism by which that first organism diverged into every life form that has ever existed.
> 
> The flu virus traded parts with other flu viruses and mutated.  However, neither the flu nor its new virus is evidence for evolution.  The virus targets specific animals such as birds, swine, human and certain types of tissue.  New variations of the virus arises from these infected animals.  For example, a pig gets one strain of virus and is exposed to another strain from another animal.  The cells within the pig creates the new virus.
> 
> The court cases are a different battle.  It's not about science, but the mostly a battle over separation of church and state.  The good fight will go in trying to teach creation science in our schools.  That is the only way that we can bring back real science back into our classrooms and institutions of higher learning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no evidence of Jesus rising from the dead. None. It is false to claim there were witnesses. There were none.
> 
> There was no immovable stone in front of any cave where Jesus was buried. Why are you re-writing the Bible’s?
> 
> There is no evidence of any global flood. The Ark museum is an embarrassment to thinking humans.
> 
> Oddly, your description of viruses identifies adaptation and evolution.
> 
> Kitzmiller certainly was about science. It was about the religion being taught under the false name of science. Real science does not teach magic and supernaturalism as “science”. Also, real science does not teach such absurdities as a geocentric model.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are sadly mistaken and it will cost you severely after you die.
> 
> As for the rest, you are lying.  You are not presenting an argument which is based on evidence, but just making assertions.
Click to expand...


Ah, the universally sustaining benediction from angry religionists who can't force their gods on others: "*you'll get yours*".

Why the need to threaten me with your gods? Do you think your gods appreciate being used to try and intimidate me? Your threats carry a lot of false assumptions and fallacies.

Fallacies: 

a. What if you have been given the wrong gods? You will spend an eternity apart from your gods for making such an egregious error 

b. "Betting" on gawds displays prideful ego and might anger the gods, and you might spend eternity apart from them for making such an egregious error 

c. Gods might prefer courage of one's convictions instead of cowardice and self-deceit, in which case you might spend eternity apart from them for making such an egregious error 

d. What if the gods deplore such self-serving narcissism and instead embraces the atheist for not succumbing to threats of a human nature? In that case you might spend eternity apart from them for making such an egregious error. 

e. What if the gods are revolted by the very suggestion that there is something like an "eternal punishment"? In that case you might spend eternity apart from them for making such an egregious error. 


Secondly, I have supplied to you rational arguments, based on accepted principles with supporting links. Your revulsion for science and rationity is obvious but lets try an experiment, shall we?

  Here’s a simple test for faith in gods: 

Find two people with radical appendicitis. Person A, apply the same steps as were applied before the mid 1800's (i.e., pray over them, light incense, tell them to “believe”, rattle bones, whatever). Person B -- perform an appendectomy without any prayer. Who will survive, who will die -- consistently? Then ask yourself why is it that when using prayer (or hoping for miracles) they've always died, and not until man learned the science of medicine did people start to survive (i.e., only until man learned how to remedy appendicitis, did "god suddenly have the power to perform this miracle")? It's pretty self-evident.


----------



## fncceo

james bond said:


> it will cost you severely after you die.



I'm not taking my Visa card with me when I'm gone.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> Ah, the universally sustaining benediction from angry religionists who can't force their gods on others: "*you'll get yours*".
> 
> Why the need to threaten me with your gods? Do you think your gods appreciate being used to try and intimidate me? Your threats carry a lot of false assumptions and fallacies.
> 
> Fallacies:
> 
> a. What if you have been given the wrong gods? You will spend an eternity apart from your gods for making such an egregious error
> 
> b. "Betting" on gawds displays prideful ego and might anger the gods, and you might spend eternity apart from them for making such an egregious error
> 
> c. Gods might prefer courage of one's convictions instead of cowardice and self-deceit, in which case you might spend eternity apart from them for making such an egregious error
> 
> d. What if the gods deplore such self-serving narcissism and instead embraces the atheist for not succumbing to threats of a human nature? In that case you might spend eternity apart from them for making such an egregious error.
> 
> e. What if the gods are revolted by the very suggestion that there is something like an "eternal punishment"? In that case you might spend eternity apart from them for making such an egregious error.
> 
> 
> Secondly, I have supplied to you rational arguments, based on accepted principles with supporting links. Your revulsion for science and rationity is obvious but lets try an experiment, shall we?
> 
> Here’s a simple test for faith in gods:
> 
> Find two people with radical appendicitis. Person A, apply the same steps as were applied before the mid 1800's (i.e., pray over them, light incense, tell them to “believe”, rattle bones, whatever). Person B -- perform an appendectomy without any prayer. Who will survive, who will die -- consistently? Then ask yourself why is it that when using prayer (or hoping for miracles) they've always died, and not until man learned the science of medicine did people start to survive (i.e., only until man learned how to remedy appendicitis, did "god suddenly have the power to perform this miracle")? It's pretty self-evident.



It's not threats nor intimidation.  It's not I who is angry but God from you not believing in sacrificing his only son for you.  I am only _warning_ you as that is the opposite of _temptation_ given to you by Satan regarding beliefs in evolution and not believing in sin and objective moral values.  God provides ample warnings when one's thinking goes off the rails.

Atheist scientists and atheists have some weird false beliefs that betray them such as not believing in God, the supernatural and his word the Bible.  They also believe in false science of evolution and evolutionary thinking.  The closest thing I could agree with evo is natural selection and being against gmo foods.

So far, you have not been able to show any observable evidence, falsifiable evidence, nor experimental evidence of evolution.  The long times of the evolution based on radiometric times have questionable assumptions.  So does the philosophy (religion) of uniformitarianism.  If uniformitarianism is true, then there would be on need to start putting in the philosophy of catastrophism.  The creation scientists do not mix any uniformitarian philosophies with catastrophism.  Even the threat of an asteroid(s) hitting the earth follows creation science.  The mountain of evidence for evolution has been reduced to rubble.

You did provide arguments, more than the usual low brow atheists and evos here.  However, I provided rebuttals and counter-arguments.  Yet, you continue to ramble on with you diatribe against God.  Is that so your worldview doesn't get destroyed?  That you're able to keep your worldview despite the grievous errors? 

As for your tests and experiments, that goes against creation science.  There may be some Christians such as Christian scientists who believe that.  That isn't creation science though.


----------



## james bond

fncceo said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> it will cost you severely after you die.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not taking my Visa card with me when I'm gone.
Click to expand...


You have to leave your Visa card and all the things you bought behind.  Don't you think that life is short and it's strange that one can't take anything with them when they die?  That said, there is more to life than that if you believe in Jesus and creation science.  God reveals himself and then one starts to understand creation science is greater that evolution and evolutionary thinking.  It's true science vs false science.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, the universally sustaining benediction from angry religionists who can't force their gods on others: "*you'll get yours*".
> 
> Why the need to threaten me with your gods? Do you think your gods appreciate being used to try and intimidate me? Your threats carry a lot of false assumptions and fallacies.
> 
> Fallacies:
> 
> a. What if you have been given the wrong gods? You will spend an eternity apart from your gods for making such an egregious error
> 
> b. "Betting" on gawds displays prideful ego and might anger the gods, and you might spend eternity apart from them for making such an egregious error
> 
> c. Gods might prefer courage of one's convictions instead of cowardice and self-deceit, in which case you might spend eternity apart from them for making such an egregious error
> 
> d. What if the gods deplore such self-serving narcissism and instead embraces the atheist for not succumbing to threats of a human nature? In that case you might spend eternity apart from them for making such an egregious error.
> 
> e. What if the gods are revolted by the very suggestion that there is something like an "eternal punishment"? In that case you might spend eternity apart from them for making such an egregious error.
> 
> 
> Secondly, I have supplied to you rational arguments, based on accepted principles with supporting links. Your revulsion for science and rationity is obvious but lets try an experiment, shall we?
> 
> Here’s a simple test for faith in gods:
> 
> Find two people with radical appendicitis. Person A, apply the same steps as were applied before the mid 1800's (i.e., pray over them, light incense, tell them to “believe”, rattle bones, whatever). Person B -- perform an appendectomy without any prayer. Who will survive, who will die -- consistently? Then ask yourself why is it that when using prayer (or hoping for miracles) they've always died, and not until man learned the science of medicine did people start to survive (i.e., only until man learned how to remedy appendicitis, did "god suddenly have the power to perform this miracle")? It's pretty self-evident.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not threats nor intimidation.  It's not I who is angry but God from you not believing in sacrificing his only son for you.  I am only _warning_ you as that is the opposite of _temptation_ given to you by Satan regarding beliefs in evolution and not believing in sin and objective moral values.  God provides ample warnings when one's thinking goes off the rails.
> 
> Atheist scientists and atheists have some weird false beliefs that betray them such as not believing in God, the supernatural and his word the Bible.  They also believe in false science of evolution and evolutionary thinking.  The closest thing I could agree with evo is natural selection and being against gmo foods.
> 
> So far, you have not been able to show any observable evidence, falsifiable evidence, nor experimental evidence of evolution.  The long times of the evolution based on radiometric times have questionable assumptions.  So does the philosophy (religion) of uniformitarianism.  If uniformitarianism is true, then there would be on need to start putting in the philosophy of catastrophism.  The creation scientists do not mix any uniformitarian philosophies with catastrophism.  Even the threat of an asteroid(s) hitting the earth follows creation science.  The mountain of evidence for evolution has been reduced to rubble.
> 
> You did provide arguments, more than the usual low brow atheists and evos here.  However, I provided rebuttals and counter-arguments.  Yet, you continue to ramble on with you diatribe against God.  Is that so your worldview doesn't get destroyed?  That you're able to keep your worldview despite the grievous errors?
> 
> As for your tests and experiments, that goes against creation science.  There may be some Christians such as Christian scientists who believe that.  That isn't creation science though.
Click to expand...


I'll begin this reply by addressing a comment in your last paragraph. You wrote: "_As for your tests and experiments, that goes against creation science". 
_
We agree_. _Religious fundamentalists do not perform research or experimentation because you have a bias that rejects anything that disagrees with your preconceived notions.

We know with certainty that creationism cannot survive the process of debate/scientific testing/peer review that the relevant scientific community must pass. What we're left with on the creationism side is fraudulent Discovery Institute green-screen labs, phony creationist "journals" and appeals to supernaturalism. 

Let's see the creationists do real science. Let's see them present their young earth and "the fosill record is a conspiracy", loons before the relevant community of scientists, especially those in geology/paleontology, biology, and physics, to defend their claims. But, again, the religious fundamentalists who represent the creationists refuse to step up to the plate and perform the scientific experiments or publish in mainstream peer-review scientific journals to support their claims to supernaturalism. Instead, ID/creationism/religious fundie advocates try to manipulate the legal and political process to sidestep the scientific peer review process. And of course they must because scientific ideas have to earn their way to a scientific consensus by way of repeatable results, peer review, etc., which is what creationists cannot do.

As to your "warning", The notion that one can communicate with the gods and spirit worlds is commonplace among religionists. I suppose they feel they are in a unique position to intercede and exert influence upon a deity from whom they seek a favor? In short, influence peddling.

More do the point, The only "condemning aspect" of my life is the christian based idea that as an imperfect being I am evil and base and I deserve Hell by default. I'm fairly honest, I work hard, I love my friends and family, etc.-- in short, I'm your average person who lives a quiet life dealing with life's challenges. I cannot imagine rating eternal torment because I don't acquiesce to the Christian defined salvation program. I ask myself: "Which is more likely": That there's really this angry god out there who would actually behave that way, or it's really in the religion’s interest to establish a social dynamic where the threat of _eternal torment_ is the outcome for not joining in that religion and btw supporting it financially. What's more likely, man needs a savior for being human, or the religion, an entity of sweeping power for more than a thousand years, needs to convince me I need them and only them?".


----------



## fncceo

james bond said:


> Don't you think that life is short and it's strange that one can't take anything with them when they die?



No, what is really strange is people who believe in a life hereafter, where all their 'worthy' friends and family will be there with them, spend so much money on monuments when they're buried.  If they're going to be seeing you in a few years anyway.


----------



## RWS

fncceo said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> it will cost you severely after you die.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not taking my Visa card with me when I'm gone.
Click to expand...

They only take American Express in heaven... No credit limits once you get to nirvana! 

Better apply now!


----------



## RWS

You don't want to get to heaven with a 5k credit limit... jus sayin  
That was hilarious fncceo!


----------



## RWS

To settle this argument,


james bond said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> it will cost you severely after you die.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not taking my Visa card with me when I'm gone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have to leave your Visa card and all the things you bought behind.  Don't you think that life is short and it's strange that one can't take anything with them when they die?  That said, there is more to life than that if you believe in Jesus and creation science.  God reveals himself and then one starts to understand creation science is greater that evolution and evolutionary thinking.  It's true science vs false science.
Click to expand...

But your religion wants our money now, while alive. I'm constantly getting asked to donate to a religion that has more money than I can possibly conceive. Why would it be different later?

Did they suddenly make enough when I die? Or are they still gonna be hounding me for more?

Will I have to face God and apologize that I cannot pay the Heaven rent? And get sent elsewhere?

God is supposedly in control of everything. But like Carlin said... He seems to have a lot of trouble with money...


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not threats nor intimidation.  It's not I who is angry but God from you not believing in sacrificing his only son for you.  I am only _warning_ you as that is the opposite of _temptation_ given to you by Satan regarding beliefs in evolution and not believing in sin and objective moral values.  God provides ample warnings when one's thinking goes off the rails.
> 
> Atheist scientists and atheists have some weird false beliefs that betray them such as not believing in God, the supernatural and his word the Bible.  They also believe in false science of evolution and evolutionary thinking.  The closest thing I could agree with evo is natural selection and being against gmo foods.
> 
> So far, you have not been able to show any observable evidence, falsifiable evidence, nor experimental evidence of evolution.  The long times of the evolution based on radiometric times have questionable assumptions.  So does the philosophy (religion) of uniformitarianism.  If uniformitarianism is true, then there would be on need to start putting in the philosophy of catastrophism.  The creation scientists do not mix any uniformitarian philosophies with catastrophism.  Even the threat of an asteroid(s) hitting the earth follows creation science.  The mountain of evidence for evolution has been reduced to rubble.
> 
> You did provide arguments, more than the usual low brow atheists and evos here.  However, I provided rebuttals and counter-arguments.  Yet, you continue to ramble on with you diatribe against God.  Is that so your worldview doesn't get destroyed?  That you're able to keep your worldview despite the grievous errors?
> 
> As for your tests and experiments, that goes against creation science.  There may be some Christians such as Christian scientists who believe that.  That isn't creation science though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll begin this reply by addressing a comment in your last paragraph. You wrote: "_As for your tests and experiments, that goes against creation science".
> _
> We agree_. _Religious fundamentalists do not perform research or experimentation because you have a bias that rejects anything that disagrees with your preconceived notions.
> 
> We know with certainty that creationism cannot survive the process of debate/scientific testing/peer review that the relevant scientific community must pass. What we're left with on the creationism side is fraudulent Discovery Institute green-screen labs, phony creationist "journals" and appeals to supernaturalism.
> 
> Let's see the creationists do real science. Let's see them present their young earth and "the fosill record is a conspiracy", loons before the relevant community of scientists, especially those in geology/paleontology, biology, and physics, to defend their claims. But, again, the religious fundamentalists who represent the creationists refuse to step up to the plate and perform the scientific experiments or publish in mainstream peer-review scientific journals to support their claims to supernaturalism. Instead, ID/creationism/religious fundie advocates try to manipulate the legal and political process to sidestep the scientific peer review process. And of course they must because scientific ideas have to earn their way to a scientific consensus by way of repeatable results, peer review, etc., which is what creationists cannot do.
> 
> As to your "warning", The notion that one can communicate with the gods and spirit worlds is commonplace among religionists. I suppose they feel they are in a unique position to intercede and exert influence upon a deity from whom they seek a favor? In short, influence peddling.
> 
> More do the point, The only "condemning aspect" of my life is the christian based idea that as an imperfect being I am evil and base and I deserve Hell by default. I'm fairly honest, I work hard, I love my friends and family, etc.-- in short, I'm your average person who lives a quiet life dealing with life's challenges. I cannot imagine rating eternal torment because I don't acquiesce to the Christian defined salvation program. I ask myself: "Which is more likely": That there's really this angry god out there who would actually behave that way, or it's really in the religion’s interest to establish a social dynamic where the threat of _eternal torment_ is the outcome for not joining in that religion and btw supporting it financially. What's more likely, man needs a savior for being human, or the religion, an entity of sweeping power for more than a thousand years, needs to convince me I need them and only them?".
Click to expand...


I'll discuss a few of your points below because you have gone looney as I have calmly and successfully rebutted your arguments.



Hollie said:


> We agree_. _Religious fundamentalists do not perform research or experimentation because you have a bias that rejects anything that disagrees with your preconceived notions



Wrong, creation scientists do perform research and experiments.  We see that they have been done throughout history and Noah's global flood was the accepted geology of the earth in the past.  Do you know anything about the history of uniformitarianism?  Do you know how it influenced evolution?  I don't think you know what you are talking about as atheist science (secular science) has brainwashed you.  So right off the bat, your statements are way, way, way wrong.

I was referring to your devious experiment:


Hollie said:


> Find two people with radical appendicitis. Person A, apply the same steps as were applied before the mid 1800's (i.e., pray over them, light incense, tell them to “believe”, rattle bones, whatever). Person B -- perform an appendectomy without any prayer. Who will survive, who will die -- consistently? Then ask yourself why is it that when using prayer (or hoping for miracles) they've always died, and not until man learned the science of medicine did people start to survive (i.e., only until man learned how to remedy appendicitis, did "god suddenly have the power to perform this miracle")? It's pretty self-evident.



It just goes to show how wacko you've become in discussing your wrong worldview of believing monkeys to humans.

Let's go back to uniformitarianism and apply the concept to monkeys.  If today's science shows us what the past was like, then why can't we use our observations of today's monkeys to explain how monkeys were in the past?  None are bipedal.  They are knuckle walkers.  All have small cranial capacity.  The sclera of their eyes are dark brown, not whilte like humans.  None have showed any signs of evolving into an ape-human.



Hollie said:


> We know with certainty that creationism cannot survive the process of debate/scientific testing/peer review that the relevant scientific community must pass. What we're left with on the creationism side is fraudulent Discovery Institute green-screen labs, phony creationist "journals" and appeals to supernaturalism.
> 
> Let's see the creationists do real science. Let's see them present their young earth and "the fosill record is a conspiracy", loons before the relevant community of scientists, especially those in geology/paleontology, biology, and physics, to defend their claims. But, again, the religious fundamentalists who represent the creationists refuse to step up to the plate and perform the scientific experiments or publish in mainstream peer-review scientific journals to support their claims to supernaturalism. Instead, ID/creationism/religious fundie advocates try to manipulate the legal and political process to sidestep the scientific peer review process. And of course they must because scientific ideas have to earn their way to a scientific consensus by way of repeatable results, peer review, etc., which is what creationists cannot do.



We're going way beyond the scope of this thread, but there is the soft tissue and blood evidence of dinosaurs.  It shows that dinosaurs were cold blooded like reptiles.  We also have found that they could not have evolved the breathing system of birds.  Thus, birds from dinosaurs could not have happened.  No macroevolution like humans did not evolve from monkeys.  We also found that there was fraud committed with feathered dinosaurs a few times already.  Your evidence for feathered dinosaurs has been shown to be human-made for profit.  If the evidence is everywhere, then why buy stuff from peddlers in China or Myanmar?

Does that cover enough fossil history for you?


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

I don't believe it. I know if for a fact.


----------



## james bond

fncceo said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't you think that life is short and it's strange that one can't take anything with them when they die?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, what is really strange is people who believe in a life hereafter, where all their 'worthy' friends and family will be there with them, spend so much money on monuments when they're buried.  If they're going to be seeing you in a few years anyway.
Click to expand...


I suppose the Christians have the best cemeteries.  Rich or poor, you want to show that you believed in Jesus but it's not the tombstone, but what's inside your heart that counts.

Top 10: Britain's famous cemeteries


----------



## james bond

RWS said:


> To settle this argument,
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> it will cost you severely after you die.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not taking my Visa card with me when I'm gone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have to leave your Visa card and all the things you bought behind.  Don't you think that life is short and it's strange that one can't take anything with them when they die?  That said, there is more to life than that if you believe in Jesus and creation science.  God reveals himself and then one starts to understand creation science is greater that evolution and evolutionary thinking.  It's true science vs false science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But your religion wants our money now, while alive. I'm constantly getting asked to donate to a religion that has more money than I can possibly conceive. Why would it be different later?
> 
> Did they suddenly make enough when I die? Or are they still gonna be hounding me for more?
> 
> Will I have to face God and apologize that I cannot pay the Heaven rent? And get sent elsewhere?
> 
> God is supposedly in control of everything. But like Carlin said... He seems to have a lot of trouble with money...
Click to expand...


I know fncceo is being facetious, but there's a deeper truth beyond what he intends, too.  I enjoy his humor.  It's quite good.

Usually, Christian churches ask for 10% of your yearly income as tithing.  I have to agree that people are not comfortable with it.  They are asked to buy Christian books, too.  Some churches are heavier handed than most, but I don't think one has to feel they have to give 10%.  I try to do the 10%, but only if I feel comfortable in doing that for the year.  Give if you feel comfortable.

What does the Bible say about Christian tithing? Should a Christian tithe?

Are Christians Required to Give 10% of Their Income to the Church? - Greg Boyd - ReKnew

There are other worthwhile charities, too, such as Salvation Army.

Yet, your point isn't about giving.  It's more atheist criticism of Christians and I think I addressed that above.

Christians believe once a person has committed to Jesus, then they become good trees and good trees bear good fruit.  The result is faith + good works as in Book of James.  It doesn't mean that good deeds or giving and buying your way into heaven gets one into heaven.


----------



## james bond

The truth is even being a believer may not get one into heaven.  Satan doesn't make it easier for believers.  We have theistic evolutionists.  We also have those who end up going off the righteous path.  I think God intended for all of us to be in heaven in the Garden of Eden, but that chance was lost.  Jesus' sacrifice gave us all a second chance.  I'm not sure whether one gets another chance beyond that such as purgatory.  I think Christians have come to the realization that there is no limbo.  Purgatory and limbo are places that Catholicism proposed.  

None of this came from monkeys.  Certainly, one can't get into heaven believing in monkeys .


----------



## james bond

AzogtheDefiler said:


> I don't believe it. I know if for a fact.



What creation scientists say are that both atheist scientists and them have the same facts.  It's what we conclude from observing the facts that are different.  Only one can be right and the other wrong.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

And now the voodoo shaman freak bond, who would fail a 7th grade science test and who is calling everyone else "stupid", is threatening everyone who doesn't accept his bronze age fairy tail with eternal damnation. 

This is a good example of how we give a pass to idiotic, magical hooha, if it is a "major religion". If Bond the fraud was claiming to speak from the divine authory of his talking houseplants, every single person in this thread would mock him into oblivion and would not bother legitimizing his embarrassing, magical nonsense with counterargument.

Stop legitimizing this blustering idiot.


----------



## fncceo

james bond said:


> The truth is even being a believer may not get one into heaven.  Satan doesn't make it easier for believers.  We have theistic evolutionists.  We also have those who end up going off the righteous path.  I think God intended for all of us to be in heaven in the Garden of Eden, but that chance was lost.  Jesus' sacrifice gave us all a second chance.  I'm not sure whether one gets another chance beyond that such as purgatory.  I think Christians have come to the realization that there is no limbo.  Purgatory and limbo are places that Catholicism proposed.
> 
> None of this came from monkeys.  Certainly, one can't get into heaven believing in monkeys .



I believe in monkeys.   I've seen them.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> I'll discuss a few of your points below because you have gone looney as I have calmly and successfully rebutted your arguments.



It’s nice that you have chosen to self-congratulate on rebutting my arguments but You should first make an attempt to do that. I noticed you retreated from addressing my comments with regard to prayer, rattling bones, etc. as a cure for disease, when science has provided those cures.

Your refusal to advance any understanding of the methodology within the Scientific Method suggests you have simply chosen to press your agenda of fear and superstition over facts and enlightenment.

So pragmatically, one is led to ask the question, when will the evidence be provided in a comprehensive way for a reliable conclusion of one or more gods to be drawn? Quite clearly, we are surrounded with tangible examples of where even our imperfect understanding of objective reality has been sufficient for science to revolutionize our world. Science has proven to be, beyond all competition, the single most successful, pervasive and impactful human endeavor in all of history. In contrast, claims to gawds is essentially useless for the any practical purpose of understanding what is true.




james bond said:


> Wrong, creation scientists do perform research and experiments.  We see that they have been done throughout history and Noah's global flood was the accepted geology of the earth in the past.  Do you know anything about the history of uniformitarianism?  Do you know how it influenced evolution?  I don't think you know what you are talking about as atheist science (secular science) has brainwashed you.  So right off the bat, your statements are way, way, way wrong.



You’re having some difficulty furthering a consistent argument. Did you forget what you wrote earlier?

You wrote: “_As for your tests and experiments, that goes against creation science_".

Yes, I agree. Tests and experiments go against creation science. That's because creation science is not science at all but religious fundamentalism. You're unable to separate science from belief in supernatural entities. And further, without an understanding of the methods of science, your comments regarding science explanations as conjecture are simply used as a rationale for embracing dogma and mysticism. That really is displayed in the context of the unsupported assertions you make with no support for your claims to supernaturalism. The fact that learned students of the sciences know the difference between the methods of science vs. religious claims renders, as usual, your claims as unsupported.

Why not provide some details as to those components of objective reality that are explicitly not encompassed by science and rationality? There can be no doubt that science today is better able to answer the workings of the natural world than it was a century ago. In this way, science has allowed us to advance in that incremental, stepwise manner closer to a true understanding of objective reality. And science makes no other claim or promise.






james bond said:


> It just goes to show how wacko you've become in discussing your wrong worldview of believing monkeys to humans.
> 
> Let's go back to uniformitarianism and apply the concept to monkeys.  If today's science shows us what the past was like, then why can't we use our observations of today's monkeys to explain how monkeys were in the past?  None are bipedal.  They are knuckle walkers.  All have small cranial capacity.  The sclera of their eyes are dark brown, not whilte like humans.  None have showed any signs of evolving into an ape-human.



Unfortunately. You do typify the result of the ID'iot creationism / fundamentalist Christian cabal. I see this frequently. My suspicion is that you have been coached by religious entities who certainly have a vested interest in placating your desire to believe the religious tales and fables in lieu of hard facts. Meaning, of course that the apes into human beings nonsense displays a fundamental lack of understanding. Man was never an ape or monkey. Man was never descended from an ape or monkey. Man and primates shared a common ancestor but branched off in separate directions. That’s not at all uncommon in evolutionary history, by the way, for species to diverge in different directions while sharing a common ancestry.





james bond said:


> We're going way beyond the scope of this thread, but there is the soft tissue and blood evidence of dinosaurs.  It shows that dinosaurs were cold blooded like reptiles.  We also have found that they could not have evolved the breathing system of birds.  Thus, birds from dinosaurs could not have happened.  No macroevolution like humans did not evolve from monkeys.  We also found that there was fraud committed with feathered dinosaurs a few times already.  Your evidence for feathered dinosaurs has been shown to be human-made for profit.  If the evidence is everywhere, then why buy stuff from peddlers in China or Myanmar?



I'm not sure you understand what you're complaining about. You make a great many unsupported assertions and make no attempt to support them. As an epistemological method or philosophy, science has _every right_ to demand religious fundamentalist claims are held to the same standards science holds itself to-- hypothesis, experimentation, falsification, peer review, etc. in order for an assertion to be considered valid. This is fair because science has stringent demands it holds against itself, and its goal is to arrive at truth as best as possible by vigorous methods-- which are open to any who cares to repeat them.

Religious fundamentalists on the other hand, has this "faith, not proof" standard, so by their _own standards_ religionists must give equal weight to _all claims based upon faith_ as being _just as likely true_ as the religionist's own professed beliefs-- even science! ". If creationist find this unacceptable, then they must decide why religious beliefs are exempt from standards they demand science is required to adhere to.




james bond said:


> Atheist scientists and atheists have some weird false beliefs that betray them such as not believing in God, the supernatural and his word the Bible.  They also believe in false science of evolution and evolutionary thinking.  The closest thing I could agree with evo is natural selection and being against gmo foods.



More unsupported assertions. And, by the way, much of the planet does not believe in your partisan gods. Your polytheistic gods are merely one conception of gods. We are privileged to consider reality, but only the universe that actually exists can be _fruitfully_ considered. How do we assign confidence to what is real and what is simply imaginary? Evidence and reason. These are our only tools for that task. Thankfully, they appear to work pretty well, at least for those of us not bound to a precommittment to your dogma.



james bond said:


> So far, you have not been able to show any observable evidence, falsifiable evidence, nor experimental evidence of evolution.  The long times of the evolution based on radiometric times have questionable assumptions.  So does the philosophy (religion) of uniformitarianism.  If uniformitarianism is true, then there would be on need to start putting in the philosophy of catastrophism.  The creation scientists do not mix any uniformitarian philosophies with catastrophism.  Even the threat of an asteroid(s) hitting the earth follows creation science.  The mountain of evidence for evolution has been reduced to rubble.



There is the theory of evolution and there is the FACT of evolution. Species change-- there is variation within one kind of animal. There is a predictable range of genetic variation in a species, as well as an expected rate of random mutations. Creationists/Flat Earthers'/YEC'ists grudgingly admit that a "kind" (an ambiguous, non-scientific term) can develop into different species (i.e. a dog "kind" can evolve into wolves, coyotes, foxes, and all types of domestic dogs) but they insist that it must stop there. They never give any reason for this fabricated limitation-- they just deny that it can happen. They just can't accept macroevolution, because it contradicts the "truth" of their dogma. But in reality, there is no limit to the degree that a species can change. Given enough time, a fish-like species can evolve into a amphibian-like species, an amphibian-like species can evolve into a reptilian-like species, a reptilian-like species can evolve into a mammalian-like species, and an ape-like species can evolve into the modern human species.

You are in need of new conspiracy theories if you insist that biological evolution is just a theory. While you want to believe that Evilutionist scientists are all co-conspirators in some vast conspiracy you envision, you will need something better than paranoia to displace science. Science is a self-correcting mechanism that relies on the evidence. The evidence points to abiogenesis as the probable start of life, thanks in large part to our understanding of bio- and organic chemistry. The evidence points to evolution as the explanation for the diversity of life, thanks in large part to two centuries of evidence including fossils, genetics, and geology. The evidence points towards a 14 billion year old universe, thanks in large part to our understanding of physics and cosmology and CBR.

There is a reason why science has proven to be the single most influential and impactful human endeavor in history; that is because it formally recognizes the tentative nature of all human knowledge, and provides a method for incrementally approaching “absolute” truth without the arrogance of assuming it is ever actually achieved. It bears a humility regarding its own achievement that constantly inspires revision and review. It inspires thinking and iconoclasm rather than the intellectual _rigor mortis_ of received dogma.

And in this way it accomplishes what most religious beliefs do not; progress.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll discuss a few of your points below because you have gone looney as I have calmly and successfully rebutted your arguments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It’s nice that you have chosen to self-congratulate on rebutting my arguments but You should first make an attempt to do that. I noticed you retreated from addressing my comments with regard to prayer, rattling bones, etc. as a cure for disease, when science has provided those cures.
> 
> Your refusal to advance any understanding of the methodology within the Scientific Method suggests you have simply chosen to press your agenda of fear and superstition over facts and enlightenment.
> 
> So pragmatically, one is led to ask the question, when will the evidence be provided in a comprehensive way for a reliable conclusion of one or more gods to be drawn? Quite clearly, we are surrounded with tangible examples of where even our imperfect understanding of objective reality has been sufficient for science to revolutionize our world. Science has proven to be, beyond all competition, the single most successful, pervasive and impactful human endeavor in all of history. In contrast, claims to gawds is essentially useless for the any practical purpose of understanding what is true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong, creation scientists do perform research and experiments.  We see that they have been done throughout history and Noah's global flood was the accepted geology of the earth in the past.  Do you know anything about the history of uniformitarianism?  Do you know how it influenced evolution?  I don't think you know what you are talking about as atheist science (secular science) has brainwashed you.  So right off the bat, your statements are way, way, way wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You’re having some difficulty furthering a consistent argument. Did you forget what you wrote earlier?
> 
> You wrote: “_As for your tests and experiments, that goes against creation science_".
> 
> Yes, I agree. Tests and experiments go against creation science. That's because creation science is not science at all but religious fundamentalism. You're unable to separate science from belief in supernatural entities. And further, without an understanding of the methods of science, your comments regarding science explanations as conjecture are simply used as a rationale for embracing dogma and mysticism. That really is displayed in the context of the unsupported assertions you make with no support for your claims to supernaturalism. The fact that learned students of the sciences know the difference between the methods of science vs. religious claims renders, as usual, your claims as unsupported.
> 
> Why not provide some details as to those components of objective reality that are explicitly not encompassed by science and rationality? There can be no doubt that science today is better able to answer the workings of the natural world than it was a century ago. In this way, science has allowed us to advance in that incremental, stepwise manner closer to a true understanding of objective reality. And science makes no other claim or promise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> It just goes to show how wacko you've become in discussing your wrong worldview of believing monkeys to humans.
> 
> Let's go back to uniformitarianism and apply the concept to monkeys.  If today's science shows us what the past was like, then why can't we use our observations of today's monkeys to explain how monkeys were in the past?  None are bipedal.  They are knuckle walkers.  All have small cranial capacity.  The sclera of their eyes are dark brown, not whilte like humans.  None have showed any signs of evolving into an ape-human.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unfortunately. You do typify the result of the ID'iot creationism / fundamentalist Christian cabal. I see this frequently. My suspicion is that you have been coached by religious entities who certainly have a vested interest in placating your desire to believe the religious tales and fables in lieu of hard facts. Meaning, of course that the apes into human beings nonsense displays a fundamental lack of understanding. Man was never an ape or monkey. Man was never descended from an ape or monkey. Man and primates shared a common ancestor but branched off in separate directions. That’s not at all uncommon in evolutionary history, by the way, for species to diverge in different directions while sharing a common ancestry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're going way beyond the scope of this thread, but there is the soft tissue and blood evidence of dinosaurs.  It shows that dinosaurs were cold blooded like reptiles.  We also have found that they could not have evolved the breathing system of birds.  Thus, birds from dinosaurs could not have happened.  No macroevolution like humans did not evolve from monkeys.  We also found that there was fraud committed with feathered dinosaurs a few times already.  Your evidence for feathered dinosaurs has been shown to be human-made for profit.  If the evidence is everywhere, then why buy stuff from peddlers in China or Myanmar?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not sure you understand what you're complaining about. You make a great many unsupported assertions and make no attempt to support them. As an epistemological method or philosophy, science has _every right_ to demand religious fundamentalist claims are held to the same standards science holds itself to-- hypothesis, experimentation, falsification, peer review, etc. in order for an assertion to be considered valid. This is fair because science has stringent demands it holds against itself, and its goal is to arrive at truth as best as possible by vigorous methods-- which are open to any who cares to repeat them.
> 
> Religious fundamentalists on the other hand, has this "faith, not proof" standard, so by their _own standards_ religionists must give equal weight to _all claims based upon faith_ as being _just as likely true_ as the religionist's own professed beliefs-- even science! ". If creationist find this unacceptable, then they must decide why religious beliefs are exempt from standards they demand science is required to adhere to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atheist scientists and atheists have some weird false beliefs that betray them such as not believing in God, the supernatural and his word the Bible.  They also believe in false science of evolution and evolutionary thinking.  The closest thing I could agree with evo is natural selection and being against gmo foods.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More unsupported assertions. And, by the way, much of the planet does not believe in your partisan gods. Your polytheistic gods are merely one conception of gods. We are privileged to consider reality, but only the universe that actually exists can be _fruitfully_ considered. How do we assign confidence to what is real and what is simply imaginary? Evidence and reason. These are our only tools for that task. Thankfully, they appear to work pretty well, at least for those of us not bound to a precommittment to your dogma.
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> So far, you have not been able to show any observable evidence, falsifiable evidence, nor experimental evidence of evolution.  The long times of the evolution based on radiometric times have questionable assumptions.  So does the philosophy (religion) of uniformitarianism.  If uniformitarianism is true, then there would be on need to start putting in the philosophy of catastrophism.  The creation scientists do not mix any uniformitarian philosophies with catastrophism.  Even the threat of an asteroid(s) hitting the earth follows creation science.  The mountain of evidence for evolution has been reduced to rubble.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is the theory of evolution and there is the FACT of evolution. Species change-- there is variation within one kind of animal. There is a predictable range of genetic variation in a species, as well as an expected rate of random mutations. Creationists/Flat Earthers'/YEC'ists grudgingly admit that a "kind" (an ambiguous, non-scientific term) can develop into different species (i.e. a dog "kind" can evolve into wolves, coyotes, foxes, and all types of domestic dogs) but they insist that it must stop there. They never give any reason for this fabricated limitation-- they just deny that it can happen. They just can't accept macroevolution, because it contradicts the "truth" of their dogma. But in reality, there is no limit to the degree that a species can change. Given enough time, a fish-like species can evolve into a amphibian-like species, an amphibian-like species can evolve into a reptilian-like species, a reptilian-like species can evolve into a mammalian-like species, and an ape-like species can evolve into the modern human species.
> 
> You are in need of new conspiracy theories if you insist that biological evolution is just a theory. While you want to believe that Evilutionist scientists are all co-conspirators in some vast conspiracy you envision, you will need something better than paranoia to displace science. Science is a self-correcting mechanism that relies on the evidence. The evidence points to abiogenesis as the probable start of life, thanks in large part to our understanding of bio- and organic chemistry. The evidence points to evolution as the explanation for the diversity of life, thanks in large part to two centuries of evidence including fossils, genetics, and geology. The evidence points towards a 14 billion year old universe, thanks in large part to our understanding of physics and cosmology and CBR.
> 
> There is a reason why science has proven to be the single most influential and impactful human endeavor in history; that is because it formally recognizes the tentative nature of all human knowledge, and provides a method for incrementally approaching “absolute” truth without the arrogance of assuming it is ever actually achieved. It bears a humility regarding its own achievement that constantly inspires revision and review. It inspires thinking and iconoclasm rather than the intellectual _rigor mortis_ of received dogma.
> 
> And in this way it accomplishes what most religious beliefs do not; progress.
Click to expand...


First, you are misstating what I said a second time when I was addressing "your" hypothetical experiment.  Thus, I'll claim victory in regards to that argument as you continue to misstate and continue to put words in my mouth.

You also further misstate and try to tie me with ID.  I've clearly said I was for creation science and not ID.  Thus, I win again.

As for "Man was never an ape or monkey. Man was never descended from an ape or monkey. Man and primates shared a common ancestor but branched off in separate directions. That’s not at all uncommon in evolutionary history, by the way, for species to diverge in different directions while sharing a common ancestry."

There never was a common ancestor to humans.  There never was a common ancestor to monkeys.  Let's use what we see today as common ancestors.  If you take a horse and cross it with a donkey, then you get a mule.  However, that's as far as you can go.  The mule had a horse and donkey as ancestors.  Furthermore, you still haven't explained how sexual reproduction came about from asexual reproduction.

Moreover, creation scientists do not use "faith."  It is the evos who use faith to believe in evolution and evolutionary thinking.  Creation scientists use the Bible as hypothesis and that worked fine until Charles Lyell came along.

Species change and new species emerge, but not macroevolution.  Natural selection only applies to microevolution.  Thus, monkeys to apes and dinosaurs to birds did not happen.  I provided the evidence to destroy those hypothesis.  So, evolution has been effectively been destroyed in this thread.


----------



## james bond

fncceo said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> The truth is even being a believer may not get one into heaven.  Satan doesn't make it easier for believers.  We have theistic evolutionists.  We also have those who end up going off the righteous path.  I think God intended for all of us to be in heaven in the Garden of Eden, but that chance was lost.  Jesus' sacrifice gave us all a second chance.  I'm not sure whether one gets another chance beyond that such as purgatory.  I think Christians have come to the realization that there is no limbo.  Purgatory and limbo are places that Catholicism proposed.
> 
> None of this came from monkeys.  Certainly, one can't get into heaven believing in monkeys .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe in monkeys.   I've seen them.
Click to expand...







Do you recognize any common ancestors?  I don't.  My ancestors do not have tails.


