What will you believe if science recreates the beginings of life?

[Anguille]

really?

She has her own particular view of the history of the Baptists. Her branch thinks they've been in existence since John the Baptist.

 

[AllieBaba]

They have. Christians did not one day all chuck the teachings of Christ and become Roman Catholics. The Romans persecuted the Christians, remember? Then the Roman emporor decided to become Christian because he couldn't wipe them out, and when he did that he warped Christianity to include all sorts of weird pagan and Roman beliefs.

But not all Christians "joined up". You're an idiot if you think that's true.

Baptists do not trace their heritage to the Protestant Reformation, but back to Jesus Christ and the Apostolic churches, as we see in the following overview by Curtis Whatley:

”Though many Baptist groups sprang up during the Protestant Reformation, according to Collier’s Encyclopedia, the Baptists have “descended from some of the evangelical ‘sects’ of the preceding age during which the Europe and suppressed all dissent.”


A Catholic, Cardinal Hosius, President of the Council of Trent (1545-1563), wrote during the early years of the Reformation period, “Were it not that the Baptists have been grievously tormented and cut off with the knife during the past twelve hundred years, they would swarm in greater numbers than all the reformers.”
http://gospelcenterchurch.org/baptiststory.html

Gosh, according to Cardinal Hosius, they existed 1200 years before the reformation...which means they were around while the Roman Catholic church was developing.....

"John Clark Ridpath (1840-1900), a Methodist by denominational conviction, wrote, “I should not readily admit that there was a Baptist church as far back as 100 A.D., although without doubt there were Baptist churches then, as all Christians were then Baptists.

The premise that first century Christians were Baptists runs counter to the Roman Catholic claim that the first church was Roman Catholic.

To this we need only point out that the first church was organized by Christ and His Apostles, and those Apostles became the nucleus of the church at Jerusalem, not Rome, and James was its leader, not Peter. We also contend that the bishop of Rome did not win primacy over other bishops until the 4th century, and that it wasn’t until Gregory that the Roman bishop began to claim his supremacy over other bishops. Thus we see that Roman Catholicism dates back to the 4th Century at the earliest. ”

 

[glockmail]

Just following your reasoning.

I'm not following how.

 

[KittenKoder]

She has her own particular view of the history of the Baptists. Her branch thinks they've been in existence since John the Baptist.

Babble has an imaginary view of reality as a whole, why not make up history as well.

 

[manifold]

I'm not following how.

I follow just fine. Including junkmail being intentionally dense. He wields that sword so much more effectively than Allie.

 

[KittenKoder]

I follow just fine. Including junkmail being intentionally dense. He wields that sword so much more effectively than Allie.

So true ... so true.

 

[Diuretic]

I'm not refuting evolution. I'm refuting the theory that you can take a one cell animal, and it will evolve into a lizard.

Of course animals evolve. People are taller than they used to be...or at least some of us are. We live longer. That's evolution. Horses have developed into widely divergent breeds..that's evolution.

What I say can't happen, and nobody has every proven differently, is that a man can evolve from an APE, or an ape can evolve from a rodent.

How about birds evolved from dinosaurs?

Science News Online (6/27/98): Feathered Dinosaurs Found in China

years, numerous finds have supported the hypothesis that birds descended from two-legged, running dinosaurs called theropods (SN: 8/23/97, p. 120). Dramatic evidence emerged in 1996 with the discovery of a Chinese theropod, Sinosauropteryx, that bore a coat of downy fibers, perhaps the evolutionary forerunners of true feathers.

A few researchers, however, have pecked at the theory, arguing instead that birds evolved from four-legged arboreal reptiles. They regard any similarity between birds and dinosaurs as an example of convergent evolution, by which two independent groups grow to look alike. These critics maintain that Sinosauropteryx’s fibers were not down but actually a reptilian frill.

The plumage on the new Chinese dinosaurs brushes away such arguments because it is identical to bird feathers, says Currie. The structures have a central shaft with parallel barbs on either side, report Ji Qiang and Ji Shu-An of the National Geological Museum in Beijing, Currie, and Mark A. Norell of the American Museum of Natural History in New York at a press conference on June 23 at the National Geographic Society in Washington, D.C., and in the June 25 Nature.

 

[AllieBaba]

How about birds evolved from dinosaurs?

Science News Online (6/27/98): Feathered Dinosaurs Found in China

years, numerous finds have supported the hypothesis that birds descended from two-legged, running dinosaurs called theropods (SN: 8/23/97, p. 120). Dramatic evidence emerged in 1996 with the discovery of a Chinese theropod, Sinosauropteryx, that bore a coat of downy fibers, perhaps the evolutionary forerunners of true feathers.

There's no evidence that birds evolved from dinosaurs. "Perhaps". Do you see that word? Or do you just ignore it? There was a feathered dinosaur. It "perhaps" is a evolutionary forerunner...but there is no concrete evidence.

But carry on, it's fun to watch you make a tard of yourself.

 

[Diuretic]

There's no evidence that birds evolved from dinosaurs. "Perhaps". Do you see that word? Or do you just ignore it? There was a feathered dinosaur. It "perhaps" is a evolutionary forerunner...but there is no concrete evidence.

But carry on, it's fun to watch you make a tard of yourself.

Of course there's no conclusive evidence yet, but there's evidence. And as it mounts up, piece by piece, you have the choice of closing your eyes, sticking your fingers in your ears and making weird noises or you can open your eyes and your mind and wonder why these things occurred and isn't it fascinating that we can find out about them.