----------



## fncceo

james bond said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> The truth is even being a believer may not get one into heaven.  Satan doesn't make it easier for believers.  We have theistic evolutionists.  We also have those who end up going off the righteous path.  I think God intended for all of us to be in heaven in the Garden of Eden, but that chance was lost.  Jesus' sacrifice gave us all a second chance.  I'm not sure whether one gets another chance beyond that such as purgatory.  I think Christians have come to the realization that there is no limbo.  Purgatory and limbo are places that Catholicism proposed.
> 
> None of this came from monkeys.  Certainly, one can't get into heaven believing in monkeys .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe in monkeys.   I've seen them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you recognize any common ancestors?  I don't.  My ancestors do not have tails.
Click to expand...


I'm sure you've been told this before, but apes, monkeys, gibbons, are not common ancestors of humans (according to the Theory of Evolution to which you refer).

If you go back far enough, humans and apes, humans and fish, humans and protozoa, have common ancestors.  Some of which did in fact have tails.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll discuss a few of your points below because you have gone looney as I have calmly and successfully rebutted your arguments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It’s nice that you have chosen to self-congratulate on rebutting my arguments but You should first make an attempt to do that. I noticed you retreated from addressing my comments with regard to prayer, rattling bones, etc. as a cure for disease, when science has provided those cures.
> 
> Your refusal to advance any understanding of the methodology within the Scientific Method suggests you have simply chosen to press your agenda of fear and superstition over facts and enlightenment.
> 
> So pragmatically, one is led to ask the question, when will the evidence be provided in a comprehensive way for a reliable conclusion of one or more gods to be drawn? Quite clearly, we are surrounded with tangible examples of where even our imperfect understanding of objective reality has been sufficient for science to revolutionize our world. Science has proven to be, beyond all competition, the single most successful, pervasive and impactful human endeavor in all of history. In contrast, claims to gawds is essentially useless for the any practical purpose of understanding what is true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong, creation scientists do perform research and experiments.  We see that they have been done throughout history and Noah's global flood was the accepted geology of the earth in the past.  Do you know anything about the history of uniformitarianism?  Do you know how it influenced evolution?  I don't think you know what you are talking about as atheist science (secular science) has brainwashed you.  So right off the bat, your statements are way, way, way wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You’re having some difficulty furthering a consistent argument. Did you forget what you wrote earlier?
> 
> You wrote: “_As for your tests and experiments, that goes against creation science_".
> 
> Yes, I agree. Tests and experiments go against creation science. That's because creation science is not science at all but religious fundamentalism. You're unable to separate science from belief in supernatural entities. And further, without an understanding of the methods of science, your comments regarding science explanations as conjecture are simply used as a rationale for embracing dogma and mysticism. That really is displayed in the context of the unsupported assertions you make with no support for your claims to supernaturalism. The fact that learned students of the sciences know the difference between the methods of science vs. religious claims renders, as usual, your claims as unsupported.
> 
> Why not provide some details as to those components of objective reality that are explicitly not encompassed by science and rationality? There can be no doubt that science today is better able to answer the workings of the natural world than it was a century ago. In this way, science has allowed us to advance in that incremental, stepwise manner closer to a true understanding of objective reality. And science makes no other claim or promise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> It just goes to show how wacko you've become in discussing your wrong worldview of believing monkeys to humans.
> 
> Let's go back to uniformitarianism and apply the concept to monkeys.  If today's science shows us what the past was like, then why can't we use our observations of today's monkeys to explain how monkeys were in the past?  None are bipedal.  They are knuckle walkers.  All have small cranial capacity.  The sclera of their eyes are dark brown, not whilte like humans.  None have showed any signs of evolving into an ape-human.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unfortunately. You do typify the result of the ID'iot creationism / fundamentalist Christian cabal. I see this frequently. My suspicion is that you have been coached by religious entities who certainly have a vested interest in placating your desire to believe the religious tales and fables in lieu of hard facts. Meaning, of course that the apes into human beings nonsense displays a fundamental lack of understanding. Man was never an ape or monkey. Man was never descended from an ape or monkey. Man and primates shared a common ancestor but branched off in separate directions. That’s not at all uncommon in evolutionary history, by the way, for species to diverge in different directions while sharing a common ancestry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're going way beyond the scope of this thread, but there is the soft tissue and blood evidence of dinosaurs.  It shows that dinosaurs were cold blooded like reptiles.  We also have found that they could not have evolved the breathing system of birds.  Thus, birds from dinosaurs could not have happened.  No macroevolution like humans did not evolve from monkeys.  We also found that there was fraud committed with feathered dinosaurs a few times already.  Your evidence for feathered dinosaurs has been shown to be human-made for profit.  If the evidence is everywhere, then why buy stuff from peddlers in China or Myanmar?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not sure you understand what you're complaining about. You make a great many unsupported assertions and make no attempt to support them. As an epistemological method or philosophy, science has _every right_ to demand religious fundamentalist claims are held to the same standards science holds itself to-- hypothesis, experimentation, falsification, peer review, etc. in order for an assertion to be considered valid. This is fair because science has stringent demands it holds against itself, and its goal is to arrive at truth as best as possible by vigorous methods-- which are open to any who cares to repeat them.
> 
> Religious fundamentalists on the other hand, has this "faith, not proof" standard, so by their _own standards_ religionists must give equal weight to _all claims based upon faith_ as being _just as likely true_ as the religionist's own professed beliefs-- even science! ". If creationist find this unacceptable, then they must decide why religious beliefs are exempt from standards they demand science is required to adhere to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atheist scientists and atheists have some weird false beliefs that betray them such as not believing in God, the supernatural and his word the Bible.  They also believe in false science of evolution and evolutionary thinking.  The closest thing I could agree with evo is natural selection and being against gmo foods.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More unsupported assertions. And, by the way, much of the planet does not believe in your partisan gods. Your polytheistic gods are merely one conception of gods. We are privileged to consider reality, but only the universe that actually exists can be _fruitfully_ considered. How do we assign confidence to what is real and what is simply imaginary? Evidence and reason. These are our only tools for that task. Thankfully, they appear to work pretty well, at least for those of us not bound to a precommittment to your dogma.
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> So far, you have not been able to show any observable evidence, falsifiable evidence, nor experimental evidence of evolution.  The long times of the evolution based on radiometric times have questionable assumptions.  So does the philosophy (religion) of uniformitarianism.  If uniformitarianism is true, then there would be on need to start putting in the philosophy of catastrophism.  The creation scientists do not mix any uniformitarian philosophies with catastrophism.  Even the threat of an asteroid(s) hitting the earth follows creation science.  The mountain of evidence for evolution has been reduced to rubble.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is the theory of evolution and there is the FACT of evolution. Species change-- there is variation within one kind of animal. There is a predictable range of genetic variation in a species, as well as an expected rate of random mutations. Creationists/Flat Earthers'/YEC'ists grudgingly admit that a "kind" (an ambiguous, non-scientific term) can develop into different species (i.e. a dog "kind" can evolve into wolves, coyotes, foxes, and all types of domestic dogs) but they insist that it must stop there. They never give any reason for this fabricated limitation-- they just deny that it can happen. They just can't accept macroevolution, because it contradicts the "truth" of their dogma. But in reality, there is no limit to the degree that a species can change. Given enough time, a fish-like species can evolve into a amphibian-like species, an amphibian-like species can evolve into a reptilian-like species, a reptilian-like species can evolve into a mammalian-like species, and an ape-like species can evolve into the modern human species.
> 
> You are in need of new conspiracy theories if you insist that biological evolution is just a theory. While you want to believe that Evilutionist scientists are all co-conspirators in some vast conspiracy you envision, you will need something better than paranoia to displace science. Science is a self-correcting mechanism that relies on the evidence. The evidence points to abiogenesis as the probable start of life, thanks in large part to our understanding of bio- and organic chemistry. The evidence points to evolution as the explanation for the diversity of life, thanks in large part to two centuries of evidence including fossils, genetics, and geology. The evidence points towards a 14 billion year old universe, thanks in large part to our understanding of physics and cosmology and CBR.
> 
> There is a reason why science has proven to be the single most influential and impactful human endeavor in history; that is because it formally recognizes the tentative nature of all human knowledge, and provides a method for incrementally approaching “absolute” truth without the arrogance of assuming it is ever actually achieved. It bears a humility regarding its own achievement that constantly inspires revision and review. It inspires thinking and iconoclasm rather than the intellectual _rigor mortis_ of received dogma.
> 
> And in this way it accomplishes what most religious beliefs do not; progress.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First, you are misstating what I said a second time when I was addressing "your" hypothetical experiment.  Thus, I'll claim victory in regards to that argument as you continue to misstate and continue to put words in my mouth.
> 
> You also further misstate and try to tie me with ID.  I've clearly said I was for creation science and not ID.  Thus, I win again.
> 
> As for "Man was never an ape or monkey. Man was never descended from an ape or monkey. Man and primates shared a common ancestor but branched off in separate directions. That’s not at all uncommon in evolutionary history, by the way, for species to diverge in different directions while sharing a common ancestry."
> 
> There never was a common ancestor to humans.  There never was a common ancestor to monkeys.  Let's use what we see today as common ancestors.  If you take a horse and cross it with a donkey, then you get a mule.  However, that's as far as you can go.  The mule had a horse and donkey as ancestors.  Furthermore, you still haven't explained how sexual reproduction came about from asexual reproduction.
> 
> Moreover, creation scientists do not use "faith."  It is the evos who use faith to believe in evolution and evolutionary thinking.  Creation scientists use the Bible as hypothesis and that worked fine until Charles Lyell came along.
> 
> Species change and new species emerge, but not macroevolution.  Natural selection only applies to microevolution.  Thus, monkeys to apes and dinosaurs to birds did not happen.  I provided the evidence to destroy those hypothesis.  So, evolution has been effectively been destroyed in this thread.
Click to expand...


Have you noticed that you are the only individual proclaiming to have “won” an argument you have yet to make?

Your dismissal of evolution is right out of the ID/creationist/supernaturalist playbook. Do you believe there is a vast conspiracy among leading universities and scientists across the globe? Have you been convinced of a 6,000 year old earth when experimentation, physical data and evidence depicts a very ancient universe and a very old earth? You do realize that museums, research/teaching universities, private collectors, etc., have amassed huge collections of fosill and skeletal remains of dinosaurs. The fact of these fosill skeletons is not the conspiracy you may believe it to be.

All the available evidence suggests that life on this planet is the product of naturally occurring processes.

Once again, to support your extremist position for supernatural intervention you need to:

1) provide credible evidence for one or more of your gods, and then,

2) provide credible evidence that one or more of your gods had direct involvement with the implementation of magical gardens, talking serpents and the magical *poofing* of the diversity of biological life on the planet.

When will you provide such evidence?


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Species change and new species emerge, but not macroevolution.  Natural selection only applies to microevolution.  Thus, monkeys to apes and dinosaurs to birds did not happen.  I provided the evidence to destroy those hypothesis.  So, evolution has been effectively been destroyed in this thread.



Where is the evidence you claim you presented? Provide the _*exact*_ citation.

Evolution has been destroyed in this thread? Provide the _*exact*_ citation.

This appears to be another of your self-claimed “victories” that falls short of demonstration.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Hollie said:


> Evolution has been destroyed in this thread?


Dude, why are you bothering with that hilarious nonsense? Right....evolution was destroyed in this thread, yet still enjoys the support of all the evidence and the entire scientific community....


----------



## LittleNipper

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution has been destroyed in this thread?
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, why are you bothering with that hilarious nonsense? Right....evolution was destroyed in this thread, yet still enjoys the support of all the evidence and the entire scientific community....
Click to expand...

NOT THE ENTIRE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY, ONLY THOSE THAT ACCEPT EVOLUTION AND EVERYTHING IT STANDS FOR. It's the evolutionists who exclude those who will not bow down to their logic and these are labeled unscientific.There are Creationists who are far more learned than Darwin ever was and yet are scoffed at by men who promote each other on the pretense that they agree with what their professors at some liberal university taught them! Millions of years, billions of years and yet they faint at the speed at which the climate seems to change ---- they cannot comprehend the real implications. They can only blame man because what else can they focus on? They are atheists!


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

LittleNipper said:


> NOT THE ENTIRE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY, ONLY THOSE THAT ACCEPT EVOLUTION AND EVERYTHING IT STANDS FOR.


I.E., the entire scientific community. There will never be 100% consensus among all scientists about anything. Evolution is as much a fact as a fact can be, as far as scientific knowledge goes.


----------



## RWS

james bond said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> To settle this argument,
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> it will cost you severely after you die.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not taking my Visa card with me when I'm gone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have to leave your Visa card and all the things you bought behind.  Don't you think that life is short and it's strange that one can't take anything with them when they die?  That said, there is more to life than that if you believe in Jesus and creation science.  God reveals himself and then one starts to understand creation science is greater that evolution and evolutionary thinking.  It's true science vs false science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But your religion wants our money now, while alive. I'm constantly getting asked to donate to a religion that has more money than I can possibly conceive. Why would it be different later?
> 
> Did they suddenly make enough when I die? Or are they still gonna be hounding me for more?
> 
> Will I have to face God and apologize that I cannot pay the Heaven rent? And get sent elsewhere?
> 
> God is supposedly in control of everything. But like Carlin said... He seems to have a lot of trouble with money...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know fncceo is being facetious, but there's a deeper truth beyond what he intends, too.  I enjoy his humor.  It's quite good.
> 
> Usually, Christian churches ask for 10% of your yearly income as tithing.  I have to agree that people are not comfortable with it.  They are asked to buy Christian books, too.  Some churches are heavier handed than most, but I don't think one has to feel they have to give 10%.  I try to do the 10%, but only if I feel comfortable in doing that for the year.  Give if you feel comfortable.
> 
> What does the Bible say about Christian tithing? Should a Christian tithe?
> 
> Are Christians Required to Give 10% of Their Income to the Church? - Greg Boyd - ReKnew
> 
> There are other worthwhile charities, too, such as Salvation Army.
> 
> Yet, your point isn't about giving.  It's more atheist criticism of Christians and I think I addressed that above.
> 
> Christians believe once a person has committed to Jesus, then they become good trees and good trees bear good fruit.  The result is faith + good works as in Book of James.  It doesn't mean that good deeds or giving and buying your way into heaven gets one into heaven.
Click to expand...

But if God is all-powerful, and Jesus is too, why do they need people to raise money?

They can create it themselves, in whatever means necessary. "Poof! There's some gold bars for you!"

What happens, in the current system, is that corrupt people keep most of the money being raised by well-wishing people, in whatever form they donate to the Church.

Some of it surely goes back to altruistic intentions, to keep people giving. And I understand that a lot of it goes towards maintenance. But most of it disappears into corrupt coffers, or stashed away in some hidden Vatican fund.

My point is, with the vast amount of money and volunteer work that is donated by Christians, that should cover maintenance, and also stop people from starving and suffering in this world.

But then, if they stop the starvation and suffering, it will be hard to generate more money without conquering... It's catch-22.

But an altruistic religion, with almost unlimited funds, and a righteous God that can make money appear from thin air, should stop all world suffering first, and worry about followers later.

That..... would get me to follow a religion.


----------



## RWS

Until then, it's a money-making and army-making scheme, that fools the people into following and contributing.


----------



## LittleNipper

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> NOT THE ENTIRE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY, ONLY THOSE THAT ACCEPT EVOLUTION AND EVERYTHING IT STANDS FOR.
> 
> 
> 
> I.E., the entire scientific community. There will never be 100% consensus among all scientists about anything. Evolution is as much a fact as a fact can be, as far as scientific knowledge goes.
Click to expand...

And the fact of GOD is as much a fact as a fact can be, as far as the personal experience of salvation go.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

LittleNipper said:


> And the fact of GOD is as much a fact as a fact can be, as far as the personal experience of salvation go


You just described precisely why it is not a fact and is supported by zero evidence.

Hint: if it is only evidence to you, personally, that is precisely why it is not evidence.


----------



## LittleNipper

RWS said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> To settle this argument,
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> it will cost you severely after you die.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not taking my Visa card with me when I'm gone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have to leave your Visa card and all the things you bought behind.  Don't you think that life is short and it's strange that one can't take anything with them when they die?  That said, there is more to life than that if you believe in Jesus and creation science.  God reveals himself and then one starts to understand creation science is greater that evolution and evolutionary thinking.  It's true science vs false science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But your religion wants our money now, while alive. I'm constantly getting asked to donate to a religion that has more money than I can possibly conceive. Why would it be different later?
> 
> Did they suddenly make enough when I die? Or are they still gonna be hounding me for more?
> 
> Will I have to face God and apologize that I cannot pay the Heaven rent? And get sent elsewhere?
> 
> God is supposedly in control of everything. But like Carlin said... He seems to have a lot of trouble with money...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know fncceo is being facetious, but there's a deeper truth beyond what he intends, too.  I enjoy his humor.  It's quite good.
> 
> Usually, Christian churches ask for 10% of your yearly income as tithing.  I have to agree that people are not comfortable with it.  They are asked to buy Christian books, too.  Some churches are heavier handed than most, but I don't think one has to feel they have to give 10%.  I try to do the 10%, but only if I feel comfortable in doing that for the year.  Give if you feel comfortable.
> 
> What does the Bible say about Christian tithing? Should a Christian tithe?
> 
> Are Christians Required to Give 10% of Their Income to the Church? - Greg Boyd - ReKnew
> 
> There are other worthwhile charities, too, such as Salvation Army.
> 
> Yet, your point isn't about giving.  It's more atheist criticism of Christians and I think I addressed that above.
> 
> Christians believe once a person has committed to Jesus, then they become good trees and good trees bear good fruit.  The result is faith + good works as in Book of James.  It doesn't mean that good deeds or giving and buying your way into heaven gets one into heaven.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But if God is all-powerful, and Jesus is too, why do they need people to raise money?
> 
> They can create it themselves, in whatever means necessary. "Poof! There's some gold bars for you!"
> 
> What happens, in the current system, is that corrupt people keep most of the money being raised by well-wishing people, in whatever form they donate to the Church.
> 
> Some of it surely goes back to altruistic intentions, to keep people giving. And I understand that a lot of it goes towards maintenance. But most of it disappears into corrupt coffers, or stashed away in some hidden Vatican fund.
> 
> My point is, with the vast amount of money and volunteer work that is donated by Christians, that should cover maintenance, and also stop people from starving and suffering in this world.
> 
> But then, if they stop the starvation and suffering, it will be hard to generate more money without conquering... It's catch-22.
> 
> But an altruistic religion, with almost unlimited funds, and a righteous God that can make money appear from thin air, should stop all world suffering first, and worry about followers later.
> 
> That..... would get me to follow a religion.
Click to expand...

Man is participating in GOD's work and gets to witness GOD working through such experiences. And honestly, I regard the Roman Catholic church as self servicing. I do not consider the pope as the head of Christ's CHURCH. And this is why the Reformation happened. That was the Holy Spirit shaking up and reviving His CHURCH. The separation of the sheep from the goats.

The suffering of the world is the direct result of man's choice to separate themselves from the love of GOD. The more people feel secure in their own lifestyles and creature comforts the more they rely on their own devices. That is human nature and it historically happens over and over again. The prosperity of the 1890's lead to the humanistic world views that propelled Germany and the world into the GREAT WORLD WAR. The prosperity of the 20's lead to the despair of the 30's and World War II. The prosperity of the 50's and 60's lead to the drug and sex induced despair of the 70's and the manipulated energy crisis...


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

LittleNipper said:


> Man is participating in GOD's work and gets to witness GOD working through such experiences.


Fascinating.... Then why don't you simply accept this as the case and accept evolution as fact? And look at it as witness in God's work, just like you do all the rest of science.


----------



## LittleNipper

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Man is participating in GOD's work and gets to witness GOD working through such experiences.
> 
> 
> 
> Fascinating.... Then why don't you simply accept this as the case and accept evolution as fact? And look at it as witness in God's work, just like you do all the rest of science.
Click to expand...

Because evolution is the attempt to circumvent the CREATOR and propose a way for man to develop "naturally".  Of course there are technical advancements and there were times when such advancements became lost in the past. I fully believe that there were kinds of animals and that these became selectively transformed into the various breeds and races we see today. However, every kind remains held within the strict bounds of its created limitations.


----------



## james bond

fncceo said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> The truth is even being a believer may not get one into heaven.  Satan doesn't make it easier for believers.  We have theistic evolutionists.  We also have those who end up going off the righteous path.  I think God intended for all of us to be in heaven in the Garden of Eden, but that chance was lost.  Jesus' sacrifice gave us all a second chance.  I'm not sure whether one gets another chance beyond that such as purgatory.  I think Christians have come to the realization that there is no limbo.  Purgatory and limbo are places that Catholicism proposed.
> 
> None of this came from monkeys.  Certainly, one can't get into heaven believing in monkeys .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe in monkeys.   I've seen them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you recognize any common ancestors?  I don't.  My ancestors do not have tails.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sure you've been told this before, but apes, monkeys, gibbons, are not common ancestors of humans (according to the Theory of Evolution to which you refer).
> 
> If you go back far enough, humans and apes, humans and fish, humans and protozoa, have common ancestors.  Some of which did in fact have tails.
Click to expand...


Tell me where your pic of monkeys come in then.  In all of these charts, it shows the same monkeys we see today in the distant past (uniformitarian thinking?).  Below are three common ancestor trees you can use.  Yet, when I use today's monkeys, I'm told they aren't the same as in the past.  It's a one-sided argument or cherry picking fallacy.














How about this one?  It's really a joke, so people should be laughing.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll discuss a few of your points below because you have gone looney as I have calmly and successfully rebutted your arguments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It’s nice that you have chosen to self-congratulate on rebutting my arguments but You should first make an attempt to do that. I noticed you retreated from addressing my comments with regard to prayer, rattling bones, etc. as a cure for disease, when science has provided those cures.
> 
> Your refusal to advance any understanding of the methodology within the Scientific Method suggests you have simply chosen to press your agenda of fear and superstition over facts and enlightenment.
> 
> So pragmatically, one is led to ask the question, when will the evidence be provided in a comprehensive way for a reliable conclusion of one or more gods to be drawn? Quite clearly, we are surrounded with tangible examples of where even our imperfect understanding of objective reality has been sufficient for science to revolutionize our world. Science has proven to be, beyond all competition, the single most successful, pervasive and impactful human endeavor in all of history. In contrast, claims to gawds is essentially useless for the any practical purpose of understanding what is true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong, creation scientists do perform research and experiments.  We see that they have been done throughout history and Noah's global flood was the accepted geology of the earth in the past.  Do you know anything about the history of uniformitarianism?  Do you know how it influenced evolution?  I don't think you know what you are talking about as atheist science (secular science) has brainwashed you.  So right off the bat, your statements are way, way, way wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You’re having some difficulty furthering a consistent argument. Did you forget what you wrote earlier?
> 
> You wrote: “_As for your tests and experiments, that goes against creation science_".
> 
> Yes, I agree. Tests and experiments go against creation science. That's because creation science is not science at all but religious fundamentalism. You're unable to separate science from belief in supernatural entities. And further, without an understanding of the methods of science, your comments regarding science explanations as conjecture are simply used as a rationale for embracing dogma and mysticism. That really is displayed in the context of the unsupported assertions you make with no support for your claims to supernaturalism. The fact that learned students of the sciences know the difference between the methods of science vs. religious claims renders, as usual, your claims as unsupported.
> 
> Why not provide some details as to those components of objective reality that are explicitly not encompassed by science and rationality? There can be no doubt that science today is better able to answer the workings of the natural world than it was a century ago. In this way, science has allowed us to advance in that incremental, stepwise manner closer to a true understanding of objective reality. And science makes no other claim or promise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> It just goes to show how wacko you've become in discussing your wrong worldview of believing monkeys to humans.
> 
> Let's go back to uniformitarianism and apply the concept to monkeys.  If today's science shows us what the past was like, then why can't we use our observations of today's monkeys to explain how monkeys were in the past?  None are bipedal.  They are knuckle walkers.  All have small cranial capacity.  The sclera of their eyes are dark brown, not whilte like humans.  None have showed any signs of evolving into an ape-human.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unfortunately. You do typify the result of the ID'iot creationism / fundamentalist Christian cabal. I see this frequently. My suspicion is that you have been coached by religious entities who certainly have a vested interest in placating your desire to believe the religious tales and fables in lieu of hard facts. Meaning, of course that the apes into human beings nonsense displays a fundamental lack of understanding. Man was never an ape or monkey. Man was never descended from an ape or monkey. Man and primates shared a common ancestor but branched off in separate directions. That’s not at all uncommon in evolutionary history, by the way, for species to diverge in different directions while sharing a common ancestry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're going way beyond the scope of this thread, but there is the soft tissue and blood evidence of dinosaurs.  It shows that dinosaurs were cold blooded like reptiles.  We also have found that they could not have evolved the breathing system of birds.  Thus, birds from dinosaurs could not have happened.  No macroevolution like humans did not evolve from monkeys.  We also found that there was fraud committed with feathered dinosaurs a few times already.  Your evidence for feathered dinosaurs has been shown to be human-made for profit.  If the evidence is everywhere, then why buy stuff from peddlers in China or Myanmar?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not sure you understand what you're complaining about. You make a great many unsupported assertions and make no attempt to support them. As an epistemological method or philosophy, science has _every right_ to demand religious fundamentalist claims are held to the same standards science holds itself to-- hypothesis, experimentation, falsification, peer review, etc. in order for an assertion to be considered valid. This is fair because science has stringent demands it holds against itself, and its goal is to arrive at truth as best as possible by vigorous methods-- which are open to any who cares to repeat them.
> 
> Religious fundamentalists on the other hand, has this "faith, not proof" standard, so by their _own standards_ religionists must give equal weight to _all claims based upon faith_ as being _just as likely true_ as the religionist's own professed beliefs-- even science! ". If creationist find this unacceptable, then they must decide why religious beliefs are exempt from standards they demand science is required to adhere to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atheist scientists and atheists have some weird false beliefs that betray them such as not believing in God, the supernatural and his word the Bible.  They also believe in false science of evolution and evolutionary thinking.  The closest thing I could agree with evo is natural selection and being against gmo foods.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More unsupported assertions. And, by the way, much of the planet does not believe in your partisan gods. Your polytheistic gods are merely one conception of gods. We are privileged to consider reality, but only the universe that actually exists can be _fruitfully_ considered. How do we assign confidence to what is real and what is simply imaginary? Evidence and reason. These are our only tools for that task. Thankfully, they appear to work pretty well, at least for those of us not bound to a precommittment to your dogma.
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> So far, you have not been able to show any observable evidence, falsifiable evidence, nor experimental evidence of evolution.  The long times of the evolution based on radiometric times have questionable assumptions.  So does the philosophy (religion) of uniformitarianism.  If uniformitarianism is true, then there would be on need to start putting in the philosophy of catastrophism.  The creation scientists do not mix any uniformitarian philosophies with catastrophism.  Even the threat of an asteroid(s) hitting the earth follows creation science.  The mountain of evidence for evolution has been reduced to rubble.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is the theory of evolution and there is the FACT of evolution. Species change-- there is variation within one kind of animal. There is a predictable range of genetic variation in a species, as well as an expected rate of random mutations. Creationists/Flat Earthers'/YEC'ists grudgingly admit that a "kind" (an ambiguous, non-scientific term) can develop into different species (i.e. a dog "kind" can evolve into wolves, coyotes, foxes, and all types of domestic dogs) but they insist that it must stop there. They never give any reason for this fabricated limitation-- they just deny that it can happen. They just can't accept macroevolution, because it contradicts the "truth" of their dogma. But in reality, there is no limit to the degree that a species can change. Given enough time, a fish-like species can evolve into a amphibian-like species, an amphibian-like species can evolve into a reptilian-like species, a reptilian-like species can evolve into a mammalian-like species, and an ape-like species can evolve into the modern human species.
> 
> You are in need of new conspiracy theories if you insist that biological evolution is just a theory. While you want to believe that Evilutionist scientists are all co-conspirators in some vast conspiracy you envision, you will need something better than paranoia to displace science. Science is a self-correcting mechanism that relies on the evidence. The evidence points to abiogenesis as the probable start of life, thanks in large part to our understanding of bio- and organic chemistry. The evidence points to evolution as the explanation for the diversity of life, thanks in large part to two centuries of evidence including fossils, genetics, and geology. The evidence points towards a 14 billion year old universe, thanks in large part to our understanding of physics and cosmology and CBR.
> 
> There is a reason why science has proven to be the single most influential and impactful human endeavor in history; that is because it formally recognizes the tentative nature of all human knowledge, and provides a method for incrementally approaching “absolute” truth without the arrogance of assuming it is ever actually achieved. It bears a humility regarding its own achievement that constantly inspires revision and review. It inspires thinking and iconoclasm rather than the intellectual _rigor mortis_ of received dogma.
> 
> And in this way it accomplishes what most religious beliefs do not; progress.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First, you are misstating what I said a second time when I was addressing "your" hypothetical experiment.  Thus, I'll claim victory in regards to that argument as you continue to misstate and continue to put words in my mouth.
> 
> You also further misstate and try to tie me with ID.  I've clearly said I was for creation science and not ID.  Thus, I win again.
> 
> As for "Man was never an ape or monkey. Man was never descended from an ape or monkey. Man and primates shared a common ancestor but branched off in separate directions. That’s not at all uncommon in evolutionary history, by the way, for species to diverge in different directions while sharing a common ancestry."
> 
> There never was a common ancestor to humans.  There never was a common ancestor to monkeys.  Let's use what we see today as common ancestors.  If you take a horse and cross it with a donkey, then you get a mule.  However, that's as far as you can go.  The mule had a horse and donkey as ancestors.  Furthermore, you still haven't explained how sexual reproduction came about from asexual reproduction.
> 
> Moreover, creation scientists do not use "faith."  It is the evos who use faith to believe in evolution and evolutionary thinking.  Creation scientists use the Bible as hypothesis and that worked fine until Charles Lyell came along.
> 
> Species change and new species emerge, but not macroevolution.  Natural selection only applies to microevolution.  Thus, monkeys to apes and dinosaurs to birds did not happen.  I provided the evidence to destroy those hypothesis.  So, evolution has been effectively been destroyed in this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you noticed that you are the only individual proclaiming to have “won” an argument you have yet to make?
> 
> Your dismissal of evolution is right out of the ID/creationist/supernaturalist playbook. Do you believe there is a vast conspiracy among leading universities and scientists across the globe? Have you been convinced of a 6,000 year old earth when experimentation, physical data and evidence depicts a very ancient universe and a very old earth? You do realize that museums, research/teaching universities, private collectors, etc., have amassed huge collections of fosill and skeletal remains of dinosaurs. The fact of these fosill skeletons is not the conspiracy you may believe it to be.
> 
> All the available evidence suggests that life on this planet is the product of naturally occurring processes.
> 
> Once again, to support your extremist position for supernatural intervention you need to:
> 
> 1) provide credible evidence for one or more of your gods, and then,
> 
> 2) provide credible evidence that one or more of your gods had direct involvement with the implementation of magical gardens, talking serpents and the magical *poofing* of the diversity of biological life on the planet.
> 
> When will you provide such evidence?
Click to expand...


There really isn't much point in discussing further because as I said before you have gone looney tunes and off the topic of discussion.  I was nice and discussed and presented my rebuttals and arguments to you.  However, you continue to misconstrue what I've said and paint me in a negative light.  You put words in my mouth that I didn't say.  On top of that, you continue the same line of assertions and ad hominems instead of addressing anything I said.

The question is when will you provide the evidence for monkeys to humans?  Do you know what you are talking about?


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll discuss a few of your points below because you have gone looney as I have calmly and successfully rebutted your arguments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It’s nice that you have chosen to self-congratulate on rebutting my arguments but You should first make an attempt to do that. I noticed you retreated from addressing my comments with regard to prayer, rattling bones, etc. as a cure for disease, when science has provided those cures.
> 
> Your refusal to advance any understanding of the methodology within the Scientific Method suggests you have simply chosen to press your agenda of fear and superstition over facts and enlightenment.
> 
> So pragmatically, one is led to ask the question, when will the evidence be provided in a comprehensive way for a reliable conclusion of one or more gods to be drawn? Quite clearly, we are surrounded with tangible examples of where even our imperfect understanding of objective reality has been sufficient for science to revolutionize our world. Science has proven to be, beyond all competition, the single most successful, pervasive and impactful human endeavor in all of history. In contrast, claims to gawds is essentially useless for the any practical purpose of understanding what is true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong, creation scientists do perform research and experiments.  We see that they have been done throughout history and Noah's global flood was the accepted geology of the earth in the past.  Do you know anything about the history of uniformitarianism?  Do you know how it influenced evolution?  I don't think you know what you are talking about as atheist science (secular science) has brainwashed you.  So right off the bat, your statements are way, way, way wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You’re having some difficulty furthering a consistent argument. Did you forget what you wrote earlier?
> 
> You wrote: “_As for your tests and experiments, that goes against creation science_".
> 
> Yes, I agree. Tests and experiments go against creation science. That's because creation science is not science at all but religious fundamentalism. You're unable to separate science from belief in supernatural entities. And further, without an understanding of the methods of science, your comments regarding science explanations as conjecture are simply used as a rationale for embracing dogma and mysticism. That really is displayed in the context of the unsupported assertions you make with no support for your claims to supernaturalism. The fact that learned students of the sciences know the difference between the methods of science vs. religious claims renders, as usual, your claims as unsupported.
> 
> Why not provide some details as to those components of objective reality that are explicitly not encompassed by science and rationality? There can be no doubt that science today is better able to answer the workings of the natural world than it was a century ago. In this way, science has allowed us to advance in that incremental, stepwise manner closer to a true understanding of objective reality. And science makes no other claim or promise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> It just goes to show how wacko you've become in discussing your wrong worldview of believing monkeys to humans.
> 
> Let's go back to uniformitarianism and apply the concept to monkeys.  If today's science shows us what the past was like, then why can't we use our observations of today's monkeys to explain how monkeys were in the past?  None are bipedal.  They are knuckle walkers.  All have small cranial capacity.  The sclera of their eyes are dark brown, not whilte like humans.  None have showed any signs of evolving into an ape-human.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unfortunately. You do typify the result of the ID'iot creationism / fundamentalist Christian cabal. I see this frequently. My suspicion is that you have been coached by religious entities who certainly have a vested interest in placating your desire to believe the religious tales and fables in lieu of hard facts. Meaning, of course that the apes into human beings nonsense displays a fundamental lack of understanding. Man was never an ape or monkey. Man was never descended from an ape or monkey. Man and primates shared a common ancestor but branched off in separate directions. That’s not at all uncommon in evolutionary history, by the way, for species to diverge in different directions while sharing a common ancestry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're going way beyond the scope of this thread, but there is the soft tissue and blood evidence of dinosaurs.  It shows that dinosaurs were cold blooded like reptiles.  We also have found that they could not have evolved the breathing system of birds.  Thus, birds from dinosaurs could not have happened.  No macroevolution like humans did not evolve from monkeys.  We also found that there was fraud committed with feathered dinosaurs a few times already.  Your evidence for feathered dinosaurs has been shown to be human-made for profit.  If the evidence is everywhere, then why buy stuff from peddlers in China or Myanmar?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not sure you understand what you're complaining about. You make a great many unsupported assertions and make no attempt to support them. As an epistemological method or philosophy, science has _every right_ to demand religious fundamentalist claims are held to the same standards science holds itself to-- hypothesis, experimentation, falsification, peer review, etc. in order for an assertion to be considered valid. This is fair because science has stringent demands it holds against itself, and its goal is to arrive at truth as best as possible by vigorous methods-- which are open to any who cares to repeat them.
> 
> Religious fundamentalists on the other hand, has this "faith, not proof" standard, so by their _own standards_ religionists must give equal weight to _all claims based upon faith_ as being _just as likely true_ as the religionist's own professed beliefs-- even science! ". If creationist find this unacceptable, then they must decide why religious beliefs are exempt from standards they demand science is required to adhere to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atheist scientists and atheists have some weird false beliefs that betray them such as not believing in God, the supernatural and his word the Bible.  They also believe in false science of evolution and evolutionary thinking.  The closest thing I could agree with evo is natural selection and being against gmo foods.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More unsupported assertions. And, by the way, much of the planet does not believe in your partisan gods. Your polytheistic gods are merely one conception of gods. We are privileged to consider reality, but only the universe that actually exists can be _fruitfully_ considered. How do we assign confidence to what is real and what is simply imaginary? Evidence and reason. These are our only tools for that task. Thankfully, they appear to work pretty well, at least for those of us not bound to a precommittment to your dogma.
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> So far, you have not been able to show any observable evidence, falsifiable evidence, nor experimental evidence of evolution.  The long times of the evolution based on radiometric times have questionable assumptions.  So does the philosophy (religion) of uniformitarianism.  If uniformitarianism is true, then there would be on need to start putting in the philosophy of catastrophism.  The creation scientists do not mix any uniformitarian philosophies with catastrophism.  Even the threat of an asteroid(s) hitting the earth follows creation science.  The mountain of evidence for evolution has been reduced to rubble.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is the theory of evolution and there is the FACT of evolution. Species change-- there is variation within one kind of animal. There is a predictable range of genetic variation in a species, as well as an expected rate of random mutations. Creationists/Flat Earthers'/YEC'ists grudgingly admit that a "kind" (an ambiguous, non-scientific term) can develop into different species (i.e. a dog "kind" can evolve into wolves, coyotes, foxes, and all types of domestic dogs) but they insist that it must stop there. They never give any reason for this fabricated limitation-- they just deny that it can happen. They just can't accept macroevolution, because it contradicts the "truth" of their dogma. But in reality, there is no limit to the degree that a species can change. Given enough time, a fish-like species can evolve into a amphibian-like species, an amphibian-like species can evolve into a reptilian-like species, a reptilian-like species can evolve into a mammalian-like species, and an ape-like species can evolve into the modern human species.
> 
> You are in need of new conspiracy theories if you insist that biological evolution is just a theory. While you want to believe that Evilutionist scientists are all co-conspirators in some vast conspiracy you envision, you will need something better than paranoia to displace science. Science is a self-correcting mechanism that relies on the evidence. The evidence points to abiogenesis as the probable start of life, thanks in large part to our understanding of bio- and organic chemistry. The evidence points to evolution as the explanation for the diversity of life, thanks in large part to two centuries of evidence including fossils, genetics, and geology. The evidence points towards a 14 billion year old universe, thanks in large part to our understanding of physics and cosmology and CBR.
> 
> There is a reason why science has proven to be the single most influential and impactful human endeavor in history; that is because it formally recognizes the tentative nature of all human knowledge, and provides a method for incrementally approaching “absolute” truth without the arrogance of assuming it is ever actually achieved. It bears a humility regarding its own achievement that constantly inspires revision and review. It inspires thinking and iconoclasm rather than the intellectual _rigor mortis_ of received dogma.
> 
> And in this way it accomplishes what most religious beliefs do not; progress.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First, you are misstating what I said a second time when I was addressing "your" hypothetical experiment.  Thus, I'll claim victory in regards to that argument as you continue to misstate and continue to put words in my mouth.
> 
> You also further misstate and try to tie me with ID.  I've clearly said I was for creation science and not ID.  Thus, I win again.
> 
> As for "Man was never an ape or monkey. Man was never descended from an ape or monkey. Man and primates shared a common ancestor but branched off in separate directions. That’s not at all uncommon in evolutionary history, by the way, for species to diverge in different directions while sharing a common ancestry."
> 
> There never was a common ancestor to humans.  There never was a common ancestor to monkeys.  Let's use what we see today as common ancestors.  If you take a horse and cross it with a donkey, then you get a mule.  However, that's as far as you can go.  The mule had a horse and donkey as ancestors.  Furthermore, you still haven't explained how sexual reproduction came about from asexual reproduction.
> 
> Moreover, creation scientists do not use "faith."  It is the evos who use faith to believe in evolution and evolutionary thinking.  Creation scientists use the Bible as hypothesis and that worked fine until Charles Lyell came along.
> 
> Species change and new species emerge, but not macroevolution.  Natural selection only applies to microevolution.  Thus, monkeys to apes and dinosaurs to birds did not happen.  I provided the evidence to destroy those hypothesis.  So, evolution has been effectively been destroyed in this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you noticed that you are the only individual proclaiming to have “won” an argument you have yet to make?
> 
> Your dismissal of evolution is right out of the ID/creationist/supernaturalist playbook. Do you believe there is a vast conspiracy among leading universities and scientists across the globe? Have you been convinced of a 6,000 year old earth when experimentation, physical data and evidence depicts a very ancient universe and a very old earth? You do realize that museums, research/teaching universities, private collectors, etc., have amassed huge collections of fosill and skeletal remains of dinosaurs. The fact of these fosill skeletons is not the conspiracy you may believe it to be.
> 
> All the available evidence suggests that life on this planet is the product of naturally occurring processes.
> 
> Once again, to support your extremist position for supernatural intervention you need to:
> 
> 1) provide credible evidence for one or more of your gods, and then,
> 
> 2) provide credible evidence that one or more of your gods had direct involvement with the implementation of magical gardens, talking serpents and the magical *poofing* of the diversity of biological life on the planet.
> 
> When will you provide such evidence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There really isn't much point in discussing further because as I said before you have gone looney tunes and off the topic of discussion.  I was nice and discussed and presented my rebuttals and arguments to you.  However, you continue to misconstrue what I've said and paint me in a negative light.  You put words in my mouth that I didn't say.  On top of that, you continue the same line of assertions and ad hominems instead of addressing anything I said.
> 
> The question is when will you provide the evidence for monkeys to humans?  Do you know what you are talking about?
Click to expand...


There is no evidence of "monkeys to humans" that is supported by relevant science. That you continue with such nonsense displays an appalling lack of knowledge and willful ignorance on your part. 

Unfortunately, you have chosen to simply repeat the slogans and misinformation furthered by the most notorious fundamentalist ministries,


----------



## james bond

RWS said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> To settle this argument,
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> it will cost you severely after you die.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not taking my Visa card with me when I'm gone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have to leave your Visa card and all the things you bought behind.  Don't you think that life is short and it's strange that one can't take anything with them when they die?  That said, there is more to life than that if you believe in Jesus and creation science.  God reveals himself and then one starts to understand creation science is greater that evolution and evolutionary thinking.  It's true science vs false science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But your religion wants our money now, while alive. I'm constantly getting asked to donate to a religion that has more money than I can possibly conceive. Why would it be different later?
> 
> Did they suddenly make enough when I die? Or are they still gonna be hounding me for more?
> 
> Will I have to face God and apologize that I cannot pay the Heaven rent? And get sent elsewhere?
> 
> God is supposedly in control of everything. But like Carlin said... He seems to have a lot of trouble with money...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know fncceo is being facetious, but there's a deeper truth beyond what he intends, too.  I enjoy his humor.  It's quite good.
> 
> Usually, Christian churches ask for 10% of your yearly income as tithing.  I have to agree that people are not comfortable with it.  They are asked to buy Christian books, too.  Some churches are heavier handed than most, but I don't think one has to feel they have to give 10%.  I try to do the 10%, but only if I feel comfortable in doing that for the year.  Give if you feel comfortable.
> 
> What does the Bible say about Christian tithing? Should a Christian tithe?
> 
> Are Christians Required to Give 10% of Their Income to the Church? - Greg Boyd - ReKnew
> 
> There are other worthwhile charities, too, such as Salvation Army.
> 
> Yet, your point isn't about giving.  It's more atheist criticism of Christians and I think I addressed that above.
> 
> Christians believe once a person has committed to Jesus, then they become good trees and good trees bear good fruit.  The result is faith + good works as in Book of James.  It doesn't mean that good deeds or giving and buying your way into heaven gets one into heaven.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But if God is all-powerful, and Jesus is too, why do they need people to raise money?
> 
> They can create it themselves, in whatever means necessary. "Poof! There's some gold bars for you!"
> 
> What happens, in the current system, is that corrupt people keep most of the money being raised by well-wishing people, in whatever form they donate to the Church.
> 
> Some of it surely goes back to altruistic intentions, to keep people giving. And I understand that a lot of it goes towards maintenance. But most of it disappears into corrupt coffers, or stashed away in some hidden Vatican fund.
> 
> My point is, with the vast amount of money and volunteer work that is donated by Christians, that should cover maintenance, and also stop people from starving and suffering in this world.
> 
> But then, if they stop the starvation and suffering, it will be hard to generate more money without conquering... It's catch-22.
> 
> But an altruistic religion, with almost unlimited funds, and a righteous God that can make money appear from thin air, should stop all world suffering first, and worry about followers later.
> 
> That..... would get me to follow a religion.
Click to expand...


I guess you missed the part where Adam sinned or else we'd all be living in paradise.  It's like I'm talking with a rock.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll discuss a few of your points below because you have gone looney as I have calmly and successfully rebutted your arguments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It’s nice that you have chosen to self-congratulate on rebutting my arguments but You should first make an attempt to do that. I noticed you retreated from addressing my comments with regard to prayer, rattling bones, etc. as a cure for disease, when science has provided those cures.
> 
> Your refusal to advance any understanding of the methodology within the Scientific Method suggests you have simply chosen to press your agenda of fear and superstition over facts and enlightenment.
> 
> So pragmatically, one is led to ask the question, when will the evidence be provided in a comprehensive way for a reliable conclusion of one or more gods to be drawn? Quite clearly, we are surrounded with tangible examples of where even our imperfect understanding of objective reality has been sufficient for science to revolutionize our world. Science has proven to be, beyond all competition, the single most successful, pervasive and impactful human endeavor in all of history. In contrast, claims to gawds is essentially useless for the any practical purpose of understanding what is true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong, creation scientists do perform research and experiments.  We see that they have been done throughout history and Noah's global flood was the accepted geology of the earth in the past.  Do you know anything about the history of uniformitarianism?  Do you know how it influenced evolution?  I don't think you know what you are talking about as atheist science (secular science) has brainwashed you.  So right off the bat, your statements are way, way, way wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You’re having some difficulty furthering a consistent argument. Did you forget what you wrote earlier?
> 
> You wrote: “_As for your tests and experiments, that goes against creation science_".
> 
> Yes, I agree. Tests and experiments go against creation science. That's because creation science is not science at all but religious fundamentalism. You're unable to separate science from belief in supernatural entities. And further, without an understanding of the methods of science, your comments regarding science explanations as conjecture are simply used as a rationale for embracing dogma and mysticism. That really is displayed in the context of the unsupported assertions you make with no support for your claims to supernaturalism. The fact that learned students of the sciences know the difference between the methods of science vs. religious claims renders, as usual, your claims as unsupported.
> 
> Why not provide some details as to those components of objective reality that are explicitly not encompassed by science and rationality? There can be no doubt that science today is better able to answer the workings of the natural world than it was a century ago. In this way, science has allowed us to advance in that incremental, stepwise manner closer to a true understanding of objective reality. And science makes no other claim or promise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> It just goes to show how wacko you've become in discussing your wrong worldview of believing monkeys to humans.
> 
> Let's go back to uniformitarianism and apply the concept to monkeys.  If today's science shows us what the past was like, then why can't we use our observations of today's monkeys to explain how monkeys were in the past?  None are bipedal.  They are knuckle walkers.  All have small cranial capacity.  The sclera of their eyes are dark brown, not whilte like humans.  None have showed any signs of evolving into an ape-human.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unfortunately. You do typify the result of the ID'iot creationism / fundamentalist Christian cabal. I see this frequently. My suspicion is that you have been coached by religious entities who certainly have a vested interest in placating your desire to believe the religious tales and fables in lieu of hard facts. Meaning, of course that the apes into human beings nonsense displays a fundamental lack of understanding. Man was never an ape or monkey. Man was never descended from an ape or monkey. Man and primates shared a common ancestor but branched off in separate directions. That’s not at all uncommon in evolutionary history, by the way, for species to diverge in different directions while sharing a common ancestry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're going way beyond the scope of this thread, but there is the soft tissue and blood evidence of dinosaurs.  It shows that dinosaurs were cold blooded like reptiles.  We also have found that they could not have evolved the breathing system of birds.  Thus, birds from dinosaurs could not have happened.  No macroevolution like humans did not evolve from monkeys.  We also found that there was fraud committed with feathered dinosaurs a few times already.  Your evidence for feathered dinosaurs has been shown to be human-made for profit.  If the evidence is everywhere, then why buy stuff from peddlers in China or Myanmar?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not sure you understand what you're complaining about. You make a great many unsupported assertions and make no attempt to support them. As an epistemological method or philosophy, science has _every right_ to demand religious fundamentalist claims are held to the same standards science holds itself to-- hypothesis, experimentation, falsification, peer review, etc. in order for an assertion to be considered valid. This is fair because science has stringent demands it holds against itself, and its goal is to arrive at truth as best as possible by vigorous methods-- which are open to any who cares to repeat them.
> 
> Religious fundamentalists on the other hand, has this "faith, not proof" standard, so by their _own standards_ religionists must give equal weight to _all claims based upon faith_ as being _just as likely true_ as the religionist's own professed beliefs-- even science! ". If creationist find this unacceptable, then they must decide why religious beliefs are exempt from standards they demand science is required to adhere to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atheist scientists and atheists have some weird false beliefs that betray them such as not believing in God, the supernatural and his word the Bible.  They also believe in false science of evolution and evolutionary thinking.  The closest thing I could agree with evo is natural selection and being against gmo foods.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More unsupported assertions. And, by the way, much of the planet does not believe in your partisan gods. Your polytheistic gods are merely one conception of gods. We are privileged to consider reality, but only the universe that actually exists can be _fruitfully_ considered. How do we assign confidence to what is real and what is simply imaginary? Evidence and reason. These are our only tools for that task. Thankfully, they appear to work pretty well, at least for those of us not bound to a precommittment to your dogma.
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> So far, you have not been able to show any observable evidence, falsifiable evidence, nor experimental evidence of evolution.  The long times of the evolution based on radiometric times have questionable assumptions.  So does the philosophy (religion) of uniformitarianism.  If uniformitarianism is true, then there would be on need to start putting in the philosophy of catastrophism.  The creation scientists do not mix any uniformitarian philosophies with catastrophism.  Even the threat of an asteroid(s) hitting the earth follows creation science.  The mountain of evidence for evolution has been reduced to rubble.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is the theory of evolution and there is the FACT of evolution. Species change-- there is variation within one kind of animal. There is a predictable range of genetic variation in a species, as well as an expected rate of random mutations. Creationists/Flat Earthers'/YEC'ists grudgingly admit that a "kind" (an ambiguous, non-scientific term) can develop into different species (i.e. a dog "kind" can evolve into wolves, coyotes, foxes, and all types of domestic dogs) but they insist that it must stop there. They never give any reason for this fabricated limitation-- they just deny that it can happen. They just can't accept macroevolution, because it contradicts the "truth" of their dogma. But in reality, there is no limit to the degree that a species can change. Given enough time, a fish-like species can evolve into a amphibian-like species, an amphibian-like species can evolve into a reptilian-like species, a reptilian-like species can evolve into a mammalian-like species, and an ape-like species can evolve into the modern human species.
> 
> You are in need of new conspiracy theories if you insist that biological evolution is just a theory. While you want to believe that Evilutionist scientists are all co-conspirators in some vast conspiracy you envision, you will need something better than paranoia to displace science. Science is a self-correcting mechanism that relies on the evidence. The evidence points to abiogenesis as the probable start of life, thanks in large part to our understanding of bio- and organic chemistry. The evidence points to evolution as the explanation for the diversity of life, thanks in large part to two centuries of evidence including fossils, genetics, and geology. The evidence points towards a 14 billion year old universe, thanks in large part to our understanding of physics and cosmology and CBR.
> 
> There is a reason why science has proven to be the single most influential and impactful human endeavor in history; that is because it formally recognizes the tentative nature of all human knowledge, and provides a method for incrementally approaching “absolute” truth without the arrogance of assuming it is ever actually achieved. It bears a humility regarding its own achievement that constantly inspires revision and review. It inspires thinking and iconoclasm rather than the intellectual _rigor mortis_ of received dogma.
> 
> And in this way it accomplishes what most religious beliefs do not; progress.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First, you are misstating what I said a second time when I was addressing "your" hypothetical experiment.  Thus, I'll claim victory in regards to that argument as you continue to misstate and continue to put words in my mouth.
> 
> You also further misstate and try to tie me with ID.  I've clearly said I was for creation science and not ID.  Thus, I win again.
> 
> As for "Man was never an ape or monkey. Man was never descended from an ape or monkey. Man and primates shared a common ancestor but branched off in separate directions. That’s not at all uncommon in evolutionary history, by the way, for species to diverge in different directions while sharing a common ancestry."
> 
> There never was a common ancestor to humans.  There never was a common ancestor to monkeys.  Let's use what we see today as common ancestors.  If you take a horse and cross it with a donkey, then you get a mule.  However, that's as far as you can go.  The mule had a horse and donkey as ancestors.  Furthermore, you still haven't explained how sexual reproduction came about from asexual reproduction.
> 
> Moreover, creation scientists do not use "faith."  It is the evos who use faith to believe in evolution and evolutionary thinking.  Creation scientists use the Bible as hypothesis and that worked fine until Charles Lyell came along.
> 
> Species change and new species emerge, but not macroevolution.  Natural selection only applies to microevolution.  Thus, monkeys to apes and dinosaurs to birds did not happen.  I provided the evidence to destroy those hypothesis.  So, evolution has been effectively been destroyed in this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you noticed that you are the only individual proclaiming to have “won” an argument you have yet to make?
> 
> Your dismissal of evolution is right out of the ID/creationist/supernaturalist playbook. Do you believe there is a vast conspiracy among leading universities and scientists across the globe? Have you been convinced of a 6,000 year old earth when experimentation, physical data and evidence depicts a very ancient universe and a very old earth? You do realize that museums, research/teaching universities, private collectors, etc., have amassed huge collections of fosill and skeletal remains of dinosaurs. The fact of these fosill skeletons is not the conspiracy you may believe it to be.
> 
> All the available evidence suggests that life on this planet is the product of naturally occurring processes.
> 
> Once again, to support your extremist position for supernatural intervention you need to:
> 
> 1) provide credible evidence for one or more of your gods, and then,
> 
> 2) provide credible evidence that one or more of your gods had direct involvement with the implementation of magical gardens, talking serpents and the magical *poofing* of the diversity of biological life on the planet.
> 
> When will you provide such evidence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There really isn't much point in discussing further because as I said before you have gone looney tunes and off the topic of discussion.  I was nice and discussed and presented my rebuttals and arguments to you.  However, you continue to misconstrue what I've said and paint me in a negative light.  You put words in my mouth that I didn't say.  On top of that, you continue the same line of assertions and ad hominems instead of addressing anything I said.
> 
> The question is when will you provide the evidence for monkeys to humans?  Do you know what you are talking about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no evidence of "monkeys to humans" that is supported by relevant science. That you continue with such nonsense displays an appalling lack of knowledge and willful ignorance on your part.
> 
> Unfortunately, you have chosen to simply repeat the slogans and misinformation furthered by the most notorious fundamentalist ministries,
Click to expand...


If there is no evidence of "monkeys to humans" that is supported by relevant science, then case closed.  You have agreed that I've won the argument regarding the thread.

I'm not sure what slogans and misinformation you are talking about.  I've argued creation science and science against evolution.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> It’s nice that you have chosen to self-congratulate on rebutting my arguments but You should first make an attempt to do that. I noticed you retreated from addressing my comments with regard to prayer, rattling bones, etc. as a cure for disease, when science has provided those cures.
> 
> Your refusal to advance any understanding of the methodology within the Scientific Method suggests you have simply chosen to press your agenda of fear and superstition over facts and enlightenment.
> 
> So pragmatically, one is led to ask the question, when will the evidence be provided in a comprehensive way for a reliable conclusion of one or more gods to be drawn? Quite clearly, we are surrounded with tangible examples of where even our imperfect understanding of objective reality has been sufficient for science to revolutionize our world. Science has proven to be, beyond all competition, the single most successful, pervasive and impactful human endeavor in all of history. In contrast, claims to gawds is essentially useless for the any practical purpose of understanding what is true.
> 
> 
> You’re having some difficulty furthering a consistent argument. Did you forget what you wrote earlier?
> 
> You wrote: “_As for your tests and experiments, that goes against creation science_".
> 
> Yes, I agree. Tests and experiments go against creation science. That's because creation science is not science at all but religious fundamentalism. You're unable to separate science from belief in supernatural entities. And further, without an understanding of the methods of science, your comments regarding science explanations as conjecture are simply used as a rationale for embracing dogma and mysticism. That really is displayed in the context of the unsupported assertions you make with no support for your claims to supernaturalism. The fact that learned students of the sciences know the difference between the methods of science vs. religious claims renders, as usual, your claims as unsupported.
> 
> Why not provide some details as to those components of objective reality that are explicitly not encompassed by science and rationality? There can be no doubt that science today is better able to answer the workings of the natural world than it was a century ago. In this way, science has allowed us to advance in that incremental, stepwise manner closer to a true understanding of objective reality. And science makes no other claim or promise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately. You do typify the result of the ID'iot creationism / fundamentalist Christian cabal. I see this frequently. My suspicion is that you have been coached by religious entities who certainly have a vested interest in placating your desire to believe the religious tales and fables in lieu of hard facts. Meaning, of course that the apes into human beings nonsense displays a fundamental lack of understanding. Man was never an ape or monkey. Man was never descended from an ape or monkey. Man and primates shared a common ancestor but branched off in separate directions. That’s not at all uncommon in evolutionary history, by the way, for species to diverge in different directions while sharing a common ancestry.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure you understand what you're complaining about. You make a great many unsupported assertions and make no attempt to support them. As an epistemological method or philosophy, science has _every right_ to demand religious fundamentalist claims are held to the same standards science holds itself to-- hypothesis, experimentation, falsification, peer review, etc. in order for an assertion to be considered valid. This is fair because science has stringent demands it holds against itself, and its goal is to arrive at truth as best as possible by vigorous methods-- which are open to any who cares to repeat them.
> 
> Religious fundamentalists on the other hand, has this "faith, not proof" standard, so by their _own standards_ religionists must give equal weight to _all claims based upon faith_ as being _just as likely true_ as the religionist's own professed beliefs-- even science! ". If creationist find this unacceptable, then they must decide why religious beliefs are exempt from standards they demand science is required to adhere to.
> 
> 
> More unsupported assertions. And, by the way, much of the planet does not believe in your partisan gods. Your polytheistic gods are merely one conception of gods. We are privileged to consider reality, but only the universe that actually exists can be _fruitfully_ considered. How do we assign confidence to what is real and what is simply imaginary? Evidence and reason. These are our only tools for that task. Thankfully, they appear to work pretty well, at least for those of us not bound to a precommittment to your dogma.
> 
> There is the theory of evolution and there is the FACT of evolution. Species change-- there is variation within one kind of animal. There is a predictable range of genetic variation in a species, as well as an expected rate of random mutations. Creationists/Flat Earthers'/YEC'ists grudgingly admit that a "kind" (an ambiguous, non-scientific term) can develop into different species (i.e. a dog "kind" can evolve into wolves, coyotes, foxes, and all types of domestic dogs) but they insist that it must stop there. They never give any reason for this fabricated limitation-- they just deny that it can happen. They just can't accept macroevolution, because it contradicts the "truth" of their dogma. But in reality, there is no limit to the degree that a species can change. Given enough time, a fish-like species can evolve into a amphibian-like species, an amphibian-like species can evolve into a reptilian-like species, a reptilian-like species can evolve into a mammalian-like species, and an ape-like species can evolve into the modern human species.
> 
> You are in need of new conspiracy theories if you insist that biological evolution is just a theory. While you want to believe that Evilutionist scientists are all co-conspirators in some vast conspiracy you envision, you will need something better than paranoia to displace science. Science is a self-correcting mechanism that relies on the evidence. The evidence points to abiogenesis as the probable start of life, thanks in large part to our understanding of bio- and organic chemistry. The evidence points to evolution as the explanation for the diversity of life, thanks in large part to two centuries of evidence including fossils, genetics, and geology. The evidence points towards a 14 billion year old universe, thanks in large part to our understanding of physics and cosmology and CBR.
> 
> There is a reason why science has proven to be the single most influential and impactful human endeavor in history; that is because it formally recognizes the tentative nature of all human knowledge, and provides a method for incrementally approaching “absolute” truth without the arrogance of assuming it is ever actually achieved. It bears a humility regarding its own achievement that constantly inspires revision and review. It inspires thinking and iconoclasm rather than the intellectual _rigor mortis_ of received dogma.
> 
> And in this way it accomplishes what most religious beliefs do not; progress.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First, you are misstating what I said a second time when I was addressing "your" hypothetical experiment.  Thus, I'll claim victory in regards to that argument as you continue to misstate and continue to put words in my mouth.
> 
> You also further misstate and try to tie me with ID.  I've clearly said I was for creation science and not ID.  Thus, I win again.
> 
> As for "Man was never an ape or monkey. Man was never descended from an ape or monkey. Man and primates shared a common ancestor but branched off in separate directions. That’s not at all uncommon in evolutionary history, by the way, for species to diverge in different directions while sharing a common ancestry."
> 
> There never was a common ancestor to humans.  There never was a common ancestor to monkeys.  Let's use what we see today as common ancestors.  If you take a horse and cross it with a donkey, then you get a mule.  However, that's as far as you can go.  The mule had a horse and donkey as ancestors.  Furthermore, you still haven't explained how sexual reproduction came about from asexual reproduction.
> 
> Moreover, creation scientists do not use "faith."  It is the evos who use faith to believe in evolution and evolutionary thinking.  Creation scientists use the Bible as hypothesis and that worked fine until Charles Lyell came along.
> 
> Species change and new species emerge, but not macroevolution.  Natural selection only applies to microevolution.  Thus, monkeys to apes and dinosaurs to birds did not happen.  I provided the evidence to destroy those hypothesis.  So, evolution has been effectively been destroyed in this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you noticed that you are the only individual proclaiming to have “won” an argument you have yet to make?
> 
> Your dismissal of evolution is right out of the ID/creationist/supernaturalist playbook. Do you believe there is a vast conspiracy among leading universities and scientists across the globe? Have you been convinced of a 6,000 year old earth when experimentation, physical data and evidence depicts a very ancient universe and a very old earth? You do realize that museums, research/teaching universities, private collectors, etc., have amassed huge collections of fosill and skeletal remains of dinosaurs. The fact of these fosill skeletons is not the conspiracy you may believe it to be.
> 
> All the available evidence suggests that life on this planet is the product of naturally occurring processes.
> 
> Once again, to support your extremist position for supernatural intervention you need to:
> 
> 1) provide credible evidence for one or more of your gods, and then,
> 
> 2) provide credible evidence that one or more of your gods had direct involvement with the implementation of magical gardens, talking serpents and the magical *poofing* of the diversity of biological life on the planet.
> 
> When will you provide such evidence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There really isn't much point in discussing further because as I said before you have gone looney tunes and off the topic of discussion.  I was nice and discussed and presented my rebuttals and arguments to you.  However, you continue to misconstrue what I've said and paint me in a negative light.  You put words in my mouth that I didn't say.  On top of that, you continue the same line of assertions and ad hominems instead of addressing anything I said.
> 
> The question is when will you provide the evidence for monkeys to humans?  Do you know what you are talking about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no evidence of "monkeys to humans" that is supported by relevant science. That you continue with such nonsense displays an appalling lack of knowledge and willful ignorance on your part.
> 
> Unfortunately, you have chosen to simply repeat the slogans and misinformation furthered by the most notorious fundamentalist ministries,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If there is no evidence of "monkeys to humans" that is supported by relevant science, then case closed.  You have agreed that I've won the argument regarding the thread.
> 
> I'm not sure what slogans and misinformation you are talking about.  I've argued creation science and science against evolution.
Click to expand...


Case is not closed. You have retreated to your usual childish tactic of declaring you have "won". You have presented nothing to support your claim of "monkeys to humans". You have presented no evidence of a 6,000 year old earth. Your attempt at argument consists of simply reiterating nonsense slogans you copied from your ID/fundamentalist ministries.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> First, you are misstating what I said a second time when I was addressing "your" hypothetical experiment.  Thus, I'll claim victory in regards to that argument as you continue to misstate and continue to put words in my mouth.
> 
> You also further misstate and try to tie me with ID.  I've clearly said I was for creation science and not ID.  Thus, I win again.
> 
> As for "Man was never an ape or monkey. Man was never descended from an ape or monkey. Man and primates shared a common ancestor but branched off in separate directions. That’s not at all uncommon in evolutionary history, by the way, for species to diverge in different directions while sharing a common ancestry."
> 
> There never was a common ancestor to humans.  There never was a common ancestor to monkeys.  Let's use what we see today as common ancestors.  If you take a horse and cross it with a donkey, then you get a mule.  However, that's as far as you can go.  The mule had a horse and donkey as ancestors.  Furthermore, you still haven't explained how sexual reproduction came about from asexual reproduction.
> 
> Moreover, creation scientists do not use "faith."  It is the evos who use faith to believe in evolution and evolutionary thinking.  Creation scientists use the Bible as hypothesis and that worked fine until Charles Lyell came along.
> 
> Species change and new species emerge, but not macroevolution.  Natural selection only applies to microevolution.  Thus, monkeys to apes and dinosaurs to birds did not happen.  I provided the evidence to destroy those hypothesis.  So, evolution has been effectively been destroyed in this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you noticed that you are the only individual proclaiming to have “won” an argument you have yet to make?
> 
> Your dismissal of evolution is right out of the ID/creationist/supernaturalist playbook. Do you believe there is a vast conspiracy among leading universities and scientists across the globe? Have you been convinced of a 6,000 year old earth when experimentation, physical data and evidence depicts a very ancient universe and a very old earth? You do realize that museums, research/teaching universities, private collectors, etc., have amassed huge collections of fosill and skeletal remains of dinosaurs. The fact of these fosill skeletons is not the conspiracy you may believe it to be.
> 
> All the available evidence suggests that life on this planet is the product of naturally occurring processes.
> 
> Once again, to support your extremist position for supernatural intervention you need to:
> 
> 1) provide credible evidence for one or more of your gods, and then,
> 
> 2) provide credible evidence that one or more of your gods had direct involvement with the implementation of magical gardens, talking serpents and the magical *poofing* of the diversity of biological life on the planet.
> 
> When will you provide such evidence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There really isn't much point in discussing further because as I said before you have gone looney tunes and off the topic of discussion.  I was nice and discussed and presented my rebuttals and arguments to you.  However, you continue to misconstrue what I've said and paint me in a negative light.  You put words in my mouth that I didn't say.  On top of that, you continue the same line of assertions and ad hominems instead of addressing anything I said.
> 
> The question is when will you provide the evidence for monkeys to humans?  Do you know what you are talking about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no evidence of "monkeys to humans" that is supported by relevant science. That you continue with such nonsense displays an appalling lack of knowledge and willful ignorance on your part.
> 
> Unfortunately, you have chosen to simply repeat the slogans and misinformation furthered by the most notorious fundamentalist ministries,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If there is no evidence of "monkeys to humans" that is supported by relevant science, then case closed.  You have agreed that I've won the argument regarding the thread.
> 
> I'm not sure what slogans and misinformation you are talking about.  I've argued creation science and science against evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Case is not closed. You have retreated to your usual childish tactic of declaring you have "won". You have presented nothing to support your claim of "monkeys to humans". You have presented no evidence of a 6,000 year old earth. Your attempt at argument consists of simply reiterating nonsense slogans you copied from your ID/fundamentalist ministries.
Click to expand...


Why would I state "monkey to humans?"  I'm the guy who says that macroevolution didn't happen.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

LittleNipper said:


> Because evolution is the attempt to circumvent the CREATOR and propose a way for man to develop "naturally".


Ridiculous, paranoid nonsense. For one,the theory of evolution exists because the evidence took us to it, not because someone dreamt up a scheme to circumvent your particular, preferred nugget of magical nonsense.

Second, a creationist can point at evolution and merely call it a mechanism of creation.

So, don't attempt to frame your tantrum in the context of "defending creationism". You are doing no such thing. You are defending a very specific creation myth, to wit: the hilariously goofy and demonstrably false Bible creation myth.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you noticed that you are the only individual proclaiming to have “won” an argument you have yet to make?
> 
> Your dismissal of evolution is right out of the ID/creationist/supernaturalist playbook. Do you believe there is a vast conspiracy among leading universities and scientists across the globe? Have you been convinced of a 6,000 year old earth when experimentation, physical data and evidence depicts a very ancient universe and a very old earth? You do realize that museums, research/teaching universities, private collectors, etc., have amassed huge collections of fosill and skeletal remains of dinosaurs. The fact of these fosill skeletons is not the conspiracy you may believe it to be.
> 
> All the available evidence suggests that life on this planet is the product of naturally occurring processes.
> 
> Once again, to support your extremist position for supernatural intervention you need to:
> 
> 1) provide credible evidence for one or more of your gods, and then,
> 
> 2) provide credible evidence that one or more of your gods had direct involvement with the implementation of magical gardens, talking serpents and the magical *poofing* of the diversity of biological life on the planet.
> 
> When will you provide such evidence?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There really isn't much point in discussing further because as I said before you have gone looney tunes and off the topic of discussion.  I was nice and discussed and presented my rebuttals and arguments to you.  However, you continue to misconstrue what I've said and paint me in a negative light.  You put words in my mouth that I didn't say.  On top of that, you continue the same line of assertions and ad hominems instead of addressing anything I said.
> 
> The question is when will you provide the evidence for monkeys to humans?  Do you know what you are talking about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no evidence of "monkeys to humans" that is supported by relevant science. That you continue with such nonsense displays an appalling lack of knowledge and willful ignorance on your part.
> 
> Unfortunately, you have chosen to simply repeat the slogans and misinformation furthered by the most notorious fundamentalist ministries,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If there is no evidence of "monkeys to humans" that is supported by relevant science, then case closed.  You have agreed that I've won the argument regarding the thread.
> 
> I'm not sure what slogans and misinformation you are talking about.  I've argued creation science and science against evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Case is not closed. You have retreated to your usual childish tactic of declaring you have "won". You have presented nothing to support your claim of "monkeys to humans". You have presented no evidence of a 6,000 year old earth. Your attempt at argument consists of simply reiterating nonsense slogans you copied from your ID/fundamentalist ministries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would I state "monkey to humans?"  I'm the guy who says that macroevolution didn't happen.
Click to expand...


Another of your unsupported claims. Try here for an explanation of terms and definitions you're struggling with. 

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent

How odd that there are relevant examples of what your creation ministries call "macro evolution" which you confuse with biological evolution.


----------



## Pete7469

I know BlackFlag is a monkey. Not sure where it came from though.


----------



## BlackFlag

Pete7469 said:


> I know BlackFlag is a monkey. Not sure where it came from though.


Seek attention from someone else, lil’ pup


----------



## fncceo

james bond said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> The truth is even being a believer may not get one into heaven.  Satan doesn't make it easier for believers.  We have theistic evolutionists.  We also have those who end up going off the righteous path.  I think God intended for all of us to be in heaven in the Garden of Eden, but that chance was lost.  Jesus' sacrifice gave us all a second chance.  I'm not sure whether one gets another chance beyond that such as purgatory.  I think Christians have come to the realization that there is no limbo.  Purgatory and limbo are places that Catholicism proposed.
> 
> None of this came from monkeys.  Certainly, one can't get into heaven believing in monkeys .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe in monkeys.   I've seen them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you recognize any common ancestors?  I don't.  My ancestors do not have tails.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sure you've been told this before, but apes, monkeys, gibbons, are not common ancestors of humans (according to the Theory of Evolution to which you refer).
> 
> If you go back far enough, humans and apes, humans and fish, humans and protozoa, have common ancestors.  Some of which did in fact have tails.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell me where your pic of monkeys come in then.  In all of these charts, it shows the same monkeys we see today in the distant past (uniformitarian thinking?).  Below are three common ancestor trees you can use.  Yet, when I use today's monkeys, I'm told they aren't the same as in the past.  It's a one-sided argument or cherry picking fallacy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about this one?  It's really a joke, so people should be laughing.
Click to expand...


You might want to take a closer look at your 'charts'.  Do you know what 'split' means?  Those charts indicate that some of the descendants of a common ancestor split from the ancestor and developed one way.  Other's split and developed another. Yet others split off and went in another direction.  Because they come from a common progenitor, they will have traits in common ... that is why they are categorized as hominids or hylobates, and others. Those charts, even as simplified as they are, don't indicate that apes turned into humans.  They show that they have a common ancestry as they developed.  

The bottom picture, so widely known and often parodied, implies transition, but it really is just showing the genetic similarities between different branches of the same common trunk.






It might be easier to visualize if you think of an example from artificial selection.  Artificial selection, or breeding, happens on a much faster timeline with human intervention.  But, the mechanisms are similar.

Every dog on earth has a common ancestor, the wolf.  Trace back the lineage of every dog far enough and they all go back to a progenitor wolf.  When men first began to interact with the wolf, he favored the wolf that would take food from him and killed the ones who attacked him.  That means that some wolves, developed in one way, more human tolerant, and another branch went the other way, seeing humans only as food.  The human friendly wolves were bred by humans and traits that humans wanted were allowed to survive, other traits were destroyed.  This has gone on for tens of thousands of years and now we have chihuahuas.  







A wolf can't turn into a chihuahua any more than a chihuahua can man up (dog up) and become a wolf.  Wolves didn't become chihuahuas, but they do have a common ancestor who was a wolf.

Take out the human intervention of special selection and allow natural selection to do the same thing, only over a much longer time scale with a lot more mistakes, and you get an idea how selection works.

Where evolution differs from natural selection is that natural selection is the mechanism that causes mutations to become a different species in response to the needs of the environment, evolution is the concept that life can, over time, change from one form into another.

The theory of evolution doesn't preclude a belief in G-d.  It simply explains a smart way in which G-d might go about creating life in so much diversity and adapted suitably to every environment.  G-d, having access to infinite time, wouldn't need to hand-sculpt every creature from a human to an amoeba.  He could, simple create a few elements at a single time, and allow time and molecular biology to do its work.  G-d working smarter, not harder.  

Of course, that would mean the literal interpretation of scripture would be problematic.  But, evolution is the least of problems when trying to reconcile a literal interpretation with scripture.  Some more perplexing problems might be ... where did Cain's wife come from?  Incest?  Since there are currently as many as five million undiscovered species of  life on Earth, were they all on The Ark and we just forgot about them?  How did kangaroos get from Central Asia to Australia, did they swim?  If they migrated, isn't it odd that no kangaroos were ever seen anywhere else?  

An entire book could be written (and many have) about the problems of taking scripture literally instead of metaphorically so I wont' repeat all the arguments.  But, if you accept that there are problems with literal interpretation, you have to at least consider the fact that G-d, infinitely wise and powerful, might choose a smarter way to create life than that of a maker of clay pots.  

Food for thought.


----------



## JimBowie1958

Homo Sapiens are apes, not monkeys. 

I used to be opposed to Evolution as a theory but the evidence is just overwhelming.

This does not contradict the concept of the Creator or the relevance of religion especially Christianity.

Genesis is not a manual of modern biological science. It is a collection of stories with various moral lessons and we do not know why the authors (Moses, etc) included them in their books that were compiled into Genesis.  Moses was a prince of Egypt and had access to alot of different mythologies of his day. The Holy Spirit guided him to include some stories rather than others, so there is still a moral imperative to these myths. How factual they are as opposed to allegory is a matter of personal opinion.

To reject modern science  because of a personal interpretation of ancient morality tales seems misguided to me.


----------



## LittleNipper

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll discuss a few of your points below because you have gone looney as I have calmly and successfully rebutted your arguments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It’s nice that you have chosen to self-congratulate on rebutting my arguments but You should first make an attempt to do that. I noticed you retreated from addressing my comments with regard to prayer, rattling bones, etc. as a cure for disease, when science has provided those cures.
> 
> Your refusal to advance any understanding of the methodology within the Scientific Method suggests you have simply chosen to press your agenda of fear and superstition over facts and enlightenment.
> 
> So pragmatically, one is led to ask the question, when will the evidence be provided in a comprehensive way for a reliable conclusion of one or more gods to be drawn? Quite clearly, we are surrounded with tangible examples of where even our imperfect understanding of objective reality has been sufficient for science to revolutionize our world. Science has proven to be, beyond all competition, the single most successful, pervasive and impactful human endeavor in all of history. In contrast, claims to gawds is essentially useless for the any practical purpose of understanding what is true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong, creation scientists do perform research and experiments.  We see that they have been done throughout history and Noah's global flood was the accepted geology of the earth in the past.  Do you know anything about the history of uniformitarianism?  Do you know how it influenced evolution?  I don't think you know what you are talking about as atheist science (secular science) has brainwashed you.  So right off the bat, your statements are way, way, way wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You’re having some difficulty furthering a consistent argument. Did you forget what you wrote earlier?
> 
> You wrote: “_As for your tests and experiments, that goes against creation science_".
> 
> Yes, I agree. Tests and experiments go against creation science. That's because creation science is not science at all but religious fundamentalism. You're unable to separate science from belief in supernatural entities. And further, without an understanding of the methods of science, your comments regarding science explanations as conjecture are simply used as a rationale for embracing dogma and mysticism. That really is displayed in the context of the unsupported assertions you make with no support for your claims to supernaturalism. The fact that learned students of the sciences know the difference between the methods of science vs. religious claims renders, as usual, your claims as unsupported.
> 
> Why not provide some details as to those components of objective reality that are explicitly not encompassed by science and rationality? There can be no doubt that science today is better able to answer the workings of the natural world than it was a century ago. In this way, science has allowed us to advance in that incremental, stepwise manner closer to a true understanding of objective reality. And science makes no other claim or promise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> It just goes to show how wacko you've become in discussing your wrong worldview of believing monkeys to humans.
> 
> Let's go back to uniformitarianism and apply the concept to monkeys.  If today's science shows us what the past was like, then why can't we use our observations of today's monkeys to explain how monkeys were in the past?  None are bipedal.  They are knuckle walkers.  All have small cranial capacity.  The sclera of their eyes are dark brown, not whilte like humans.  None have showed any signs of evolving into an ape-human.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unfortunately. You do typify the result of the ID'iot creationism / fundamentalist Christian cabal. I see this frequently. My suspicion is that you have been coached by religious entities who certainly have a vested interest in placating your desire to believe the religious tales and fables in lieu of hard facts. Meaning, of course that the apes into human beings nonsense displays a fundamental lack of understanding. Man was never an ape or monkey. Man was never descended from an ape or monkey. Man and primates shared a common ancestor but branched off in separate directions. That’s not at all uncommon in evolutionary history, by the way, for species to diverge in different directions while sharing a common ancestry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're going way beyond the scope of this thread, but there is the soft tissue and blood evidence of dinosaurs.  It shows that dinosaurs were cold blooded like reptiles.  We also have found that they could not have evolved the breathing system of birds.  Thus, birds from dinosaurs could not have happened.  No macroevolution like humans did not evolve from monkeys.  We also found that there was fraud committed with feathered dinosaurs a few times already.  Your evidence for feathered dinosaurs has been shown to be human-made for profit.  If the evidence is everywhere, then why buy stuff from peddlers in China or Myanmar?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not sure you understand what you're complaining about. You make a great many unsupported assertions and make no attempt to support them. As an epistemological method or philosophy, science has _every right_ to demand religious fundamentalist claims are held to the same standards science holds itself to-- hypothesis, experimentation, falsification, peer review, etc. in order for an assertion to be considered valid. This is fair because science has stringent demands it holds against itself, and its goal is to arrive at truth as best as possible by vigorous methods-- which are open to any who cares to repeat them.
> 
> Religious fundamentalists on the other hand, has this "faith, not proof" standard, so by their _own standards_ religionists must give equal weight to _all claims based upon faith_ as being _just as likely true_ as the religionist's own professed beliefs-- even science! ". If creationist find this unacceptable, then they must decide why religious beliefs are exempt from standards they demand science is required to adhere to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atheist scientists and atheists have some weird false beliefs that betray them such as not believing in God, the supernatural and his word the Bible.  They also believe in false science of evolution and evolutionary thinking.  The closest thing I could agree with evo is natural selection and being against gmo foods.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More unsupported assertions. And, by the way, much of the planet does not believe in your partisan gods. Your polytheistic gods are merely one conception of gods. We are privileged to consider reality, but only the universe that actually exists can be _fruitfully_ considered. How do we assign confidence to what is real and what is simply imaginary? Evidence and reason. These are our only tools for that task. Thankfully, they appear to work pretty well, at least for those of us not bound to a precommittment to your dogma.
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> So far, you have not been able to show any observable evidence, falsifiable evidence, nor experimental evidence of evolution.  The long times of the evolution based on radiometric times have questionable assumptions.  So does the philosophy (religion) of uniformitarianism.  If uniformitarianism is true, then there would be on need to start putting in the philosophy of catastrophism.  The creation scientists do not mix any uniformitarian philosophies with catastrophism.  Even the threat of an asteroid(s) hitting the earth follows creation science.  The mountain of evidence for evolution has been reduced to rubble.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is the theory of evolution and there is the FACT of evolution. Species change-- there is variation within one kind of animal. There is a predictable range of genetic variation in a species, as well as an expected rate of random mutations. Creationists/Flat Earthers'/YEC'ists grudgingly admit that a "kind" (an ambiguous, non-scientific term) can develop into different species (i.e. a dog "kind" can evolve into wolves, coyotes, foxes, and all types of domestic dogs) but they insist that it must stop there. They never give any reason for this fabricated limitation-- they just deny that it can happen. They just can't accept macroevolution, because it contradicts the "truth" of their dogma. But in reality, there is no limit to the degree that a species can change. Given enough time, a fish-like species can evolve into a amphibian-like species, an amphibian-like species can evolve into a reptilian-like species, a reptilian-like species can evolve into a mammalian-like species, and an ape-like species can evolve into the modern human species.
> 
> You are in need of new conspiracy theories if you insist that biological evolution is just a theory. While you want to believe that Evilutionist scientists are all co-conspirators in some vast conspiracy you envision, you will need something better than paranoia to displace science. Science is a self-correcting mechanism that relies on the evidence. The evidence points to abiogenesis as the probable start of life, thanks in large part to our understanding of bio- and organic chemistry. The evidence points to evolution as the explanation for the diversity of life, thanks in large part to two centuries of evidence including fossils, genetics, and geology. The evidence points towards a 14 billion year old universe, thanks in large part to our understanding of physics and cosmology and CBR.
> 
> There is a reason why science has proven to be the single most influential and impactful human endeavor in history; that is because it formally recognizes the tentative nature of all human knowledge, and provides a method for incrementally approaching “absolute” truth without the arrogance of assuming it is ever actually achieved. It bears a humility regarding its own achievement that constantly inspires revision and review. It inspires thinking and iconoclasm rather than the intellectual _rigor mortis_ of received dogma.
> 
> And in this way it accomplishes what most religious beliefs do not; progress.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First, you are misstating what I said a second time when I was addressing "your" hypothetical experiment.  Thus, I'll claim victory in regards to that argument as you continue to misstate and continue to put words in my mouth.
> 
> You also further misstate and try to tie me with ID.  I've clearly said I was for creation science and not ID.  Thus, I win again.
> 
> As for "Man was never an ape or monkey. Man was never descended from an ape or monkey. Man and primates shared a common ancestor but branched off in separate directions. That’s not at all uncommon in evolutionary history, by the way, for species to diverge in different directions while sharing a common ancestry."
> 
> There never was a common ancestor to humans.  There never was a common ancestor to monkeys.  Let's use what we see today as common ancestors.  If you take a horse and cross it with a donkey, then you get a mule.  However, that's as far as you can go.  The mule had a horse and donkey as ancestors.  Furthermore, you still haven't explained how sexual reproduction came about from asexual reproduction.
> 
> Moreover, creation scientists do not use "faith."  It is the evos who use faith to believe in evolution and evolutionary thinking.  Creation scientists use the Bible as hypothesis and that worked fine until Charles Lyell came along.
> 
> Species change and new species emerge, but not macroevolution.  Natural selection only applies to microevolution.  Thus, monkeys to apes and dinosaurs to birds did not happen.  I provided the evidence to destroy those hypothesis.  So, evolution has been effectively been destroyed in this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you noticed that you are the only individual proclaiming to have “won” an argument you have yet to make?
> 
> Your dismissal of evolution is right out of the ID/creationist/supernaturalist playbook. Do you believe there is a vast conspiracy among leading universities and scientists across the globe? Have you been convinced of a 6,000 year old earth when experimentation, physical data and evidence depicts a very ancient universe and a very old earth? You do realize that museums, research/teaching universities, private collectors, etc., have amassed huge collections of fosill and skeletal remains of dinosaurs. The fact of these fosill skeletons is not the conspiracy you may believe it to be.
> 
> All the available evidence suggests that life on this planet is the product of naturally occurring processes.
> 
> Once again, to support your extremist position for supernatural intervention you need to:
> 
> 1) provide credible evidence for one or more of your gods, and then,
> 
> 2) provide credible evidence that one or more of your gods had direct involvement with the implementation of magical gardens, talking serpents and the magical *poofing* of the diversity of biological life on the planet.
> 
> When will you provide such evidence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There really isn't much point in discussing further because as I said before you have gone looney tunes and off the topic of discussion.  I was nice and discussed and presented my rebuttals and arguments to you.  However, you continue to misconstrue what I've said and paint me in a negative light.  You put words in my mouth that I didn't say.  On top of that, you continue the same line of assertions and ad hominems instead of addressing anything I said.
> 
> The question is when will you provide the evidence for monkeys to humans?  Do you know what you are talking about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no evidence of "monkeys to humans" that is supported by relevant science. That you continue with such nonsense displays an appalling lack of knowledge and willful ignorance on your part.
> 
> Unfortunately, you have chosen to simply repeat the slogans and misinformation furthered by the most notorious fundamentalist ministries,
Click to expand...