 

[AllieBaba]

Exactly. No conclusive evidence. Thank you for agreeing with me when I say, there is no definitive proof that macroevolution is anything but a nice little theory.

 

[Diuretic]

Exactly. No conclusive evidence. Thank you for agreeing with me when I say, there is no definitive proof that macroevolution is anything but a nice little theory.

Allie, I'm too dumb to understand that macroevolution is, I'm still getting my head around the "evolution" bit without the prefix. But I know when I'm being verballed and you're doing it. I didn't say "conclusive" evidence, that's your attempt at a fitup. I also was at pains to point out that evidence is mounting, piece by piece, again not claiming conclusive evidence. If you want to play games give me a mailing address and I'll FedEx my keyboard over to you so you can take over.

 

[AllieBaba]

Evidence is also mounting to prove the Bible is irrefutable. Which is my point.

 

[Diuretic]

Evidence is also mounting to prove the Bible is irrefutable. Which is my point.

I'll just take issue here and I don't mean to be picky. I'll accept that evidence is mounting which supports certain, can I say, descriptions and references to events, in the Bible. Let's say archaeologists find (if they haven't already, who can keep up with it all?) evidence of Jericho's walls crumbling. What's my response you think? Do I rush around saying those bloody archaeologists are lying and it's all a bullshit conspiracy to support the Bible? No. I think, heck that's interesting, what else are they going to find? Will they be able to work out what happened? Oh it was an earth tremor? Amazing! But I admit I don't rush around yelling out that God made that earth tremor happen. That's just cynical old me though.

You see I don't feel that someone's religous beliefs automatically have to be challenged. I do challenge them when I feel that someone is relying on their religious beliefs to support a spurious argument built on assumptions that just have to be pointed out.

And I also challenge them when I feel that religion is being used to oppress someone or a group of people.

But me, I'm not going to attack yours or anyone else's religious beliefs if you simply state them.

If you're a proponent of creationism and its stalking horse intelligent design and you want those concepts taught as valid science in schools then I'll do battle with you, but if you tell your kids about creationism and intellligent design then that's your business.

See how it goes?

I wouldn't attack you for your religous beliefs face to face and I won't do it online. But I would have a damn good argument face to face with you and finish it, hopefully, without rancour.

 

[del]

Evidence is also mounting to prove the Bible is irrefutable. Which is my point.

gee, i must have missed that.

 

[del]

I'll just take issue here and I don't mean to be picky. I'll accept that evidence is mounting which supports certain, can I say, descriptions and references to events, in the Bible. Let's say archaeologists find (if they haven't already, who can keep up with it all?) evidence of Jericho's walls crumbling. What's my response you think? Do I rush around saying those bloody archaeologists are lying and it's all a bullshit conspiracy to support the Bible? No. I think, heck that's interesting, what else are they going to find? Will they be able to work out what happened? Oh it was an earth tremor? Amazing! But I admit I don't rush around yelling out that God made that earth tremor happen. That's just cynical old me though.

You see I don't feel that someone's religous beliefs automatically have to be challenged. I do challenge them when I feel that someone is relying on their religious beliefs to support a spurious argument built on assumptions that just have to be pointed out.

And I also challenge them when I feel that religion is being used to oppress someone or a group of people.

But me, I'm not going to attack yours or anyone else's religious beliefs if you simply state them.

If you're a proponent of creationism and its stalking horse intelligent design and you want those concepts taught as valid science in schools then I'll do battle with you, but if you tell your kids about creationism and intellligent design then that's your business.

See how it goes?

I wouldn't attack you for your religous beliefs face to face and I won't do it online. But I would have a damn good argument face to face with you and finish it, hopefully, without rancour.

 

[AllieBaba]

gee, i must have missed that.

I don't doubt it.

search: Chariot Wheels Found in the Sea at Nuweiba

then do a little research on recent evidence found of the location of Sodom and Gomorrah, and the fire and brimstone evidence that proves they actually were destroyed by fire from above.

Then there is the little matter of finding evidence of Jewish encampments in the desert, precisely where the bible said Moses and his people camped.

 

[del]

I don't doubt it.

search: Chariot Wheels Found in the Sea at Nuweiba

then do a little research on recent evidence found of the location of Sodom and Gomorrah, and the fire and brimstone evidence that proves they actually were destroyed by fire from above.

Then there is the little matter of finding evidence of Jewish encampments in the desert, precisely where the bible said Moses and his people camped.

no thanks. i prefer to think for myself.

 

[AllieBaba]

You're not thinking. You're closing your mind to that which you don't want to know, so you can continue blithely bashing those who actually have open minds.

Congratulations. You are now not just a moron, but a self-admitted one.

 

[del]

You're not thinking. You're closing your mind to that which you don't want to know, so you can continue blithely bashing those who actually have open minds.

Congratulations. You are now not just a moron, but a self-admitted one.

i must have missed the part where i bashed someone.

 

[WillowTree]

Of course there's no conclusive evidence yet, but there's evidence. And as it mounts up, piece by piece, you have the choice of closing your eyes, sticking your fingers in your ears and making weird noises or you can open your eyes and your mind and wonder why these things occurred and isn't it fascinating that we can find out about them.

I think you are right. I think they may prove birds are direct descendants of the dinosaur. Look at the pelican!