There is NO proof that Humans evolved from anything. They were created by GOD from the dust. How GOD created monkeys, chimps, and gorillas is up for grabs. However, GOD created them in one day and man on another. And the evolution presented in public school infers that monkeys and apes all share some COMMON ANCESTOR with humans...


----------



## Hollie

LittleNipper said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> It’s nice that you have chosen to self-congratulate on rebutting my arguments but You should first make an attempt to do that. I noticed you retreated from addressing my comments with regard to prayer, rattling bones, etc. as a cure for disease, when science has provided those cures.
> 
> Your refusal to advance any understanding of the methodology within the Scientific Method suggests you have simply chosen to press your agenda of fear and superstition over facts and enlightenment.
> 
> So pragmatically, one is led to ask the question, when will the evidence be provided in a comprehensive way for a reliable conclusion of one or more gods to be drawn? Quite clearly, we are surrounded with tangible examples of where even our imperfect understanding of objective reality has been sufficient for science to revolutionize our world. Science has proven to be, beyond all competition, the single most successful, pervasive and impactful human endeavor in all of history. In contrast, claims to gawds is essentially useless for the any practical purpose of understanding what is true.
> 
> 
> You’re having some difficulty furthering a consistent argument. Did you forget what you wrote earlier?
> 
> You wrote: “_As for your tests and experiments, that goes against creation science_".
> 
> Yes, I agree. Tests and experiments go against creation science. That's because creation science is not science at all but religious fundamentalism. You're unable to separate science from belief in supernatural entities. And further, without an understanding of the methods of science, your comments regarding science explanations as conjecture are simply used as a rationale for embracing dogma and mysticism. That really is displayed in the context of the unsupported assertions you make with no support for your claims to supernaturalism. The fact that learned students of the sciences know the difference between the methods of science vs. religious claims renders, as usual, your claims as unsupported.
> 
> Why not provide some details as to those components of objective reality that are explicitly not encompassed by science and rationality? There can be no doubt that science today is better able to answer the workings of the natural world than it was a century ago. In this way, science has allowed us to advance in that incremental, stepwise manner closer to a true understanding of objective reality. And science makes no other claim or promise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately. You do typify the result of the ID'iot creationism / fundamentalist Christian cabal. I see this frequently. My suspicion is that you have been coached by religious entities who certainly have a vested interest in placating your desire to believe the religious tales and fables in lieu of hard facts. Meaning, of course that the apes into human beings nonsense displays a fundamental lack of understanding. Man was never an ape or monkey. Man was never descended from an ape or monkey. Man and primates shared a common ancestor but branched off in separate directions. That’s not at all uncommon in evolutionary history, by the way, for species to diverge in different directions while sharing a common ancestry.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure you understand what you're complaining about. You make a great many unsupported assertions and make no attempt to support them. As an epistemological method or philosophy, science has _every right_ to demand religious fundamentalist claims are held to the same standards science holds itself to-- hypothesis, experimentation, falsification, peer review, etc. in order for an assertion to be considered valid. This is fair because science has stringent demands it holds against itself, and its goal is to arrive at truth as best as possible by vigorous methods-- which are open to any who cares to repeat them.
> 
> Religious fundamentalists on the other hand, has this "faith, not proof" standard, so by their _own standards_ religionists must give equal weight to _all claims based upon faith_ as being _just as likely true_ as the religionist's own professed beliefs-- even science! ". If creationist find this unacceptable, then they must decide why religious beliefs are exempt from standards they demand science is required to adhere to.
> 
> 
> More unsupported assertions. And, by the way, much of the planet does not believe in your partisan gods. Your polytheistic gods are merely one conception of gods. We are privileged to consider reality, but only the universe that actually exists can be _fruitfully_ considered. How do we assign confidence to what is real and what is simply imaginary? Evidence and reason. These are our only tools for that task. Thankfully, they appear to work pretty well, at least for those of us not bound to a precommittment to your dogma.
> 
> There is the theory of evolution and there is the FACT of evolution. Species change-- there is variation within one kind of animal. There is a predictable range of genetic variation in a species, as well as an expected rate of random mutations. Creationists/Flat Earthers'/YEC'ists grudgingly admit that a "kind" (an ambiguous, non-scientific term) can develop into different species (i.e. a dog "kind" can evolve into wolves, coyotes, foxes, and all types of domestic dogs) but they insist that it must stop there. They never give any reason for this fabricated limitation-- they just deny that it can happen. They just can't accept macroevolution, because it contradicts the "truth" of their dogma. But in reality, there is no limit to the degree that a species can change. Given enough time, a fish-like species can evolve into a amphibian-like species, an amphibian-like species can evolve into a reptilian-like species, a reptilian-like species can evolve into a mammalian-like species, and an ape-like species can evolve into the modern human species.
> 
> You are in need of new conspiracy theories if you insist that biological evolution is just a theory. While you want to believe that Evilutionist scientists are all co-conspirators in some vast conspiracy you envision, you will need something better than paranoia to displace science. Science is a self-correcting mechanism that relies on the evidence. The evidence points to abiogenesis as the probable start of life, thanks in large part to our understanding of bio- and organic chemistry. The evidence points to evolution as the explanation for the diversity of life, thanks in large part to two centuries of evidence including fossils, genetics, and geology. The evidence points towards a 14 billion year old universe, thanks in large part to our understanding of physics and cosmology and CBR.
> 
> There is a reason why science has proven to be the single most influential and impactful human endeavor in history; that is because it formally recognizes the tentative nature of all human knowledge, and provides a method for incrementally approaching “absolute” truth without the arrogance of assuming it is ever actually achieved. It bears a humility regarding its own achievement that constantly inspires revision and review. It inspires thinking and iconoclasm rather than the intellectual _rigor mortis_ of received dogma.
> 
> And in this way it accomplishes what most religious beliefs do not; progress.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First, you are misstating what I said a second time when I was addressing "your" hypothetical experiment.  Thus, I'll claim victory in regards to that argument as you continue to misstate and continue to put words in my mouth.
> 
> You also further misstate and try to tie me with ID.  I've clearly said I was for creation science and not ID.  Thus, I win again.
> 
> As for "Man was never an ape or monkey. Man was never descended from an ape or monkey. Man and primates shared a common ancestor but branched off in separate directions. That’s not at all uncommon in evolutionary history, by the way, for species to diverge in different directions while sharing a common ancestry."
> 
> There never was a common ancestor to humans.  There never was a common ancestor to monkeys.  Let's use what we see today as common ancestors.  If you take a horse and cross it with a donkey, then you get a mule.  However, that's as far as you can go.  The mule had a horse and donkey as ancestors.  Furthermore, you still haven't explained how sexual reproduction came about from asexual reproduction.
> 
> Moreover, creation scientists do not use "faith."  It is the evos who use faith to believe in evolution and evolutionary thinking.  Creation scientists use the Bible as hypothesis and that worked fine until Charles Lyell came along.
> 
> Species change and new species emerge, but not macroevolution.  Natural selection only applies to microevolution.  Thus, monkeys to apes and dinosaurs to birds did not happen.  I provided the evidence to destroy those hypothesis.  So, evolution has been effectively been destroyed in this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you noticed that you are the only individual proclaiming to have “won” an argument you have yet to make?
> 
> Your dismissal of evolution is right out of the ID/creationist/supernaturalist playbook. Do you believe there is a vast conspiracy among leading universities and scientists across the globe? Have you been convinced of a 6,000 year old earth when experimentation, physical data and evidence depicts a very ancient universe and a very old earth? You do realize that museums, research/teaching universities, private collectors, etc., have amassed huge collections of fosill and skeletal remains of dinosaurs. The fact of these fosill skeletons is not the conspiracy you may believe it to be.
> 
> All the available evidence suggests that life on this planet is the product of naturally occurring processes.
> 
> Once again, to support your extremist position for supernatural intervention you need to:
> 
> 1) provide credible evidence for one or more of your gods, and then,
> 
> 2) provide credible evidence that one or more of your gods had direct involvement with the implementation of magical gardens, talking serpents and the magical *poofing* of the diversity of biological life on the planet.
> 
> When will you provide such evidence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There really isn't much point in discussing further because as I said before you have gone looney tunes and off the topic of discussion.  I was nice and discussed and presented my rebuttals and arguments to you.  However, you continue to misconstrue what I've said and paint me in a negative light.  You put words in my mouth that I didn't say.  On top of that, you continue the same line of assertions and ad hominems instead of addressing anything I said.
> 
> The question is when will you provide the evidence for monkeys to humans?  Do you know what you are talking about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no evidence of "monkeys to humans" that is supported by relevant science. That you continue with such nonsense displays an appalling lack of knowledge and willful ignorance on your part.
> 
> Unfortunately, you have chosen to simply repeat the slogans and misinformation furthered by the most notorious fundamentalist ministries,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is NO proof that Humans evolved from anything. They were created by GOD from the dust. How GOD created monkeys, chimps, and monkeys is up for grabs. However, GOD did it in one day.
Click to expand...


Your comments are at odds with science.


Darwin s Theory of Evolution Definition Evidence
*Natural selection*

Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection is one of the best substantiated theories in the history of science, supported by evidence from a wide variety of scientific disciplines, including paleontology, geology, genetics and developmental biology.


Do you believe that all the complimentary disciplines of science, to include biology, chemistry, paleontology, physics, etc., and the global community of scientists representing virtually all of the globes colleges and teaching universities are involved in some worldwide conspiracy involving "evilution"?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

LittleNipper said:


> There is NO proof that Humans evolved from anything.


False. There are mountains of evidence. That is why you would fail a 7th grade science test.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Ridiculous, paranoid nonsense. For one,the theory of evolution exists because the evidence took us to it, not because someone dreamt up a scheme to circumvent your particular, preferred nugget of magical nonsense.



The true evidence took us to God as science was founded to honor God.  Science backs up the bible.

To the contrary, the ridiculousness, false delusions and paranoia started with anti-catastrophism, anti-belief in God and fake science and theories of uniformitarianism from an atheist Scottish farmer named James Hutton.  This was always about being against God at the foundation.  After all, true science was founded upon God.

Maybe we should trace who the real *paranoid* ones are.  Those who worry about global warming.  *Those who worry about right and wrong and turn to science for moral values. *They worry about Donald Trump.  They favor same-sex marriage and abortion.  False science created to replace the true one.  Darwin made up evolution to replace God.  Evolution was created to replace God.

The Science of Right and Wrong

Maybe it's the marijuana.

Why can pot make you paranoid? 



Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Second, a creationist can point at evolution and merely call it a mechanism of creation.



There are some atheists who believe in God.  The closet believers.

Do atheists secretly believe in God? 

Evolution could not be a mechanism of creation.  If it did, then it circumvents the Bible.  This is evidence how Satan handed down uniformitarianism and evolution to Nimrod.  You don't want to be a nimrod like you.  You don't want to be a paranoid like you.  You've been exposed Fort Fun Indiana.  Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean God and the believers aren't after you.


----------



## RWS

LittleNipper said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> To settle this argument,
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not taking my Visa card with me when I'm gone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have to leave your Visa card and all the things you bought behind.  Don't you think that life is short and it's strange that one can't take anything with them when they die?  That said, there is more to life than that if you believe in Jesus and creation science.  God reveals himself and then one starts to understand creation science is greater that evolution and evolutionary thinking.  It's true science vs false science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But your religion wants our money now, while alive. I'm constantly getting asked to donate to a religion that has more money than I can possibly conceive. Why would it be different later?
> 
> Did they suddenly make enough when I die? Or are they still gonna be hounding me for more?
> 
> Will I have to face God and apologize that I cannot pay the Heaven rent? And get sent elsewhere?
> 
> God is supposedly in control of everything. But like Carlin said... He seems to have a lot of trouble with money...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know fncceo is being facetious, but there's a deeper truth beyond what he intends, too.  I enjoy his humor.  It's quite good.
> 
> Usually, Christian churches ask for 10% of your yearly income as tithing.  I have to agree that people are not comfortable with it.  They are asked to buy Christian books, too.  Some churches are heavier handed than most, but I don't think one has to feel they have to give 10%.  I try to do the 10%, but only if I feel comfortable in doing that for the year.  Give if you feel comfortable.
> 
> What does the Bible say about Christian tithing? Should a Christian tithe?
> 
> Are Christians Required to Give 10% of Their Income to the Church? - Greg Boyd - ReKnew
> 
> There are other worthwhile charities, too, such as Salvation Army.
> 
> Yet, your point isn't about giving.  It's more atheist criticism of Christians and I think I addressed that above.
> 
> Christians believe once a person has committed to Jesus, then they become good trees and good trees bear good fruit.  The result is faith + good works as in Book of James.  It doesn't mean that good deeds or giving and buying your way into heaven gets one into heaven.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But if God is all-powerful, and Jesus is too, why do they need people to raise money?
> 
> They can create it themselves, in whatever means necessary. "Poof! There's some gold bars for you!"
> 
> What happens, in the current system, is that corrupt people keep most of the money being raised by well-wishing people, in whatever form they donate to the Church.
> 
> Some of it surely goes back to altruistic intentions, to keep people giving. And I understand that a lot of it goes towards maintenance. But most of it disappears into corrupt coffers, or stashed away in some hidden Vatican fund.
> 
> My point is, with the vast amount of money and volunteer work that is donated by Christians, that should cover maintenance, and also stop people from starving and suffering in this world.
> 
> But then, if they stop the starvation and suffering, it will be hard to generate more money without conquering... It's catch-22.
> 
> But an altruistic religion, with almost unlimited funds, and a righteous God that can make money appear from thin air, should stop all world suffering first, and worry about followers later.
> 
> That..... would get me to follow a religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Man is participating in GOD's work and gets to witness GOD working through such experiences. And honestly, I regard the Roman Catholic church as self servicing. I do not consider the pope as the head of Christ's CHURCH. And this is why the Reformation happened. That was the Holy Spirit shaking up and reviving His CHURCH. The separation of the sheep from the goats.
> 
> The suffering of the world is the direct result of man's choice to separate themselves from the love of GOD. The more people feel secure in their own lifestyles and creature comforts the more they rely on their own devices. That is human nature and it historically happens over and over again. The prosperity of the 1890's lead to the humanistic world views that propelled Germany and the world into the GREAT WORLD WAR. The prosperity of the 20's lead to the despair of the 30's and World War II. The prosperity of the 50's and 60's lead to the drug and sex induced despair of the 70's and the manipulated energy crisis...
Click to expand...

You miss the entire point. There is mass starvation and suffering in third world countries. The church does donate some money to help them, and provide volunteers. But they don't fix them, they do just enough to keep the suffering going. 

They could FIX it, if they wanted.... But they don't. 

They have the resources to eradicate much of the suffering that is going on. But they only do a little bit (just to keep followers thinking they are altruistic). They could fix the problems, but choose not to. 

That is not an altruistic religion that is worth following with blind faith. I do appreciate what they do, but they can absolutely do a billion-times-fold more. It seems to be more for show, than for real help. 

And that's how Christianity rolls. If they fixed it, people may stop donating thinking that the issues are fixed. 

And then, where are they gonna get even more money?!?

 Better to leave people suffering, to guarantee future profits.


----------



## RWS

james bond said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> To settle this argument,
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not taking my Visa card with me when I'm gone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have to leave your Visa card and all the things you bought behind.  Don't you think that life is short and it's strange that one can't take anything with them when they die?  That said, there is more to life than that if you believe in Jesus and creation science.  God reveals himself and then one starts to understand creation science is greater that evolution and evolutionary thinking.  It's true science vs false science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But your religion wants our money now, while alive. I'm constantly getting asked to donate to a religion that has more money than I can possibly conceive. Why would it be different later?
> 
> Did they suddenly make enough when I die? Or are they still gonna be hounding me for more?
> 
> Will I have to face God and apologize that I cannot pay the Heaven rent? And get sent elsewhere?
> 
> God is supposedly in control of everything. But like Carlin said... He seems to have a lot of trouble with money...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know fncceo is being facetious, but there's a deeper truth beyond what he intends, too.  I enjoy his humor.  It's quite good.
> 
> Usually, Christian churches ask for 10% of your yearly income as tithing.  I have to agree that people are not comfortable with it.  They are asked to buy Christian books, too.  Some churches are heavier handed than most, but I don't think one has to feel they have to give 10%.  I try to do the 10%, but only if I feel comfortable in doing that for the year.  Give if you feel comfortable.
> 
> What does the Bible say about Christian tithing? Should a Christian tithe?
> 
> Are Christians Required to Give 10% of Their Income to the Church? - Greg Boyd - ReKnew
> 
> There are other worthwhile charities, too, such as Salvation Army.
> 
> Yet, your point isn't about giving.  It's more atheist criticism of Christians and I think I addressed that above.
> 
> Christians believe once a person has committed to Jesus, then they become good trees and good trees bear good fruit.  The result is faith + good works as in Book of James.  It doesn't mean that good deeds or giving and buying your way into heaven gets one into heaven.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But if God is all-powerful, and Jesus is too, why do they need people to raise money?
> 
> They can create it themselves, in whatever means necessary. "Poof! There's some gold bars for you!"
> 
> What happens, in the current system, is that corrupt people keep most of the money being raised by well-wishing people, in whatever form they donate to the Church.
> 
> Some of it surely goes back to altruistic intentions, to keep people giving. And I understand that a lot of it goes towards maintenance. But most of it disappears into corrupt coffers, or stashed away in some hidden Vatican fund.
> 
> My point is, with the vast amount of money and volunteer work that is donated by Christians, that should cover maintenance, and also stop people from starving and suffering in this world.
> 
> But then, if they stop the starvation and suffering, it will be hard to generate more money without conquering... It's catch-22.
> 
> But an altruistic religion, with almost unlimited funds, and a righteous God that can make money appear from thin air, should stop all world suffering first, and worry about followers later.
> 
> That..... would get me to follow a religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess you missed the part where Adam sinned or else we'd all be living in paradise.  It's like I'm talking with a rock.
Click to expand...

WHAT?!? You're still blaming everything on Adam? It was Eve... She wanted more fruit than she was entitled to. And she liked the Serpent! 

Of course, the serpent was Enki, and Eve didn't exist. And AD.IM means "human" in Sumerian. And the first human was created in the Sumerian city of ED.IN. 

Of course this was all written 2000+ years before the OT. But hey... who cares???


----------



## james bond

RWS said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> To settle this argument,
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have to leave your Visa card and all the things you bought behind.  Don't you think that life is short and it's strange that one can't take anything with them when they die?  That said, there is more to life than that if you believe in Jesus and creation science.  God reveals himself and then one starts to understand creation science is greater that evolution and evolutionary thinking.  It's true science vs false science.
> 
> 
> 
> But your religion wants our money now, while alive. I'm constantly getting asked to donate to a religion that has more money than I can possibly conceive. Why would it be different later?
> 
> Did they suddenly make enough when I die? Or are they still gonna be hounding me for more?
> 
> Will I have to face God and apologize that I cannot pay the Heaven rent? And get sent elsewhere?
> 
> God is supposedly in control of everything. But like Carlin said... He seems to have a lot of trouble with money...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know fncceo is being facetious, but there's a deeper truth beyond what he intends, too.  I enjoy his humor.  It's quite good.
> 
> Usually, Christian churches ask for 10% of your yearly income as tithing.  I have to agree that people are not comfortable with it.  They are asked to buy Christian books, too.  Some churches are heavier handed than most, but I don't think one has to feel they have to give 10%.  I try to do the 10%, but only if I feel comfortable in doing that for the year.  Give if you feel comfortable.
> 
> What does the Bible say about Christian tithing? Should a Christian tithe?
> 
> Are Christians Required to Give 10% of Their Income to the Church? - Greg Boyd - ReKnew
> 
> There are other worthwhile charities, too, such as Salvation Army.
> 
> Yet, your point isn't about giving.  It's more atheist criticism of Christians and I think I addressed that above.
> 
> Christians believe once a person has committed to Jesus, then they become good trees and good trees bear good fruit.  The result is faith + good works as in Book of James.  It doesn't mean that good deeds or giving and buying your way into heaven gets one into heaven.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But if God is all-powerful, and Jesus is too, why do they need people to raise money?
> 
> They can create it themselves, in whatever means necessary. "Poof! There's some gold bars for you!"
> 
> What happens, in the current system, is that corrupt people keep most of the money being raised by well-wishing people, in whatever form they donate to the Church.
> 
> Some of it surely goes back to altruistic intentions, to keep people giving. And I understand that a lot of it goes towards maintenance. But most of it disappears into corrupt coffers, or stashed away in some hidden Vatican fund.
> 
> My point is, with the vast amount of money and volunteer work that is donated by Christians, that should cover maintenance, and also stop people from starving and suffering in this world.
> 
> But then, if they stop the starvation and suffering, it will be hard to generate more money without conquering... It's catch-22.
> 
> But an altruistic religion, with almost unlimited funds, and a righteous God that can make money appear from thin air, should stop all world suffering first, and worry about followers later.
> 
> That..... would get me to follow a religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess you missed the part where Adam sinned or else we'd all be living in paradise.  It's like I'm talking with a rock.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> WHAT?!? You're still blaming everything on Adam? It was Eve... She wanted more fruit than she was entitled to. And she liked the Serpent!
> 
> Of course, the serpent was Enki, and Eve didn't exist. And AD.IM means "human" in Sumerian. And the first human was created in the Sumerian city of ED.IN.
> 
> Of course this was all written 2000+ years before the OT. But hey... who cares???
Click to expand...


Who cares?  I have explained this before, but you keep coming back to your Sumerian mythology readings.  What an ignoramus you are.






We know that some women still have a thing about serpents today.  However, it was Adam who ate the apple that caused the transfer of the world to Satan.  He was the beholder.  If he stuck to his guns and told Eve that she was wrong, then we would not be in this mess today.  What would have happened?  It's not known, but probably Eve would be the one banished and Adam would be alone again.  Maybe God would give Adam another wife due to cheating.

Next, you jump into your argument of a Sumerian myth to equate to what's written in the history of humans in the bible as Genesis.  You dare to compare known fiction with known history.  While we do not have the skeletons of Adam and Eve, we do have genetic evidence based on the Genesis theory.  The genetic evidence shows it.

"The genetic evidence is consistent with human DNA being “young” and the human race beginning with a very small starting population (the Bible tells us the starting population was two people!).

The International HapMap project endeavors to study a select group of DNA similarities and differences between humans known as single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs).5 The SNPs are believed to be representative of the genome (total human DNA) such that what is true for them would be true for the whole genome. These studies and others have shown that the difference in DNA between any two humans is amazingly low . . . only 0.1 percent.6

Reflecting on this very low percentage, some scientists posited, “This proportion is low compared with those of many other species, from fruit flies to chimpanzees, reflecting the recent origins of our species from a small founding population” (emphases mine).7 They also stated, “[Certain genetic estimates] tell us that humans vary only slightly at the DNA level and that only a small proportion of this variation separates continental populations.”8

These findings are consistent with the Bible’s history that humans were created several thousands years ago; in other words, a short amount of time has passed, so there is little genetic variation."

Furthermore, today's population is based on the offspring of Noah.

"Evolutionary scientists reject the biblical history of humanity’s origin from just two people. Nevertheless, when a group of evolutionary geneticists in 2009 evaluated various models of human origins, they tacitly acknowledged the plausibility of human descent from the people dispersed from the Tower of Babel. What they called the “instantaneous divergence model” sounds pretty much like what happened at the Tower of Babel sometime after the global Flood. These evolutionists found that “the genetic ‘predictions’ of the instantaneous divergence model are consistent with observed human genetic variation!”10" 

Did We All Come from Adam and Eve?

Even atheist scientists back it up in their worldview.

"Researchers have produced new DNA evidence that almost certainly confirms the theory that all modern humans have a common ancestry.

The genetic survey, produced by a collaborative team led by scholars at Cambridge and Anglia Ruskin Universities, shows that Australia's aboriginal population sprang from the same tiny group of colonists, along with their New Guinean neighbours.

The research confirms the “Out Of Africa” hypothesis that all modern humans stem from a single group of Homo sapiens who emigrated from Africa 2,000 generations ago and spread throughout Eurasia over thousands of years. These settlers replaced other early humans (such as Neanderthals), rather than interbreeding with them."

Research confirms theory that all modern humans descended from the same small group of people

The above, whether you believe Tower of Babel dispersion or Out of Africa, shows that you are ignorant of scientific genetic arguments from both sides.  Instead, you focus on Sumerican myths.  I have explained the science before and yet you keep repeating your same mistakes!

You need to admit the bible is a non-fictional account of human history and actually read and understand what it says.  Two, you need to better understand what evolution is stating.  Obviously, you have heard of common ancestor and how it started but either forget and cannot apply it when need to in your haste to create fictious arguments.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> To settle this argument,
> But your religion wants our money now, while alive. I'm constantly getting asked to donate to a religion that has more money than I can possibly conceive. Why would it be different later?
> 
> Did they suddenly make enough when I die? Or are they still gonna be hounding me for more?
> 
> Will I have to face God and apologize that I cannot pay the Heaven rent? And get sent elsewhere?
> 
> God is supposedly in control of everything. But like Carlin said... He seems to have a lot of trouble with money...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know fncceo is being facetious, but there's a deeper truth beyond what he intends, too.  I enjoy his humor.  It's quite good.
> 
> Usually, Christian churches ask for 10% of your yearly income as tithing.  I have to agree that people are not comfortable with it.  They are asked to buy Christian books, too.  Some churches are heavier handed than most, but I don't think one has to feel they have to give 10%.  I try to do the 10%, but only if I feel comfortable in doing that for the year.  Give if you feel comfortable.
> 
> What does the Bible say about Christian tithing? Should a Christian tithe?
> 
> Are Christians Required to Give 10% of Their Income to the Church? - Greg Boyd - ReKnew
> 
> There are other worthwhile charities, too, such as Salvation Army.
> 
> Yet, your point isn't about giving.  It's more atheist criticism of Christians and I think I addressed that above.
> 
> Christians believe once a person has committed to Jesus, then they become good trees and good trees bear good fruit.  The result is faith + good works as in Book of James.  It doesn't mean that good deeds or giving and buying your way into heaven gets one into heaven.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But if God is all-powerful, and Jesus is too, why do they need people to raise money?
> 
> They can create it themselves, in whatever means necessary. "Poof! There's some gold bars for you!"
> 
> What happens, in the current system, is that corrupt people keep most of the money being raised by well-wishing people, in whatever form they donate to the Church.
> 
> Some of it surely goes back to altruistic intentions, to keep people giving. And I understand that a lot of it goes towards maintenance. But most of it disappears into corrupt coffers, or stashed away in some hidden Vatican fund.
> 
> My point is, with the vast amount of money and volunteer work that is donated by Christians, that should cover maintenance, and also stop people from starving and suffering in this world.
> 
> But then, if they stop the starvation and suffering, it will be hard to generate more money without conquering... It's catch-22.
> 
> But an altruistic religion, with almost unlimited funds, and a righteous God that can make money appear from thin air, should stop all world suffering first, and worry about followers later.
> 
> That..... would get me to follow a religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess you missed the part where Adam sinned or else we'd all be living in paradise.  It's like I'm talking with a rock.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> WHAT?!? You're still blaming everything on Adam? It was Eve... She wanted more fruit than she was entitled to. And she liked the Serpent!
> 
> Of course, the serpent was Enki, and Eve didn't exist. And AD.IM means "human" in Sumerian. And the first human was created in the Sumerian city of ED.IN.
> 
> Of course this was all written 2000+ years before the OT. But hey... who cares???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who cares?  I have explained this before, but you keep coming back to your Sumerian mythology readings.  What an ignoramus you are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We know that some women still have a thing about serpents today.  However, it was Adam who ate the apple that caused the transfer of the world to Satan.  He was the beholder.  If he stuck to his guns and told Eve that she was wrong, then we would not be in this mess today.  What would have happened?  It's not known, but probably Eve would be the one banished and Adam would be alone again.  Maybe God would give Adam another wife due to cheating.
> 
> Next, you jump into your argument of a Sumerian myth to equate to what's written in the history of humans in the bible as Genesis.  You dare to compare known fiction with known history.  While we do not have the skeletons of Adam and Eve, we do have genetic evidence based on the Genesis theory.  The genetic evidence shows it.
> 
> "The genetic evidence is consistent with human DNA being “young” and the human race beginning with a very small starting population (the Bible tells us the starting population was two people!).
> 
> The International HapMap project endeavors to study a select group of DNA similarities and differences between humans known as single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs).5 The SNPs are believed to be representative of the genome (total human DNA) such that what is true for them would be true for the whole genome. These studies and others have shown that the difference in DNA between any two humans is amazingly low . . . only 0.1 percent.6
> 
> Reflecting on this very low percentage, some scientists posited, “This proportion is low compared with those of many other species, from fruit flies to chimpanzees, reflecting the recent origins of our species from a small founding population” (emphases mine).7 They also stated, “[Certain genetic estimates] tell us that humans vary only slightly at the DNA level and that only a small proportion of this variation separates continental populations.”8
> 
> These findings are consistent with the Bible’s history that humans were created several thousands years ago; in other words, a short amount of time has passed, so there is little genetic variation."
> 
> Furthermore, today's population is based on the offspring of Noah.
> 
> "Evolutionary scientists reject the biblical history of humanity’s origin from just two people. Nevertheless, when a group of evolutionary geneticists in 2009 evaluated various models of human origins, they tacitly acknowledged the plausibility of human descent from the people dispersed from the Tower of Babel. What they called the “instantaneous divergence model” sounds pretty much like what happened at the Tower of Babel sometime after the global Flood. These evolutionists found that “the genetic ‘predictions’ of the instantaneous divergence model are consistent with observed human genetic variation!”10"
> 
> Did We All Come from Adam and Eve?
> 
> Even atheist scientists back it up in their worldview.
> 
> "Researchers have produced new DNA evidence that almost certainly confirms the theory that all modern humans have a common ancestry.
> 
> The genetic survey, produced by a collaborative team led by scholars at Cambridge and Anglia Ruskin Universities, shows that Australia's aboriginal population sprang from the same tiny group of colonists, along with their New Guinean neighbours.
> 
> The research confirms the “Out Of Africa” hypothesis that all modern humans stem from a single group of Homo sapiens who emigrated from Africa 2,000 generations ago and spread throughout Eurasia over thousands of years. These settlers replaced other early humans (such as Neanderthals), rather than interbreeding with them."
> 
> Research confirms theory that all modern humans descended from the same small group of people
> 
> The above, whether you believe Tower of Babel dispersion or Out of Africa, shows that you are ignorant of scientific genetic arguments from both sides.  Instead, you focus on Sumerican myths.  I have explained the science before and yet you keep repeating your same mistakes!
> 
> You need to admit the bible is a non-fictional account of human history and actually read and understand what it says.  Two, you need to better understand what evolution is stating.  Obviously, you have heard of common ancestor and how it started but either forget and cannot apply it when need to in your haste to create fictious arguments.
Click to expand...



Sorry, but you’re not making any kind of credible case for ID/creationism. Your references to Answers in Genesis and the Charlatans there announces your agenda.  Their claims are a nonsense. Their claims are based on misconceptions, poor science, outdated information and discredited data, scripture, faulty logic, lies, hearsay-- all driven by a need to protect their dogma. Consider how much they have to lose if they insist on straying from biblical literalism. For the biblical literalist, if evolution is true, then there was no historical Adam and Eve. If there was no Adam and Eve, there is no original sin. If there is no original sin, there is no need to be saved. If there is no need for salvation, there is no need for their religion. As you can see, they will fight tooth and nail, to the bitter end, using any means necessary to protect their dogma.

ID/Creationism is not science. They are not interested in discovering the truth, because they believe they already have it in a book. Why investigate when you already know? Their purpose is to calm and placate their believers, and influence school boards and legislators into removing evolution from our public school system.

Creationism exclusively concerns itself with the efforts to refute evolution. Creationism should be renamed to "anti-evolutionism". It simply is *not* the offering of Biblical Creation as science. All creationism debates and lectures are along the lines of: “Come and hear how we've discovered that evolution couldn't have happened!”

The reason why certain "fire and brimstone" type of Christians refuse to accept scientific findings is because they need a literal Adam and Eve to support their notion that all human beings are born totally depraved with Original Sin, and therefore in need of Salvation through Christ-- in fact, that was the whole reason for the crucifixion. If you replace Adam and Eve with Homo Erectus, the idea of the Fall of Man and Original Sin is a little hard to reconcile.


----------



## RWS

I'm going to pop some popcorn and check back here later...


----------



## RWS

For shits and giggles, here's a small part of something interesting...


----------



## Darkwind

Ima Cat said:


> I know there are similarities but I think they are coincidental, like cats and seals both have whiskers.  But cats didn't come from seals or vice a versa.


----------



## RWS

For the full video, which is very interesting when comparing other ancient societies and beliefs, see below. Fast forward to 5 minutes in, terrible introduction sequence...  


Just FYI, I don't agree with some of the 9/11 stuff, but otherwise it's pretty spot on.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know fncceo is being facetious, but there's a deeper truth beyond what he intends, too.  I enjoy his humor.  It's quite good.
> 
> Usually, Christian churches ask for 10% of your yearly income as tithing.  I have to agree that people are not comfortable with it.  They are asked to buy Christian books, too.  Some churches are heavier handed than most, but I don't think one has to feel they have to give 10%.  I try to do the 10%, but only if I feel comfortable in doing that for the year.  Give if you feel comfortable.
> 
> What does the Bible say about Christian tithing? Should a Christian tithe?
> 
> Are Christians Required to Give 10% of Their Income to the Church? - Greg Boyd - ReKnew
> 
> There are other worthwhile charities, too, such as Salvation Army.
> 
> Yet, your point isn't about giving.  It's more atheist criticism of Christians and I think I addressed that above.
> 
> Christians believe once a person has committed to Jesus, then they become good trees and good trees bear good fruit.  The result is faith + good works as in Book of James.  It doesn't mean that good deeds or giving and buying your way into heaven gets one into heaven.
> 
> 
> 
> But if God is all-powerful, and Jesus is too, why do they need people to raise money?
> 
> They can create it themselves, in whatever means necessary. "Poof! There's some gold bars for you!"
> 
> What happens, in the current system, is that corrupt people keep most of the money being raised by well-wishing people, in whatever form they donate to the Church.
> 
> Some of it surely goes back to altruistic intentions, to keep people giving. And I understand that a lot of it goes towards maintenance. But most of it disappears into corrupt coffers, or stashed away in some hidden Vatican fund.
> 
> My point is, with the vast amount of money and volunteer work that is donated by Christians, that should cover maintenance, and also stop people from starving and suffering in this world.
> 
> But then, if they stop the starvation and suffering, it will be hard to generate more money without conquering... It's catch-22.
> 
> But an altruistic religion, with almost unlimited funds, and a righteous God that can make money appear from thin air, should stop all world suffering first, and worry about followers later.
> 
> That..... would get me to follow a religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess you missed the part where Adam sinned or else we'd all be living in paradise.  It's like I'm talking with a rock.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> WHAT?!? You're still blaming everything on Adam? It was Eve... She wanted more fruit than she was entitled to. And she liked the Serpent!
> 
> Of course, the serpent was Enki, and Eve didn't exist. And AD.IM means "human" in Sumerian. And the first human was created in the Sumerian city of ED.IN.
> 
> Of course this was all written 2000+ years before the OT. But hey... who cares???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who cares?  I have explained this before, but you keep coming back to your Sumerian mythology readings.  What an ignoramus you are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We know that some women still have a thing about serpents today.  However, it was Adam who ate the apple that caused the transfer of the world to Satan.  He was the beholder.  If he stuck to his guns and told Eve that she was wrong, then we would not be in this mess today.  What would have happened?  It's not known, but probably Eve would be the one banished and Adam would be alone again.  Maybe God would give Adam another wife due to cheating.
> 
> Next, you jump into your argument of a Sumerian myth to equate to what's written in the history of humans in the bible as Genesis.  You dare to compare known fiction with known history.  While we do not have the skeletons of Adam and Eve, we do have genetic evidence based on the Genesis theory.  The genetic evidence shows it.
> 
> "The genetic evidence is consistent with human DNA being “young” and the human race beginning with a very small starting population (the Bible tells us the starting population was two people!).
> 
> The International HapMap project endeavors to study a select group of DNA similarities and differences between humans known as single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs).5 The SNPs are believed to be representative of the genome (total human DNA) such that what is true for them would be true for the whole genome. These studies and others have shown that the difference in DNA between any two humans is amazingly low . . . only 0.1 percent.6
> 
> Reflecting on this very low percentage, some scientists posited, “This proportion is low compared with those of many other species, from fruit flies to chimpanzees, reflecting the recent origins of our species from a small founding population” (emphases mine).7 They also stated, “[Certain genetic estimates] tell us that humans vary only slightly at the DNA level and that only a small proportion of this variation separates continental populations.”8
> 
> These findings are consistent with the Bible’s history that humans were created several thousands years ago; in other words, a short amount of time has passed, so there is little genetic variation."
> 
> Furthermore, today's population is based on the offspring of Noah.
> 
> "Evolutionary scientists reject the biblical history of humanity’s origin from just two people. Nevertheless, when a group of evolutionary geneticists in 2009 evaluated various models of human origins, they tacitly acknowledged the plausibility of human descent from the people dispersed from the Tower of Babel. What they called the “instantaneous divergence model” sounds pretty much like what happened at the Tower of Babel sometime after the global Flood. These evolutionists found that “the genetic ‘predictions’ of the instantaneous divergence model are consistent with observed human genetic variation!”10"
> 
> Did We All Come from Adam and Eve?
> 
> Even atheist scientists back it up in their worldview.
> 
> "Researchers have produced new DNA evidence that almost certainly confirms the theory that all modern humans have a common ancestry.
> 
> The genetic survey, produced by a collaborative team led by scholars at Cambridge and Anglia Ruskin Universities, shows that Australia's aboriginal population sprang from the same tiny group of colonists, along with their New Guinean neighbours.
> 
> The research confirms the “Out Of Africa” hypothesis that all modern humans stem from a single group of Homo sapiens who emigrated from Africa 2,000 generations ago and spread throughout Eurasia over thousands of years. These settlers replaced other early humans (such as Neanderthals), rather than interbreeding with them."
> 
> Research confirms theory that all modern humans descended from the same small group of people
> 
> The above, whether you believe Tower of Babel dispersion or Out of Africa, shows that you are ignorant of scientific genetic arguments from both sides.  Instead, you focus on Sumerican myths.  I have explained the science before and yet you keep repeating your same mistakes!
> 
> You need to admit the bible is a non-fictional account of human history and actually read and understand what it says.  Two, you need to better understand what evolution is stating.  Obviously, you have heard of common ancestor and how it started but either forget and cannot apply it when need to in your haste to create fictious arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, but you’re not making any kind of credible case for ID/creationism. Your references to Answers in Genesis and the Charlatans there announces your agenda.  Their claims are a nonsense. Their claims are based on misconceptions, poor science, outdated information and discredited data, scripture, faulty logic, lies, hearsay-- all driven by a need to protect their dogma. Consider how much they have to lose if they insist on straying from biblical literalism. For the biblical literalist, if evolution is true, then there was no historical Adam and Eve. If there was no Adam and Eve, there is no original sin. If there is no original sin, there is no need to be saved. If there is no need for salvation, there is no need for their religion. As you can see, they will fight tooth and nail, to the bitter end, using any means necessary to protect their dogma.
> 
> ID/Creationism is not science. They are not interested in discovering the truth, because they believe they already have it in a book. Why investigate when you already know? Their purpose is to calm and placate their believers, and influence school boards and legislators into removing evolution from our public school system.
> 
> Creationism exclusively concerns itself with the efforts to refute evolution. Creationism should be renamed to "anti-evolutionism". It simply is *not* the offering of Biblical Creation as science. All creationism debates and lectures are along the lines of: “Come and hear how we've discovered that evolution couldn't have happened!”
> 
> The reason why certain "fire and brimstone" type of Christians refuse to accept scientific findings is because they need a literal Adam and Eve to support their notion that all human beings are born totally depraved with Original Sin, and therefore in need of Salvation through Christ-- in fact, that was the whole reason for the crucifixion. If you replace Adam and Eve with Homo Erectus, the idea of the Fall of Man and Original Sin is a little hard to reconcile.
Click to expand...


Enough is enough.  I admit you can't distinguish between ID and creation science.  They're different philosophies and different groups.

You also have it reversed.  What you miss is that creation science was there at the beginning of science.  Evolution nor uniformitarianism was made up to be _anti-creation. _


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> But if God is all-powerful, and Jesus is too, why do they need people to raise money?
> 
> They can create it themselves, in whatever means necessary. "Poof! There's some gold bars for you!"
> 
> What happens, in the current system, is that corrupt people keep most of the money being raised by well-wishing people, in whatever form they donate to the Church.
> 
> Some of it surely goes back to altruistic intentions, to keep people giving. And I understand that a lot of it goes towards maintenance. But most of it disappears into corrupt coffers, or stashed away in some hidden Vatican fund.
> 
> My point is, with the vast amount of money and volunteer work that is donated by Christians, that should cover maintenance, and also stop people from starving and suffering in this world.
> 
> But then, if they stop the starvation and suffering, it will be hard to generate more money without conquering... It's catch-22.
> 
> But an altruistic religion, with almost unlimited funds, and a righteous God that can make money appear from thin air, should stop all world suffering first, and worry about followers later.
> 
> That..... would get me to follow a religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess you missed the part where Adam sinned or else we'd all be living in paradise.  It's like I'm talking with a rock.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> WHAT?!? You're still blaming everything on Adam? It was Eve... She wanted more fruit than she was entitled to. And she liked the Serpent!
> 
> Of course, the serpent was Enki, and Eve didn't exist. And AD.IM means "human" in Sumerian. And the first human was created in the Sumerian city of ED.IN.
> 
> Of course this was all written 2000+ years before the OT. But hey... who cares???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who cares?  I have explained this before, but you keep coming back to your Sumerian mythology readings.  What an ignoramus you are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We know that some women still have a thing about serpents today.  However, it was Adam who ate the apple that caused the transfer of the world to Satan.  He was the beholder.  If he stuck to his guns and told Eve that she was wrong, then we would not be in this mess today.  What would have happened?  It's not known, but probably Eve would be the one banished and Adam would be alone again.  Maybe God would give Adam another wife due to cheating.
> 
> Next, you jump into your argument of a Sumerian myth to equate to what's written in the history of humans in the bible as Genesis.  You dare to compare known fiction with known history.  While we do not have the skeletons of Adam and Eve, we do have genetic evidence based on the Genesis theory.  The genetic evidence shows it.
> 
> "The genetic evidence is consistent with human DNA being “young” and the human race beginning with a very small starting population (the Bible tells us the starting population was two people!).
> 
> The International HapMap project endeavors to study a select group of DNA similarities and differences between humans known as single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs).5 The SNPs are believed to be representative of the genome (total human DNA) such that what is true for them would be true for the whole genome. These studies and others have shown that the difference in DNA between any two humans is amazingly low . . . only 0.1 percent.6
> 
> Reflecting on this very low percentage, some scientists posited, “This proportion is low compared with those of many other species, from fruit flies to chimpanzees, reflecting the recent origins of our species from a small founding population” (emphases mine).7 They also stated, “[Certain genetic estimates] tell us that humans vary only slightly at the DNA level and that only a small proportion of this variation separates continental populations.”8
> 
> These findings are consistent with the Bible’s history that humans were created several thousands years ago; in other words, a short amount of time has passed, so there is little genetic variation."
> 
> Furthermore, today's population is based on the offspring of Noah.
> 
> "Evolutionary scientists reject the biblical history of humanity’s origin from just two people. Nevertheless, when a group of evolutionary geneticists in 2009 evaluated various models of human origins, they tacitly acknowledged the plausibility of human descent from the people dispersed from the Tower of Babel. What they called the “instantaneous divergence model” sounds pretty much like what happened at the Tower of Babel sometime after the global Flood. These evolutionists found that “the genetic ‘predictions’ of the instantaneous divergence model are consistent with observed human genetic variation!”10"
> 
> Did We All Come from Adam and Eve?
> 
> Even atheist scientists back it up in their worldview.
> 
> "Researchers have produced new DNA evidence that almost certainly confirms the theory that all modern humans have a common ancestry.
> 
> The genetic survey, produced by a collaborative team led by scholars at Cambridge and Anglia Ruskin Universities, shows that Australia's aboriginal population sprang from the same tiny group of colonists, along with their New Guinean neighbours.
> 
> The research confirms the “Out Of Africa” hypothesis that all modern humans stem from a single group of Homo sapiens who emigrated from Africa 2,000 generations ago and spread throughout Eurasia over thousands of years. These settlers replaced other early humans (such as Neanderthals), rather than interbreeding with them."
> 
> Research confirms theory that all modern humans descended from the same small group of people
> 
> The above, whether you believe Tower of Babel dispersion or Out of Africa, shows that you are ignorant of scientific genetic arguments from both sides.  Instead, you focus on Sumerican myths.  I have explained the science before and yet you keep repeating your same mistakes!
> 
> You need to admit the bible is a non-fictional account of human history and actually read and understand what it says.  Two, you need to better understand what evolution is stating.  Obviously, you have heard of common ancestor and how it started but either forget and cannot apply it when need to in your haste to create fictious arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, but you’re not making any kind of credible case for ID/creationism. Your references to Answers in Genesis and the Charlatans there announces your agenda.  Their claims are a nonsense. Their claims are based on misconceptions, poor science, outdated information and discredited data, scripture, faulty logic, lies, hearsay-- all driven by a need to protect their dogma. Consider how much they have to lose if they insist on straying from biblical literalism. For the biblical literalist, if evolution is true, then there was no historical Adam and Eve. If there was no Adam and Eve, there is no original sin. If there is no original sin, there is no need to be saved. If there is no need for salvation, there is no need for their religion. As you can see, they will fight tooth and nail, to the bitter end, using any means necessary to protect their dogma.
> 
> ID/Creationism is not science. They are not interested in discovering the truth, because they believe they already have it in a book. Why investigate when you already know? Their purpose is to calm and placate their believers, and influence school boards and legislators into removing evolution from our public school system.
> 
> Creationism exclusively concerns itself with the efforts to refute evolution. Creationism should be renamed to "anti-evolutionism". It simply is *not* the offering of Biblical Creation as science. All creationism debates and lectures are along the lines of: “Come and hear how we've discovered that evolution couldn't have happened!”
> 
> The reason why certain "fire and brimstone" type of Christians refuse to accept scientific findings is because they need a literal Adam and Eve to support their notion that all human beings are born totally depraved with Original Sin, and therefore in need of Salvation through Christ-- in fact, that was the whole reason for the crucifixion. If you replace Adam and Eve with Homo Erectus, the idea of the Fall of Man and Original Sin is a little hard to reconcile.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Enough is enough.  I admit you can't distinguish between ID and creation science.  They're different philosophies and different groups.
> 
> You also have it reversed.  What you miss is that creation science was there at the beginning of science.  Evolution nor uniformitarianism was made up to be _anti-creation. _
Click to expand...



I believe you’re angry at being held to an identifiable standard. I’ve delineated before where ID is simply a derivative of creationism, both of which were failed attempts by fundamentalists to impose religion into the public schools.

What you call creation science was not “there at the beginning”. I would say there is quite a bit of difference between two scientists disagreeing on mechanisms of evolution, versus the Catholic church taking 500+ years to remove Galileo from their list of "criminals". The "grounding" of religion is its assertions, and my contention is that undemonstrated assertion itself is where lies the problem. So no, I would object as fallacious the idea that religious dogma is a "grounding". It is precisely what it is-- an inflexible dogma.

When practitioners of religion try to extend the reach of their holy books beyond the spiritual, it tends toward a backward society. We've got a big old stretch across the center of the U.S. where literal interpretation of their Bibles is the norm. It's called the "Bible Belt." The people are backward; they exult in their ignorance of science; they despise education. Their animosity to open investigation is palpable. The earth isn't flat. Species evolved. These are not spiritual facts, they're material. And when religionists proclaim they've found a verse in a holy book that contradicts them, they're wrong because they've read into the verse something beyond its spiritual intent.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess you missed the part where Adam sinned or else we'd all be living in paradise.  It's like I'm talking with a rock.
> 
> 
> 
> WHAT?!? You're still blaming everything on Adam? It was Eve... She wanted more fruit than she was entitled to. And she liked the Serpent!
> 
> Of course, the serpent was Enki, and Eve didn't exist. And AD.IM means "human" in Sumerian. And the first human was created in the Sumerian city of ED.IN.
> 
> Of course this was all written 2000+ years before the OT. But hey... who cares???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who cares?  I have explained this before, but you keep coming back to your Sumerian mythology readings.  What an ignoramus you are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We know that some women still have a thing about serpents today.  However, it was Adam who ate the apple that caused the transfer of the world to Satan.  He was the beholder.  If he stuck to his guns and told Eve that she was wrong, then we would not be in this mess today.  What would have happened?  It's not known, but probably Eve would be the one banished and Adam would be alone again.  Maybe God would give Adam another wife due to cheating.
> 
> Next, you jump into your argument of a Sumerian myth to equate to what's written in the history of humans in the bible as Genesis.  You dare to compare known fiction with known history.  While we do not have the skeletons of Adam and Eve, we do have genetic evidence based on the Genesis theory.  The genetic evidence shows it.
> 
> "The genetic evidence is consistent with human DNA being “young” and the human race beginning with a very small starting population (the Bible tells us the starting population was two people!).
> 
> The International HapMap project endeavors to study a select group of DNA similarities and differences between humans known as single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs).5 The SNPs are believed to be representative of the genome (total human DNA) such that what is true for them would be true for the whole genome. These studies and others have shown that the difference in DNA between any two humans is amazingly low . . . only 0.1 percent.6
> 
> Reflecting on this very low percentage, some scientists posited, “This proportion is low compared with those of many other species, from fruit flies to chimpanzees, reflecting the recent origins of our species from a small founding population” (emphases mine).7 They also stated, “[Certain genetic estimates] tell us that humans vary only slightly at the DNA level and that only a small proportion of this variation separates continental populations.”8
> 
> These findings are consistent with the Bible’s history that humans were created several thousands years ago; in other words, a short amount of time has passed, so there is little genetic variation."
> 
> Furthermore, today's population is based on the offspring of Noah.
> 
> "Evolutionary scientists reject the biblical history of humanity’s origin from just two people. Nevertheless, when a group of evolutionary geneticists in 2009 evaluated various models of human origins, they tacitly acknowledged the plausibility of human descent from the people dispersed from the Tower of Babel. What they called the “instantaneous divergence model” sounds pretty much like what happened at the Tower of Babel sometime after the global Flood. These evolutionists found that “the genetic ‘predictions’ of the instantaneous divergence model are consistent with observed human genetic variation!”10"
> 
> Did We All Come from Adam and Eve?
> 
> Even atheist scientists back it up in their worldview.
> 
> "Researchers have produced new DNA evidence that almost certainly confirms the theory that all modern humans have a common ancestry.
> 
> The genetic survey, produced by a collaborative team led by scholars at Cambridge and Anglia Ruskin Universities, shows that Australia's aboriginal population sprang from the same tiny group of colonists, along with their New Guinean neighbours.
> 
> The research confirms the “Out Of Africa” hypothesis that all modern humans stem from a single group of Homo sapiens who emigrated from Africa 2,000 generations ago and spread throughout Eurasia over thousands of years. These settlers replaced other early humans (such as Neanderthals), rather than interbreeding with them."
> 
> Research confirms theory that all modern humans descended from the same small group of people
> 
> The above, whether you believe Tower of Babel dispersion or Out of Africa, shows that you are ignorant of scientific genetic arguments from both sides.  Instead, you focus on Sumerican myths.  I have explained the science before and yet you keep repeating your same mistakes!
> 
> You need to admit the bible is a non-fictional account of human history and actually read and understand what it says.  Two, you need to better understand what evolution is stating.  Obviously, you have heard of common ancestor and how it started but either forget and cannot apply it when need to in your haste to create fictious arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, but you’re not making any kind of credible case for ID/creationism. Your references to Answers in Genesis and the Charlatans there announces your agenda.  Their claims are a nonsense. Their claims are based on misconceptions, poor science, outdated information and discredited data, scripture, faulty logic, lies, hearsay-- all driven by a need to protect their dogma. Consider how much they have to lose if they insist on straying from biblical literalism. For the biblical literalist, if evolution is true, then there was no historical Adam and Eve. If there was no Adam and Eve, there is no original sin. If there is no original sin, there is no need to be saved. If there is no need for salvation, there is no need for their religion. As you can see, they will fight tooth and nail, to the bitter end, using any means necessary to protect their dogma.
> 
> ID/Creationism is not science. They are not interested in discovering the truth, because they believe they already have it in a book. Why investigate when you already know? Their purpose is to calm and placate their believers, and influence school boards and legislators into removing evolution from our public school system.
> 
> Creationism exclusively concerns itself with the efforts to refute evolution. Creationism should be renamed to "anti-evolutionism". It simply is *not* the offering of Biblical Creation as science. All creationism debates and lectures are along the lines of: “Come and hear how we've discovered that evolution couldn't have happened!”
> 
> The reason why certain "fire and brimstone" type of Christians refuse to accept scientific findings is because they need a literal Adam and Eve to support their notion that all human beings are born totally depraved with Original Sin, and therefore in need of Salvation through Christ-- in fact, that was the whole reason for the crucifixion. If you replace Adam and Eve with Homo Erectus, the idea of the Fall of Man and Original Sin is a little hard to reconcile.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Enough is enough.  I admit you can't distinguish between ID and creation science.  They're different philosophies and different groups.
> 
> You also have it reversed.  What you miss is that creation science was there at the beginning of science.  Evolution nor uniformitarianism was made up to be _anti-creation. _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I believe you’re angry at being held to an identifiable standard. I’ve delineated before where ID is simply a derivative of creationism, both of which were failed attempts by fundamentalists to impose religion into the public schools.
> 
> What you call creation science was not “there at the beginning”. I would say there is quite a bit of difference between two scientists disagreeing on mechanisms of evolution, versus the Catholic church taking 500+ years to remove Galileo from their list of "criminals". The "grounding" of religion is its assertions, and my contention is that undemonstrated assertion itself is where lies the problem. So no, I would object as fallacious the idea that religious dogma is a "grounding". It is precisely what it is-- an inflexible dogma.
> 
> When practitioners of religion try to extend the reach of their holy books beyond the spiritual, it tends toward a backward society. We've got a big old stretch across the center of the U.S. where literal interpretation of their Bibles is the norm. It's called the "Bible Belt." The people are backward; they exult in their ignorance of science; they despise education. Their animosity to open investigation is palpable. The earth isn't flat. Species evolved. These are not spiritual facts, they're material. And when religionists proclaim they've found a verse in a holy book that contradicts them, they're wrong because they've read into the verse something beyond its spiritual intent.
Click to expand...


I'm not angry, but after a couple times explaining, it becomes frustrating.

ID is not a derivative of creationism.  ID does not discuss God nor religion at all.  They go out of their way to not infer God.  I think you have been misled.

Here is what AIG states on ID:
"*Background On Intelligent Design Movement*
The “Intelligent Design” movement is led by scholars who argue that the design of living systems—and even the nonliving elements of the universe—suggest a Designer. While these “intelligent design” proponents have been effective in challenging evolutionary theory, we’re not sure how effective the movement will be in the long run in changing many people’s hearts.

*Intelligent Design Lacks Something*
The Intelligent Design fails to reference the God of the Bible and the Curse’s impact on a once-perfect world. The design of living things is compelling evidence of a Designer, but only the full biblical worldview explains the imperfections in this otherwise well-crafted universe."

Intelligent Design

Discovery Institute website
Center for Science and Culture

Furthermore, the goal of teaching creation in public schools is not to challenge church vs state.  It's to teach observable, testable and falsifiable science or an alternative to evolution (historical science) that is being taught.  Creation science can be taught without referencing religion.

The Catholic church is much different from Protestant churches.  They have their own dogma and may not be based on the bible, i.e. sola scriptura, like Christian churches.  They have much more human interpretation and intervention, so is considered different from Protestant churches.  They have the Pope who holds considerable power and Christians do not think the papacy is a good system because it can be exploited.  They have a formal seven sacraments.  They have the Holy Eucharist, transubstantiation, praying to statues and relics and more.

I don't disagree with what happened with Pope Gregory and Galileo, but read about Pope Urban.  Galileo was more free under Urban.  This follows the problem that I described above with human interpretation and intervention of the papal system.

There is a whole history of creation scientists that you ignore such as Sir Isaac Newton, Sir Francis Bacon, Leonardo da Vinci, Blaise Pascal, Charles Babbage, George Washington Carver, James Joule, Johannes Kepler, Louis Pasteur, Samuel Morse and more.

Profiles of Creation Scientists

To the contrary, observablel, testable and falsifiable science has found breakthroughs in creation science that brought us to the modern era.  There hasn't been as much breakthroughs with evolution, evolutionary thinking and uniformitarianism.  They study mutation and consider it beneficial when it isn't.  It's dangerous.  Uniformitarianism is hypocrisy.  They end up using catastrophism in their theories.  GMO foods are not safe despite what the scientists say.  I use natural selection as evidence that GMO foods are not safe.  Evolution challenges GMO foods.


----------



## james bond

fncceo said:


> You might want to take a closer look at your 'charts'.  Do you know what 'split' means?  Those charts indicate that some of the descendants of a common ancestor split from the ancestor and developed one way.  Other's split and developed another. Yet others split off and went in another direction.  Because they come from a common progenitor, they will have traits in common ... that is why they are categorized as hominids or hylobates, and others. Those charts, even as simplified as they are, don't indicate that apes turned into humans.  They show that they have a common ancestry as they developed.
> 
> The bottom picture, so widely known and often parodied, implies transition, but it really is just showing the genetic similarities between different branches of the same common trunk.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .







We do not see any of what you posted in your cartoon except humans dumping garbage.

None of your science is observable, testable or falsifiable.  It's all historical or forensic science.  To the contrary, we can observe the monkeys today.  Why can't I apply what we observe to the past using uniformitarian principles.  An ape and human cannot live past one generation.  It's forbidden science, but has happened.  None of the apes are bipedal.  We have something that is a hybrid of a chimpanzee and gorilla.  It could be what australopithecus afarensis was. 

Today's common ancestors fit into the chart I posted, except for the long times.  We do not see them evolve into any macroevolution creatures such as ape-humans.  Notice evos claim birds from dinosaurs macroevolution when it's not observable. 

We found the ancient fossil coelacanth as a living fossil.  It has remained a fish.  In fact, all living fossils have remained just that.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> WHAT?!? You're still blaming everything on Adam? It was Eve... She wanted more fruit than she was entitled to. And she liked the Serpent!
> 
> Of course, the serpent was Enki, and Eve didn't exist. And AD.IM means "human" in Sumerian. And the first human was created in the Sumerian city of ED.IN.
> 
> Of course this was all written 2000+ years before the OT. But hey... who cares???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who cares?  I have explained this before, but you keep coming back to your Sumerian mythology readings.  What an ignoramus you are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We know that some women still have a thing about serpents today.  However, it was Adam who ate the apple that caused the transfer of the world to Satan.  He was the beholder.  If he stuck to his guns and told Eve that she was wrong, then we would not be in this mess today.  What would have happened?  It's not known, but probably Eve would be the one banished and Adam would be alone again.  Maybe God would give Adam another wife due to cheating.
> 
> Next, you jump into your argument of a Sumerian myth to equate to what's written in the history of humans in the bible as Genesis.  You dare to compare known fiction with known history.  While we do not have the skeletons of Adam and Eve, we do have genetic evidence based on the Genesis theory.  The genetic evidence shows it.
> 
> "The genetic evidence is consistent with human DNA being “young” and the human race beginning with a very small starting population (the Bible tells us the starting population was two people!).
> 
> The International HapMap project endeavors to study a select group of DNA similarities and differences between humans known as single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs).5 The SNPs are believed to be representative of the genome (total human DNA) such that what is true for them would be true for the whole genome. These studies and others have shown that the difference in DNA between any two humans is amazingly low . . . only 0.1 percent.6
> 
> Reflecting on this very low percentage, some scientists posited, “This proportion is low compared with those of many other species, from fruit flies to chimpanzees, reflecting the recent origins of our species from a small founding population” (emphases mine).7 They also stated, “[Certain genetic estimates] tell us that humans vary only slightly at the DNA level and that only a small proportion of this variation separates continental populations.”8
> 
> These findings are consistent with the Bible’s history that humans were created several thousands years ago; in other words, a short amount of time has passed, so there is little genetic variation."
> 
> Furthermore, today's population is based on the offspring of Noah.
> 
> "Evolutionary scientists reject the biblical history of humanity’s origin from just two people. Nevertheless, when a group of evolutionary geneticists in 2009 evaluated various models of human origins, they tacitly acknowledged the plausibility of human descent from the people dispersed from the Tower of Babel. What they called the “instantaneous divergence model” sounds pretty much like what happened at the Tower of Babel sometime after the global Flood. These evolutionists found that “the genetic ‘predictions’ of the instantaneous divergence model are consistent with observed human genetic variation!”10"
> 
> Did We All Come from Adam and Eve?
> 
> Even atheist scientists back it up in their worldview.
> 
> "Researchers have produced new DNA evidence that almost certainly confirms the theory that all modern humans have a common ancestry.
> 
> The genetic survey, produced by a collaborative team led by scholars at Cambridge and Anglia Ruskin Universities, shows that Australia's aboriginal population sprang from the same tiny group of colonists, along with their New Guinean neighbours.
> 
> The research confirms the “Out Of Africa” hypothesis that all modern humans stem from a single group of Homo sapiens who emigrated from Africa 2,000 generations ago and spread throughout Eurasia over thousands of years. These settlers replaced other early humans (such as Neanderthals), rather than interbreeding with them."
> 
> Research confirms theory that all modern humans descended from the same small group of people
> 
> The above, whether you believe Tower of Babel dispersion or Out of Africa, shows that you are ignorant of scientific genetic arguments from both sides.  Instead, you focus on Sumerican myths.  I have explained the science before and yet you keep repeating your same mistakes!
> 
> You need to admit the bible is a non-fictional account of human history and actually read and understand what it says.  Two, you need to better understand what evolution is stating.  Obviously, you have heard of common ancestor and how it started but either forget and cannot apply it when need to in your haste to create fictious arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, but you’re not making any kind of credible case for ID/creationism. Your references to Answers in Genesis and the Charlatans there announces your agenda.  Their claims are a nonsense. Their claims are based on misconceptions, poor science, outdated information and discredited data, scripture, faulty logic, lies, hearsay-- all driven by a need to protect their dogma. Consider how much they have to lose if they insist on straying from biblical literalism. For the biblical literalist, if evolution is true, then there was no historical Adam and Eve. If there was no Adam and Eve, there is no original sin. If there is no original sin, there is no need to be saved. If there is no need for salvation, there is no need for their religion. As you can see, they will fight tooth and nail, to the bitter end, using any means necessary to protect their dogma.
> 
> ID/Creationism is not science. They are not interested in discovering the truth, because they believe they already have it in a book. Why investigate when you already know? Their purpose is to calm and placate their believers, and influence school boards and legislators into removing evolution from our public school system.
> 
> Creationism exclusively concerns itself with the efforts to refute evolution. Creationism should be renamed to "anti-evolutionism". It simply is *not* the offering of Biblical Creation as science. All creationism debates and lectures are along the lines of: “Come and hear how we've discovered that evolution couldn't have happened!”
> 
> The reason why certain "fire and brimstone" type of Christians refuse to accept scientific findings is because they need a literal Adam and Eve to support their notion that all human beings are born totally depraved with Original Sin, and therefore in need of Salvation through Christ-- in fact, that was the whole reason for the crucifixion. If you replace Adam and Eve with Homo Erectus, the idea of the Fall of Man and Original Sin is a little hard to reconcile.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Enough is enough.  I admit you can't distinguish between ID and creation science.  They're different philosophies and different groups.
> 
> You also have it reversed.  What you miss is that creation science was there at the beginning of science.  Evolution nor uniformitarianism was made up to be _anti-creation. _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I believe you’re angry at being held to an identifiable standard. I’ve delineated before where ID is simply a derivative of creationism, both of which were failed attempts by fundamentalists to impose religion into the public schools.
> 
> What you call creation science was not “there at the beginning”. I would say there is quite a bit of difference between two scientists disagreeing on mechanisms of evolution, versus the Catholic church taking 500+ years to remove Galileo from their list of "criminals". The "grounding" of religion is its assertions, and my contention is that undemonstrated assertion itself is where lies the problem. So no, I would object as fallacious the idea that religious dogma is a "grounding". It is precisely what it is-- an inflexible dogma.
> 
> When practitioners of religion try to extend the reach of their holy books beyond the spiritual, it tends toward a backward society. We've got a big old stretch across the center of the U.S. where literal interpretation of their Bibles is the norm. It's called the "Bible Belt." The people are backward; they exult in their ignorance of science; they despise education. Their animosity to open investigation is palpable. The earth isn't flat. Species evolved. These are not spiritual facts, they're material. And when religionists proclaim they've found a verse in a holy book that contradicts them, they're wrong because they've read into the verse something beyond its spiritual intent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not angry, but after a couple times explaining, it becomes frustrating.
> 
> ID is not a derivative of creationism.  ID does not discuss God nor religion at all.  They go out of their way to not infer God.  I think you have been misled.
> 
> Here is what AIG states on ID:
> "*Background On Intelligent Design Movement*
> The “Intelligent Design” movement is led by scholars who argue that the design of living systems—and even the nonliving elements of the universe—suggest a Designer. While these “intelligent design” proponents have been effective in challenging evolutionary theory, we’re not sure how effective the movement will be in the long run in changing many people’s hearts.
> 
> *Intelligent Design Lacks Something*
> The Intelligent Design fails to reference the God of the Bible and the Curse’s impact on a once-perfect world. The design of living things is compelling evidence of a Designer, but only the full biblical worldview explains the imperfections in this otherwise well-crafted universe."
> 
> Intelligent Design
> 
> Discovery Institute website
> Center for Science and Culture
> 
> Furthermore, the goal of teaching creation in public schools is not to challenge church vs state.  It's to teach observable, testable and falsifiable science or an alternative to evolution (historical science) that is being taught.  Creation science can be taught without referencing religion.
> 
> The Catholic church is much different from Protestant churches.  They have their own dogma and may not be based on the bible, i.e. sola scriptura, like Christian churches.  They have much more human interpretation and intervention, so is considered different from Protestant churches.  They have the Pope who holds considerable power and Christians do not think the papacy is a good system because it can be exploited.  They have a formal seven sacraments.  They have the Holy Eucharist, transubstantiation, praying to statues and relics and more.
> 
> I don't disagree with what happened with Pope Gregory and Galileo, but read about Pope Urban.  Galileo was more free under Urban.  This follows the problem that I described above with human interpretation and intervention of the papal system.
> 
> There is a whole history of creation scientists that you ignore such as Sir Isaac Newton, Sir Francis Bacon, Leonardo da Vinci, Blaise Pascal, Charles Babbage, George Washington Carver, James Joule, Johannes Kepler, Louis Pasteur, Samuel Morse and more.
> 
> Profiles of Creation Scientists
> 
> To the contrary, observablel, testable and falsifiable science has found breakthroughs in creation science that brought us to the modern era.  There hasn't been as much breakthroughs with evolution, evolutionary thinking and uniformitarianism.  They study mutation and consider it beneficial when it isn't.  It's dangerous.  Uniformitarianism is hypocrisy.  They end up using catastrophism in their theories.  GMO foods are not safe despite what the scientists say.  I use natural selection as evidence that GMO foods are not safe.  Evolution challenges GMO foods.
Click to expand...



To suggest that ID/creationism is not the same entity is just dishonest.

_Kitzmiller v. Dover Decision of the Court

[This is the decision of the court in the Kitzmiller et al. v Dover Area School District et al. case. Judge John E. Jones III, who was nominated by President George W. Bush, made a very strong ruling against intelligent design. He ruled that it is creationism and is not science. He also ruled that members of Dover's school board lied under oath to hide their religious motivations. This archive also hosts transcripts of the trial. See the Dover index page.]_

The Kitzmiller case was just one of many that resulted in ID/creationism being a false label for christian fundies attempting to force their dogma into the public schools. 

Here's a list of ten cases where you ID/creationists (fundie Christians), have suffered humiliating losses in their attempts to force your dogma upon the public schools.

Ten Major Court Cases about Evolution and Creationism NCSE


It’s curious that you would link to the Discovery Institute in an attempt to dissuade anyone that ID / creationism is not the same entity. It was Michael Behe who was a witness at the Kitzmiller trial and Behe is a “fellow” at the Discovery Institute.

For anyone who may be unfamiliar with the background of Michael Behe, here are a few pointers. Among others of the fundamentalist Christian ministries, Behe also fronts for The Discovery Institute. They are a fundie Christian driven ministry promoting a stripped down and camouflaged version of Creationism called Intelligent Design. This "stealth christianity" approach was configured for legal reasons in the US, where public, state run schools are not allowed to promote religion. As many are probably aware, creationism and the later re-titled "Creation Science" are nothing more than configurations of fundie Christian ministries which suffered humiliating defeats in the court system as their veiled agenda of promoting religious dogma was ruled as such in the courts to be religion, not scientific doctrines.

Creationist tactics rest upon one overriding pillar of faith, and that is: evolution is Atheistic and the whole political crusade being waged is one of Christians versus Atheists. We see this routinely in this thread where the fundies use Christian creationist slogans such as "atheistic evolutionist" assigned to anyone who accepts the science conclusions as opposed to Christian dogma.

This dynamic requires mentioning because there are two reasons Creationists adopt this tactic. First, all the hysteria that is framed by fundies as a conflict being waged to defend christianity is thought to be effective as a means to recruit and retain fundie Christians to "the cause". Note that this is a recruiting tactic employed by other groups that plead conspiracy theories. Secondly the conflict is manipulated by fundies to divert the debate away from creationism is nothing more than literalist christianity to the more conspiracy driven "Atheist versus Christian" issues. This is the latest tactic Christian ID/creationists have employed believing that by framing their crusade in terms they hope will garner pity, they have a greater chance of obtaining religious support.


----------



## RWS

Bond, You claim Sumerian writings about the Anunnaki are "myths". But you claim religious writings 2000+ years later that completely plagiarized Sumerian "Anunnaki myths", are "truths".

Wow.... How do you justify that?

Creationism and Evolution can work together, based on what the Sumerians said.

But of course, there's no money to be made there by getting followers and armies, so I doubt you'll listen.


----------



## RWS

Sumerian "gods", the Anunnaki, created humans out of a lesser evolved human state many thousands of years ago, using their genes to get us up to the intellectual level necessary to perform the tasks required. We're a "hybrid", created by the Anunnaki, but originally based on evolution. We became their slaves, and in turn they taught us, tried to destroy us, and continued to teach us because of the great EN.KI. When they left, the people were given the gift of writing, math, physics, and astronomy, and control of their own destiny. And they became the first civilization of Sumer 6000 years ago, whose advancements are still part of our everyday life. 

Look at your watch for instance... Ever wonder where that counting scheme came from?


----------



## RWS

It's sexagesimal and it's way more advanced than the typical decimal system adopted by the Egyptians.

The decimal system should be the natural system for humans, that have 10 fingers. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10.

Easy to use your fingers and toes as a calculator. Egyptians went with that after the Sumerians.

Sumerians used sexagesimal, which is based on 12 and 60. I challenge anyone to make a sexagesimal calculation based on multiplication or division today. Using your fingers or brain like the Sumerians did... And not a sexagesimal calculator. (regular calculator won't work)

12:30 / 4:30
or
12:30 * 4:30

Although we use it on our clocks to this day, it's a whole different way of looking at numbers when doing calculations. And it's incredibly advanced, more so than hexadecimal that computers use today. And it was created by the FIRST HUMAN SOCIETY. No wonder we reverted to a decimal system, because it was hard to teach going forward. But it was far more advanced.

The Sumerians said that it was taught to them by the Anunnaki. "Those who from Heaven to Earth came".


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> To suggest that ID/creationism is not the same entity is just dishonest.
> 
> _Kitzmiller v. Dover Decision of the Court
> 
> [This is the decision of the court in the Kitzmiller et al. v Dover Area School District et al. case. Judge John E. Jones III, who was nominated by President George W. Bush, made a very strong ruling against intelligent design. He ruled that it is creationism and is not science. He also ruled that members of Dover's school board lied under oath to hide their religious motivations. This archive also hosts transcripts of the trial. See the Dover index page.]_
> 
> The Kitzmiller case was just one of many that resulted in ID/creationism being a false label for christian fundies attempting to force their dogma into the public schools.
> 
> Here's a list of ten cases where you ID/creationists (fundie Christians), have suffered humiliating losses in their attempts to force your dogma upon the public schools.
> 
> Ten Major Court Cases about Evolution and Creationism NCSE
> 
> 
> It’s curious that you would link to the Discovery Institute in an attempt to dissuade anyone that ID / creationism is not the same entity. It was Michael Behe who was a witness at the Kitzmiller trial and Behe is a “fellow” at the Discovery Institute.
> 
> For anyone who may be unfamiliar with the background of Michael Behe, here are a few pointers. Among others of the fundamentalist Christian ministries, Behe also fronts for The Discovery Institute. They are a fundie Christian driven ministry promoting a stripped down and camouflaged version of Creationism called Intelligent Design. This "stealth christianity" approach was configured for legal reasons in the US, where public, state run schools are not allowed to promote religion. As many are probably aware, creationism and the later re-titled "Creation Science" are nothing more than configurations of fundie Christian ministries which suffered humiliating defeats in the court system as their veiled agenda of promoting religious dogma was ruled as such in the courts to be religion, not scientific doctrines.
> 
> Creationist tactics rest upon one overriding pillar of faith, and that is: evolution is Atheistic and the whole political crusade being waged is one of Christians versus Atheists. We see this routinely in this thread where the fundies use Christian creationist slogans such as "atheistic evolutionist" assigned to anyone who accepts the science conclusions as opposed to Christian dogma.
> 
> This dynamic requires mentioning because there are two reasons Creationists adopt this tactic. First, all the hysteria that is framed by fundies as a conflict being waged to defend christianity is thought to be effective as a means to recruit and retain fundie Christians to "the cause". Note that this is a recruiting tactic employed by other groups that plead conspiracy theories. Secondly the conflict is manipulated by fundies to divert the debate away from creationism is nothing more than literalist christianity to the more conspiracy driven "Atheist versus Christian" issues. This is the latest tactic Christian ID/creationists have employed believing that by framing their crusade in terms they hope will garner pity, they have a greater chance of obtaining religious support.



It is not dishonest like the Piltdown Man and the Archaeoraptor fraud.  This is why creation science didn't want it to be based on ID.  Creation science believes that the school argument is over _separation of church and state_.  It has nothing to do with the differences in the scientific beliefs which has been discussed in this thread and I think that the creation side has the observable, testable and falsifiable science. .While there is intelligence behind God's creations the argument put forth should not be that it's due to design principles.  ID has nothing to do with the differences in the scientific arguments.  Thus, creationists continue to fight for another trial so that they will better able to teach creation science in public schools.  It won't be based on religion.  The true test will be how the creation science curriculum and text is presented.

The other part which you continue to ignore are the rebuttals to your belief that creation science is based on faith.  To the contrary, evolution is the science that is more based on faith.  That's why it's dangerous.  Some of the mutations that evo scientists think is safe aren't.  They will cause great harm and it has already shortened people's lives.

I posted that chart on evolution and the common ancestor hypothesis is practically all based on connecting the dots that we came to be by common ancestor.  Thus, we must have monkeys as ancestor or birds must have come from dinosaurs.  The evidence does not show that, but atheist scientists do not have any arguments presented against them.  That's not the way I learned science.  Science was always about serious disagreements and how life and our environment came to be. 

The widespread belief that there are common ancestors is not true.  Otherwise, we would be able to observe, test and falsify it.  What the au. afarensis and other australophicines probably were chimpanzee variants, possibly a chimp-gorilla hybrid.  People who live in Africa are familiar with chimpanzee variants.  They are larger than a chimpanzee and have parts of their skull like that of a gorilla.






Large pic here
https://static01.nyt.com/images/2012/04/20/arts/20RDP_CHIMP_SPAN/20RDP_CHIMP_SPAN-superJumbo-v2.jpg

The Hybrid Hypothesis: The Gorilla and the Koolokamba






I admit the chimp-gorilla hybrid is more difficult to prove it exists since their mating is different.  The articles on the bili apes were difficult to get.  Many of them assume that they're chimp variants and do not connect to the gorilla.  What it shows is a different path from monkeys becoming humans.  This goes against evolution, so to connect chimpanzees to gorillas would defeat the argument that chimps became ape-humans.  There is the forbidden science of humanzees, but those creatures didn't last for more than one generation.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> To suggest that ID/creationism is not the same entity is just dishonest.
> 
> _Kitzmiller v. Dover Decision of the Court
> 
> [This is the decision of the court in the Kitzmiller et al. v Dover Area School District et al. case. Judge John E. Jones III, who was nominated by President George W. Bush, made a very strong ruling against intelligent design. He ruled that it is creationism and is not science. He also ruled that members of Dover's school board lied under oath to hide their religious motivations. This archive also hosts transcripts of the trial. See the Dover index page.]_
> 
> The Kitzmiller case was just one of many that resulted in ID/creationism being a false label for christian fundies attempting to force their dogma into the public schools.
> 
> Here's a list of ten cases where you ID/creationists (fundie Christians), have suffered humiliating losses in their attempts to force your dogma upon the public schools.
> 
> Ten Major Court Cases about Evolution and Creationism NCSE
> 
> 
> It’s curious that you would link to the Discovery Institute in an attempt to dissuade anyone that ID / creationism is not the same entity. It was Michael Behe who was a witness at the Kitzmiller trial and Behe is a “fellow” at the Discovery Institute.
> 
> For anyone who may be unfamiliar with the background of Michael Behe, here are a few pointers. Among others of the fundamentalist Christian ministries, Behe also fronts for The Discovery Institute. They are a fundie Christian driven ministry promoting a stripped down and camouflaged version of Creationism called Intelligent Design. This "stealth christianity" approach was configured for legal reasons in the US, where public, state run schools are not allowed to promote religion. As many are probably aware, creationism and the later re-titled "Creation Science" are nothing more than configurations of fundie Christian ministries which suffered humiliating defeats in the court system as their veiled agenda of promoting religious dogma was ruled as such in the courts to be religion, not scientific doctrines.
> 
> Creationist tactics rest upon one overriding pillar of faith, and that is: evolution is Atheistic and the whole political crusade being waged is one of Christians versus Atheists. We see this routinely in this thread where the fundies use Christian creationist slogans such as "atheistic evolutionist" assigned to anyone who accepts the science conclusions as opposed to Christian dogma.
> 
> This dynamic requires mentioning because there are two reasons Creationists adopt this tactic. First, all the hysteria that is framed by fundies as a conflict being waged to defend christianity is thought to be effective as a means to recruit and retain fundie Christians to "the cause". Note that this is a recruiting tactic employed by other groups that plead conspiracy theories. Secondly the conflict is manipulated by fundies to divert the debate away from creationism is nothing more than literalist christianity to the more conspiracy driven "Atheist versus Christian" issues. This is the latest tactic Christian ID/creationists have employed believing that by framing their crusade in terms they hope will garner pity, they have a greater chance of obtaining religious support.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is not dishonest like the Piltdown Man and the Archaeoraptor fraud.  This is why creation science didn't want it to be based on ID.  Creation science believes that the school argument is over _separation of church and state_.  It has nothing to do with the differences in the scientific beliefs which has been discussed in this thread and I think that the creation side has the observable, testable and falsifiable science. .While there is intelligence behind God's creations the argument put forth should not be that it's due to design principles.  ID has nothing to do with the differences in the scientific arguments.  Thus, creationists continue to fight for another trial so that they will better able to teach creation science in public schools.  It won't be based on religion.  The true test will be how the creation science curriculum and text is presented.
> 
> The other part which you continue to ignore are the rebuttals to your belief that creation science is based on faith.  To the contrary, evolution is the science that is more based on faith.  That's why it's dangerous.  Some of the mutations that evo scientists think is safe aren't.  They will cause great harm and it has already shortened people's lives.
> 
> I posted that chart on evolution and the common ancestor hypothesis is practically all based on connecting the dots that we came to be by common ancestor.  Thus, we must have monkeys as ancestor or birds must have come from dinosaurs.  The evidence does not show that, but atheist scientists do not have any arguments presented against them.  That's not the way I learned science.  Science was always about serious disagreements and how life and our environment came to be.
> 
> The widespread belief that there are common ancestors is not true.  Otherwise, we would be able to observe, test and falsify it.  What the au. afarensis and other australophicines probably were chimpanzee variants, possibly a chimp-gorilla hybrid.  People who live in Africa are familiar with chimpanzee variants.  They are larger than a chimpanzee and have parts of their skull like that of a gorilla.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Large pic here
> https://static01.nyt.com/images/2012/04/20/arts/20RDP_CHIMP_SPAN/20RDP_CHIMP_SPAN-superJumbo-v2.jpg
> 
> The Hybrid Hypothesis: The Gorilla and the Koolokamba
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I admit the chimp-gorilla hybrid is more difficult to prove it exists since their mating is different.  The articles on the bili apes were difficult to get.  Many of them assume that they're chimp variants and do not connect to the gorilla.  What it shows is a different path from monkeys becoming humans.  This goes against evolution, so to connect chimpanzees to gorillas would defeat the argument that chimps became ape-humans.  There is the forbidden science of humanzees, but those creatures didn't last for more than one generation.
Click to expand...



I think you make several errors which need to be addressed. Yes, both Piltdown Man and the Archaeoraptor were errors made by greedy individuals but as it was pointed out earlier, those errors were discovered and remedied by scientists. It was actually a remarkable demonstration of _the process of science_ correcting and adjusting. 

You are free to deny it but the reality is that the Theory of Evolution is among the most accepted and well documented theories in science.

It should be pointed out that Darwin’s "Origin of Species" accomplished two very different things.

First:, it demonstrated through a catalog of scientific detail the historical fact of evolution (assuming an understanding of the difference between levels of scientific certainty and the theories that explain them). Using fields as diverse as biology, comparative anatomy,selective breeding, geography and animal behavior, Darwin laid out the evidence and formed a working theory that evolution (descent with modification) had actually occurred.

His evidence was overwhelming. Within little more than a decade after his theory was published, most of the leading biologists of his day were convinced that evolution (descent with modification) was true.

Secondly, Darwin proposed a theory for explaining what we would learn to be fact: "Natural Selection." This, of course, is contrary to the claim by ID/ creationists that supernaturalism is the  as a way to explain the diversity of life on the planet, (completely unsupported and it assumes the requirement for supernaturalism), Natural Selection makes no such requirement and makes no requirement for coincidence or magic. Evolution instead defines the objective criterion of "reproductive fitness" as the completely natural mechanism for driving biological change.

Regarding your comment that ID/creationists “fight for another trial”, that simply isn’t true. Kitzmiller vs. Dover served as yet another humiliating loss for those looking to force religion into the public school system. There has been no concerted effort by any of the ID/ creation ministries to attempt another trial. In every instance, every single one, the UD/creation ministries have been handed humiliating losses. I gave you a roll call earlier to demonstrate that. 

You make an error in claiming that there is a requirement for belief in science. That simply isn’t true.

The force of gravity, electromagnetism are forces we cannot directly observe, yet, there is no requirement for faith to perceive the existence of those forces.

What we do know with certainty is that every discovery in the history of mankind has had a natural causation. I have no requirement for faith or belief supernaturalism to accept the "naturalistic" explanation of life. Every discovery in the history of science has had a naturalistic explanation, even those that were formerly thought to have a supernatural cause. I see no reason why the evolution of life should be any different. Should the subtle and complex formulas of calculus cause us to deduce an intelligent designer of mathematics? I have no faith in math. I have no faith in chemistry, or geology, or astronomy. Things are as they are.

If you have evidence of any phenomenon that has a supernatural cause, please identify it. 

You make the statement “evolution is the science that is more based on faith”. There is no requirement for faith. This was addressed earlier. The Theory of Evolution is among the best supported in science. It really is difficult to believe that you can seriously suggest that there is some global conspiracy of scientists, universities, colleges and a history of learning that has progressed since the Dark Ages. 

Here's a specific evolutionary fact: It is a fact that there is genetic variation within species. It is a fact that this genetic variation is passed on. That, essentially, is evolution. It is a fact that the earth is billions of years old, and that the oldest known microfossil is 3.8 billion years old. That leaves a lot of time for genetic variation to be shaped by selective pressures. It also tends to confound your requirement for supernatural creation.

Instead of spouting vague, unsupported claims about conspiracy theories in the science realm, why don't you state some specifics? What, _specifically_ are the conspiracies that you believe are being furthered by those horrible Darwinists and Evilutionists?


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Large pic here
> https://static01.nyt.com/images/2012/04/20/arts/20RDP_CHIMP_SPAN/20RDP_CHIMP_SPAN-superJumbo-v2.jpg
> 
> The Hybrid Hypothesis: The Gorilla and the Koolokamba
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I admit the chimp-gorilla hybrid is more difficult to prove it exists since their mating is different.  The articles on the bili apes were difficult to get.  Many of them assume that they're chimp variants and do not connect to the gorilla.  What it shows is a different path from monkeys becoming humans.  This goes against evolution, so to connect chimpanzees to gorillas would defeat the argument that chimps became ape-humans.  There is the forbidden science of humanzees, but those creatures didn't last for more than one generation.




The Hybrid Hypothesis: The Gorilla and the Koolokamba


You’re kidding with Eugene McCarthy, right?

Even if you’re not kidding, lie to me and tell me you’re kidding.

Encyclopedia of American Loons: #1958: Eugene M. McCarthy

Eugene M. McCarthy (no known relation) is a pseudo-evolutionary crackpot biologist famous for his completely ridiculous crackpot idea that “humans evolved after a female chimpanzee mated with a pig” (known as the MFAP hypothesis). Now, McCarthy does have relevant credentials, which he knows to exploit in debates – indeed, McCarthy has made serious academic contributions on hybridization (though other academic commentators have noted even here his tendency to endorse any speculative and unsupported claim that looks like it’ll fit his hypothesis) –  and his idiocy has therefore predictably attracted occasional attention from various less-than-serious news media outlets over the last decade. Scientific journals and establishments have been less impressed with his work, which is partially why the media likes to portray him as a victim. You’ll find a short and to-the-point critique of his ideas here.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> To suggest that ID/creationism is not the same entity is just dishonest.
> 
> _Kitzmiller v. Dover Decision of the Court
> 
> [This is the decision of the court in the Kitzmiller et al. v Dover Area School District et al. case. Judge John E. Jones III, who was nominated by President George W. Bush, made a very strong ruling against intelligent design. He ruled that it is creationism and is not science. He also ruled that members of Dover's school board lied under oath to hide their religious motivations. This archive also hosts transcripts of the trial. See the Dover index page.]_
> 
> The Kitzmiller case was just one of many that resulted in ID/creationism being a false label for christian fundies attempting to force their dogma into the public schools.
> 
> Here's a list of ten cases where you ID/creationists (fundie Christians), have suffered humiliating losses in their attempts to force your dogma upon the public schools.
> 
> Ten Major Court Cases about Evolution and Creationism NCSE
> 
> 
> It’s curious that you would link to the Discovery Institute in an attempt to dissuade anyone that ID / creationism is not the same entity. It was Michael Behe who was a witness at the Kitzmiller trial and Behe is a “fellow” at the Discovery Institute.
> 
> For anyone who may be unfamiliar with the background of Michael Behe, here are a few pointers. Among others of the fundamentalist Christian ministries, Behe also fronts for The Discovery Institute. They are a fundie Christian driven ministry promoting a stripped down and camouflaged version of Creationism called Intelligent Design. This "stealth christianity" approach was configured for legal reasons in the US, where public, state run schools are not allowed to promote religion. As many are probably aware, creationism and the later re-titled "Creation Science" are nothing more than configurations of fundie Christian ministries which suffered humiliating defeats in the court system as their veiled agenda of promoting religious dogma was ruled as such in the courts to be religion, not scientific doctrines.
> 
> Creationist tactics rest upon one overriding pillar of faith, and that is: evolution is Atheistic and the whole political crusade being waged is one of Christians versus Atheists. We see this routinely in this thread where the fundies use Christian creationist slogans such as "atheistic evolutionist" assigned to anyone who accepts the science conclusions as opposed to Christian dogma.
> 
> This dynamic requires mentioning because there are two reasons Creationists adopt this tactic. First, all the hysteria that is framed by fundies as a conflict being waged to defend christianity is thought to be effective as a means to recruit and retain fundie Christians to "the cause". Note that this is a recruiting tactic employed by other groups that plead conspiracy theories. Secondly the conflict is manipulated by fundies to divert the debate away from creationism is nothing more than literalist christianity to the more conspiracy driven "Atheist versus Christian" issues. This is the latest tactic Christian ID/creationists have employed believing that by framing their crusade in terms they hope will garner pity, they have a greater chance of obtaining religious support.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is not dishonest like the Piltdown Man and the Archaeoraptor fraud.  This is why creation science didn't want it to be based on ID.  Creation science believes that the school argument is over _separation of church and state_.  It has nothing to do with the differences in the scientific beliefs which has been discussed in this thread and I think that the creation side has the observable, testable and falsifiable science. .While there is intelligence behind God's creations the argument put forth should not be that it's due to design principles.  ID has nothing to do with the differences in the scientific arguments.  Thus, creationists continue to fight for another trial so that they will better able to teach creation science in public schools.  It won't be based on religion.  The true test will be how the creation science curriculum and text is presented.
> 
> The other part which you continue to ignore are the rebuttals to your belief that creation science is based on faith.  To the contrary, evolution is the science that is more based on faith.  That's why it's dangerous.  Some of the mutations that evo scientists think is safe aren't.  They will cause great harm and it has already shortened people's lives.
> 
> I posted that chart on evolution and the common ancestor hypothesis is practically all based on connecting the dots that we came to be by common ancestor.  Thus, we must have monkeys as ancestor or birds must have come from dinosaurs.  The evidence does not show that, but atheist scientists do not have any arguments presented against them.  That's not the way I learned science.  Science was always about serious disagreements and how life and our environment came to be.
> 
> The widespread belief that there are common ancestors is not true.  Otherwise, we would be able to observe, test and falsify it.  What the au. afarensis and other australophicines probably were chimpanzee variants, possibly a chimp-gorilla hybrid.  People who live in Africa are familiar with chimpanzee variants.  They are larger than a chimpanzee and have parts of their skull like that of a gorilla.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Large pic here
> https://static01.nyt.com/images/2012/04/20/arts/20RDP_CHIMP_SPAN/20RDP_CHIMP_SPAN-superJumbo-v2.jpg
> 
> The Hybrid Hypothesis: The Gorilla and the Koolokamba
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I admit the chimp-gorilla hybrid is more difficult to prove it exists since their mating is different.  The articles on the bili apes were difficult to get.  Many of them assume that they're chimp variants and do not connect to the gorilla.  What it shows is a different path from monkeys becoming humans.  This goes against evolution, so to connect chimpanzees to gorillas would defeat the argument that chimps became ape-humans.  There is the forbidden science of humanzees, but those creatures didn't last for more than one generation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I think you make several errors which need to be addressed. Yes, both Piltdown Man and the Archaeoraptor were errors made by greedy individuals but as it was pointed out earlier, those errors were discovered and remedied by scientists. It was actually a remarkable demonstration of _the process of science_ correcting and adjusting.
> 
> You are free to deny it but the reality is that the Theory of Evolution is among the most accepted and well documented theories in science.
> 
> It should be pointed out that Darwin’s "Origin of Species" accomplished two very different things.
> 
> First:, it demonstrated through a catalog of scientific detail the historical fact of evolution (assuming an understanding of the difference between levels of scientific certainty and the theories that explain them). Using fields as diverse as biology, comparative anatomy,selective breeding, geography and animal behavior, Darwin laid out the evidence and formed a working theory that evolution (descent with modification) had actually occurred.
> 
> His evidence was overwhelming. Within little more than a decade after his theory was published, most of the leading biologists of his day were convinced that evolution (descent with modification) was true.
> 
> Secondly, Darwin proposed a theory for explaining what we would learn to be fact: "Natural Selection." This, of course, is contrary to the claim by ID/ creationists that supernaturalism is the  as a way to explain the diversity of life on the planet, (completely unsupported and it assumes the requirement for supernaturalism), Natural Selection makes no such requirement and makes no requirement for coincidence or magic. Evolution instead defines the objective criterion of "reproductive fitness" as the completely natural mechanism for driving biological change.
> 
> Regarding your comment that ID/creationists “fight for another trial”, that simply isn’t true. Kitzmiller vs. Dover served as yet another humiliating loss for those looking to force religion into the public school system. There has been no concerted effort by any of the ID/ creation ministries to attempt another trial. In every instance, every single one, the UD/creation ministries have been handed humiliating losses. I gave you a roll call earlier to demonstrate that.
> 
> You make an error in claiming that there is a requirement for belief in science. That simply isn’t true.
> 
> The force of gravity, electromagnetism are forces we cannot directly observe, yet, there is no requirement for faith to perceive the existence of those forces.
> 
> What we do know with certainty is that every discovery in the history of mankind has had a natural causation. I have no requirement for faith or belief supernaturalism to accept the "naturalistic" explanation of life. Every discovery in the history of science has had a naturalistic explanation, even those that were formerly thought to have a supernatural cause. I see no reason why the evolution of life should be any different. Should the subtle and complex formulas of calculus cause us to deduce an intelligent designer of mathematics? I have no faith in math. I have no faith in chemistry, or geology, or astronomy. Things are as they are.
> 
> If you have evidence of any phenomenon that has a supernatural cause, please identify it.
> 
> You make the statement “evolution is the science that is more based on faith”. There is no requirement for faith. This was addressed earlier. The Theory of Evolution is among the best supported in science. It really is difficult to believe that you can seriously suggest that there is some global conspiracy of scientists, universities, colleges and a history of learning that has progressed since the Dark Ages.
> 
> Here's a specific evolutionary fact: It is a fact that there is genetic variation within species. It is a fact that this genetic variation is passed on. That, essentially, is evolution. It is a fact that the earth is billions of years old, and that the oldest known microfossil is 3.8 billion years old. That leaves a lot of time for genetic variation to be shaped by selective pressures. It also tends to confound your requirement for supernatural creation.
> 
> Instead of spouting vague, unsupported claims about conspiracy theories in the science realm, why don't you state some specifics? What, _specifically_ are the conspiracies that you believe are being furthered by those horrible Darwinists and Evilutionists?
Click to expand...


Heh.  ToE is only accepted because the opposition has been systematically eliminated, but what I have been saying just sails over your head.  Look, I pointed out that fraud had to be committed in order for people to believe in macroevolution.  Both cases!  Macro does not happen.  How many times do I have to repeat it?  The creation scientists are the ones whose evidence destroys monkeys to man and dinosaurs to birds.  It's not creation scientists who made errors and committed fraud.  It's the evo scientists.  They've made so many errors, but you just let it slide.  Talk about believing in myths and superstitions.  It's no wonder that atheists and atheist scientists are usually wrong.

I think you can't demonstrate humans from monkeys and birds from dinosaurs, so you keep going off the subject.  There is plenty to discuss just on why humans from monkeys fails.

None of my claims are unsupported.  I have provided the links to back it up.  They were made by evolution scientists, too.  I'm not sure what you are afraid of because anyone with an open mind would realize that evolution is BS.  It just so happens that the powers that be want you to believe it so the general public's lives can be cut short.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Large pic here
> https://static01.nyt.com/images/2012/04/20/arts/20RDP_CHIMP_SPAN/20RDP_CHIMP_SPAN-superJumbo-v2.jpg
> 
> The Hybrid Hypothesis: The Gorilla and the Koolokamba
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I admit the chimp-gorilla hybrid is more difficult to prove it exists since their mating is different.  The articles on the bili apes were difficult to get.  Many of them assume that they're chimp variants and do not connect to the gorilla.  What it shows is a different path from monkeys becoming humans.  This goes against evolution, so to connect chimpanzees to gorillas would defeat the argument that chimps became ape-humans.  There is the forbidden science of humanzees, but those creatures didn't last for more than one generation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Hybrid Hypothesis: The Gorilla and the Koolokamba
> 
> 
> You’re kidding with Eugene McCarthy, right?
> 
> Even if you’re not kidding, lie to me and tell me you’re kidding.
> 
> Encyclopedia of American Loons: #1958: Eugene M. McCarthy
> 
> Eugene M. McCarthy (no known relation) is a pseudo-evolutionary crackpot biologist famous for his completely ridiculous crackpot idea that “humans evolved after a female chimpanzee mated with a pig” (known as the MFAP hypothesis). Now, McCarthy does have relevant credentials, which he knows to exploit in debates – indeed, McCarthy has made serious academic contributions on hybridization (though other academic commentators have noted even here his tendency to endorse any speculative and unsupported claim that looks like it’ll fit his hypothesis) –  and his idiocy has therefore predictably attracted occasional attention from various less-than-serious news media outlets over the last decade. Scientific journals and establishments have been less impressed with his work, which is partially why the media likes to portray him as a victim. You’ll find a short and to-the-point critique of his ideas here.
Click to expand...


Talk about crackpots, you didn't even read the link.

There are other vids of chimpanzee variants.

Chimps and gorillas at play

If any of them were going to become human, then we'd have the science fiction movie Planet of the Apes. Macroevolution is science fiction.  I can't believe the atheists here cannot tell the difference.


----------



## Old Rocks

Hell, I cannot believe that any person of more than room temperature IQ could accept the nonsense that you spout. Ah well, people like you don't count in science, in any case.


----------



## RWS

BTW the answers are 02:78, for the division.
And 56:25 for the multiplication.

This is sexagesimal math. That is outrageous for us today to understand. But it was the first math. And it was taught to the Sumerians by the Anunnaki. And we still use it today, but we don't make calculations based on it.


----------



## RWS

For instance, what is 3 minutes and 30 seconds, times 2 minutes and 30 seconds?

We understand adding them together, but not multiplying or dividing them. It's a totally different concept than the easy decimal version we use today.

So for the first human civilization to choose to use sexagesimal, and invent math and science and writing, is a little weird. Unless, as they said, they were taught.

And who taught them? The Anunnaki. "Those who from Heaven to Earth Came"

And everything since, is plagiarism based on the original Sumerian (and Assyrian/Babylonian) writings.

FYI, the answer is 8 hours and 45 minutes. Figure it out... It makes no sense, but is correct. Use your watch or clock and thank the Sumerians for the sexagesimal counting system, and thank god you don't have to multiply or divide with it.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> To suggest that ID/creationism is not the same entity is just dishonest.
> 
> _Kitzmiller v. Dover Decision of the Court
> 
> [This is the decision of the court in the Kitzmiller et al. v Dover Area School District et al. case. Judge John E. Jones III, who was nominated by President George W. Bush, made a very strong ruling against intelligent design. He ruled that it is creationism and is not science. He also ruled that members of Dover's school board lied under oath to hide their religious motivations. This archive also hosts transcripts of the trial. See the Dover index page.]_
> 
> The Kitzmiller case was just one of many that resulted in ID/creationism being a false label for christian fundies attempting to force their dogma into the public schools.
> 
> Here's a list of ten cases where you ID/creationists (fundie Christians), have suffered humiliating losses in their attempts to force your dogma upon the public schools.
> 
> Ten Major Court Cases about Evolution and Creationism NCSE
> 
> 
> It’s curious that you would link to the Discovery Institute in an attempt to dissuade anyone that ID / creationism is not the same entity. It was Michael Behe who was a witness at the Kitzmiller trial and Behe is a “fellow” at the Discovery Institute.
> 
> For anyone who may be unfamiliar with the background of Michael Behe, here are a few pointers. Among others of the fundamentalist Christian ministries, Behe also fronts for The Discovery Institute. They are a fundie Christian driven ministry promoting a stripped down and camouflaged version of Creationism called Intelligent Design. This "stealth christianity" approach was configured for legal reasons in the US, where public, state run schools are not allowed to promote religion. As many are probably aware, creationism and the later re-titled "Creation Science" are nothing more than configurations of fundie Christian ministries which suffered humiliating defeats in the court system as their veiled agenda of promoting religious dogma was ruled as such in the courts to be religion, not scientific doctrines.
> 
> Creationist tactics rest upon one overriding pillar of faith, and that is: evolution is Atheistic and the whole political crusade being waged is one of Christians versus Atheists. We see this routinely in this thread where the fundies use Christian creationist slogans such as "atheistic evolutionist" assigned to anyone who accepts the science conclusions as opposed to Christian dogma.
> 
> This dynamic requires mentioning because there are two reasons Creationists adopt this tactic. First, all the hysteria that is framed by fundies as a conflict being waged to defend christianity is thought to be effective as a means to recruit and retain fundie Christians to "the cause". Note that this is a recruiting tactic employed by other groups that plead conspiracy theories. Secondly the conflict is manipulated by fundies to divert the debate away from creationism is nothing more than literalist christianity to the more conspiracy driven "Atheist versus Christian" issues. This is the latest tactic Christian ID/creationists have employed believing that by framing their crusade in terms they hope will garner pity, they have a greater chance of obtaining religious support.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is not dishonest like the Piltdown Man and the Archaeoraptor fraud.  This is why creation science didn't want it to be based on ID.  Creation science believes that the school argument is over _separation of church and state_.  It has nothing to do with the differences in the scientific beliefs which has been discussed in this thread and I think that the creation side has the observable, testable and falsifiable science. .While there is intelligence behind God's creations the argument put forth should not be that it's due to design principles.  ID has nothing to do with the differences in the scientific arguments.  Thus, creationists continue to fight for another trial so that they will better able to teach creation science in public schools.  It won't be based on religion.  The true test will be how the creation science curriculum and text is presented.
> 
> The other part which you continue to ignore are the rebuttals to your belief that creation science is based on faith.  To the contrary, evolution is the science that is more based on faith.  That's why it's dangerous.  Some of the mutations that evo scientists think is safe aren't.  They will cause great harm and it has already shortened people's lives.
> 
> I posted that chart on evolution and the common ancestor hypothesis is practically all based on connecting the dots that we came to be by common ancestor.  Thus, we must have monkeys as ancestor or birds must have come from dinosaurs.  The evidence does not show that, but atheist scientists do not have any arguments presented against them.  That's not the way I learned science.  Science was always about serious disagreements and how life and our environment came to be.
> 
> The widespread belief that there are common ancestors is not true.  Otherwise, we would be able to observe, test and falsify it.  What the au. afarensis and other australophicines probably were chimpanzee variants, possibly a chimp-gorilla hybrid.  People who live in Africa are familiar with chimpanzee variants.  They are larger than a chimpanzee and have parts of their skull like that of a gorilla.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Large pic here
> https://static01.nyt.com/images/2012/04/20/arts/20RDP_CHIMP_SPAN/20RDP_CHIMP_SPAN-superJumbo-v2.jpg
> 
> The Hybrid Hypothesis: The Gorilla and the Koolokamba
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I admit the chimp-gorilla hybrid is more difficult to prove it exists since their mating is different.  The articles on the bili apes were difficult to get.  Many of them assume that they're chimp variants and do not connect to the gorilla.  What it shows is a different path from monkeys becoming humans.  This goes against evolution, so to connect chimpanzees to gorillas would defeat the argument that chimps became ape-humans.  There is the forbidden science of humanzees, but those creatures didn't last for more than one generation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I think you make several errors which need to be addressed. Yes, both Piltdown Man and the Archaeoraptor were errors made by greedy individuals but as it was pointed out earlier, those errors were discovered and remedied by scientists. It was actually a remarkable demonstration of _the process of science_ correcting and adjusting.
> 
> You are free to deny it but the reality is that the Theory of Evolution is among the most accepted and well documented theories in science.
> 
> It should be pointed out that Darwin’s "Origin of Species" accomplished two very different things.
> 
> First:, it demonstrated through a catalog of scientific detail the historical fact of evolution (assuming an understanding of the difference between levels of scientific certainty and the theories that explain them). Using fields as diverse as biology, comparative anatomy,selective breeding, geography and animal behavior, Darwin laid out the evidence and formed a working theory that evolution (descent with modification) had actually occurred.
> 
> His evidence was overwhelming. Within little more than a decade after his theory was published, most of the leading biologists of his day were convinced that evolution (descent with modification) was true.
> 
> Secondly, Darwin proposed a theory for explaining what we would learn to be fact: "Natural Selection." This, of course, is contrary to the claim by ID/ creationists that supernaturalism is the  as a way to explain the diversity of life on the planet, (completely unsupported and it assumes the requirement for supernaturalism), Natural Selection makes no such requirement and makes no requirement for coincidence or magic. Evolution instead defines the objective criterion of "reproductive fitness" as the completely natural mechanism for driving biological change.
> 
> Regarding your comment that ID/creationists “fight for another trial”, that simply isn’t true. Kitzmiller vs. Dover served as yet another humiliating loss for those looking to force religion into the public school system. There has been no concerted effort by any of the ID/ creation ministries to attempt another trial. In every instance, every single one, the UD/creation ministries have been handed humiliating losses. I gave you a roll call earlier to demonstrate that.
> 
> You make an error in claiming that there is a requirement for belief in science. That simply isn’t true.
> 
> The force of gravity, electromagnetism are forces we cannot directly observe, yet, there is no requirement for faith to perceive the existence of those forces.
> 
> What we do know with certainty is that every discovery in the history of mankind has had a natural causation. I have no requirement for faith or belief supernaturalism to accept the "naturalistic" explanation of life. Every discovery in the history of science has had a naturalistic explanation, even those that were formerly thought to have a supernatural cause. I see no reason why the evolution of life should be any different. Should the subtle and complex formulas of calculus cause us to deduce an intelligent designer of mathematics? I have no faith in math. I have no faith in chemistry, or geology, or astronomy. Things are as they are.
> 
> If you have evidence of any phenomenon that has a supernatural cause, please identify it.
> 
> You make the statement “evolution is the science that is more based on faith”. There is no requirement for faith. This was addressed earlier. The Theory of Evolution is among the best supported in science. It really is difficult to believe that you can seriously suggest that there is some global conspiracy of scientists, universities, colleges and a history of learning that has progressed since the Dark Ages.
> 
> Here's a specific evolutionary fact: It is a fact that there is genetic variation within species. It is a fact that this genetic variation is passed on. That, essentially, is evolution. It is a fact that the earth is billions of years old, and that the oldest known microfossil is 3.8 billion years old. That leaves a lot of time for genetic variation to be shaped by selective pressures. It also tends to confound your requirement for supernatural creation.
> 
> Instead of spouting vague, unsupported claims about conspiracy theories in the science realm, why don't you state some specifics? What, _specifically_ are the conspiracies that you believe are being furthered by those horrible Darwinists and Evilutionists?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Heh.  ToE is only accepted because the opposition has been systematically eliminated, but what I have been saying just sails over your head.  Look, I pointed out that fraud had to be committed in order for people to believe in macroevolution.  Both cases!  Macro does not happen.  How many times do I have to repeat it?  The creation scientists are the ones whose evidence destroys monkeys to man and dinosaurs to birds.  It's not creation scientists who made errors and committed fraud.  It's the evo scientists.  They've made so many errors, but you just let it slide.  Talk about believing in myths and superstitions.  It's no wonder that atheists and atheist scientists are usually wrong.
> 
> I think you can't demonstrate humans from monkeys and birds from dinosaurs, so you keep going off the subject.  There is plenty to discuss just on why humans from monkeys fails.
> 
> None of my claims are unsupported.  I have provided the links to back it up.  They were made by evolution scientists, too.  I'm not sure what you are afraid of because anyone with an open mind would realize that evolution is BS.  It just so happens that the powers that be want you to believe it so the general public's lives can be cut short.
Click to expand...



It just seems odd that you’re promoting conspiracy theories about evilutionists / atheist scientists but you somehow accept the crackpot notions of Eugene McCarthy. 

This is the result of a chimp mating with a pig, at least according to the ID/ creation quacks you define as heroes. 

Evolutionary theory that a chimp mated with a pig is pure sausagemeat


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> To suggest that ID/creationism is not the same entity is just dishonest.
> 
> _Kitzmiller v. Dover Decision of the Court
> 
> [This is the decision of the court in the Kitzmiller et al. v Dover Area School District et al. case. Judge John E. Jones III, who was nominated by President George W. Bush, made a very strong ruling against intelligent design. He ruled that it is creationism and is not science. He also ruled that members of Dover's school board lied under oath to hide their religious motivations. This archive also hosts transcripts of the trial. See the Dover index page.]_
> 
> The Kitzmiller case was just one of many that resulted in ID/creationism being a false label for christian fundies attempting to force their dogma into the public schools.
> 
> Here's a list of ten cases where you ID/creationists (fundie Christians), have suffered humiliating losses in their attempts to force your dogma upon the public schools.
> 
> Ten Major Court Cases about Evolution and Creationism NCSE
> 
> 
> It’s curious that you would link to the Discovery Institute in an attempt to dissuade anyone that ID / creationism is not the same entity. It was Michael Behe who was a witness at the Kitzmiller trial and Behe is a “fellow” at the Discovery Institute.
> 
> For anyone who may be unfamiliar with the background of Michael Behe, here are a few pointers. Among others of the fundamentalist Christian ministries, Behe also fronts for The Discovery Institute. They are a fundie Christian driven ministry promoting a stripped down and camouflaged version of Creationism called Intelligent Design. This "stealth christianity" approach was configured for legal reasons in the US, where public, state run schools are not allowed to promote religion. As many are probably aware, creationism and the later re-titled "Creation Science" are nothing more than configurations of fundie Christian ministries which suffered humiliating defeats in the court system as their veiled agenda of promoting religious dogma was ruled as such in the courts to be religion, not scientific doctrines.
> 
> Creationist tactics rest upon one overriding pillar of faith, and that is: evolution is Atheistic and the whole political crusade being waged is one of Christians versus Atheists. We see this routinely in this thread where the fundies use Christian creationist slogans such as "atheistic evolutionist" assigned to anyone who accepts the science conclusions as opposed to Christian dogma.
> 
> This dynamic requires mentioning because there are two reasons Creationists adopt this tactic. First, all the hysteria that is framed by fundies as a conflict being waged to defend christianity is thought to be effective as a means to recruit and retain fundie Christians to "the cause". Note that this is a recruiting tactic employed by other groups that plead conspiracy theories. Secondly the conflict is manipulated by fundies to divert the debate away from creationism is nothing more than literalist christianity to the more conspiracy driven "Atheist versus Christian" issues. This is the latest tactic Christian ID/creationists have employed believing that by framing their crusade in terms they hope will garner pity, they have a greater chance of obtaining religious support.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is not dishonest like the Piltdown Man and the Archaeoraptor fraud.  This is why creation science didn't want it to be based on ID.  Creation science believes that the school argument is over _separation of church and state_.  It has nothing to do with the differences in the scientific beliefs which has been discussed in this thread and I think that the creation side has the observable, testable and falsifiable science. .While there is intelligence behind God's creations the argument put forth should not be that it's due to design principles.  ID has nothing to do with the differences in the scientific arguments.  Thus, creationists continue to fight for another trial so that they will better able to teach creation science in public schools.  It won't be based on religion.  The true test will be how the creation science curriculum and text is presented.
> 
> The other part which you continue to ignore are the rebuttals to your belief that creation science is based on faith.  To the contrary, evolution is the science that is more based on faith.  That's why it's dangerous.  Some of the mutations that evo scientists think is safe aren't.  They will cause great harm and it has already shortened people's lives.
> 
> I posted that chart on evolution and the common ancestor hypothesis is practically all based on connecting the dots that we came to be by common ancestor.  Thus, we must have monkeys as ancestor or birds must have come from dinosaurs.  The evidence does not show that, but atheist scientists do not have any arguments presented against them.  That's not the way I learned science.  Science was always about serious disagreements and how life and our environment came to be.
> 
> The widespread belief that there are common ancestors is not true.  Otherwise, we would be able to observe, test and falsify it.  What the au. afarensis and other australophicines probably were chimpanzee variants, possibly a chimp-gorilla hybrid.  People who live in Africa are familiar with chimpanzee variants.  They are larger than a chimpanzee and have parts of their skull like that of a gorilla.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Large pic here
> https://static01.nyt.com/images/2012/04/20/arts/20RDP_CHIMP_SPAN/20RDP_CHIMP_SPAN-superJumbo-v2.jpg
> 
> The Hybrid Hypothesis: The Gorilla and the Koolokamba
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I admit the chimp-gorilla hybrid is more difficult to prove it exists since their mating is different.  The articles on the bili apes were difficult to get.  Many of them assume that they're chimp variants and do not connect to the gorilla.  What it shows is a different path from monkeys becoming humans.  This goes against evolution, so to connect chimpanzees to gorillas would defeat the argument that chimps became ape-humans.  There is the forbidden science of humanzees, but those creatures didn't last for more than one generation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I think you make several errors which need to be addressed. Yes, both Piltdown Man and the Archaeoraptor were errors made by greedy individuals but as it was pointed out earlier, those errors were discovered and remedied by scientists. It was actually a remarkable demonstration of _the process of science_ correcting and adjusting.
> 
> You are free to deny it but the reality is that the Theory of Evolution is among the most accepted and well documented theories in science.
> 
> It should be pointed out that Darwin’s "Origin of Species" accomplished two very different things.
> 
> First:, it demonstrated through a catalog of scientific detail the historical fact of evolution (assuming an understanding of the difference between levels of scientific certainty and the theories that explain them). Using fields as diverse as biology, comparative anatomy,selective breeding, geography and animal behavior, Darwin laid out the evidence and formed a working theory that evolution (descent with modification) had actually occurred.
> 
> His evidence was overwhelming. Within little more than a decade after his theory was published, most of the leading biologists of his day were convinced that evolution (descent with modification) was true.
> 
> Secondly, Darwin proposed a theory for explaining what we would learn to be fact: "Natural Selection." This, of course, is contrary to the claim by ID/ creationists that supernaturalism is the  as a way to explain the diversity of life on the planet, (completely unsupported and it assumes the requirement for supernaturalism), Natural Selection makes no such requirement and makes no requirement for coincidence or magic. Evolution instead defines the objective criterion of "reproductive fitness" as the completely natural mechanism for driving biological change.
> 
> Regarding your comment that ID/creationists “fight for another trial”, that simply isn’t true. Kitzmiller vs. Dover served as yet another humiliating loss for those looking to force religion into the public school system. There has been no concerted effort by any of the ID/ creation ministries to attempt another trial. In every instance, every single one, the UD/creation ministries have been handed humiliating losses. I gave you a roll call earlier to demonstrate that.
> 
> You make an error in claiming that there is a requirement for belief in science. That simply isn’t true.
> 
> The force of gravity, electromagnetism are forces we cannot directly observe, yet, there is no requirement for faith to perceive the existence of those forces.
> 
> What we do know with certainty is that every discovery in the history of mankind has had a natural causation. I have no requirement for faith or belief supernaturalism to accept the "naturalistic" explanation of life. Every discovery in the history of science has had a naturalistic explanation, even those that were formerly thought to have a supernatural cause. I see no reason why the evolution of life should be any different. Should the subtle and complex formulas of calculus cause us to deduce an intelligent designer of mathematics? I have no faith in math. I have no faith in chemistry, or geology, or astronomy. Things are as they are.
> 
> If you have evidence of any phenomenon that has a supernatural cause, please identify it.
> 
> You make the statement “evolution is the science that is more based on faith”. There is no requirement for faith. This was addressed earlier. The Theory of Evolution is among the best supported in science. It really is difficult to believe that you can seriously suggest that there is some global conspiracy of scientists, universities, colleges and a history of learning that has progressed since the Dark Ages.
> 
> Here's a specific evolutionary fact: It is a fact that there is genetic variation within species. It is a fact that this genetic variation is passed on. That, essentially, is evolution. It is a fact that the earth is billions of years old, and that the oldest known microfossil is 3.8 billion years old. That leaves a lot of time for genetic variation to be shaped by selective pressures. It also tends to confound your requirement for supernatural creation.
> 
> Instead of spouting vague, unsupported claims about conspiracy theories in the science realm, why don't you state some specifics? What, _specifically_ are the conspiracies that you believe are being furthered by those horrible Darwinists and Evilutionists?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Heh.  ToE is only accepted because the opposition has been systematically eliminated, but what I have been saying just sails over your head.  Look, I pointed out that fraud had to be committed in order for people to believe in macroevolution.  Both cases!  Macro does not happen.  How many times do I have to repeat it?  The creation scientists are the ones whose evidence destroys monkeys to man and dinosaurs to birds.  It's not creation scientists who made errors and committed fraud.  It's the evo scientists.  They've made so many errors, but you just let it slide.  Talk about believing in myths and superstitions.  It's no wonder that atheists and atheist scientists are usually wrong.
> 
> I think you can't demonstrate humans from monkeys and birds from dinosaurs, so you keep going off the subject.  There is plenty to discuss just on why humans from monkeys fails.
> 
> None of my claims are unsupported.  I have provided the links to back it up.  They were made by evolution scientists, too.  I'm not sure what you are afraid of because anyone with an open mind would realize that evolution is BS.  It just so happens that the powers that be want you to believe it so the general public's lives can be cut short.
Click to expand...


The Theory of Hybidization according to Eugene McCarthy has some interesting outcomes.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> To suggest that ID/creationism is not the same entity is just dishonest.
> 
> _Kitzmiller v. Dover Decision of the Court
> 
> [This is the decision of the court in the Kitzmiller et al. v Dover Area School District et al. case. Judge John E. Jones III, who was nominated by President George W. Bush, made a very strong ruling against intelligent design. He ruled that it is creationism and is not science. He also ruled that members of Dover's school board lied under oath to hide their religious motivations. This archive also hosts transcripts of the trial. See the Dover index page.]_
> 
> The Kitzmiller case was just one of many that resulted in ID/creationism being a false label for christian fundies attempting to force their dogma into the public schools.
> 
> Here's a list of ten cases where you ID/creationists (fundie Christians), have suffered humiliating losses in their attempts to force your dogma upon the public schools.
> 
> Ten Major Court Cases about Evolution and Creationism NCSE
> 
> 
> It’s curious that you would link to the Discovery Institute in an attempt to dissuade anyone that ID / creationism is not the same entity. It was Michael Behe who was a witness at the Kitzmiller trial and Behe is a “fellow” at the Discovery Institute.
> 
> For anyone who may be unfamiliar with the background of Michael Behe, here are a few pointers. Among others of the fundamentalist Christian ministries, Behe also fronts for The Discovery Institute. They are a fundie Christian driven ministry promoting a stripped down and camouflaged version of Creationism called Intelligent Design. This "stealth christianity" approach was configured for legal reasons in the US, where public, state run schools are not allowed to promote religion. As many are probably aware, creationism and the later re-titled "Creation Science" are nothing more than configurations of fundie Christian ministries which suffered humiliating defeats in the court system as their veiled agenda of promoting religious dogma was ruled as such in the courts to be religion, not scientific doctrines.
> 
> Creationist tactics rest upon one overriding pillar of faith, and that is: evolution is Atheistic and the whole political crusade being waged is one of Christians versus Atheists. We see this routinely in this thread where the fundies use Christian creationist slogans such as "atheistic evolutionist" assigned to anyone who accepts the science conclusions as opposed to Christian dogma.
> 
> This dynamic requires mentioning because there are two reasons Creationists adopt this tactic. First, all the hysteria that is framed by fundies as a conflict being waged to defend christianity is thought to be effective as a means to recruit and retain fundie Christians to "the cause". Note that this is a recruiting tactic employed by other groups that plead conspiracy theories. Secondly the conflict is manipulated by fundies to divert the debate away from creationism is nothing more than literalist christianity to the more conspiracy driven "Atheist versus Christian" issues. This is the latest tactic Christian ID/creationists have employed believing that by framing their crusade in terms they hope will garner pity, they have a greater chance of obtaining religious support.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is not dishonest like the Piltdown Man and the Archaeoraptor fraud.  This is why creation science didn't want it to be based on ID.  Creation science believes that the school argument is over _separation of church and state_.  It has nothing to do with the differences in the scientific beliefs which has been discussed in this thread and I think that the creation side has the observable, testable and falsifiable science. .While there is intelligence behind God's creations the argument put forth should not be that it's due to design principles.  ID has nothing to do with the differences in the scientific arguments.  Thus, creationists continue to fight for another trial so that they will better able to teach creation science in public schools.  It won't be based on religion.  The true test will be how the creation science curriculum and text is presented.
> 
> The other part which you continue to ignore are the rebuttals to your belief that creation science is based on faith.  To the contrary, evolution is the science that is more based on faith.  That's why it's dangerous.  Some of the mutations that evo scientists think is safe aren't.  They will cause great harm and it has already shortened people's lives.
> 
> I posted that chart on evolution and the common ancestor hypothesis is practically all based on connecting the dots that we came to be by common ancestor.  Thus, we must have monkeys as ancestor or birds must have come from dinosaurs.  The evidence does not show that, but atheist scientists do not have any arguments presented against them.  That's not the way I learned science.  Science was always about serious disagreements and how life and our environment came to be.
> 
> The widespread belief that there are common ancestors is not true.  Otherwise, we would be able to observe, test and falsify it.  What the au. afarensis and other australophicines probably were chimpanzee variants, possibly a chimp-gorilla hybrid.  People who live in Africa are familiar with chimpanzee variants.  They are larger than a chimpanzee and have parts of their skull like that of a gorilla.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Large pic here
> https://static01.nyt.com/images/2012/04/20/arts/20RDP_CHIMP_SPAN/20RDP_CHIMP_SPAN-superJumbo-v2.jpg
> 
> The Hybrid Hypothesis: The Gorilla and the Koolokamba
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I admit the chimp-gorilla hybrid is more difficult to prove it exists since their mating is different.  The articles on the bili apes were difficult to get.  Many of them assume that they're chimp variants and do not connect to the gorilla.  What it shows is a different path from monkeys becoming humans.  This goes against evolution, so to connect chimpanzees to gorillas would defeat the argument that chimps became ape-humans.  There is the forbidden science of humanzees, but those creatures didn't last for more than one generation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I think you make several errors which need to be addressed. Yes, both Piltdown Man and the Archaeoraptor were errors made by greedy individuals but as it was pointed out earlier, those errors were discovered and remedied by scientists. It was actually a remarkable demonstration of _the process of science_ correcting and adjusting.
> 
> You are free to deny it but the reality is that the Theory of Evolution is among the most accepted and well documented theories in science.
> 
> It should be pointed out that Darwin’s "Origin of Species" accomplished two very different things.
> 
> First:, it demonstrated through a catalog of scientific detail the historical fact of evolution (assuming an understanding of the difference between levels of scientific certainty and the theories that explain them). Using fields as diverse as biology, comparative anatomy,selective breeding, geography and animal behavior, Darwin laid out the evidence and formed a working theory that evolution (descent with modification) had actually occurred.
> 
> His evidence was overwhelming. Within little more than a decade after his theory was published, most of the leading biologists of his day were convinced that evolution (descent with modification) was true.
> 
> Secondly, Darwin proposed a theory for explaining what we would learn to be fact: "Natural Selection." This, of course, is contrary to the claim by ID/ creationists that supernaturalism is the  as a way to explain the diversity of life on the planet, (completely unsupported and it assumes the requirement for supernaturalism), Natural Selection makes no such requirement and makes no requirement for coincidence or magic. Evolution instead defines the objective criterion of "reproductive fitness" as the completely natural mechanism for driving biological change.
> 
> Regarding your comment that ID/creationists “fight for another trial”, that simply isn’t true. Kitzmiller vs. Dover served as yet another humiliating loss for those looking to force religion into the public school system. There has been no concerted effort by any of the ID/ creation ministries to attempt another trial. In every instance, every single one, the UD/creation ministries have been handed humiliating losses. I gave you a roll call earlier to demonstrate that.
> 
> You make an error in claiming that there is a requirement for belief in science. That simply isn’t true.
> 
> The force of gravity, electromagnetism are forces we cannot directly observe, yet, there is no requirement for faith to perceive the existence of those forces.
> 
> What we do know with certainty is that every discovery in the history of mankind has had a natural causation. I have no requirement for faith or belief supernaturalism to accept the "naturalistic" explanation of life. Every discovery in the history of science has had a naturalistic explanation, even those that were formerly thought to have a supernatural cause. I see no reason why the evolution of life should be any different. Should the subtle and complex formulas of calculus cause us to deduce an intelligent designer of mathematics? I have no faith in math. I have no faith in chemistry, or geology, or astronomy. Things are as they are.
> 
> If you have evidence of any phenomenon that has a supernatural cause, please identify it.
> 
> You make the statement “evolution is the science that is more based on faith”. There is no requirement for faith. This was addressed earlier. The Theory of Evolution is among the best supported in science. It really is difficult to believe that you can seriously suggest that there is some global conspiracy of scientists, universities, colleges and a history of learning that has progressed since the Dark Ages.
> 
> Here's a specific evolutionary fact: It is a fact that there is genetic variation within species. It is a fact that this genetic variation is passed on. That, essentially, is evolution. It is a fact that the earth is billions of years old, and that the oldest known microfossil is 3.8 billion years old. That leaves a lot of time for genetic variation to be shaped by selective pressures. It also tends to confound your requirement for supernatural creation.
> 
> Instead of spouting vague, unsupported claims about conspiracy theories in the science realm, why don't you state some specifics? What, _specifically_ are the conspiracies that you believe are being furthered by those horrible Darwinists and Evilutionists?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Heh.  ToE is only accepted because the opposition has been systematically eliminated, but what I have been saying just sails over your head.  Look, I pointed out that fraud had to be committed in order for people to believe in macroevolution.  Both cases!  Macro does not happen.  How many times do I have to repeat it?  The creation scientists are the ones whose evidence destroys monkeys to man and dinosaurs to birds.  It's not creation scientists who made errors and committed fraud.  It's the evo scientists.  They've made so many errors, but you just let it slide.  Talk about believing in myths and superstitions.  It's no wonder that atheists and atheist scientists are usually wrong.
> 
> I think you can't demonstrate humans from monkeys and birds from dinosaurs, so you keep going off the subject.  There is plenty to discuss just on why humans from monkeys fails.
> 
> None of my claims are unsupported.  I have provided the links to back it up.  They were made by evolution scientists, too.  I'm not sure what you are afraid of because anyone with an open mind would realize that evolution is BS.  It just so happens that the powers that be want you to believe it so the general public's lives can be cut short.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Theory of Hybidization according to Eugene McCarthy has some interesting outcomes.
Click to expand...


I finally looked up Eugene McCarthy.  Was thinking someone associated with McCarthyism.  He was a Democrat and friend of Bill Clinton.  Doesn't sound like a YEC creation science person to me.


----------



## james bond

RWS said:


> For instance, what is 3 minutes and 30 seconds, times 2 minutes and 30 seconds?
> 
> We understand adding them together, but not multiplying or dividing them. It's a totally different concept than the easy decimal version we use today.
> 
> So for the first human civilization to choose to use sexagesimal, and invent math and science and writing, is a little weird. Unless, as they said, they were taught.
> 
> And who taught them? The Anunnaki. "Those who from Heaven to Earth Came"
> 
> And everything since, is plagiarism based on the original Sumerian (and Assyrian/Babylonian) writings.
> 
> FYI, the answer is 8 hours and 45 minutes. Figure it out... It makes no sense, but is correct. Use your watch or clock and thank the Sumerians for the sexagesimal counting system, and thank god you don't have to multiply or divide with it.



What is it with atheists and Sumerians?  Do they share the same mythologies?  What do you get when you multiply time?  If we add time, then we get something productive like work.  If you take a job done by one person and add it to the rate of another person, then you have increased output.

According to you, it makes no sense.  I agree with that.  Atheists and atheist scientists do not make sense with their long time.


----------



## RWS

Sumerian mythology proves OT-based religions are copied from older writings from the Sumerian and Babylonian societies. That's called plagiarism.

That's why you hear about it so much. We're not making it up, like the OT....


----------



## RWS

But if you wanna go on with your plageristic, Santa Clause, old man in the sky, omnipotent, vengeful, spiteful, hateful god, that somehow still loves us despite wanting to kill us...  

Go for it!


----------



## RWS

I guess this conversation is over. 

Thanks everybody!


----------



## james bond

There is the oft used idiom to:
*make a monkey out of someone*

It means to do something that makes someone seem stupid or ridiculous.  It describes perfectly what has happened to the evos.

The only ways for evolutionists to turn a monkey into human are:

Combine ape fossil bones with human fossil bones and declare the two to be one individual—a real “apeman.”
Emphasize certain humanlike qualities of fossilized ape bones, and with imagination upgrade apes to be more humanlike.
Emphasize certain apelike qualities of fossilized human bones, and with imagination downgrade humans to be more apelike.
Don't let the evos make a monkey out of you.


----------



## RWS

Game over Bond. You have been beaten beyond belief. 

Start a new thread.


----------



## james bond

RWS said:


> Game over Bond. You have been beaten beyond belief.
> 
> Start a new thread.









I'm going to finish this one.  It appears that I have found CASE CLOSED on humans from monkeys.  Evos claim that chimps came from gorillas, but there are no chimp-gorilla hybrids.  The closest they get is the chimpanzee variants which I have discussed, e.g Bili apes.  They have gorilla features in the skull.

RWS you're wrong again and lose again while I remain perfect.  The Bible is perfect.


----------



## RWS

That was a perfect goodbye, Bye Felicia!


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> There is the oft used idiom to:
> *make a monkey out of someone*
> 
> It means to do something that makes someone seem stupid or ridiculous.  It describes perfectly what has happened to the evos.
> 
> The only ways for evolutionists to turn a monkey into human are:
> 
> Combine ape fossil bones with human fossil bones and declare the two to be one individual—a real “apeman.”
> Emphasize certain humanlike qualities of fossilized ape bones, and with imagination upgrade apes to be more humanlike.
> Emphasize certain apelike qualities of fossilized human bones, and with imagination downgrade humans to be more apelike.
> Don't let the evos make a monkey out of you.



When you cut and paste from the charlatans at Answers in Genesis, it immediately reduces your argument to irrelevant prattle.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Game over Bond. You have been beaten beyond belief.
> 
> Start a new thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm going to finish this one.  It appears that I have found CASE CLOSED on humans from monkeys.  Evos claim that chimps came from gorillas, but there are no chimp-gorilla hybrids.  The closest they get is the chimpanzee variants which I have discussed, e.g Bili apes.  They have gorilla features in the skull.
> 
> RWS you're wrong again and lose again while I remain perfect.  The Bible is perfect.
Click to expand...


The “humans from monkeys” nonsense is a rather silly notion promoted by the ID / creationist charlatans. There is no disagreement as to the fact of biological evolution among the relevant science community. 

While you ID / creationist ministries are repulsed by science and the consensus it brings, they have no viable alternative to explain the diversity of life on the planet. 

Tales and fables of angry gods, global floods, Arks and a 6,000 year old planet are not viable theories.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is the oft used idiom to:
> *make a monkey out of someone*
> 
> It means to do something that makes someone seem stupid or ridiculous.  It describes perfectly what has happened to the evos.
> 
> The only ways for evolutionists to turn a monkey into human are:
> 
> Combine ape fossil bones with human fossil bones and declare the two to be one individual—a real “apeman.”
> Emphasize certain humanlike qualities of fossilized ape bones, and with imagination upgrade apes to be more humanlike.
> Emphasize certain apelike qualities of fossilized human bones, and with imagination downgrade humans to be more apelike.
> Don't let the evos make a monkey out of you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you cut and paste from the charlatans at Answers in Genesis, it immediately reduces your argument to irrelevant prattle.
Click to expand...


It's absolutely true and observational science.  All of the three have happened observing evolutionists and their fossil evidence.

1.  Piltdown Man
2.  Australopithicines.
3.  Humans are apes claims.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Game over Bond. You have been beaten beyond belief.
> 
> Start a new thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm going to finish this one.  It appears that I have found CASE CLOSED on humans from monkeys.  Evos claim that chimps came from gorillas, but there are no chimp-gorilla hybrids.  The closest they get is the chimpanzee variants which I have discussed, e.g Bili apes.  They have gorilla features in the skull.
> 
> RWS you're wrong again and lose again while I remain perfect.  The Bible is perfect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The “humans from monkeys” nonsense is a rather silly notion promoted by the ID / creationist charlatans. There is no disagreement as to the fact of biological evolution among the relevant science community.
> 
> While you ID / creationist ministries are repulsed by science and the consensus it brings, they have no viable alternative to explain the diversity of life on the planet.
> 
> Tales and fables of angry gods, global floods, Arks and a 6,000 year old planet are not viable theories.
Click to expand...


You're just not seeing the chart I posted correctly.  Wrong again.


----------



## RWS

Your chart says we separated from chimps about 7 million years ago.I agree with that. What's the problem?


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Game over Bond. You have been beaten beyond belief.
> 
> Start a new thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm going to finish this one.  It appears that I have found CASE CLOSED on humans from monkeys.  Evos claim that chimps came from gorillas, but there are no chimp-gorilla hybrids.  The closest they get is the chimpanzee variants which I have discussed, e.g Bili apes.  They have gorilla features in the skull.
> 
> RWS you're wrong again and lose again while I remain perfect.  The Bible is perfect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The “humans from monkeys” nonsense is a rather silly notion promoted by the ID / creationist charlatans. There is no disagreement as to the fact of biological evolution among the relevant science community.
> 
> While you ID / creationist ministries are repulsed by science and the consensus it brings, they have no viable alternative to explain the diversity of life on the planet.
> 
> Tales and fables of angry gods, global floods, Arks and a 6,000 year old planet are not viable theories.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're just not seeing the chart I posted correctly.  Wrong again.
Click to expand...


The chart you posted is a cartoonish rendition of something you found on someones blog.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is the oft used idiom to:
> *make a monkey out of someone*
> 
> It means to do something that makes someone seem stupid or ridiculous.  It describes perfectly what has happened to the evos.
> 
> The only ways for evolutionists to turn a monkey into human are:
> 
> Combine ape fossil bones with human fossil bones and declare the two to be one individual—a real “apeman.”
> Emphasize certain humanlike qualities of fossilized ape bones, and with imagination upgrade apes to be more humanlike.
> Emphasize certain apelike qualities of fossilized human bones, and with imagination downgrade humans to be more apelike.
> Don't let the evos make a monkey out of you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you cut and paste from the charlatans at Answers in Genesis, it immediately reduces your argument to irrelevant prattle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's absolutely true and observational science.  All of the three have happened observing evolutionists and their fossil evidence.
> 
> 1.  Piltdown Man
> 2.  Australopithicines.
> 3.  Humans are apes claims.
Click to expand...


Unfortunately, you are confused by terms such as “observational science”. That term doesn’t exist in the realm of ID / creationist ministries.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Hollie said:


> When you cut and paste from the charlatans at Answers in Genesis, it immediately reduces your argument to irrelevant prattle.


Every single one of his points (that he doesn't even understand...go on, test him, he falls right on his face every time even when tasked with exaining his plagiarized points) is plagiarized from a creationist nutball blog.

Every single one. You can literally copy paste his plagiarized content into Google and find precisely the blog entry which he has plagiarized.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Game over Bond. You have been beaten beyond belief.
> 
> Start a new thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm going to finish this one.  It appears that I have found CASE CLOSED on humans from monkeys.  Evos claim that chimps came from gorillas, but there are no chimp-gorilla hybrids.  The closest they get is the chimpanzee variants which I have discussed, e.g Bili apes.  They have gorilla features in the skull.
> 
> RWS you're wrong again and lose again while I remain perfect.  The Bible is perfect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The “humans from monkeys” nonsense is a rather silly notion promoted by the ID / creationist charlatans. There is no disagreement as to the fact of biological evolution among the relevant science community.
> 
> While you ID / creationist ministries are repulsed by science and the consensus it brings, they have no viable alternative to explain the diversity of life on the planet.
> 
> Tales and fables of angry gods, global floods, Arks and a 6,000 year old planet are not viable theories.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're just not seeing the chart I posted correctly.  Wrong again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The chart you posted is a cartoonish rendition of something you found on someones blog.
Click to expand...


I notice you don't have a graph nor an argument against how chimpanzees came from gorillas when there are no chimp-gorilla hybrids.  The evos are studying the Bili apes because the have gorilla like skull.  Yet, the Bili is a chimpanzee variants.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is the oft used idiom to:
> *make a monkey out of someone*
> 
> It means to do something that makes someone seem stupid or ridiculous.  It describes perfectly what has happened to the evos.
> 
> The only ways for evolutionists to turn a monkey into human are:
> 
> Combine ape fossil bones with human fossil bones and declare the two to be one individual—a real “apeman.”
> Emphasize certain humanlike qualities of fossilized ape bones, and with imagination upgrade apes to be more humanlike.
> Emphasize certain apelike qualities of fossilized human bones, and with imagination downgrade humans to be more apelike.
> Don't let the evos make a monkey out of you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you cut and paste from the charlatans at Answers in Genesis, it immediately reduces your argument to irrelevant prattle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's absolutely true and observational science.  All of the three have happened observing evolutionists and their fossil evidence.
> 
> 1.  Piltdown Man
> 2.  Australopithicines.
> 3.  Humans are apes claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, you are confused by terms such as “observational science”. That term doesn’t exist in the realm of ID / creationist ministries.
Click to expand...


Hollie while your arguments were long-winded, at least they were arguments.  Now, you've gone of the deep end stating that I am ID.  I just blew away your previous post.  AIG is a creation science website.  For the upteenth time creation scientists have been systematically excluded by atheist science.  Today's secular science is all wrong with long time of the  earth and universe.  They believe in lies of evolution.  Even you admitted humans did not come from apes.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you cut and paste from the charlatans at Answers in Genesis, it immediately reduces your argument to irrelevant prattle.
> 
> 
> 
> Every single one of his points (that he doesn't even understand...go on, test him, he falls right on his face every time even when tasked with exaining his plagiarized points) is plagiarized from a creationist nutball blog.
> 
> Every single one. You can literally copy paste his plagiarized content into Google and find precisely the blog entry which he has plagiarized.
Click to expand...


I 


Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you cut and paste from the charlatans at Answers in Genesis, it immediately reduces your argument to irrelevant prattle.
> 
> 
> 
> Every single one of his points (that he doesn't even understand...go on, test him, he falls right on his face every time even when tasked with exaining his plagiarized points) is plagiarized from a creationist nutball blog.
> 
> Every single one. You can literally copy paste his plagiarized content into Google and find precisely the blog entry which he has plagiarized.
Click to expand...


Before, you were claiming I used creation.com but you were wrong as usual.  At least, you now know I use AIG and ICR.  I've said it before many times, LCD.


----------



## james bond

RWS  Ha ha.  You need to take a reading class to improve your comprehension.  There was no split because there was no chimp-gorilla hybrid.  In fact, there was no 7 million years ago.

Catastrophism jumbled it all.  We find auto parts in layers supposedly millions of years old.  You may as well go to sleep, RWS, your science is badly outdated.

Claims of evidence of earliest fossils on Earth face scrutiny


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is the oft used idiom to:
> *make a monkey out of someone*
> 
> It means to do something that makes someone seem stupid or ridiculous.  It describes perfectly what has happened to the evos.
> 
> The only ways for evolutionists to turn a monkey into human are:
> 
> Combine ape fossil bones with human fossil bones and declare the two to be one individual—a real “apeman.”
> Emphasize certain humanlike qualities of fossilized ape bones, and with imagination upgrade apes to be more humanlike.
> Emphasize certain apelike qualities of fossilized human bones, and with imagination downgrade humans to be more apelike.
> Don't let the evos make a monkey out of you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you cut and paste from the charlatans at Answers in Genesis, it immediately reduces your argument to irrelevant prattle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's absolutely true and observational science.  All of the three have happened observing evolutionists and their fossil evidence.
> 
> 1.  Piltdown Man
> 2.  Australopithicines.
> 3.  Humans are apes claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, you are confused by terms such as “observational science”. That term doesn’t exist in the realm of ID / creationist ministries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hollie while your arguments were long-winded, at least they were arguments.  Now, you've gone of the deep end stating that I am ID.  I just blew away your previous post.  AIG is a creation science website.  For the upteenth time creation scientists have been systematically excluded by atheist science.  Today's secular science is all wrong with long time of the  earth and universe.  They believe in lies of evolution.  Even you admitted humans did not come from apes.
Click to expand...


AIG predefines their conclusions with a commitment to dogma. They're not honest and they're not objective. Their "statement of faith" announces that. Fundamentalists such as those from AIG, would be expected to press an agenda that serves their religious dogma. There is no reason to expect either objectivity or honesty from creationists with regard to science.  As I have shown you several times previously, it is with virtual exclusivity that creationism (defined by the organized anti-science, anti-evolution agenda), is a Christian fundamentalist endeavor.

As I've already identified for you, anyone can review the "about" section on any of the creationist websites to learn of their goals and attributes. How about a bit of honesty on your part. Identify for us the religious bias held by AIG, the ICR, CRS, etc.

And yes, I admitted humans did not come from apes. I also admit the earth is not flat, Noah did not live for 600 years,  prayer will not cure disease and handling poisonous snakes is dangerous.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is the oft used idiom to:
> *make a monkey out of someone*
> 
> It means to do something that makes someone seem stupid or ridiculous.  It describes perfectly what has happened to the evos.
> 
> The only ways for evolutionists to turn a monkey into human are:
> 
> Combine ape fossil bones with human fossil bones and declare the two to be one individual—a real “apeman.”
> Emphasize certain humanlike qualities of fossilized ape bones, and with imagination upgrade apes to be more humanlike.
> Emphasize certain apelike qualities of fossilized human bones, and with imagination downgrade humans to be more apelike.
> Don't let the evos make a monkey out of you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you cut and paste from the charlatans at Answers in Genesis, it immediately reduces your argument to irrelevant prattle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's absolutely true and observational science.  All of the three have happened observing evolutionists and their fossil evidence.
> 
> 1.  Piltdown Man
> 2.  Australopithicines.
> 3.  Humans are apes claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, you are confused by terms such as “observational science”. That term doesn’t exist in the realm of ID / creationist ministries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hollie while your arguments were long-winded, at least they were arguments.  Now, you've gone of the deep end stating that I am ID.  I just blew away your previous post.  AIG is a creation science website.  For the upteenth time creation scientists have been systematically excluded by atheist science.  Today's secular science is all wrong with long time of the  earth and universe.  They believe in lies of evolution.  Even you admitted humans did not come from apes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> AIG predefines their conclusions with a commitment to dogma. They're not honest and they're not objective. Their "statement of faith" announces that. Fundamentalists such as those from AIG, would be expected to press an agenda that serves their religious dogma. There is no reason to expect either objectivity or honesty from creationists with regard to science.  As I have shown you several times previously, it is with virtual exclusivity that creationism (defined by the organized anti-science, anti-evolution agenda), is a Christian fundamentalist endeavor.
> 
> As I've already identified for you, anyone can review the "about" section on any of the creationist websites to learn of their goals and attributes. How about a bit of honesty on your part. Identify for us the religious bias held by AIG, the ICR, CRS, etc.
> 
> And yes, I admitted humans did not come from apes. I also admit the earth is not flat, Noah did not live for 600 years,  prayer will not cure disease and handling poisonous snakes is dangerous.
Click to expand...


HollieAIG predefines their conclusions with a commitment to dogma.[/quote]


I don't think it's a bias.  It's a separate worldview from evolution in that it starts with creation from God instead of some mythological science.  It's not religious, but based on science hypothesis in the bible.  There are no observational evidence of origins from atheist scientists.  OTOH creation science shows only life begats other life.  There are many similar organisms because God re-used the same parts.  Good design works that way in all parts of life.

I think creation science is more honest than atheist science.  Atheist science is completely biased and do not take into account creation scientists' arguments while creation scientists take into account atheist scientists' arguments.  In fact, the atheist scientists steal parts of the findings of creation scientists and give no credit since they have been excluded.  I believe Jesus will come down very harshly on atheist scientists and they will suffer gravely for their lies and sins.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you cut and paste from the charlatans at Answers in Genesis, it immediately reduces your argument to irrelevant prattle.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's absolutely true and observational science.  All of the three have happened observing evolutionists and their fossil evidence.
> 
> 1.  Piltdown Man
> 2.  Australopithicines.
> 3.  Humans are apes claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, you are confused by terms such as “observational science”. That term doesn’t exist in the realm of ID / creationist ministries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hollie while your arguments were long-winded, at least they were arguments.  Now, you've gone of the deep end stating that I am ID.  I just blew away your previous post.  AIG is a creation science website.  For the upteenth time creation scientists have been systematically excluded by atheist science.  Today's secular science is all wrong with long time of the  earth and universe.  They believe in lies of evolution.  Even you admitted humans did not come from apes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> AIG predefines their conclusions with a commitment to dogma. They're not honest and they're not objective. Their "statement of faith" announces that. Fundamentalists such as those from AIG, would be expected to press an agenda that serves their religious dogma. There is no reason to expect either objectivity or honesty from creationists with regard to science.  As I have shown you several times previously, it is with virtual exclusivity that creationism (defined by the organized anti-science, anti-evolution agenda), is a Christian fundamentalist endeavor.
> 
> As I've already identified for you, anyone can review the "about" section on any of the creationist websites to learn of their goals and attributes. How about a bit of honesty on your part. Identify for us the religious bias held by AIG, the ICR, CRS, etc.
> 
> And yes, I admitted humans did not come from apes. I also admit the earth is not flat, Noah did not live for 600 years,  prayer will not cure disease and handling poisonous snakes is dangerous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> HollieAIG predefines their conclusions with a commitment to dogma.
Click to expand...



I don't think it's a bias.  It's a separate worldview from evolution in that it starts with creation from God instead of some mythological science.  It's not religious, but based on science hypothesis in the bible.  There are no observational evidence of origins from atheist scientists.  OTOH creation science shows only life begats other life.  There are many similar organisms because God re-used the same parts.  Good design works that way in all parts of life.

I think creation science is more honest than atheist science.  Atheist science is completely biased and do not take into account creation scientists' arguments while creation scientists take into account atheist scientists' arguments.  In fact, the atheist scientists steal parts of the findings of creation scientists and give no credit since they have been excluded.  I believe Jesus will come down very harshly on atheist scientists and they will suffer gravely for their lies and sins.[/QUOTE]







It’s a simple matter to look at websites such as AiG and spot the fraud. They simply make up nonsense as they go. ID/creationism is founded on fraudulent assumptions that the various bibles are absolutely true, basic misconceptions of bible stories and misrepresentations of science. None of the charlatans who promote these sites wants to know anything about science because they are convinced that by remaining ignorant of science, their ID/creationist arguments are valid alternatives.

It’s important to understand the bias that AIG (and ID/creationist) charlatans holds.

From the "Statement of Faith" section on their website
_Section 1: Priorities
The scientific aspects of creation are important but are secondary in importance to the proclamation of the gospel of Jesus Christ as Sovereign, Creator, Redeemer, and Judge.

The doctrines of Creator and Creation cannot ultimately be divorced from the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Section 2: Basics
The 66 books of the Bible are the written Word of God. The Bible is divinely inspired and inerrant throughout. Its assertions are factually true in all the original autographs. It is the supreme authority in everything it teaches. Its authority is not limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes but includes its assertions in such fields as history and science._

Remember, this is the organization fronted by Ken Ham who is the "Creation Museum" fraudster.

Yes, the "Creation Museum" where Ken Ham would have you believe that humans in buckskin outfits shared the planet with dinosaurs.


*Behind the Scenes at the Creation “Museum”*

Behind the Scenes at the Creation "Museum" - The Panda's Thumb

One of the Creation “Museum’s” more ridiculous claims is that dinosaurs and other Mesozoic animals survived Noah’s Flood via the Ark and lived until historical times, when they became known as fire-breathing dragons and other mythological creatures. Recently the Creation Museum put up various billboards of dinosaurs around the country and included one of a fire-breathing dragon. The image is now sold on T-shirts in the Creation “Museum’s” bookstore. Additionally, they sell an assortment of dragon and knight figures as toys in the bookstore, which has a dragon theme with a faux medieval look to it. Apparently this fantasy is being passed along to children and their parents by the “museum.” Obviously Answers in Genesis has not thought through the idea of putting fire-breathing animals on a wooden boat. Perhaps they need to tell everyone that Noah owned an asbestos mine.

There’s nothing “honest” about ID/creationism because ID/creationists willingly announce their intention to commit a fraud.

On the other hand, I have no faith at all in evolution. (I also have no faith in algebra, chemistry or astronomy). Evolution either stands or falls by the strength of the evidence used to substantiate it. Evolutionary biology relies on factual data, physical evidence, molecular experimentation, and it goes hand in hand with geology. I am constantly thinking critically about evolution, going over the evidence, and continually reaching the same conclusion.

Evolution is based on observational evidence. This is different from creationism, which selectively uses evidence to support its position. In other words, evolution *comes from* evidence, while creationism *uses* evidence to support an unverifiable, pre-existing source (the bibles).

ID/Creationism is not science, because it relies completely on miraculous interventions (the flood and the creation itself, not to mention just about all the rest of the book)-- things that cannot be used in the formulation of a scientific theory. Since miraculous events cannot be tested, repeated, nor can the processes by which they operate be described, they must be taken on faith. Creationism is an expression of religious belief-- not science. There is a huge difference.

The fact that all species alive today have descended from a common ancestor can be denied, but not refuted. We know it happens because we can observe it directly in short-lived species, and for longer lived species there is genetic and fossil evidence that is unambiguous. There is no other scientific explanation for the diversity of living species. Creationism IS NOT a scientific explanation-- it is a religious one, and a religious explanation is not interchangeable with a scientific one.



james bond said: ↑
_*I believe Jesus will come down very harshly on atheist scientists and they will suffer gravely for their lies and sins.*_

On the other hand, I believe the gawds will come down very harshly on those who make the jeebus a mafia thug who you folks use to make threats, capise?


----------



## RWS

james bond said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you cut and paste from the charlatans at Answers in Genesis, it immediately reduces your argument to irrelevant prattle.
> 
> 
> 
> Every single one of his points (that he doesn't even understand...go on, test him, he falls right on his face every time even when tasked with exaining his plagiarized points) is plagiarized from a creationist nutball blog.
> 
> Every single one. You can literally copy paste his plagiarized content into Google and find precisely the blog entry which he has plagiarized.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you cut and paste from the charlatans at Answers in Genesis, it immediately reduces your argument to irrelevant prattle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Every single one of his points (that he doesn't even understand...go on, test him, he falls right on his face every time even when tasked with exaining his plagiarized points) is plagiarized from a creationist nutball blog.
> 
> Every single one. You can literally copy paste his plagiarized content into Google and find precisely the blog entry which he has plagiarized.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Before, you were claiming I used creation.com but you were wrong as usual.  At least, you now know I use AIG and ICR.  I've said it before many times, LCD.
Click to expand...

More like LSD....


----------



## RWS

james bond said:


> .
> 
> I think creation science is more honest than atheist science.  Atheist science is completely biased and do not take into account creation scientists' arguments while creation scientists take into account atheist scientists' arguments.  In fact, the atheist scientists steal parts of the findings of creation scientists and give no credit since they have been excluded.  I believe Jesus will come down very harshly on atheist scientists and they will suffer gravely for their lies and sins.



Creation "science" was created by the most radical, dishonest, wicked, and evil people, that only care about keeping their coffers full, regardless of the atrocities they commit.

They make people believe their shit, to keep them rich, fat, and wealthy. And they make things up out of thin air, to keep people believing (and donating) in the face of scientific and historical discoveries that disprove them.


----------



## RWS

Bond, do you realize you're a tool?


----------



## RWS

You can still get safely out of your religion.

And still have an afterlife. Don't worry about it...

You don't need your religion for an afterlife... Because if there is one, and you're altruistic, you'll be there regardless. 

And if there isn't, you still did the best you can to promote happiness and goodness. Which helps people remember you forever.


----------



## RWS

Blindly following religions will lead you down the wrong path.

Have faith in your personal goodness, use wisdom, and always do the right thing to help people.

Dismiss those who want to turn your faith in yourself into evil.


----------



## RWS

james bond said:


> RWS  Ha ha.  You need to take a reading class to improve your comprehension.  There was no split because there was no chimp-gorilla hybrid.  In fact, there was no 7 million years ago.
> 
> Catastrophism jumbled it all.  We find auto parts in layers supposedly millions of years old.  You may as well go to sleep, RWS, your science is badly outdated.
> 
> Claims of evidence of earliest fossils on Earth face scrutiny



I just read this one... Wow... Dude you need an intervention before you hurt yourself!

Dinosaurs came before cars. Chimps and Gorillas never inter-mingled. There was such a thing as 7 million years ago.

I think your religion is badly outdated. Don't let them make you deny the past so that you can make them richer in the present. You're not doing anything good for humanity by blindly following and repeating such nonsense.

You want to make the afterlife? If there is one? Start by dropping the make-believe stuff that makes people want to hurt other people. You are completely enveloped in a scam called "religion". And you can still get out if you want to. There's a lot more to life than hatred.


----------



## james bond

Hollie I am afraid this is what real science has come down to.  The lying atheist scientist cowards have sytematically eliminated their opposition, creation scientists, from the science realm.  This is not science.  Science has always been about disagreements and the best hypothesis (hypotheticals) were the ones that became theories.  Today, we just have biased and fake science.  

The real science are argued about on by scientists and lay people on forums like this.  It used to be done with scientific papers on science forums for all, but no more.  Believers and non-believers argue science on a forum.  I thank usmessageboard.com for providing this forum.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> It’s a simple matter to look at websites such as AiG and spot the fraud. They simply make up nonsense as they go. ID/creationism is founded on fraudulent assumptions that the various bibles are absolutely true, basic misconceptions of bible stories and misrepresentations of science. None of the charlatans who promote these sites wants to know anything about science because they are convinced that by remaining ignorant of science, their ID/creationist arguments are valid alternatives.
> 
> It’s important to understand the bias that AIG (and ID/creationist) charlatans holds.
> 
> From the "Statement of Faith" section on their website
> _Section 1: Priorities
> The scientific aspects of creation are important but are secondary in importance to the proclamation of the gospel of Jesus Christ as Sovereign, Creator, Redeemer, and Judge.
> 
> The doctrines of Creator and Creation cannot ultimately be divorced from the gospel of Jesus Christ.
> 
> Section 2: Basics
> The 66 books of the Bible are the written Word of God. The Bible is divinely inspired and inerrant throughout. Its assertions are factually true in all the original autographs. It is the supreme authority in everything it teaches. Its authority is not limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes but includes its assertions in such fields as history and science._
> 
> Remember, this is the organization fronted by Ken Ham who is the "Creation Museum" fraudster.
> 
> Yes, the "Creation Museum" where Ken Ham would have you believe that humans in buckskin outfits shared the planet with dinosaurs.
> 
> 
> *Behind the Scenes at the Creation “Museum”*
> 
> Behind the Scenes at the Creation "Museum" - The Panda's Thumb
> 
> One of the Creation “Museum’s” more ridiculous claims is that dinosaurs and other Mesozoic animals survived Noah’s Flood via the Ark and lived until historical times, when they became known as fire-breathing dragons and other mythological creatures. Recently the Creation Museum put up various billboards of dinosaurs around the country and included one of a fire-breathing dragon. The image is now sold on T-shirts in the Creation “Museum’s” bookstore. Additionally, they sell an assortment of dragon and knight figures as toys in the bookstore, which has a dragon theme with a faux medieval look to it. Apparently this fantasy is being passed along to children and their parents by the “museum.” Obviously Answers in Genesis has not thought through the idea of putting fire-breathing animals on a wooden boat. Perhaps they need to tell everyone that Noah owned an asbestos mine.
> 
> There’s nothing “honest” about ID/creationism because ID/creationists willingly announce their intention to commit a fraud.
> 
> On the other hand, I have no faith at all in evolution. (I also have no faith in algebra, chemistry or astronomy). Evolution either stands or falls by the strength of the evidence used to substantiate it. Evolutionary biology relies on factual data, physical evidence, molecular experimentation, and it goes hand in hand with geology. I am constantly thinking critically about evolution, going over the evidence, and continually reaching the same conclusion.
> 
> Evolution is based on observational evidence. This is different from creationism, which selectively uses evidence to support its position. In other words, evolution *comes from* evidence, while creationism *uses* evidence to support an unverifiable, pre-existing source (the bibles).
> 
> ID/Creationism is not science, because it relies completely on miraculous interventions (the flood and the creation itself, not to mention just about all the rest of the book)-- things that cannot be used in the formulation of a scientific theory. Since miraculous events cannot be tested, repeated, nor can the processes by which they operate be described, they must be taken on faith. Creationism is an expression of religious belief-- not science. There is a huge difference.
> 
> The fact that all species alive today have descended from a common ancestor can be denied, but not refuted. We know it happens because we can observe it directly in short-lived species, and for longer lived species there is genetic and fossil evidence that is unambiguous. There is no other scientific explanation for the diversity of living species. Creationism IS NOT a scientific explanation-- it is a religious one, and a religious explanation is not interchangeable with a scientific one.
> 
> james bond said: ↑
> _*I believe Jesus will come down very harshly on atheist scientists and they will suffer gravely for their lies and sins.*_
> 
> On the other hand, I believe the gawds will come down very harshly on those who make the jeebus a mafia thug who you folks use to make threats, capise?



How can Ken Ham be a fraudster when he spells it out for you in black and white?  It shows that creation science is not ID.  It starts from our worldview.  Creation science is based on the God hypothesis and what God said in the bible.  He's the creator and witness.  Atheist scientists base their worldview on Darwin and his Origin of Species book.  We know now that Darwin was practically wrong about all his hypothesis while God and bible hypothesis hasn't been proven wrong yet.  That's why I am here to tell people that creation science is the real science while atheist science and evolution is fake and based on wrong assumptions, biased science and lies.

ETA:  If you want to argue about dinosaurs and humans, birds from dinosaurs or both, then start a new thread.  It's beyond the scope of this one.  Or do you not back up what you wrote?


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> It’s a simple matter to look at websites such as AiG and spot the fraud. They simply make up nonsense as they go. ID/creationism is founded on fraudulent assumptions that the various bibles are absolutely true, basic misconceptions of bible stories and misrepresentations of science. None of the charlatans who promote these sites wants to know anything about science because they are convinced that by remaining ignorant of science, their ID/creationist arguments are valid alternatives.
> 
> It’s important to understand the bias that AIG (and ID/creationist) charlatans holds.
> 
> From the "Statement of Faith" section on their website
> _Section 1: Priorities
> The scientific aspects of creation are important but are secondary in importance to the proclamation of the gospel of Jesus Christ as Sovereign, Creator, Redeemer, and Judge.
> 
> The doctrines of Creator and Creation cannot ultimately be divorced from the gospel of Jesus Christ.
> 
> Section 2: Basics
> The 66 books of the Bible are the written Word of God. The Bible is divinely inspired and inerrant throughout. Its assertions are factually true in all the original autographs. It is the supreme authority in everything it teaches. Its authority is not limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes but includes its assertions in such fields as history and science._
> 
> Remember, this is the organization fronted by Ken Ham who is the "Creation Museum" fraudster.
> 
> Yes, the "Creation Museum" where Ken Ham would have you believe that humans in buckskin outfits shared the planet with dinosaurs.
> 
> 
> *Behind the Scenes at the Creation “Museum”*
> 
> Behind the Scenes at the Creation "Museum" - The Panda's Thumb
> 
> One of the Creation “Museum’s” more ridiculous claims is that dinosaurs and other Mesozoic animals survived Noah’s Flood via the Ark and lived until historical times, when they became known as fire-breathing dragons and other mythological creatures. Recently the Creation Museum put up various billboards of dinosaurs around the country and included one of a fire-breathing dragon. The image is now sold on T-shirts in the Creation “Museum’s” bookstore. Additionally, they sell an assortment of dragon and knight figures as toys in the bookstore, which has a dragon theme with a faux medieval look to it. Apparently this fantasy is being passed along to children and their parents by the “museum.” Obviously Answers in Genesis has not thought through the idea of putting fire-breathing animals on a wooden boat. Perhaps they need to tell everyone that Noah owned an asbestos mine.
> 
> There’s nothing “honest” about ID/creationism because ID/creationists willingly announce their intention to commit a fraud.
> 
> On the other hand, I have no faith at all in evolution. (I also have no faith in algebra, chemistry or astronomy). Evolution either stands or falls by the strength of the evidence used to substantiate it. Evolutionary biology relies on factual data, physical evidence, molecular experimentation, and it goes hand in hand with geology. I am constantly thinking critically about evolution, going over the evidence, and continually reaching the same conclusion.
> 
> Evolution is based on observational evidence. This is different from creationism, which selectively uses evidence to support its position. In other words, evolution *comes from* evidence, while creationism *uses* evidence to support an unverifiable, pre-existing source (the bibles).
> 
> ID/Creationism is not science, because it relies completely on miraculous interventions (the flood and the creation itself, not to mention just about all the rest of the book)-- things that cannot be used in the formulation of a scientific theory. Since miraculous events cannot be tested, repeated, nor can the processes by which they operate be described, they must be taken on faith. Creationism is an expression of religious belief-- not science. There is a huge difference.
> 
> The fact that all species alive today have descended from a common ancestor can be denied, but not refuted. We know it happens because we can observe it directly in short-lived species, and for longer lived species there is genetic and fossil evidence that is unambiguous. There is no other scientific explanation for the diversity of living species. Creationism IS NOT a scientific explanation-- it is a religious one, and a religious explanation is not interchangeable with a scientific one.
> 
> james bond said: ↑
> _*I believe Jesus will come down very harshly on atheist scientists and they will suffer gravely for their lies and sins.*_
> 
> On the other hand, I believe the gawds will come down very harshly on those who make the jeebus a mafia thug who you folks use to make threats, capise?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How can Ken Ham be a fraudster when he spells it out for you in black and white?  It shows that creation science is not ID.  It starts from our worldview.  Creation science is based on the God hypothesis and what God said in the bible.  He's the creator and witness.  Atheist scientists base their worldview on Darwin and his Origin of Species book.  We know now that Darwin was practically wrong about all his hypothesis while God and bible hypothesis hasn't been proven wrong yet.  That's why I am here to tell people that creation science is the real science while atheist science and evolution is fake and based on wrong assumptions, biased science and lies.
> 
> ETA:  If you want to argue about dinosaurs and humans, birds from dinosaurs or both, then start a new thread.  It's beyond the scope of this one.  Or do you not back up what you wrote?
Click to expand...



I can understand your revulsion for science and knowledge will be offended by reason and rationality, but Ken Ham is a danger to himself and others.


Paleontologists brought to tears, laughter by Creation Museum

For a group of paleontologists, a tour of the Creation Museum seemed like a great tongue-in-cheek way to cap off a serious conference.

But while there were a few laughs and some clowning for the camera, most left more offended than amused by the frightening way in which evolution -- and their life's work -- was attacked.

"It's sort of a monument to scientific illiteracy, isn't it?" said Jerry Lipps, professor of geology, paleontology and evolution at University of California, Berkeley.

"Like Sunday school with statues... this is a special brand of religion here. I don't think even most mainstream Christians would believe in this interpretation of Earth's history."


I do find it interesting that you identify your gods as "he". You attribute thoroughly human attributes to a thoroughly human invention. That's not surprising since as a human construct, humans will add their familial and social conventions to their gods. That has been the case with all the gods which have "existed" before your gods. 

And yes, for those who believe the nonsense further by Ken Ham and his abomination called the " creation museum" , we are forced to come to conclusions about those who believe in a literal 6,000 year old earth and humans frolicking with dinosaurs.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> It’s a simple matter to look at websites such as AiG and spot the fraud. They simply make up nonsense as they go. ID/creationism is founded on fraudulent assumptions that the various bibles are absolutely true, basic misconceptions of bible stories and misrepresentations of science. None of the charlatans who promote these sites wants to know anything about science because they are convinced that by remaining ignorant of science, their ID/creationist arguments are valid alternatives.
> 
> It’s important to understand the bias that AIG (and ID/creationist) charlatans holds.
> 
> From the "Statement of Faith" section on their website
> _Section 1: Priorities
> The scientific aspects of creation are important but are secondary in importance to the proclamation of the gospel of Jesus Christ as Sovereign, Creator, Redeemer, and Judge.
> 
> The doctrines of Creator and Creation cannot ultimately be divorced from the gospel of Jesus Christ.
> 
> Section 2: Basics
> The 66 books of the Bible are the written Word of God. The Bible is divinely inspired and inerrant throughout. Its assertions are factually true in all the original autographs. It is the supreme authority in everything it teaches. Its authority is not limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes but includes its assertions in such fields as history and science._
> 
> Remember, this is the organization fronted by Ken Ham who is the "Creation Museum" fraudster.
> 
> Yes, the "Creation Museum" where Ken Ham would have you believe that humans in buckskin outfits shared the planet with dinosaurs.
> 
> 
> *Behind the Scenes at the Creation “Museum”*
> 
> Behind the Scenes at the Creation "Museum" - The Panda's Thumb
> 
> One of the Creation “Museum’s” more ridiculous claims is that dinosaurs and other Mesozoic animals survived Noah’s Flood via the Ark and lived until historical times, when they became known as fire-breathing dragons and other mythological creatures. Recently the Creation Museum put up various billboards of dinosaurs around the country and included one of a fire-breathing dragon. The image is now sold on T-shirts in the Creation “Museum’s” bookstore. Additionally, they sell an assortment of dragon and knight figures as toys in the bookstore, which has a dragon theme with a faux medieval look to it. Apparently this fantasy is being passed along to children and their parents by the “museum.” Obviously Answers in Genesis has not thought through the idea of putting fire-breathing animals on a wooden boat. Perhaps they need to tell everyone that Noah owned an asbestos mine.
> 
> There’s nothing “honest” about ID/creationism because ID/creationists willingly announce their intention to commit a fraud.
> 
> On the other hand, I have no faith at all in evolution. (I also have no faith in algebra, chemistry or astronomy). Evolution either stands or falls by the strength of the evidence used to substantiate it. Evolutionary biology relies on factual data, physical evidence, molecular experimentation, and it goes hand in hand with geology. I am constantly thinking critically about evolution, going over the evidence, and continually reaching the same conclusion.
> 
> Evolution is based on observational evidence. This is different from creationism, which selectively uses evidence to support its position. In other words, evolution *comes from* evidence, while creationism *uses* evidence to support an unverifiable, pre-existing source (the bibles).
> 
> ID/Creationism is not science, because it relies completely on miraculous interventions (the flood and the creation itself, not to mention just about all the rest of the book)-- things that cannot be used in the formulation of a scientific theory. Since miraculous events cannot be tested, repeated, nor can the processes by which they operate be described, they must be taken on faith. Creationism is an expression of religious belief-- not science. There is a huge difference.
> 
> The fact that all species alive today have descended from a common ancestor can be denied, but not refuted. We know it happens because we can observe it directly in short-lived species, and for longer lived species there is genetic and fossil evidence that is unambiguous. There is no other scientific explanation for the diversity of living species. Creationism IS NOT a scientific explanation-- it is a religious one, and a religious explanation is not interchangeable with a scientific one.
> 
> james bond said: ↑
> _*I believe Jesus will come down very harshly on atheist scientists and they will suffer gravely for their lies and sins.*_
> 
> On the other hand, I believe the gawds will come down very harshly on those who make the jeebus a mafia thug who you folks use to make threats, capise?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How can Ken Ham be a fraudster when he spells it out for you in black and white?  It shows that creation science is not ID.  It starts from our worldview.  Creation science is based on the God hypothesis and what God said in the bible.  He's the creator and witness.  Atheist scientists base their worldview on Darwin and his Origin of Species book.  We know now that Darwin was practically wrong about all his hypothesis while God and bible hypothesis hasn't been proven wrong yet.  That's why I am here to tell people that creation science is the real science while atheist science and evolution is fake and based on wrong assumptions, biased science and lies.
> 
> ETA:  If you want to argue about dinosaurs and humans, birds from dinosaurs or both, then start a new thread.  It's beyond the scope of this one.  Or do you not back up what you wrote?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I can understand your revulsion for science and knowledge will be offended by reason and rationality, but Ken Ham is a danger to himself and others.
> 
> 
> Paleontologists brought to tears, laughter by Creation Museum
> 
> For a group of paleontologists, a tour of the Creation Museum seemed like a great tongue-in-cheek way to cap off a serious conference.
> 
> But while there were a few laughs and some clowning for the camera, most left more offended than amused by the frightening way in which evolution -- and their life's work -- was attacked.
> 
> "It's sort of a monument to scientific illiteracy, isn't it?" said Jerry Lipps, professor of geology, paleontology and evolution at University of California, Berkeley.
> 
> "Like Sunday school with statues... this is a special brand of religion here. I don't think even most mainstream Christians would believe in this interpretation of Earth's history."
> 
> 
> I do find it interesting that you identify your gods as "he". You attribute thoroughly human attributes to a thoroughly human invention. That's not surprising since as a human construct, humans will add their familial and social conventions to their gods. That has been the case with all the gods which have "existed" before your gods.
> 
> And yes, for those who believe the nonsense further by Ken Ham and his abomination called the " creation museum" , we are forced to come to conclusions about those who believe in a literal 6,000 year old earth and humans frolicking with dinosaurs.
Click to expand...


Whoever wrote that article does not know what they are talking about.  It's good that they left frightened because they do not have any rebuttals to real science. Today, secular scientists do not face criticism over evolution from their peers.  They dismiss it for the same reasons as those in the article.

Creation and catastrophism was what scientists believed in before the 1850s when uniformitarianism and Darwinism took over.  When I go to a museum and see exhibits on evolution, it's like going to fantasy, sci-fi or mythological museum.  Most of it isn't true.  It's mostly connect the dots science and science tautology (circular thinking).  The evos have outsmarted themselves.

What we know is Darwinism led to social Darwinism and eugenics.  It led to the mass slaughter of Jews in the Holocaust.  We still have  Planned Parenthood which is a group behind the genocide of African Americans.

This is what science has come down to because secular scientists will not have to face the creation scientists' arguments against evolution and billions of years old earth.  The real scientific arguments are made separately by creation scientists in their own research and museums and arguments presented in open forums such as this.  You are not going to get formal papers in Nature, Science and other of today's scientific publications to argue against billions of years, ToE and evolutionary thinking.

The only common ground we have is natural selection or changes in species through hybridization or environmental changes.  Even then creation scientists believe in rapid changes for species.

There is no macroevolution of species such as humans from monkeys or birds from dinosaurs.  That's an invention of the atheist scientists' imagination.  Macroevolution involves mutation and mutation is the loss of information.  It can't evolve new species.  To the contrary, it devolves them.  It's follows the law of entropy.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> It’s a simple matter to look at websites such as AiG and spot the fraud. They simply make up nonsense as they go. ID/creationism is founded on fraudulent assumptions that the various bibles are absolutely true, basic misconceptions of bible stories and misrepresentations of science. None of the charlatans who promote these sites wants to know anything about science because they are convinced that by remaining ignorant of science, their ID/creationist arguments are valid alternatives.
> 
> It’s important to understand the bias that AIG (and ID/creationist) charlatans holds.
> 
> From the "Statement of Faith" section on their website
> _Section 1: Priorities
> The scientific aspects of creation are important but are secondary in importance to the proclamation of the gospel of Jesus Christ as Sovereign, Creator, Redeemer, and Judge.
> 
> The doctrines of Creator and Creation cannot ultimately be divorced from the gospel of Jesus Christ.
> 
> Section 2: Basics
> The 66 books of the Bible are the written Word of God. The Bible is divinely inspired and inerrant throughout. Its assertions are factually true in all the original autographs. It is the supreme authority in everything it teaches. Its authority is not limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes but includes its assertions in such fields as history and science._
> 
> Remember, this is the organization fronted by Ken Ham who is the "Creation Museum" fraudster.
> 
> Yes, the "Creation Museum" where Ken Ham would have you believe that humans in buckskin outfits shared the planet with dinosaurs.
> 
> 
> *Behind the Scenes at the Creation “Museum”*
> 
> Behind the Scenes at the Creation "Museum" - The Panda's Thumb
> 
> One of the Creation “Museum’s” more ridiculous claims is that dinosaurs and other Mesozoic animals survived Noah’s Flood via the Ark and lived until historical times, when they became known as fire-breathing dragons and other mythological creatures. Recently the Creation Museum put up various billboards of dinosaurs around the country and included one of a fire-breathing dragon. The image is now sold on T-shirts in the Creation “Museum’s” bookstore. Additionally, they sell an assortment of dragon and knight figures as toys in the bookstore, which has a dragon theme with a faux medieval look to it. Apparently this fantasy is being passed along to children and their parents by the “museum.” Obviously Answers in Genesis has not thought through the idea of putting fire-breathing animals on a wooden boat. Perhaps they need to tell everyone that Noah owned an asbestos mine.
> 
> There’s nothing “honest” about ID/creationism because ID/creationists willingly announce their intention to commit a fraud.
> 
> On the other hand, I have no faith at all in evolution. (I also have no faith in algebra, chemistry or astronomy). Evolution either stands or falls by the strength of the evidence used to substantiate it. Evolutionary biology relies on factual data, physical evidence, molecular experimentation, and it goes hand in hand with geology. I am constantly thinking critically about evolution, going over the evidence, and continually reaching the same conclusion.
> 
> Evolution is based on observational evidence. This is different from creationism, which selectively uses evidence to support its position. In other words, evolution *comes from* evidence, while creationism *uses* evidence to support an unverifiable, pre-existing source (the bibles).
> 
> ID/Creationism is not science, because it relies completely on miraculous interventions (the flood and the creation itself, not to mention just about all the rest of the book)-- things that cannot be used in the formulation of a scientific theory. Since miraculous events cannot be tested, repeated, nor can the processes by which they operate be described, they must be taken on faith. Creationism is an expression of religious belief-- not science. There is a huge difference.
> 
> The fact that all species alive today have descended from a common ancestor can be denied, but not refuted. We know it happens because we can observe it directly in short-lived species, and for longer lived species there is genetic and fossil evidence that is unambiguous. There is no other scientific explanation for the diversity of living species. Creationism IS NOT a scientific explanation-- it is a religious one, and a religious explanation is not interchangeable with a scientific one.
> 
> james bond said: ↑
> _*I believe Jesus will come down very harshly on atheist scientists and they will suffer gravely for their lies and sins.*_
> 
> On the other hand, I believe the gawds will come down very harshly on those who make the jeebus a mafia thug who you folks use to make threats, capise?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How can Ken Ham be a fraudster when he spells it out for you in black and white?  It shows that creation science is not ID.  It starts from our worldview.  Creation science is based on the God hypothesis and what God said in the bible.  He's the creator and witness.  Atheist scientists base their worldview on Darwin and his Origin of Species book.  We know now that Darwin was practically wrong about all his hypothesis while God and bible hypothesis hasn't been proven wrong yet.  That's why I am here to tell people that creation science is the real science while atheist science and evolution is fake and based on wrong assumptions, biased science and lies.
> 
> ETA:  If you want to argue about dinosaurs and humans, birds from dinosaurs or both, then start a new thread.  It's beyond the scope of this one.  Or do you not back up what you wrote?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I can understand your revulsion for science and knowledge will be offended by reason and rationality, but Ken Ham is a danger to himself and others.
> 
> 
> Paleontologists brought to tears, laughter by Creation Museum
> 
> For a group of paleontologists, a tour of the Creation Museum seemed like a great tongue-in-cheek way to cap off a serious conference.
> 
> But while there were a few laughs and some clowning for the camera, most left more offended than amused by the frightening way in which evolution -- and their life's work -- was attacked.
> 
> "It's sort of a monument to scientific illiteracy, isn't it?" said Jerry Lipps, professor of geology, paleontology and evolution at University of California, Berkeley.
> 
> "Like Sunday school with statues... this is a special brand of religion here. I don't think even most mainstream Christians would believe in this interpretation of Earth's history."
> 
> 
> I do find it interesting that you identify your gods as "he". You attribute thoroughly human attributes to a thoroughly human invention. That's not surprising since as a human construct, humans will add their familial and social conventions to their gods. That has been the case with all the gods which have "existed" before your gods.
> 
> And yes, for those who believe the nonsense further by Ken Ham and his abomination called the " creation museum" , we are forced to come to conclusions about those who believe in a literal 6,000 year old earth and humans frolicking with dinosaurs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whoever wrote that article does not know what they are talking about.  It's good that they left frightened because they do not have any rebuttals to real science. Today, secular scientists do not face criticism over evolution from their peers.  They dismiss it for the same reasons as those in the article.
> 
> Creation and catastrophism was what scientists believed in before the 1850s when uniformitarianism and Darwinism took over.  When I go to a museum and see exhibits on evolution, it's like going to fantasy, sci-fi or mythological museum.  Most of it isn't true.  It's mostly connect the dots science and science tautology (circular thinking).  The evos have outsmarted themselves.
> 
> What we know is Darwinism led to social Darwinism and eugenics.  It led to the mass slaughter of Jews in the Holocaust.  We still have  Planned Parenthood which is a group behind the genocide of African Americans.
> 
> This is what science has come down to because secular scientists will not have to face the creation scientists' arguments against evolution and billions of years old earth.  The real scientific arguments are made separately by creation scientists in their own research and museums and arguments presented in open forums such as this.  You are not going to get formal papers in Nature, Science and other of today's scientific publications to argue against billions of years, ToE and evolutionary thinking.
> 
> The only common ground we have is natural selection or changes in species through hybridization or environmental changes.  Even then creation scientists believe in rapid changes for species.
> 
> There is no macroevolution of species such as humans from monkeys or birds from dinosaurs.  That's an invention of the atheist scientists' imagination.  Macroevolution involves mutation and mutation is the loss of information.  It can't evolve new species.  To the contrary, it devolves them.  It's follows the law of entropy.
Click to expand...




Actually, the writers of the article were scientists who are a part of the relevant science community.

One of the bodies of the relevant science community took a tour of the Ken Ham abomination and they weren’t real kind to the farce that is the creation museum.

*https://ncse.com/library-resource/visit-to-new-creation-museum*

Of course you’re wrong about secular scientists (as opposed to fundamentalist hacks) facing criticism. Peer review is the process by which scientists (as opposed to fundamentalist hacks), present their criticism.

What is truly laughable about ID/creationists is the lack of any affirmative description of what “creationist doctrine” really is, other than mindless reiteration of biblical tales. As an example, nowhere in the creationist ministry literature is there an explanation of how one or more of the gods achieved their “creation”. There is no doctrinal literature such as _"The Creation Scenario is described as..."_   Similarly, there is no literature to be found with the phrase: _"The Creator gods used the following means, methods and creative processes in making living organisms..."_  And ultimately, we will never hear the creation ministries announce: _"We have just published evidence in peer reviewed scientific journal of physical evidence which reveals the means and methods by which the various creator gods established life on this planet."_  Instead, all we get is simpleton creationist drivel that supernatural means and magic define the gods.

ID/Creationists can offer no explanations of how life developed on the planet. They have found no physical evidence for any of their gods. Very simply, creationism is nothing more than a window dressing for fundamentalist christianity.


In large part, fear and superstition is what scientists believed in before the 1850s. In a very real sense, it was the Christian church which fostered the promotion of fear and superstition.

Origin of Species accomplished two very different things. 

First off, it demonstrated through a tour de force of scientific detail the historical fact of evolution (keep in mind the difference between facts and the theories that explain them). Using fields as diverse as comparative anatomy, selective breeding, biogeography and animal behavior, he laid out the factual case that descent with modification (evolution) had actually occurred. 

His evidence was so overwhelming that almost every major biologist of his day became convinced within the decade that evolution (the fact) was true. 

Secondly, it proposed a theory for explaining this fact; “Natural Selection.” Contrary to your false characterization of it as being “through coincidence,” Natural Selection abhors coincidence completely and instead proposes the objective criterion of “reproductive fitness” as the engine for driving biological change. 

What many people (especially creationists) do not understand is that during Darwin’s lifetime, the scientific community never accepted his theory, although they were convinced by his book that the fact of evolution was true. It was only long afterwards that his basic theory was combined with new discoveries in population genetics to convince biologists that Natural Selection does absolutely the best job of explaining the facts. 


I note your tired slogans about “Darwinism and eugenics” are right out of the fundamentalist Christian playbook at the Henry Morris School of the Damaged.

*http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA002_1.html*


What science “has come down to” is abandoning the nonsense of the Flat Earth’ers/fundamentalist ministries.

"It is precisely because Biblical revelation is absolutely authoritative and perspicuous that the scientific facts, rightly interpreted, will give the same testimony as that of Scripture. There is not the slightest possibility that the _facts_ of science can contradict the Bible." 
_-Dr. Henry Morris in very first paragraph of "Scientists Confront Creationism" edited by Laurie R. Godfrey_


Instead of spouting vague, unsupported claims, why don't you state some specifics? What evolution lies and conspiracies? It seems you have bought into the elaborate fabrication of creationism. Who is your mentor?

I think debates ARE important... although they do NOTHING to advance science. Nor do they do ANYTHING to convert the true believer. But they do EXPOSE the lack of science in creationism, the dishonest tactics, and they do demonstrate to the public that real science has nothing to hide while ID/creationists certainly do.

There is the FACT that species change. There is a predictable range of genetic variation in a species, as well as an expected rate of random mutations. Creationists admit that a "kind" (an ambiguous, non-scientific term) can change into different species (i.e. a dog "kind" can evolve into wolves, coyotes, foxes, and all types of domestic dogs) but they insist that it must stop there. They give no reason for this fabricated limitation. They just can't accept macroevolution, because it contradicts the "truth" of the bible. But there is no limit to the degree that a species can change. Given enough time, a fish-like species can evolve into a amphibian-like species, an amphibian-like species can evolve into a reptilian-like species, a reptilian-like species can evolve into a mammalian-like species, and an ape-like species can evolve into the modern human species. The process (simply stated) involves the potential of many different types of individuals within a species, the birth of a great many individual organisms, and the deaths of those individuals whose characteristics are not as well suited to the total environment as other individuals of the same species. The deaths of these less well suited individuals allows for the increased reproduction of the better suited ones, and initiates a shift in the appearance and function of the species. Without limitation.


----------



## Old Rocks

No use debating with the James Bond types. They are willfully ignorant, and very proud of the fact they are.


----------



## RWS

I understand you are totally enveloped in the scam of religion.

Your friends are in it, your family is in it...

It's hard to get out when it's woven into your life. You don't want to be the pariah.

I get it.

But with therapy, you can get out. You can find new ways to contribute to the world that don't involve religions. The way it should be. You want to help the world to find peace and salvation, not change the world to follow a religious mantra.

You have to take the first step and get some help. We can try to help, but you're mostly gonna get shade by posting this stuff here. Why don't we try to understand what you need to get to the afterlife? And leave the religion behind? And we can talk about those possibilities...

Though I don't think an afterlife exists, if it does, I think I should qualify way more than most religious people I have met. And you should feel the same way. You don't need a religion to be a good person. And any afterlife that denies a good person based on a particular religion, is not an afterlife you want to be part of.


----------



## LittleNipper

RWS said:


> I understand you are totally enveloped in the scam of religion.
> 
> Your friends are in it, your family is in it...
> 
> It's hard to get out when it's woven into your life. You don't want to be the pariah.
> 
> I get it.
> 
> But with therapy, you can get out. You can find new ways to contribute to the world that don't involve religions. The way it should be. You want to help the world to find peace and salvation, not change the world to follow a religious mantra.
> 
> You have to take the first step and get some help. We can try to help, but you're mostly gonna get shade by posting this stuff here. Why don't we try to understand what you need to get to the afterlife? And leave the religion behind? And we can talk about those possibilities...
> 
> Though I don't think an afterlife exists, if it does, I think I should qualify way more than most religious people I have met. And you should feel the same way. You don't need a religion to be a good person. And any afterlife that denies a good person based on a particular religion, is not an afterlife you want to be part of.


And you are inferring that science museums are free, that university professors are working for nothing? That the Public school system is running on donations? What planet are you from (to coin a phrase). Are Creationists allowed to work in any scientific institution they choose if they are at the top of their class in academics?  There is no salvation apart from the Lord Jesus Christ. Evolution is simply an extension of Hedonism. They concoct their own rules and regulations, and they assign their own direction for the study of our existence. Only GOD is good. If you have lied, cheated, stolen, engaged in fornication, gossiped, committed adultery, or misappropriated terminology (cussed) ----- EVER --- even once ----- then you are not "good". It is vanity to think so, but you seem to be one who would loll the public into a false sense of security meaning: I'm not as "bad" as _*they *_are mentality.

What is being termed "science" today is a scam.  and the sooner people like yourself come to such a conclusion, the sooner supposed professionals will work together to process the data being discovered and not worry about who is on top. Scientific study would be encouraged and not be exclusive and manipulative.


----------



## RWS

You need an intervention too LittleNipper, 

Because you for sure have done one of the above, and seem to be self-absolved of it. But you infer that I am cursed by it. Which I am! 

I think when you use the term "vanity" you should look at your own beliefs. I only speak the truth. And it may not look pretty.

But it's the truth.


----------



## RWS

Santa Claus doesn't exist....

There! I said it...

Any other beliefs from birth that we want to discuss?


----------



## Hollie

LittleNipper said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand you are totally enveloped in the scam of religion.
> 
> Your friends are in it, your family is in it...
> 
> It's hard to get out when it's woven into your life. You don't want to be the pariah.
> 
> I get it.
> 
> But with therapy, you can get out. You can find new ways to contribute to the world that don't involve religions. The way it should be. You want to help the world to find peace and salvation, not change the world to follow a religious mantra.
> 
> You have to take the first step and get some help. We can try to help, but you're mostly gonna get shade by posting this stuff here. Why don't we try to understand what you need to get to the afterlife? And leave the religion behind? And we can talk about those possibilities...
> 
> Though I don't think an afterlife exists, if it does, I think I should qualify way more than most religious people I have met. And you should feel the same way. You don't need a religion to be a good person. And any afterlife that denies a good person based on a particular religion, is not an afterlife you want to be part of.
> 
> 
> 
> And you are inferring that science museums are free, that university professors are working for nothing? That the Public school system is running on donations? What planet are you from (to coin a phrase). Are Creationists allowed to work in any scientific institution they choose if they are at the top of their class in academics?  There is no salvation apart from the Lord Jesus Christ. Evolution is simply an extension of Hedonism. They concoct their own rules and regulations, and they assign their own direction for the study of our existence. Only GOD is good. If you have lied, cheated, stolen, engaged in fornication, gossiped, committed adultery, or misappropriated terminology (cussed) ----- EVER --- even once ----- then you are not "good". It is vanity to think so, but you seem to be one who would loll the public into a false sense of security meaning: I'm not as "bad" as _*they *_are mentality.
> 
> What is being termed "science" today is a scam.  and the sooner people like yourself come to such a conclusion, the sooner supposed professionals will work together to process the data being discovered and not worry about who is on top. Scientific study would be encouraged and not be exclusive and manipulative.
Click to expand...


I’m delighted in your Public Service Announcement that science is a scam. I’m no longer seeking competent medical advise if I get sick. I’m going to pray, rattle bones or read tea leaves.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

Ima Cat said:


> I know there are similarities but I think they are coincidental, like cats and seals both have whiskers.  But cats didn't come from seals or vice a versa.


I believe that every stupid liberal(redundant statement I know) did come from Monkey's as, they act like them all the time.  When they dont get their way, they throw a tantrum.  When that doesn't work they start throwing shit around.  When that doesn't work, they go and kill you.  I believe that Monkey's are much smarter than a liberal of today, because while they are still animals, the beasts of the left just don't seem to have much grey matter..


----------



## MarkDuffy

Page 85 and the correct answer is still "Yes, we evolved from Monkeys". The better answer is we are apes and evolved from apes. It's the most recent answer.

Did you know we also evolved from fish?


----------



## LittleNipper

RWS said:


> You need an intervention too LittleNipper,
> 
> Because you for sure have done one of the above, and seem to be self-absolved of it. But you infer that I am cursed by it. Which I am!
> 
> I think when you use the term "vanity" you should look at your own beliefs. I only speak the truth. And it may not look pretty.
> 
> But it's the truth.


Vanity is pointless. If there is no GOD, I'm at the very least content in the knowledge that my life had some direction. If GOD does exist, you have the very horrible possibility that eternity isn't going to be very happy for you.  I'd say you have WAY more at stake than I do.


----------



## LittleNipper

Hollie said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand you are totally enveloped in the scam of religion.
> 
> Your friends are in it, your family is in it...
> 
> It's hard to get out when it's woven into your life. You don't want to be the pariah.
> 
> I get it.
> 
> But with therapy, you can get out. You can find new ways to contribute to the world that don't involve religions. The way it should be. You want to help the world to find peace and salvation, not change the world to follow a religious mantra.
> 
> You have to take the first step and get some help. We can try to help, but you're mostly gonna get shade by posting this stuff here. Why don't we try to understand what you need to get to the afterlife? And leave the religion behind? And we can talk about those possibilities...
> 
> Though I don't think an afterlife exists, if it does, I think I should qualify way more than most religious people I have met. And you should feel the same way. You don't need a religion to be a good person. And any afterlife that denies a good person based on a particular religion, is not an afterlife you want to be part of.
> 
> 
> 
> And you are inferring that science museums are free, that university professors are working for nothing? That the Public school system is running on donations? What planet are you from (to coin a phrase). Are Creationists allowed to work in any scientific institution they choose if they are at the top of their class in academics?  There is no salvation apart from the Lord Jesus Christ. Evolution is simply an extension of Hedonism. They concoct their own rules and regulations, and they assign their own direction for the study of our existence. Only GOD is good. If you have lied, cheated, stolen, engaged in fornication, gossiped, committed adultery, or misappropriated terminology (cussed) ----- EVER --- even once ----- then you are not "good". It is vanity to think so, but you seem to be one who would loll the public into a false sense of security meaning: I'm not as "bad" as _*they *_are mentality.
> 
> What is being termed "science" today is a scam.  and the sooner people like yourself come to such a conclusion, the sooner supposed professionals will work together to process the data being discovered and not worry about who is on top. Scientific study would be encouraged and not be exclusive and manipulative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I’m delighted in your Public Service Announcement that science is a scam. I’m no longer seeking competent medical advise if I get sick. I’m going to pray, rattle bones or read tea leaves.
Click to expand...

I think you should pray and conclude that life is short ---- ending up in a care facility in order to live a little longer isn't the most desirable of things in this Universe. And listen to the ads on the TV.  Take this drug and your psoriasis will go away --- maybe ---- but you may die of this or that or commit suicide...  Every good doctor will admit that they cannot cure anything. All they can do is manipulate and pray for the best.


----------



## MaryL

You think so. That is amusing. You got your mammals, you got your reptiles, you got all sorts of evolutionary coincidences. Fossil records and facts are one thing. Never mind science. That brought you the moon landing and anti biotics, oh yeah, THAT science.  So what has religion done for us lately?


----------



## RWS

LittleNipper said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> You need an intervention too LittleNipper,
> 
> Because you for sure have done one of the above, and seem to be self-absolved of it. But you infer that I am cursed by it. Which I am!
> 
> I think when you use the term "vanity" you should look at your own beliefs. I only speak the truth. And it may not look pretty.
> 
> But it's the truth.
> 
> 
> 
> Vanity is pointless. If there is no GOD, I'm at the very least content in the knowledge that my life had some direction. If GOD does exist, you have the very horrible possibility that eternity isn't going to be very happy for you.  I'd say you have WAY more at stake than I do.
Click to expand...


I agree with your logic there. I'm good with that. And I'm not concerned.

But your religion is based on vanity. You're so insecure that you have to kill/subjugate if someone disagrees.

Atheists just want the truth. We're good, and we don't kill people.


----------



## RWS

In the last few days, we have a believer in fanatic liberal Christian ways, sending bombs in the mail. 

We have another attack yesterday on a Jewish temple. Probably by a crazy Christian. 

Christianity is still trying to find ways to kill non-believers. Like the old days... 

But all of them are also still trying to do the same. Kill all non-believers! 

Religion is a scam. And you're caught up in it. You can get out if you seek help. You need an intervention.


----------



## RWS

Fuck your family and friends. If they follow these fanatical religions, just let them go and find your own way. 

Find new friends and family that promote goodness and benefit humanity. You can start here, with us.


----------



## Rosy

Ima Cat said:


> I know there are similarities but I think they are coincidental, like cats and seals both have whiskers.  But cats didn't come from seals or vice a versa.


Dogs and humans are remarkably similar in their DNA as well, but no one seems to make the comparison, we even share genes with fruit fly's

So no we did not come from apes, we are similar because we were made with the same parts base


----------



## LittleNipper

MaryL said:


> You think so. That is amusing. You got your mammals, you got your reptiles, you got all sorts of evolutionary coincidences. Fossil records and facts are one thing. Never mind science. That brought you the moon landing and anti biotics, oh yeah, THAT science.  So what has religion done for us lately?


An


RWS said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> You need an intervention too LittleNipper,
> 
> Because you for sure have done one of the above, and seem to be self-absolved of it. But you infer that I am cursed by it. Which I am!
> 
> I think when you use the term "vanity" you should look at your own beliefs. I only speak the truth. And it may not look pretty.
> 
> But it's the truth.
> 
> 
> 
> Vanity is pointless. If there is no GOD, I'm at the very least content in the knowledge that my life had some direction. If GOD does exist, you have the very horrible possibility that eternity isn't going to be very happy for you.  I'd say you have WAY more at stake than I do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree with your logic there. I'm good with that. And I'm not concerned.
> 
> But your religion is based on vanity. You're so insecure that you have to kill/subjugate if someone disagrees.
> 
> Atheists just want the truth. We're good, and we don't kill people.
Click to expand...

 Hitler killed, Stain Killed, Mao killed, Lenin killed --- they didn't have GOD and honored only themselves ---- and their insecurities were most obvious and far worse than anything some supposed "christian" usurper tried to accomplish.   
Atheists don't want the truth, they want a free ride to live exactly as they choose.


----------



## RWS

First, you have to get two things straight.

Nazism is a religion. It believes in some crazy things. Look it up.

Communism (which btw never got to exist), is a religion based on Puritanism and Calvinism. They just replaced "God" with "State". It's called Socialism. Otherwise it was the same thing. Followers of the Socialist religion did bad things, just like followers of Nazism. The people who ruled those countries were ruling the people based on a religion, and making them do things based on the falsehood of an afterlife or utopia.

You can only get armies to fight for you, if you make them think their afterlife depends on it. That's the evil of religion. And why there are so many. And why they continue to proliferate and make more money, like friggin cockroaches.


----------



## LittleNipper

RWS said:


> First, you have to get two things straight.
> 
> Nazism is a religion. It believes in some crazy things. Look it up.
> 
> Communism (which btw never got to exist), is a religion based on Puritanism and Calvinism. They just replaced "God" with "State". It's called Socialism. Otherwise it was the same thing. Followers of the Socialist religion did bad things, just like followers of Nazism. The people who ruled those countries were ruling the people based on a religion, and making them do things based on the falsehood of an afterlife or utopia.
> 
> You can only get armies to fight for you, if you make them think their afterlife depends on it. That's the evil of religion. And why there are so many. And why they continue to proliferate and make more money, like friggin cockroaches.


Communists and Nazis didn't promote an afterlife only this one. The armies fought because they believed improvement was possible based entirely upon human effort. This is exactly what progressive Democrats believe. Unfortunately, it's not true and compounds problem, after problem, after problem...


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

MaryL said:


> You think so. That is amusing. You got your mammals, you got your reptiles, you got all sorts of evolutionary coincidences. Fossil records and facts are one thing. Never mind science. That brought you the moon landing and anti biotics, oh yeah, THAT science.  So what has religion done for us lately?


Besides 9/11?


----------



## RWS

LittleNipper said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> First, you have to get two things straight.
> 
> Nazism is a religion. It believes in some crazy things. Look it up.
> 
> Communism (which btw never got to exist), is a religion based on Puritanism and Calvinism. They just replaced "God" with "State". It's called Socialism. Otherwise it was the same thing. Followers of the Socialist religion did bad things, just like followers of Nazism. The people who ruled those countries were ruling the people based on a religion, and making them do things based on the falsehood of an afterlife or utopia.
> 
> You can only get armies to fight for you, if you make them think their afterlife depends on it. That's the evil of religion. And why there are so many. And why they continue to proliferate and make more money, like friggin cockroaches.
> 
> 
> 
> Communists and Nazis didn't promote an afterlife only this one. The armies fought because they believed improvement was possible based entirely upon human effort. This is exactly what progressive Democrats believe. Unfortunately, it's not true and compounds problem, after problem, after problem...
Click to expand...


Communists (which don't exist)... Socialists claim that they can get to a state of "Utopia" (which is the Christian version of "Heaven") by following their rules until they can get to a Communist State. Which, of course, they would never relinquish once they achieved the high levels of Socialism. Who would ever let go of their power and money once they have it? So the Communist ideal of "Utopia" is a religion, where people follow in hopes of a future "utopia". It is inspired by Calvinism and Puritanism. It just replaced the term "God" with "State". And Socialism took advantage of that and won't let go. Instead of suffering and serving God to reach heaven, you suffer and serve the State to reach utopia. Neither of which are true or attainable.

And Hitler's beliefs were to destroy all non-Aryan people, so that the Aryan gods can come back from the underground and rule again.

Both were religiously motivated. You can't get people to vigorously fight in combat for you, unless you make them believe that their afterlife depends on it.


----------



## RWS

Keep in mind that in order to defend against a religious zealot, you don't need religion. That's just defense of your way of life and family.

But to attack, requires religious brainwashing to get people to risk their lives based upon a ruler's order. Can't be done without it...


----------



## RWS

And every time i see "in god we trust", or hear a president say stuff about god at the end of their speech...

I have to take a moment and vomit. 

It's just so bad. That's not the way our government is supposed to go. There is supposed to be a separation of church and state. We're supposed to separate those things, but it's obviously never separated because they need the votes. 

It's your religion versus another's religion, versus non-religion. 

That's not the way it should be, to pick our politicians. Should be based on who is the most altruistic.


----------



## danielpalos

Nexus six with Zardoz and the _incorrigibles_ would give us plenty of time to evolve from monkeys.


----------

